Janice Koh
Singapore
“So, let us not ignore the contribution of NLB to building up a reading culture and raising the literacy of Singaporeans. This is an episode that we will learn from and will move forward from. I thank the contributions of Members, both in and outside the House, on how we can move the process forward.”
“Only a happy mother can bring up happy and positive children. Positive attitudes cannot be taught by textbooks. They can only be taught by the parents' own examples.”
“I just want to mention this, that we recognise that we need to find something to develop the music sector more holistically and with a single vision. This is not new feedback. We have heard this also from the music sector. I agree that we have to take a holistic view.”
“Thank you, Madam. Just a quick response to the Senior Minister of State's reply. I just like to point out that, actually, with the Korean example, Korea does have broadcast quotas for its film and music. They were trying to feed the domestic market first before it could take off internationally.”
“The 21st century competencies put forth by MOE are attributes not easily attainable or even teachable through textbooks or testing. They present different teaching challenges compared to preparing students for exams.”
“" This programme is only in place at eight or nine schools, but there should be more and they should be formally integrated into the learning environment. Sir, the formal integration of drama would encourage schools to support teachers with the necessary resources and time to develop good drama curricula for our students.”
The complete record
Every one of 127 lines we hold for Janice Koh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. This year's Budget strikes me as a progressive and compassionate one. Like several Members in this House, I am heartened that the Government is taking the right steps towards building a fair and inclusive society, and addressing some of the concerns of Singaporeans, such as the rising costs of living, the need to reduce income inequality, and recognising that meritocracy alone is insufficient to sustain social mobility in Singapore. Madam, I would like to touch on four issues in response to the Budget, namely: the preschool sector, healthcare, the Cultural Donation Matching Fund, Page: 110 and developing a cultural layer in our national life. First, on the preschool sector. The Government's decision to double spending on the preschool sector over the next five years to $3 billion is a welcome move. Education is an important social leveller, and accessibility to high-quality and affordable preschool education is a way of ensuring that all our children get the best headstart in life, especially those from low-income and disadvantaged families. I agree with the Finance Minister that good teachers are the key to a quality preschool sector. As such, it is commendable that resources will be allocated to raising the skills-sets and qualifications of preschool teachers. It will not be easy to grow this pool of teachers nor attract qualified and experienced educators into the industry so quickly. In this regard, I hope MOE will consider following the example of the Nordic countries, where teaching is regarded as a valued profession.”
“To consider publishing or at least making public the GCE enrolment for the subjects at schools, among students, and the distinction and pass rates so that students are able to make an informed decision. If we are saying that Literature is actually a subject that has gotten good results, we should then try and not demonise the subject as being too difficult to score in.”
“I thank Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, given that there is so much emphasis on academic achievement and ranking of our schools, are Page: 26 our Secondary schools and school leaders pressuring students against taking up softer subjects like the Humanities and subjects like Literature? If so, then, is it really a choice for students if they are not given the opportunity to take up that subject at upper Secondary? How is the Ministry then trying to redress this imbalance? Secondly, I have come across cases of students who may have entered the school and started studying Literature at lower Secondary and then realise that at the upper Secondary, their subject is not offered as an examinable subject in their school and they have tried lobbying the school to take up these classes but have been rejected. What is the Ministry doing to help students like these who want to take Literature but have no other options within their school and would the Ministry consider setting up centres for such students to do it independently outside their school? And thirdly, would the Ministry consider publishing General Certificate of Education (GCE) enrolment take-up rates for subjects, the pass rates, as well as distinction rates of the different subjects to enable students and parents to better make choices as to what subjects they would like to take, so that it is not just a perception that the Humanities are difficult to score in?”
