Guidelines and Conditions for Arts Funding

14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the processes behind the development of guidelines and conditions for arts funding; (b) how frequently are such processes, guidelines and conditions reviewed; (c) when is the next review; (d) who are the stakeholders and actors that participate in the review process; and (e) to what degree are local artists consulted in these reviews.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): As a steward of public funds, the National Arts Council (NAC) seeks to enlarge the space for the arts to flourish without compromising on social cohesion and stability. Hence, applicants will need to meet NAC's funding guidelines, which are public available on its website. They were updated recently in 2013 and are still relevant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government remains committed to sustainable funding of the arts. Over the years, NAC has seen a growth in the number of deserving artists and arts companies. Therefore, it must prioritise projects, given finite resources.

For every individual grant application, artistic merit is an important criterion. NAC also takes into account the project's contribution to gaps and needs in the art form's development. The extent to which it is able to engage audiences is also of consideration. The criteria upon which funding applications are evaluated are available on NAC's website.

NAC regularly convenes grants evaluation panels, comprising many members of the arts community, to give NAC their views on the proposal's artistic merit. Annually, over 400 arts practitioners, researchers, industry professionals and others are appointed to these panels. These assessors offer NAC objective feedback and help NAC identify emerging developments in the sector. NAC has benefited from their counsel and appreciates their continued support.

In addition to regular engagement sessions and meetings with arts practitioners and groups on funding as well as on other issues of common interest, such as how to grow audiences, develop the various art forms and address the needs of freelancers, NAC also actively engages the arts community when embarking on major reviews of grant funding. For example, in 2016, NAC conducted an extensive year-long review of the Major Grant scheme, involving more than 100 members from the arts community. The revised Major Company Scheme was a response to the arts community's feedback on the need for a more customised approach that recognises different capabilities and contributions.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his helpful reply. I just have three supplementary questions.

Firstly, regarding the condition that arts funding not be tied to undermining confidence in public institutions, political parties or figures − which I think we have discussed in the House before − will the Government be reviewing this in the light of the clear evidence from the case of Sonny Liew that good arts and artists can be penalised from this rule and that this politicisation of the arts is likely to set back the development of the arts in Singapore? That is my first supplementary question.

Secondly, has the Government sought feedback from artists specifically about this rule and, if not, why not? And, if so, does the feedback suggest that artists agree with this rule?

Thirdly, perhaps, I missed this, but just to clarify: is there a timeline for reviewing these guidelines? Is there a fixed schedule, say, every three or five years, to review them and, if so, when is the next review scheduled to be held?

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. As mentioned earlier in Parliament, the NAC does not fund activities that undermine public institutions, political parties or figures, regardless of political affiliation. NAC takes the position that the arts should not be used for partisan politics and that confidence in public institutions is fundamental to the future of Singapore.

So, this remains relevant today. We respect the views of artists and members of the arts community on this. But as a public institution, we also need to take into account the views and concerns of the public at large beyond the arts community. This is a balance that we are striking and the position would, of course, need to evolve with the changes and needs of society, what the public can accept or not. The conversation remains open and that is why we are constantly also reviewing our guidelines. Currently, we will continue to review guidelines and engage artists in dialogue in order to understand their concerns and also to articulate the positions or the thinking of the Government. This reflects the shared ownership as well as responsibility in enlarging the space for our arts to flourish.

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Sir. Just a quick follow-up question. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. The Parliamentary Secretary alluded to taking into consideration public sentiments. Is there any evidence that the general public is concerned about this issue that political parties or institutions should not be undermined via arts funding?

Mr Baey Yam Keng: The views of the public are very diverse. Based on our conversations not only with the arts groups, but also beyond the MCCY family, there are also considerations of the Government at large, on the role of Government and how public funds should be used to promote the various sectors to grow.

In the case of the arts, artistic development is certainly of importance to us, but, at the same time, we also see the arts as a way to engage the community to build a stronger sense of national identity.

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his replies. Just to follow up on the same issue, so I would like to know what is the process like. For example, when there is a work that is deemed to be questionable, what is the process like to make the decisions? In between, are there any recourse, are there any possibilities for dialogue? And a follow-up question would be: just this year, may I know how many projects or works have not been funded because of this guideline?

Mr Baey Yam Keng: The NAC or any funding organisation will always have a conversation with the applicant. In the case where there are some concerns over its content or the nature of the proposal, sometimes, it is about clarifications, about sharing the concerns, and the artist or applicant is always encouraged to respond accordingly and, if necessary, to make adjustments to the proposal, if the artist so desires.

It is a continued exchange of views and there is a process where the applicant can appeal against the decision but NAC retains the final say on whether funding will be continued, withdrawn or the decision could be changed.

Was there a second part to the question?

Mr Kok Heng Leun: How many projects or works have actually not been funded due to this ruling?

Mr Baey Yam Keng: The number of projects that were declined funding or withdrawn funding based on this ruling are very, very few. In fact, very small numbers, compared to the thousands that we fund every year. Currently, I do not have the exact details at hand, but I would say, this year, except for those in the public domain, Sonny Liew's Art of Charlie Chan as well as Jeremy Tiang's novel, there are no such cases.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Can I just ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the prohibition against the undermining of political parties includes political parties in the past?

Mr Baey Yam Keng: As a disburser of public funds, the Government does not allow the funds to be used to advance the agenda of any political party. So, is the Member alluding to current political parties or to parties no longer in existence?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Sorry, if I did not make myself clear. I meant, does it include, for example, any funding for any proposed works that deal with political parties in our history, in the past that may present to some people a different interpretation of what the party did or did not do in the past? Would this come under the prohibition that the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned?

Mr Baey Yam Keng: I think for any political party, the party would be still accountable and responsible for decisions made in the past. The government of the day would need to decide on how money is used. Such that the works do not undermine the authority of public institutions under the government which is formed by the ruling party, which sets its policies for the government to operate.