Corporate Art Competitions

In the early 80s, corporate art competitions among local companies were unheard of, although banks like UOB had already started to build a serious art collection. 

SIA took the lead when in 1981; they approached the Ministry for assistance in organizing their first and one-off contemporary art competition.   The Ministry’s support was extended in the forms of: conceptualizing the format, rules and prize structure for the competition, receiving and processing the entries, sourcing the panel of adjudicators and finally staging the art exhibition.

Launched in May ‘81, the “Singapore Innovations in Art” (SIA) attracted a total of 157 entries – 124 paints and 33 sculptures.  The 153 entries vied for the first prize of a 21-day Europe Roundtrip holiday plus $1000 cash and the second prize a USA Roundtrip Holiday with $700 cash.  Other prizes took winners around the ASEAN region – Manila, Bangkok and Lake Toba, all reflective of early SIA routes.

The Competition was judged by a six-member panel comprising artists drawn Singapore (Museum Art Curator Choy Weng Yang and sculptor Ng Eng Teng) and the ASEAN countries whom we had met through the ASEAN art projects.  They were:  Prof Dr Ahmad Sadali (Indonesia),  Prof Syed Ahmad Jamal who was both a painter and Director of the University of Malaysia Cultural Centre, Prof Napoleon Abeuva, Dean of College of the Arts, University of Philippines who created the concrete “Ship” sculpture (I wonder where is it now) in our ASEAN Sculpture Park on Fort Canning Hill and Panom Suwannath, Artist Lecturer, Silpakron University Faculty of Graphic Arts. 

A total of 104 entries were exhibited from 20 to 25 November 1981 at the National Museum Art Gallery.  Tay Chee Toh won the first prize in the Painting section with his surrealistic painting “Rising” while Chong Fah Chong won the Sculpture category with a wood sculpture “Tried”.  I believe that the competition helped launch the careers of both artists who continue to be active and prominent today. 

 

 

After SIA, UOB approached the Ministry to organize its first “Painting of the Year” Competition carrying the largest cash prize in Singapore ever, a princely sum of S$10,000 for the Open Section!  Entries were invited in March 1982 and the competition attracted works from well-known artists and young artists.  The Competition was judged by a five-judge panel comprising Choy, Syed Ahmad Jamal as well as Mr Ho Kok Hoe and the late Dr Earl Lu who was had both chaired the Ministry’s Visual Arts Advisory Committee; and Jose Joya, Dean of the University Of Philippines College Of Fine Arts. 

The Competition was won by Goh Beng Kwan (S$10,000) with his abstract expressionist work “Dune”.  Tay Chee Toh who had won the SIA competition the previous year, clinched 2nd prize (S$3000) with an equally surreal piece “Dream” while Teo Eng Seng won 3rd Prize ($2000) with “Busy Birds).  All three artists are formidable artists who have carved a niche for themselves in the art landscape.  The Ministry continued to extend a helping hand for the 2nd and 3rd “Painting of the Year” Competitions after which UOB carried on independently even until today. 

Aside from making new friends among curators and artists, the competitions gave me a crash course into an already vibrant Singapore visual art landscape.  I was very privileged to observe the judging process which sensitized me to good and bad art.   This equipped me to publish the first-ever coffee table book on Singapore artists titled, Singapore Artists and to start a modest contemporary art collection of my own in the ensuing years.

special encounters

Receiving a token from the late President Ong Teng Cheong

 

Tea with Mr & Mr Wolfgang Wagner, current CEO / Hong King Arts Festival Tisa Ho and Singapore baritone Eng Meng Chia in Bayreuth 1995

With Prof Anthony Fields, London City University, Lena St George Sweet & British Council repv at apresentation of first BAT-SAC Arts Administration Scholarships

Up close with the Phantom, unmasked

With the late Bro. Joe McNally, Alan Rubinstein and Sue Walker, CEO/ Victoria Tapestry Workshop after opening Woven Colours Exhibition at La Salle College of the Arts

Singapore International Jazz Festival (1982 to 1984)

Singapore jazz musicians anchor Singapore International Jazz Festival

After my stint in the People’s Association, I was posted to the Ministry of Culture in April 1981, as Assistant Director / Music & Visual Arts).  In my second year on the job, in early 1982, our Permanent Secretary Mr Cheng Tong Fatt, popped us a surprising challenge – to organise an international jazz festival!