“Because immigration and integration present serious social challenges, not just engineering ones. Just as we need to plan our physical infrastructure to accommodate a larger population, so will we need to develop our psychological, social and cultural capacities to accommodate the greater diversity and difference in our society. And these capacities, too, need to be built ahead of demand. Madam, on the basis that more consultation and debate are needed on alternative growth models and targets which have an impact on our infrastructure planning, and given that we have yet to strengthen our psychological, social and cultural capacities to accept a higher immigrant population, I find it hard to endorse this White Paper. Madam, I oppose the Motion. 1.50 pm”
“The Minister of State recognised that hard choices on how our land is used need to be made. He recalled the late Mr Lim Kim San's words, "Do you want me to look after our dead grandparents or do you want me to look after your grandchildren?" It would be hugely ironic if, in order to make way for more people in 2030, most of whom will be new immigrants with no ancestral links to this land, we had to give up our own cultural and historical treasures and legacies. Worse still, if the 6.9 million figure is truly a stretched projection in a "worst case scenario", then we need to ask ourselves, are we willing to permanently sacrifice, say, parts of Bukit Brown, for instance, to build infrastructure based on a figure we may or may not achieve? It is one thing to build a liveable city. The harder question is: how do we build a loveable one? Mdm Speaker, to conclude, I would like to remind the House of the wisdom and foresight of S Rajaratnam in 1967. He had written an article for the Petir newsletter entitled, "Preparing for the Seventies". At that time, we were a society of transient immigrants, where many thought of Singapore, and I quote, "not as ‘our island' but as a treasure island in which one stayed so long as there was treasure available". He goes on to say, "To instill in them a deep concern for not just their personal future, but for the future of Singapore… This is partly Page: 35 a psychological problem." Rajaratnam recognised that issues of national identity and integration have to be resolved before we can resolve the other important problems of economics, housing and education. Why? Because whether citizens or foreigners, we are all human. We are not productive units or economic digits.”
“Our cultural wealth and heritage are built on history, tradition and memories. It roots us and gives us the tenacity to face change. It provides us with the necessary cultural depth to strengthen our Singapore identity. On this aspect, I have two points. First, a sense of shared history and a strong sense of belonging amongst Singaporeans make it easier for new citizens to actively connect with their new home. How do we develop empathy and mutual understanding of each other's worldviews and differences if we do not continue to develop cultural spaces like Page: 34 museums and art venues where stories, traditions and memories can be shared? Several Members have questioned the effectiveness of some of our integration initiatives. Mr Seng Han Tong felt that the citizenship ceremonies, grassroots events and audio-visual presentations may not have been as impactful as they should be. Integration efforts should not be a one-way street. Singaporeans, too, need to build these cultural capacities. A vibrant arts scene can provide far more enriching ways of encountering and bridging differences, and celebrating diversity. Secondly, public spaces to which Singaporeans have made long-lasting attachments help us develop a keen sense of home. It is an emotional attachment. There is no "practical" reason to safeguard it except to safeguard the hearts of our citizens and their sentimental connection to this island. Valuable historical resources are in danger of being lost if a concerted effort is not made to assess them in detail, prior to any land use decisions. These decisions cannot be made as and when an infrastructural need arises. Madam, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I would like to recall MND's response to the Bukit Brown issue at last year's Committee of Supply debate.”
“In this way, Singapore is not just seen as a stepping-stone to other shores. Some resentment against foreigners is a result of bringing in large numbers of immigrants who may share similar ethnic backgrounds as us, but do not share similar cultural backgrounds, norms and values. We should enable the development of Singapore as a multi-cultural society where people are not simply pigeon-holed into one of the four ethnic categories, but included as part of a diverse, cosmopolitan society. In this regard, perhaps it is timely to review our ethnic quota policies and how we implement them. We can also do more to educate our young at school by exposing our children, from an early age, to world cultures and world histories, so that they start to develop a healthy respect, empathy and understanding of those from foreign lands and cultures. Finally, our cultural deficit. Madam, the White Paper talks about providing a high quality of life, and celebrating and safeguarding our heritage, but adds this qualifier: "wherever it is practical to do so". It wants Singapore to be a "liveable, lively and well-loved" city, but does not earmark any new spaces for heritage, culture and the arts. In fact, in MND's entire 68-page paper on Land Use, "the arts" is only mentioned in one brief paragraph, and not much is said about preserving spaces for historical, cultural or sentimental value to Singaporeans. It is a glaring omission, and I refer to this lack of consideration as our "cultural deficit". Culture, of which the Arts are its deepest form of expression, reflects who we are, how we see the world and how the world sees us. The Arts also entertain us, educate us, revive us and provide the much needed leisure outlet to unwind and relax.”
