The New Intellectual:

Politics of History Making in Singapore

By

Danielle Hong Yuan Hua

Supervisor: Dr Daniel P.S Goh

An Honours Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the

Degree of Bachelor of Social Sciences

(Honours)

to the

Department of Sociology

National University of Singapore

2010/2011

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

2010/2011

   

i    

Acknowledgements

Thesis writing is long drawn-out process, and nobody told me that it was going to be a collective effort, but it truly is. This academic product would not have been possible without these individuals in my life –

To my parents, thank you for the quiet encouragements and spiritual guidance the both of you have showered on me when I was in my catatonic pseudo-depressed state. For keeping the kitchen stocked with chicken essence, coffee and milk for my midnight chocolate milk fix, to asking me what I wanted to eat for dinner and ferrying me to school while I was half-dead – I am truly indebted to the both of you.

To my supervisor, Dr Daniel Goh, who magically transformed my idea into something that was quite unexpected. I have enjoyed the ‘intellectual’ discussions and random books you have thrown to me for reading. Even Zizek has enriched my life, even if I am sore about not using him in my thesis.

To all my friends, especially Adeline Setiawan, Chris Yeo and Dipti Cheerath, I am eternally grateful for the time all of you have set aside to trawl through my edits, to the inane brainstorming sessions in the middle of the early morning. For the love you have all showered on me, I am indeed blessed. To Peter Muruthi, for ensuring that I have stayed awake and chipper through this writing process, you are truly the essential Naggy Uncle every honours student needs. To Lim Yeu Ai and Joo Zheng Chuan, for the proof-reading and much needed pagination help.

To the graduating batch of Sociology students, and especially the Twitter Bunch, life would have been less enjoyable without all the midnight rants and hash tag comments. Thank you for the insanity amidst the academia.

To my respondents finally, this study would not be existent without such rich data. It was wonderful to listen to all your stories and experience a little of the life of intellectuals. Thank you for the inspiration.

   

ii    

Abstract

Who is the new intellectual, or what is this new intellectualism in Singapore all about? What has leftist history got to do with the fate of nation building and the Esplanade?

This study seeks to uncover the fate of local intellectualism through tracing the trajectory of national policies in relation to history, culture and arts. Through in-depth conversations with twelve local intellectuals, this study will also give an insight into the challenges of working in the local context from past to present – and the surprising genesis of a new group of intellectuals engaging in artistic and cultural production today.

In using a Marxist paradigm, this study brings in both the Gramscian and Saidian models of intellectualism as a framework for analysis. It will showcase the evolvement of the organic intellectual into a public intellectual, as well as introduce the new intellectual as a result of the commodification process; a consequence of the state going global.

Finally, this study will answer if the new intellectual’s changing engagements with the state allows for greater agency and expression through the process of bi-directionality – the result of empowerment through commodification.

   

iii    

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Chapter One Introduction: Leftist History, Why Now? 1.1 History for Nation Building 1.2 Role of Intellectuals in Society 1.3 Literature Review 1.3.1 Conceptualising Intellectuals 1.3.2 Intellectuals: Articulating Hegemony 1.3.3 Ideology 1.4 Situating the Current Study 1.5 Methodology 1.5.1 Limitations

Chapter Two The Public Intellectual 2.1 Motivational Provocation 2.2 Challenges of the Public Intellectual 2.2.1 The Challenges of Specialisation and Certification 2.2.2 Drift towards Power 2.3 Post Independence: The State of Intellectualism Chapter Three Enter the New Intellectual 3.1 Contemporary Society and the Public Intellectual 3.2 The Singapore Story: Revisited 3.3 Singapore Today: Challenges of the Public Intellectual 3.3.1 The Challenges of Specialisation and Certification 3.3.2 Drift to Power in the Free Market System

Chapter Four Deciphering the New Intellectual 4.1 Engaging the Public: Past and Present 4.2 Speaking Truth to Power: Past and Present 4.2.1 Censorship 4.2.2 Autonomy: Biting the Hand that Feeds 4.2.3 Commodification of Intellectualism Chapter Five Conclusion 5.1 The Bi-Directionality of Intellectualism 5.2 Nation-Building: The State and the Intellectual

Endnotes

Annex A

References

   

iv    

Table  of  Contents  Chapter  One  ........................................................................................................................................................  1  

Introduction  ...................................................................................................................................................  1  

1.1  Introduction:  Leftist  History,  Why  Now?  ..............................................................................  1  

1.2  History  for  Nation  Building  .........................................................................................................  2  

1.3  Role  of  Intellectuals  in  Society  ...................................................................................................  4  

1.4  Literature  Review  ............................................................................................................................  5  

1.5  Situating  the  Current  Study  .....................................................................................................  10  

1.6  Methodology  ...................................................................................................................................  11  

Chapter  Two  ....................................................................................................................................................  14  