Between Organiser (Music) Lim Mee Lian and myself, our hands were already quite full with festivals galore.  In addition to organizing annual festivals of Choirs, Chinese Instrumental Music, the National Music Competition, opera workshops and ASEAN Youth Orchestra concerts. we had our parts to play in the 1982 Singapore Festival of Arts whch was escalated to international stature with the appointment of Australian artistic director Anthony Steele.   

As we were unfamiliar with jazz music, we forged a partnership with the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) with funding from the Singapore Cultural Foundation. 

SBC’s Raymon Huang and Chua Foo Yong played significant roles in realising the festival, with Mdm Foo Yong chairing the all-important Programme Sub-committee.  We roped in veteran broadcaster Mildred Appaduray and jazz luminaries like Louis Soliano-Tan, Roy Vanderberg Jazz Convenor /Hollandse Club,  jazz musician Colin Stuart who was then working in the British High Commission, Iskander Ismail, Rufino Soliano and John Lee.  We sought and secured assistance from the foreign embassies which agreed to sponsor bands from their respective countries.

All in all, I organized three festivals.  The first Singapore International Jazz Festival ran for three weeks from 12 to 30 September 1982 at the Victoria Conference Hall.  Each evening’s programme consisted of three segments, performances by two bands climaxing in a jam session by musicians of both bands.  The inaugural festival was opened by the SBC Orchestra, SBC Sextet and the Louis Tan Quartet.  Two other evenings were dedicated to Singapore jazz musicians including Tony Castillo & the Castillians and the Dutch Club Combo, Louis Tan & Iskander Ismail.  Four countries sent bands – Australia (Errol Buddle Band), Japan (Takeshi Inomata & His Force), Korea (Khil Ok Yoon & Jazz-All Stars) and USA (Joe Lee Wilson-Mickey Tucker).

The second festival was held over ten days from 16 to 25 September 1983 at the Singapore Conference Hall..  It was opened by the SBC Orchestra and the Richard Ortega Quintet.  Singapore bands led by Tony Castillo, Sydney Tan (Stardust), Louis Tan & Iskander Ismail also had their own showing.  That year, eight countries sent bands – Australia (Judy Bailey-Ron Philpott Duo), Belgium (Johan & Peter Vandendriessche), India (Gary Lawyer & Friends), Indonesia (Ireng Maulana All-Stars), Japan (Sakurako Ogyu Trio & Toshio Oida), Philippines (The Sticky Band), Sweden (Fredrik Noren Band) and USA (Ronald Shannon Jackson & Decoding Society.  A ninth guest band Asia beat from Malaysia cancelled at the last minute, causing us much anxiety. 

The third festival from 12 to 17 October 1984 was compacted into a week.  The SBC Orchestra opened the festival as in previous years and six countries sent representatives – Belgium (Erik Vermuelen-Peter Hertmans Quartet), France (Oliver Hutman Trio), Indonesia (Bubi Chen -Marono Duo), Japan (Hidehiko Matsumoto), New Zealand (Space Case) and  USA (Pepper Adams Quartet).  A very impressive Singapore All-Stars programme coordinated by a young Iskander Ismail, rocked the hall with an encyclopaedic range of jazz music covering 1920s Jazz, Dixieland, Swing & Gillespie; Jazz Fusion and Progressive Sounds. The A to Z of local jazz greats played their hearts out including Benji Kleinman (piano), Billy Martinez (bass), Colin Stuart (clarinet ) who was then working in the British High Commission David Ng (piano), Henry Pereira (sax), Jant Johary (guitar),Jeremy Monteiro (keyboard) who was then leader of Jeramzee, Jimmy Lee (drums), John Lee (guitar), Julai Tan (violin), Louis Soliano-Tan (drums), Reynaldo Lachica (sax), Richard Ortega (sax), Hollandse Club jazz convenor Roy Vanderberg (guitar) and his jazz singer wife Luisa, Ramli Shariff (bass), Rufino Soliano (vibes), Shah Tahir (guitar) and Terry Undag (trumpet). Iskander himself anchored the segment on Progressive Jazz.