“This does not sound like the Singapore we love and remember, where friends and neighbours of various ethnic, cultural and economic backgrounds, would mix and mingle despite our language differences. This sounds more like a Singapore that is at risk of racial and class divisions. The rapid PR and foreign population growth in the last few years has caused some of these fractures and reduced our empathy for difference. I like what Mr Arthur Fong said in his speech – we need to grow a "strong heart", or better yet, a "big heart". If we do not start to build the social capacity to accept difference and diversity in our society now, we will lack the ability to embrace people who are different from us in the future. We will remain in social deficit if we tolerate or close a blind eye to the exploitation of low-wage foreign workers, which downgrade the industries that rely on their labour. Singaporeans then do not want to take up certain jobs because they are seen as lower status jobs done only by foreigners. This creates a further dependency on foreign workers. The recent decision to grant our Foreign Domestic Workers a mandatory day off was a step in the right direction, but more can be done to protect the other labour rights of these workers. Policies and practices that place a lower value on the lives and well-being of certain human beings also lead to Singaporeans to devalue the lives of other Singaporeans. Page: 33 We will remain in social deficit if biased preference is given to certain immigrants from certain countries or sectors. We need a fair and transparent system of immigration so that a diversified pool of immigrants can become PRs, and eventually citizens, contributing to all sectors of society.”
“We can do this by ensuring that Singaporeans are not discriminated in favour of foreigners when it comes to employment, especially with the rise of more Singaporeans in PMET jobs. We can also make it easier for overseas-born Singaporeans to get their citizenship when they turn 21. I know of Singapore children, born overseas to Singaporean parents, who face an endless line of bureaucratic hoops and hurdles just to prove their right to citizenship. In the meantime, they are upset that there are foreigners who are wooed and courted, and then fast-tracked through the system to getting their citizenship. Page: 32 We should eliminate discrimination against our own citizens in our social policies. Childcare benefits, for instance, should be extended equally to all parents, male or female, unwed or married, with biological or adopted children. A Singaporean child, no matter the family situation or circumstances of their birth, should be taken care of and given the best possible start in life. In fact, even more so if the parent is single and struggling to raise the child on his or her own. In our minds, there should be no first and second-class citizens amongst Singaporeans. If, as citizens, we do not feel secure that Singapore is our best home, if we are not confident that we can raise a family, grow old and retire comfortably here, then we would not have it in our hearts and our minds to be open and accepting of our foreign friends. Second, our social deficit. Madam, in a recent letter to TODAY, someone warned that Singapore was in danger of developing into three broad enclaves: one, foreign workers living in dormitories; two, Singaporean heartlanders; and three, wealthy foreigners living in the central region.”
“For instance, the prospect of more and more affluent foreigners snapping up private homes in the property market fuels fears that Singaporeans will soon be priced out of their dream homes. Sure, the 6.9 million figure is only a planning parameter but, psychologically, it is still a hard pill to swallow because Government has yet to convince citizens on how it intends to effectively deal with the serious infrastructural gaps and address the more fundamental questions related to the rising costs of housing and healthcare and the challenges of retirement faced by Singaporeans today. This has led to a growing sense of insecurity about our future, a break in trust between Government and the people, and a lack of confidence that what we work for counts for something. I would, therefore, like to echo Mr Inderjit Singh's call for Government to focus first on solving the problems created by past policies of rapid economic and population growth, and on improving the lives of Singaporeans. Singaporeans need to feel confident and secure that, as citizens, we have equal opportunities to achieve our aspirations regardless of race, language or religion. We can start by looking at increasing social spending as a percentage of GDP to benefit and help a larger proportion of Singaporeans, and not just those at the very bottom-rung. Social spending in Singapore has decreased significantly from about 25% of GDP in the 1980s to only about 16% of GDP by 2011, even less than in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. In this respect, I agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng that Government should review its bias against welfarism. We need to also assure citizens that they are not discriminated against in their own country.”