The  Public  Intellectual  ............................................................................................................................  14  

2.1  Motivational  Provocation  .........................................................................................................  14  

2.2  Challenges  of  the  Public  Intellectual  ....................................................................................  16  

2.3  Post-­‐Independence:  The  State  of  Intellectualism  ...........................................................  21  

Chapter  Three  .................................................................................................................................................  23  

Enter  the  New  Intellectual  ....................................................................................................................  23  

3.1  Contemporary  Society  and  the  Public  Intellectual  ........................................................  23  

3.2  The  Singapore  Story:  Revisited  ..............................................................................................  24  

3.3.  Singapore  Today:  Challenges  of  the  Public  Intellectual  ..............................................  26  

Chapter  Four  ....................................................................................................................................................  31  

Deciphering  the  New  Intellectual  ......................................................................................................  31  

4.1  Engaging  the  Public:  Past  and  Present  ................................................................................  31  

4.2  Speaking  Truth  to  Power:  Past  and  Present  .....................................................................  32  

Chapter  Five  .....................................................................................................................................................  40  

Conclusion  ...................................................................................................................................................  40  

5.1  The  Bi-­‐Directionality  of  Intellectualism  .............................................................................  40  

5.2  Nation  Building:  The  State  and  the  Intellectual  ..............................................................  41  

Endnotes  ............................................................................................................................................................  43  

Appendix  ...............................................................................................................................                                                    48  

Bibliography  ........................................................................................................................                                                    51  

   

   

1    

Chapter  One  

Introduction  

1.1  Introduction:  Leftist  History,  Why  Now?  

Oon’s report in the Straits Times1 last year just after National Day piqued the interest

of the general public on the burgeoning of ‘leftist history’ in Singapore. In it, she

gives an account of publications written about the leftist movement. Some are

firsthand accounts2, biographies3 or essay collections4 discussing Singapore’s

political history in detail. Leftist or alternative history in this study is defined as

history differentiated from official history, which came in the form of National

Education implemented by the government5 in 1997.

Oon cites the neutralisation of communism as a factor for the growing public interest

in leftist history. Interest among the young has resulted in more former political

detainees writing and talking about their past. This has encouraged academics to

increase research efforts in the subject, now that primary sources6 are more

forthcoming.

This article foregrounds the questions this study will address: who are these people

delving and revisiting national history once again? How are they producing their own

representations of history, and what does this mean for the continuation of The

Singapore Story? More importantly, how is the state’s version of The Singapore

Story contested, or if it is at all?

2    

   

1.2  History  for  Nation  Building  

The role of national history in Singapore has been constantly reinterpreted to fit the

country’s needs through the course of time, from the post-independence up till the

present.

The state’s narrative regarding the role of culture and history has been as such – after

gaining independence in 1965, it was vital, according to the ruling party, The

People’s Action Party (PAP) for Singapore to survive as a nation, giving a strong

impetus for the PAP to concentrate on the present and future, neglecting the past.

This constructed historical amnesia would help navigate the problems of

coordinating a multi-racial, immigrant population towards a future of modernisation

and innovation (Loh, 1996).

However, this historical amnesia soon became problematic. In 1996, the idea of

National Education(NE) introduced, brought about by fears of a “serious gap” 7in the

education of Singaporeans, leading to a lack of awareness of the tumultuous years

leading up to independence8. At the Teachers Day Rally in 1996, then Prime Minister

Goh Chok Tong initiated NE as the solution to the ‘problem’ of knowledge

deficiency he saw in the generation of young Singaporeans9. Then Deputy Prime

Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the official launch of NE in 1997 pointed out –

“For Singapore to thrive beyond the founder generation, we must systematically transmit these instincts and attitudes to succeeding cohorts. Through National Education, we must make these instincts and attitudes part of the cultural DNA which makes us Singaporeans.10”

NE brought about a dramatic change in the educational curriculum; it was infused

into ongoing subjects such as History and Geography etc. Social Studies was also

introduced at primary and secondary school levels. Additionally, what were deemed

3    

   

as important historical events were constructed into special events to be celebrated11,

such as Racial Harmony Day, which was a reminder of the racial riots of 196412.

NE was turned into an extravagant spectacle; an attempt by the government to

rejuvenate a renewed sense of national identity among its citizens. Alongside the

actual syllabus, the outreach of NE was not just confined to students, but targeted the

general public as well via a $10 million multi-media presentation called “The

Singapore Story” which was launched for a month in July 1998, pulling in 500,000

visitors13.

At the same time, the story of Lee Kuan Yew was also institutionalised as The

Singapore Story. In the same year, the first of Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs, The

Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew was published, with the uncanny title of

his book and the launch of the NE curriculum critiqued as the imprintment of his role

with the creation of Singapore. “The Lee Kuan Yew story thus becomes Singapore’s

story and vice versa” (Hong, 2002:546). Hong however, notes as well that the

collapse of national history into a meta-narrative is not a new phenomenon, since it is

fundamental in governing the directions of political discourse, culture, and the

construction and institutionalisation of a national identity (ibid).