The fourth festival was spearheaded in 1985 by a well-known jazz musician with funding support from the Ministry,  in an early attempt to empower the arts community to self-run some of the events.   Unfortunately, the challenge of sustaining an annual festival in conditions of limited funding and organisational support proved to be insurmountable and so,  the fourth festival became the last.   It was a great pity I felt, as the festival had become rather popular with good houses and intensity of audience applause that excelled what we heard at classical music concerts. 

A few years ago, I read that jazz doyen Jeremy Monteiro had organised a jazz festival with sponsorship from Singapore Airlines.  It was welcome news and I hope that he or someone else equally passionate manages to resurrect the festival in one form or another, to showcase the best of our jazz to the community and the world at large.

Nanyang Artists : Retrospectives

Catalogue of Liu Kang Retrospective

Catalogue of Cheong Soo Pieng Retrospetive

Catalogue of Georgette Chen Retrospective

Catalogue of Chen Chong Swee Retrospective

Substation Stories

When I last visited the Substation hoping to grab a quick pre-performance meal before a play in what was once called the “Guinness Theatre”, I was disappointed to learn that the garden and the eatery in it were no longer accessible from the art gallery. To get to the eatery, one must now walk around the corner, through the narrow street between the Substation and the Peranakan Museum. It is not convenient when it rains and makes the co-location of the two entities meaningless.

Whoever made the decision to separate the garden from the art centre was probably not privy to Pao Kun’s vision for the Substation. The garden did not originally belong to the Substation. When Pao Kun was awarded the substation from among several interested parties, he specifically asked that we acquire the garden next door as well, not only to expand the activity space of the art centre but more importantly, to preserve the all-important connection between art and nature. In the same spirit, he later battled the Substation’s immediate neighbour, to retain the old banyan tree growing over the common wall.

Inspired by Pao Kun’s vision, we requested the Land Office to allocate Lot Mukim 24-1? which was once part of the disused Tao Nan Primary School field / canteen, to us, to be leased in turn to The Substation Company Limited, together with substation building for a period of 12 years. This was the longest lease for buildings under the Arts Housing Scheme, at the time, as all the other buildings were being leased on three-yearly basis in the first instance and annually thereafter, in case they were required for road widening.

In the 80s and 90s, the Substation garden functioned as an indispensable and integral part of the Substation housing at various times, a regular Sunday flea market, plays including memorable ones directed by the late William Teo (World in Theatre) and overnight New Year’s Eve art gatherings.  l’ve had many good meals at the Fat Frog cafe while taking in the activities of young artists either painting on the garden walls, resting between rehearsals or just bantering about the arts or current affairs.

In 1992 / 3, the graffiti on the Substation garden walls became a bone of contention between the National Museum and the Substation. When the National Museum administration moved into the restored row of shop-houses on Armenian Street, the Museum administration took issue with the graffiti on the back walls of their converted shop-houses, considering it inappropriate adornment for the premises of an institution.

I felt torn between two organizations and two persons whom I respected equally. I regarded the graffiti as the artistic expression of young artists but realized that this was a matter of personal taste and preferences with no right and wrong about it. Apart from pointing out that “The Substation was there first!” I thought it best for the two parties to talk it out directly. I was not privy to the conversation that ensued but the continued presence of graffiti on the Substation garden walls suggested that Pao Kun was either very persuasive or very stubborn.

After nearly 20 years of existence and many changes in leadership, the Substation seems to me to be tired both physically and artistically.  I sometimes think that the building should be re-tendered to a new arts company with a fresh and exciting vision but it should also be multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural in stance and of course, led by someone with shoes as big as Pao Kun’s.

national flower – Vanda Joaquim

Of all our local attractions, the one I never tire of visiting is our National Orchid Garden.  The riot of colours around the year thrills me and my visitors alike.  It seems to boast a never-ending supply of surprising new hybrids created to honour visiting dignitaries.

I suspect that with the proliferation of so many newer, more colourful and stronger orchid hybrids, many Singaporeans have forgotten that our National Flower is the Vanda Joaquim.  There is a bed of this rather fragile orchid in our orchid garden but no one seems to talk about it these days.  Although a new orchid hybrid was created to commemorate the 2009 APEC conference, the Joaquim did not feature in any way, certainly not in the locally-designed attire for conference leaders.  