“And, finally, we must ensure that all our children, no matter their economic background, have good and easy access to high quality and affordable pre-school education and childcare. My second and more pressing concern relates to Singaporeans' capacity to embrace a much bigger foreign population into our midst. Singapore has a high proportion of PRs and foreigners who live and work alongside our citizens every day. The current ratio is about 38% of the total population. And by 2020, this will climb to about 40%. And by 2030, the number projected will be close to 45%. That is almost half! Is it any surprise then that there is so much anxiety and insecurity amongst Singaporeans over who will constitute this Singaporean Core in 2030? Reading MND's Land Use Plan paper and after listening to Minister Khaw's reassurances, one could argue that it is reasonable to trust the planners on the carrying capacity of our island. What is less clear, however, are our psychological, social and cultural capacities to absorb, accept, if not embrace, this continued flow of newcomers into our midst, and to live well and harmoniously together with them. First, our psychological deficit. Madam, I am not sure if Singaporeans are psychologically ready to accept a lot more immigrants. I believe we are not a xenophobic bunch. We come from immigrant forefathers and we have lived and grown together as a multi-cultural society over many decades. However, in the past year alone, there has been an outpouring of anger both online and in the mainstream press over various incidents involving foreigners. Page: 31 It is out of our character, but I believe some of this angst stems from our worry over limited national resources.”
“There is access to high quality, heavily subsidised childcare and a guaranteed place for every child. Companies are obligated to offer benefits to pregnant women and new mothers. For instance, expectant mothers get free medical check-ups and breastfeeding moms are allowed to leave early from work. In the Singapore context, these would be considered very bold measures. However, like several Members in this House have stated, we need to implement bold measures if we expect a paradigm change. If this projection of 6.9 million people by 2030 is really "a worst-case scenario" to help Government plan for our long-term infrastructural needs, then, by the same argument, should we not explore all means and ways to raise the TFR of our resident population under worst-case scenario circumstances? Page: 30 Studies have shown that social policies that help women to reconcile work and family life have a positive effect on fertility. If we are serious about raising TFR, we need to support women who wish to continue working and making a living after childbirth, and give them the assurance that having more children will not have a negative impact on their and their children's quality of life. We should do more to make gender equality a core value in all our policies in order to support shared parenthood. We need legislation to eliminate workplace discrimination against mothers and pregnant women, and provide greater job security for them. Like Ms Mary Liew, I would like to ask that Government also consider legislating for companies to provide options for flexi-work arrangements for women after childbirth, as well as advocate and incentivise them to support the needs of new mothers in the workplace.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. In response to the White Paper, I would like to raise two broad areas of concern. Page: 29 My first concern touches on how serious we are about raising our citizen Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and making sure we will have a strong and not diminishing Singaporean core in the long term. The White Paper acknowledges that many East Asian societies and Western European countries have fertility rates below replacement levels, but it fails to present or consider examples of other countries that have been successful in gradually reversing their declining TFR. These include Norway, Sweden, France, Iceland, Ireland and the UK. Some of these more successful countries have relied, to some extent, on immigrant births to reverse declining TFR, but research also shows that as these nations become more developed, better systems are put in place to help families take care of children, such as extended paternity care and more equitable working environments. The reversal of declining TFR, most notably in the Nordic countries, is due largely to the adoption of women-friendly and family-friendly social policies and labour market practices. Women enjoy relatively unhindered access to the labour market, and are able to easily withdraw from and return to it after taking parental leave. In Singapore, however, the women's workforce participation rates decline and do not recover from age 30 onwards. This indicates that many who leave the workforce do not return. In Norway, on the other hand, women benefit from extended paid maternity leave of 46 weeks and their jobs are protected by law. Both partners, mother and father, are actively involved in child-rearing, with men being offered a minimum of 10 weeks paid paternity leave.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. It is great that SAM is trying to be a little more focused in terms of its theme on Southeast Asian and Asian art. However, I still feel that the broader Singaporean public that does not have easy access to high quality international artworks should still continue to have some kind of access, and that helps raise our cultural literacy and appreciation for the arts in general. I know it is a lot more expensive to bring in the "blockbusters", but I hope that the Ministry will consider other museums who can take over this role. These "blockbusters" bring a large number of Singaporeans who may not ordinarily go into the museum to see world-quality art. My second question is regarding marketing and publicity. We can see from the numbers that both SAM and the National Museum had a drop in changing exhibits in the last two years. However, the National Museum had an increase of about 10% visitorship whereas SAM had a decrease of about 15%. It could have been that a few "blockbuster" exhibitions at the National Museum still managed to attract a high number of visitors despite the fact that they had fewer exhibitions. It also has to do with the quality of exhibitions, as well as the outreach and marketing efforts. So, I would like to ask the Ministry to ensure that SAM, as well as the smaller museums, have enough of a budget to reach out to a wider number of Singaporeans. Lastly, with regard to the Singapore Biennale, which will give us an opportunity to feature world-class art from Southeast Asia, the region and Singapore, to ensure that we put in enough thought into marketing and publicity so that we reach out to new audiences and people who do not normally go into a museum.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. I am really glad to hear that the agencies implementing the Masterplan initiatives are developing their own basket of quantitative and qualitative success indicators. I think a biennial survey might be a little too general and does not necessarily just capture the impact of the community initiatives. I am wondering if those outcomes will be made public. My second question is related to manpower, and Page: 14 whether or not the cultural officers that have been deployed or are hired to work at the CC level have been given the requisite training, as well as the exposure to the arts.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Just a very quick clarification relating to my third supplementary question. My question was whether or not the Minister would start tracking arts participation below the age of 15 for children. This is because if arts participation has very wide knock-on benefits on education and on children's performance in the curriculum, then we need to Page: 40 find out whether or not they have enough equal access across the board, at a very, very young age, not after 15.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister. I have three clarifications. As you know, the arts and culture contribute to the development and well-being of children and young people. Research has shown that arts participation be it learning a musical instrument, singing in a Page: 39 choir, drawing or dancing, actually improve children's performance across the curriculum. I just want to find out with regard to the numbers, especially the decline and the change in definition, is the Minister referring to the re-definition of youth participation to only include those youths who participate in the arts as CCAs, and outside of school, leaving out those who take the arts within the core curriculum? My second question is: is there any concern that some of these arts opportunities become significantly reduced after the child hits upper Secondary and starts to face some major examinations? And thirdly, can MCCY commission a survey or some research to track arts participation by children below the age of 15, especially in the area of arts participation outside of school?”
“Sir, I thank the Acting Minister. I just want to clarify that based on my supplementary question on rental rates, I was referring to some of the venues that The Esplanade runs, not just necessarily within the Esplanade, but, for example, the Drama Centre, which in 2008/2009, the rate collected was something like 12% of gross box office takings, and by 2010/2011, that had increased to 15% of gross box office takings. Similarly, in 2008/2009, if the venue was not used, the Dark Day Rate would be $750 and by the following year, it had increased to $1,400. So, there have been increases in the venue rental rates, not necessarily within The Esplanade but at the external venues run by The Esplanade.”
“Thirdly, does the Ministry have plans to develop more mid-size theatres like the Drama Centre, which is now insufficient for the needs of local arts groups.”