I joined the Ministry of Culture in April 1981,  just after the Vanda Joaquim was named National Flower.  It had been selected by a panel including officials from the Parks & Recreations Department, as part of a larger movement to create national symbols.   I remember public exchanges debating whether Armenian Miss Agnes Joaquim had hybridized the flower or merely chanced to find it in a corner of her garden.

My challenge was to promote the flower and so we systematically wrote to manufacturers, textile producers, dress designers and anyone else we could think of, to use the motif of the flower on their products

Attire featuring the National Flower and other orchids came into vogue eventually with several boutiques producing endless varieties of orchid dresses and shirts.   The orchid shirt eventually found acceptance as formal wear at official events, en par with the long sleeved batik shirts worn by Indonesian and Malaysian dignitaries. 

I found the orchid dress too colourful to my taste but I still love the Vanda Joaquim crockery set that came with the La Germania cooker I bought when I first set up house in mid-1982.  The cooker is long gone but I have kept the crockery in a pristine condition as a tiny reminder that my efforts in promoting the National Flower had borne some fruit.

La Germania National Flower Crockery Set

Text on Vanda Joaquim on Teapot

Saucer of La Germania Crockery Set

2008 version of Vanda Joaquim Teapot

blueprint for the arts

Every decade or so, there is a new blueprint for the arts. It’s not always clear whether the blueprint is the initiative of the current arts administration or the politicians in charge, whether it is a genuine attempt to improve things, an electioneering ploy or simply an expression of the current administration’s vanity. Some people will view blueprints with cynicism but for art enthusiasts hungry to propel arts into the mainstream, it is always a welcome platform to talk about the arts and inject a fresh impetus and resolve to advance arts development further.

The 1980s blueprint for the arts was enshrined in the 1989 “Report of the Advisory Council for Culture & the Arts”.  The ACCA Report was literally a “blueprint”. We chose blue for its cover.

ACCA Report: a literal "blueprint" for the arts

In Feb 87, the Singapore Government announced its Green Paper & “Agenda for Action” outlining the course for Singapore as we moved towards 1999.  ACCA was set up on 9 Apr 88, to “review the current state of the arts and culture, and to recommend measures that will make Singapore a culturally vibrant society by the turn of the century”.  It was one of six Advisory Committees coordinated by the office of the 1st Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, reviewing various aspects of Singapore life including the arts, education, health, heritage and social services.

2nd Deputy Prime Minister DPM Ong Teng Cheong chaired the ACCA and its members were Arun Mahiznan, Chia Kee Koon (Ministry of Finance), Er Kwong Wah (Education), Hawazi Daipi (Berita Harian), Ho Kwong Ping, Koh Cher Siang (Permanent Secretary (MCD), Leslie Fong (Straits Times), Loy Teck Juan (Lianhe Zaobao), Prof Edwin Thumboo, Robert Iau, Haji Suhaimi Jais (SBC), Tay Kheng Soon, Mrs Wong-Lee Siok Tin (GM/Singapore Broadcasting Corporation), Yeo Seng Teck (Trade Development Board) and Vincent Yip (ED/Science Council). ACCA members chaired its Committees on Heritage (Tay Kheng Soon), Literary Arts (Prof Thumboo), Performing Arts (Robert Iau), Visual Arts (Yeo Seng Teck) and a Working Group on a “New Cultural Development Agency” (Arun Mahiznan). Ministry of Community Development manned the Secretariat for ACCA with Ng Yew Kang and me as Secretary and Assistant Secretary respectively.

The ACCA met eleven times between Apr 88 and Apr 89 while its committees, 25 subcommittees and working groups met 129 times. Over 200 people including artists, art promoters and historians were involved while 150 written submissions were received from the public. 

The key ACCA recommendations that have materialised include the establishment of the “[Singapore] National Arts Council”, the [Singapore] National Heritage Board [Trust]”, the construction of a new performing art centre at Marina Centre, a modern National Library building on Queen’s Street, and a Fine Arts Gallery in St Joseph’s Institution. The recommendation to allow students to offer Dance, Creative Writing and Theatre Studies has found fruition with the recent set-up of the School of the Arts (SOTA). ACCA also validated the initiatives we introduced earlier including the Theatre Residency Scheme, the Arts Housing Scheme and the conversion of SJI into an art museum.