“Sir, I thank the Acting Minister. I have three supplementary questions. NAC's current funding guidelines support no more than 30% of an arts group's total production budget. On average, the rental costs paid by arts groups who do not have access to their own performing spaces, for these arts groups to rent venues like the Drama Centre, which is run by The Esplanade, the rental costs vary between 20% and 35% of their total budget. In this scenario, many of the non-profit funded arts companies have expressed to me that they are literally receiving Government funding from one public agency and handing over the whole amount as rental to another public company. It puts immense pressure on these groups to find the remaining 70% to 80% of their budget from other sources, such as box office revenue and corporate sponsorships, which are hugely uncertain in this economic climate. Page: 1210 My first question to the Acting Minister is: in view of the Ministry's push to bring the arts to a wider public, and to nurture the arts and culture as a way of developing Singapore's soul, would his Ministry consider reviewing its rental rates to local arts groups, to not only create a conducive environment for them to develop original work and new artistic talent, but also to ease the financial pressure that is eventually passed on to the Singapore public through high ticket prices? Secondly, are public companies, such as The Esplanade and The Old Parliament House, under any expectation or pressure from the Government to profit or break even from running these theatre venues which might explain why rental rates and manpower costs for these venues are so high?”
“Page: 1057 Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, on the second question as to whether we have reduced the common space, the answer is, no, because film is not only the platform for which we can dialogue such issues. In fact, the Singapore Conversation conducted by Mr Heng Swee Keat is another platform for us to discuss some of the sensitive issues. That is why I do not see this as a step backward. But as I mentioned in my reply, there is a process, the process has proven over time to be effective. So, it is not the end. The filmmaker can still submit an appeal and I understand he has done so. So, we have to wait for the Film Appeal Panel to basically decide on a decision. On the first question as to whether or not he was given an opportunity, that is the prerogative of the FCP. Really, the process is for the FCP to decide. The reason why this was revealed so late and so close to the screening was because of the two complaints that we received. As the Member has heard in my reply, MDA declared it to be M18 because we deemed it to be acceptable for certain type of audience. But because we received two strong complaints, in fact, a very long complaint by one particular member of the community, we decided to convene the FCP because we think that is how the process should work. It is really up to the filmmaker, as I mentioned earlier, to submit his appeal and we will have to wait and see the decision of the Appeal Panel.”
“I thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. The first is regarding industry engagement. I believe in its response to the 2010 Censorship Review Committee's recommendations, MICA agreed that regulatory processes should involve industry and community engagement. In this regard, the Ministry agreed that industry practitioners, and I quote, "should be allowed to make formal representations to the Advisory Committee to facilitate dialogue". In view of this, was the filmmaker allowed to make a representation to defend his film to the Film Consultative Panel before the NAR rating was given and, if not, why not? And knowing that the panel was being convened so close to the theatrical release date, why wait for this engagement to happen at the Appeals stage, under the intense glare of the media spotlight and public pressure? My second supplementary question is regarding enlarging the common space. The MDA, in giving the M18 rating, obviously recognised that the film was a satire on racial ignorance and stereotyping. In fact, the Vice-Chair of the FCP stated that the panel is aware of artistic elements, such as satire, and that this decision might be reversed when society has matured. Now, this is not a black-and-white situation, the trailer might be provocative but the film was never intended to be racist. In fact, the film points out that the root of our racist views is ignorance, and exposes our prejudices. Does the Minister agree that by blocking this film, we have actually denied Singaporeans a chance to dialogue on this issue and to grow and mature as a society; and that by blocking this film, we encourage Singaporeans to take sides on an issue portrayed in a film that no one can watch and are, in fact, shrinking that common space and not enlarging it?”
“I would like to ask the Acting Minister if MOM has any plans in the review of the Employment Act to enact legislation that may also protect contract workers with regard to overtime pay and working beyond 12 hours, particularly workers in the creative and media sector.”