The recommendations that have not materialised are the establishment of a Children’s Museum (Tao Nan School has been used for the Asian Civilisations Museum), a Literature Board, a Southeast Asian / Natural History / Ethnology Museum, a sculpture park on the Bras Basah Park on which now stands the Singapore Management University. I am not sure about the History of Singapore Museum. There are components of Singapore history in the new “National Museum” but it has become better known for European fashion design exhibitions, art films and touristy events like the Night Festival. I wonder where we can find galleries on important personages like the late S Rajaratnam and EW Barker. I saw an excellent (I’m told “temporary”) exhibition on the late David Marshall in the National Library a few months ago and hope such informative exhibitions will find it way into a full-fledged History Museum eventually.

ACCA gave me the privilege of working once again with DPM Ong. I worked with him in 1975 as a young Administrative Officer in the Ministry of Communications to which he was first posted as Minister. I worked with him again when I became the General Manager of the Singapore Arts Centre Company Limited from 1992 to 97. Mr Ong’s passion for the arts was manifest through his various appointments.  I can’t help thinking of him as the most significant prime mover for the arts in Singapore, having put into place all the essential building blocks - festivals, foundation, awards, the NTUC Cultural Unit and of course, his magnus opus, The Esplanade Theatres.

All the key papers deliberated by ACCA were penned by civil servants including Ng Yew Kang and I who wrote many of them. I sometimes wonder how different it would be were the papers penned by non civil servants. Would the course of arts development taken a different turn?  After all, the value of non-Government ACCA members was to offer a perspective different from us civil servants.

from “organizer” to “arts administrator”

The Straits Times article “Wanted: More leaders in the arts industry” (2 Aug 09), prompts me to reflect on how far we have come.  In two respects;  first, how the term “arts administrator” rolls off the media tongue with such fluency; and second, that there is actually public concern about the dearth of arts administrators.

In the early 1980s, staff in the Cultural Affairs Division were designated “Organiser”. There were five organisers including Lim Mee Lian who was Organizer (Music) and Chua Ai Liang, the Organizer (Drama).

The very first Arts Administration courses in Singapore were held from 14 to 30 Aug 85.  They were conducted by Harmon Greenblatt and Irene Conley from the Department of Arts, Entertainment and Media Management, Columbia College, Chicago, Illinois which was reputed to have the largest arts administration programme in the United States at the time.

Thank You note from Harmon & Irene

Two three-week courses were conducted concurrently, in the afternoons for staff from the public sector including the Ministry of Community Development, National Theatre Trust, SSO, SBC and STPB; and in the evenings for staff from the arts groups, art schools and arts entertainment agencies. Course content was wisely worked around a list of topics offered by the participants to ensure relevancy to their situations; and included topics like the formulation of arts policy, arts marketing & ticket pricing, fund-raising, programming and production.

Apart from taking comfort in the realisation that their funding problems were universal in nature and the chance to form new alliances within the local arts community, participants came away with a sense of belonging to a global community of professional arts administrators.  We celebrated when a month or so after the courses, the media began to use the term “arts administrator” and ”arts manager” instead of “organiser”.

I have always wondered what makes a good arts administrator.  Must one be an arts practitioner?  Would artists make good arts administrators? Is a little arts knowledge a good or bad thing? Must one be a good entrepreneur or marketer? Must one be creative? Must one have worked in “grassroot” organizations? What about the gift of the gab? and do strong networks and connections count?

INMO, first, a good arts administrator must love the arts to bits, not do the job because of the glamour it attracts. After all, the glamour is simply a spin we devised to attract glamorous brands to become sponsors. Second, they must truly and wholeheartedly aspire for ordinary persons to express themselves aesthetically or experience artistry daily, not only on entering an artifice called a “theatre”.  It is not about making available or ”imposing” on the man-in-the-street, types of arts that the arts administrators themselves favour especially if he or she is still Eurocentric in outlook.  Third, they need to balance artistic and business considerations in ingenious ways, which may necessitate sacrificing high salaries as every dollar going to salaries is one less for artistic pursuits.

On the one hand, I believe that artists and arts administrators must be paid a respectable salary for the important work they are doing – defining a society’s identity and what Minister George Yeo beautifully described as “edifying the human spirit”.  On the other hand, a good salary cannot be the chief motivator for arts administration as a choice of career.  This is a paradox that reminds me that when Brother McNally beckoned me to La Salle College of the Arts in 1997 (when we met at the ACM opening after I had just joined Singapore Pools) offering to pay me anything I wanted, I replied that I knew La Salle could not afford a salary for a single mother supporting two school-going children and that if I accepted his offer of a large salary, it would negate my passion / sense of nobility in accepting the job.

Leading lights Alvin Tan (TNS), Chong Tze Chien (Finger Players), Ekachai (Action Theatre), Ivan Heng (W!ld Rice), Ong Ken Sen & Tay Tong (TheatreWorks) and Ruby Lim-Yang (Act 3) are quite amazing and I watch them with great admiration. Not only do these arts practitioners love the arts to bits, they sacrificed more lucrative alternative careers for their passion and after so many years, continue to produce oeuvres of works that aptly capture the Singapore spirit.  To top it off, the companies they lead have built and managed their modest reserves and cash-flow to allow their companies the financial security to plan productions 2-3 years ahead.

So I say, “There are brilliant arts administrators aplenty in Singapore”.  This may suggest that it is unnecessary to import “talents” from outside the arts industry or overseas but then again, perhaps, it’s  best we leave them be in the arts community to do the real and more important work that arts policy makers  are supposed to create the enabling conditions for.   Just give them a bigger say on arts policy and developmental strategies which should benefit from the freshness of their years of experience.

heritage festivals

The not-so-recent redevelopment of Clarke Quay flushed out dealers of memorabilia who have sinced moved to the 2nd storey of China Square.  Browsing through the boxes of postcards, report books and other such homely items last  weekend brought back memories of the first Singapore Heritage Week that we organised in 1986.  

I was then working in a newly- founded MCD with policy “oversight” of the National Library and three heritage departments – National Museum, National Archives and Oral History Department.  

The idea for Singapore Heritage Week was hatched quite accidentally at one of our monthly meetings where we freely exchanged views on the plans and challenges of the departments.    The acquisition budget for the heritage departments was very limited, much much smaller than it is today.  At one meeting, when we were commiserating over the budgetary constraints to enriching our exhibitions, someone – I think it was either Lim Guan Hock (National Archives) or Tan Beng Luan (Oral History Department) – pointed out with urgency that families relocating from kampongs and shophouses to high-rise flats were nonchalantly and rapidly discarding their antiques and memoribilia.   

Brainstorming how we could ”intercept” such “discards” for the benefit of our national heritage collection, we stumbled upon the idea of a high-profile heritage event to alert these families to the historical significance of their personal items and that the heritage departments would like to have them if they no longer wanted them. 

 

SHW86 Bookmark

After a few months of preparation,  the 1st Singapore Heritage Week was held from 4 – 11 Oct 1986.   It was launched by Political Secretary /MCD Zulklifi Mohammed as  he ceremoniously released colourful balloons into the ceiling of the National Museum rotunda with a swift sweep of his antique kris.  All week long, the Museum grounds were dotted by 1950-style itinerant hawkers’ pushcarts selling the foods (eg dragon candy), games (gasing, rice dough puppets) of yesteryears.  In the museum, we staged an exhibition of everyday objects, our way of reminding viewers that they were important purveyors of our social history. 

The Week’s slogan which I must take responsibility and, credit for, was “Your Junk could be our National Treasure.  Thank you for sharing it with us.”  Nearly  everyone – our sponsor, American Express Foundation, our advertising agency and many of my committee members,  felt it was too insulting an

Slogan for SHW 1986

d would not be well-received by the general public.  Barry Arnold who then headed the AMEX team stuck his neck out and agreed that we could take a chance with it. 

We were more than amply rewarded when on our “Walk-In Donation Day” that Sunday, a never-ending queue of ordinary folks streamed into the Rotunda to offer us  their “junk”.  I remember uncles and aunties asking shyly if this or that “would do”  or “was acceptable”.   Beng Luan, Guan Hock, Susie Koay and their colleagues had a field day as they sifted happily through the many objects that fell into our laps.  By the end of Heritage Week, the public had donated over 900 items including complete sets of Chinese classics, porcelain steamboat, World War Two ration cards and many other interesting personal items.