“But I hope that she can support this process entirely because really we want to be able to do this properly and correctly because the image of Singapore is very important for us too. 3.00 pm”
“How do we therefore measure the best use of the resources that we have which is somewhat limited? Page: 607 I agree with the Member that Venice Biennale, being the oldest, and compared to the other biennales, we should take a very, very careful look before we make that decision. Bear in mind that for the other biennales, we do not spend a lot. In fact, some of the artists are invited by the biennales. Our commitment to the artists is that when they are invited to other biennales, we will continue to support them. The Venice Biennale is where we actively participate in it. We spend a lot of money. We spend a lot of resources not just over there but over here. And we bring a very large team over there. So, the resources are tremendous. Given all that has to take place for us to be able to mount a very successful campaign in Venice, we think it is timely for us to take a very hard look. I am confident that we can come back with a big bang because I think we need the inputs of the artistic community to tell us how best we can use those limited resources so that we can achieve the bang that we want for our investment in Venice. The answer is that we are not pulling out entirely at one go. We are going to study this. We want to re-enter at some point in time. The most important thing is let us take a good look at this over the longer term rather than a shorter horizon. I empathise with her and other members of the arts community that there could be a sense of loss of momentum. As I mentioned in my reply, there are other opportunities that we are creating to increase the international profile of our artists. So, we will continue with our other efforts.”
“First, we have consulted widely and the feedback that we have received from the artistic community is mixed, as I mentioned in my reply. It is very difficult for us to do two things at the same time. The Member would know, and I think all Members would know, that the Venice Biennale is the oldest and the most prestigious biennales, and we have to do a proper job at it. We have done this for 10 years, and so having looked back at how we have performed and consulted not only the artistic community but also the Selection Panel, we realised there was no clear indications one way or another. As I mentioned in my reply, there were mixed reactions and mixed reviews. So, we took a judgement call, if I can say so, to say, "Let us suspend this while we do a deeper study." As the Member rightly mentioned, we want to come back by 2015 – which is when we celebrate our Golden Jubilee – and we hope that when we have done the review thoroughly and when we re-enter Venice Biennale, we can enter with perhaps a lot more pomp and grandeur that will bring the kind of success that the Member mentioned in her first question. We are looking towards how Singapore is looked at internationally. We have a vision to build Singapore into a dynamic and artistic hub for people to come here and for our artists to be recognised. I think the Member must recognise that it is also very difficult for us to give a quantum to that particular success. A particular artist, after he was showcased in one of the Venice Biennales, in fact had received a lot of offers after that, which is great for him and great for Singapore. But as I mentioned in my reply, we have to relook at this not just based on one artist but for the experience over the last 10 years.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, if the concern is about return on investment, then can we look at it this way? Each time a Singapore artist is successfully showcased at the Venice Biennale, we promote Singapore, we promote arts businesses, the very ones that we want to market including Art Stage, Affordable Art Fair and the upcoming Gillman Barracks. If we are concerned about whether or not our participation in the Venice Biennale will make a systematic and effective contribution to arts development, then may I have the Ministry's view on how they measure this value of our participation? The second supplementary question is the Venice Biennale is not just one of many international biennales around the world. It is the oldest and the most prestigious art platform. If Singapore is going to continue participating in other biennales, including Gwangju and dOCUMENTA, then why are we pulling out of the most prestigious and important one? My third supplementary question is whether or not the Ministry can undertake its review while we continue to participate in the 2013 55th edition of the Venice Biennale, especially in view of the fact that despite MICA's consultation, there is still widespread concern amongst art-makers in Singapore – over 200 have signed an open letter to the Ministry – about having to have this four-year gap if we intend to participate in 2015, and the difficulty of having to restart our engines again if we have this gap. Can we not build on our previous success from 2009 and 2011? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the three supplementary questions. I will try my very best to answer as much as I can, given the limited time.”