The following week, a member of the public sent a letter to Minister Wong Kan Seng complaining that we had undermined the standard of public hygene by bringing back squalid old carts.  Slightly amused and happy to receive this back-handed compliment, we explained that we had  deliberately stained the newly-constructed carts,  to make them look old and authentic.

I organised two other Singapore Heritage Weeks subsequently and since then, it has morphed into a Heritage Weekend, Heritage Day and now, a fortnight-long Heritage Fest organised by my friend Jeremiah Choy and his company OrangeDot.

from society to non-profit company

Recently-retired NAC Deputy Director Lim Mee Lian who worked with me in the early 1980s as Organiser (Music Programmes) remarked a while ago that these days, anyone starting a new arts group would opt for the status of “company limited by guarantee”.  No one would apply for “society” status these days.

This wasn’t always the case! 

In the early 80s, nearly all the arts groups were societies and the Ministry’s grant scheme stated that only societies were eligible for its project grants, which were extended for events on an ad hoc basis.  However, when we introduced the annual grant scheme in 1985/6, we found the status of “society” rather disadvantageous.  Art society leaders would say “How can I commit us to an 18-24 months plan of activity when I am not even sure I will still be in charge after the next AGM?”  To the best of my recollection, bickering was not rampant in the arts community although it affected one or two groups.  Nonetheless, we knew that frequent changes to a society’s leadership would not offer a stable enough existence to plan ahead and take advantage of the annual grant, SRSITS and Arts Housing Scheme which were devised to nudge groups into professionalism.

After some research and an appreciation of the legalities, we nudged the art societies to convert into “companies limited by guarantee”. They also needed to apply to become “Institute of Public Character” to enable them to offer tax exempt receipts on donations received and “Charity” status to enjoy income tax exemption. The idea was not new but it struck us one day that there was no reason why the arrangement enjoyed by the SSO could not be tapped by the other groups.  We simply transplanted the idea!

Such “limited by guarantee” companies would typically be founded by two or three equally-committed and compatible individuals who shared a common artistic vision, who needed to put out only a modest capital of their choice, hence, the term “$2 dollar company”.  “Limited by guarantee” companies were soon set up by Goh Soo Khim and Anthony Then (Singapore Dance Theatre), Kuo Pao Kun and Goh Lay Kuan (Practice Performing Arts Company) with many others following suit. TheatreWorks, which started as a “private limited” company, also decided to convert to “company limited by guarantee” status.

In line with this change, at the Ministry’s end, we tweaked the criteria for our schemes to allow companies limited by guarantee to enjoy access to them.  So, such companies enjoyed the best of all worlds – the much-valued organisational stability and access to annual and project grants, the SRSITS and Arts Housing Scheme, all of which demanded an organisational and financial stability and continuity; income tax exemption and the facility to offer tax exempt receipts on donations. Directors of such companies would not earn dividends as all operating surpluses would be ploughed back into the company but we did not prohibit them from earning a salary as artistic directors or company managers.

The only downside they had to contend with was that such companies could not get bank loans to pay for major productions or renovation works. Years later, in the 1990s, at a NAC Cultural Plan meeting, I suggested to NAC to front a bank loan on behalf of art companies, to tide them over in deserving situations, but I’m not sure they saw the merit in the idea.  Thankfully, committed, well-heeled board members of some of the art companies have secured credit lines on their company’s behalf.

In the late 1990s when I started to administer the Singapore Pools donation programme for charity and sports groups, I cross-pollinated the ideas for the annual arts grant scheme and SRSITS  to hatch a system of annual grants for the national sports associations, uniformed groups and for grassroots organisations (“SPIN” for “Singapore Pools in the Neighbourhood”) under which we ”bartered” an annual donation for an annual calendar of four events. 

It was déjà vu for me to watch some of the sports associations in turmoil as executive committees got overthrown at AGMs.  I wondered if it would be appropriate for them to consider conversion to “companies limited by guarantee” but despite the big difference that it had made to the arts landscape over the then ten (now >20) years, I realised that this was somebody else’s call to make!