The economic potential for culture and the arts was also already recognised as early

as 1985 with the Economic Review Committee (ERC). This marked the beginning of

a coherent cultural policy that evolved into the Report of the Advisory Council on

Culture and the Arts in 1989, the precedent of the ongoing Renaissance City Plan

(RCP) today. Arts would be used not as a cash cow, but one which would also

provide Singaporeans with a sense of national heritage.

4    

   

From the examples of NE and the RCP, it is obvious that the government has

implemented its own version of The Singapore Story. Yet this study aims to go one

step further and analyse the cultural producers engaging in this discursive story – the

intellectuals. Who are they and how do they engage with history and nation building?

 

1.3  Role  of  Intellectuals  in  Society  

In propagating a national narrative, the use of intellectuals is crucial in order to gain

active consent for the ruling party, in Singapore’s case, the PAP. In the Gramscian

tradition, the ruling class must justify its supremacy by manifesting itself in two

ways, via domination and intellectual and moral leadership that Gramsci classifies as

the unity of both direction and dominance (Gramsci, 1978:58). Social control takes

on two forms – external control via punishments and rewards, and internal control

based on hegemony “obtained by consent” (Femia, 1981:24). Civil society, defined

as the “ensemble of educational, religious and associational institutions” (ibid) is

where hegemony is obtained.

Intellectuals, broadly defined to include all who “exercise directive or high level

technical capacities in society” (ibid, 131), are borne out of social groups functioning

in relation to the world of economic production, and gives each social group

“homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic, but

also in the social and political fields” (ibid, 130).

By viewing Singapore as a Gramscian state, this study will look at the role of local

intellectuals within the context of Singapore through a Marxist paradigm. With the

changes in the socio-political climate through the years from post-independence till

today, how has that likewise changed local intellectualism? Following that, how do

5    

   

their expressions and activities change the way national history is received and

consumed by the public?

These are the research questions, and this study posits the central argument that

commodification of contemporary intellectual production has changed the way

intellectuals interact with its public, the state and the global economy.

1.4  Literature  Review  

1.4.1  Conceptualising  Intellectuals  

Julien Benda first introduces the notion of intellectuals in La Trahison des clercs

written in 1927 as – “all those whose activity essentially is not for the pursuit of

practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice of an art or science or a

metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages”

(Benda, 2009: pg.x). Although Benda sees intellectuals as “a tiny band of super

gifted and morally endowed philosopher-kings who constitute the conscience of

mankind” (Said, 1994:5), his conception was flawed in the romanticisation of

intellectualism. Significantly, Benda concedes the moral authority of his intellectuals

to what he terms “the organisation of collective passions” such as sectarianism, mass

sentiment, national belligerence, class interests (ibid, 6).

While Benda’s version of the intellectual remains a romantic ideal, a Gramscian

reading of his work would suggest that this ideal is far from reality. For Gramsci, all

intellectuals are defined by their places “in the social relations of production”

(Gramsci, 1978, 9), and are not a separate social group existing above or outside this

realm of production. It is only within “this ensemble of the system of relations in

6    

   

which these activities, and the intellectuals who personify them, have their place

within the general complex of social relations (ibid, 8).

The Gramscian tradition locates intellectuals in the dominant social class of their

time performing “organisational and collective functions within both the areas of

civil society or hegemony and in political society or the State”(Sassoon, 1987:136).

However, they are considered broadly to be “an entire social stratum” organising an

organisational function in fields of “production, culture, or that of political

administration,” (ibid, 134) thus not being strictly confined to either the cultural or

economic sphere.

According to Gramsci, each social group produces what Gramsci terms, the organic

intellectuals, but it is the organic intellectuals of the dominant group who have the

most power to define, order and organise society’s ideas. With each social group

“coming into existence on the terrain of an essential function in the world of

economic production”, it is inevitable for the creation of one or more strata of

intellectuals giving this group “the homogeneity and the awareness of its own

function” in the economic, social, and political fields (Gramsci, 1978, 5). They come

in the form of “the capitalist entrepreneur, the specialist in political economy, the

organisers of a new culture and a legal system” (ibid). More importantly, the

organisational duties of the organic intellectual includes the organisation of ideology,

thus the organic intellectual is defined for his organisational activity as much as

technical specialisation; they are “specialists fulfilling technical, directive,

organisational needs” (Sassoon, 1987:139).

Gramsci differentiates the organic intellectuals from the traditional intellectuals, a

category “already in existence and which seemed indeed to represent an historical

7    

   

continuity uninterrupted even by the most complicated and radical changes in

political and social forms.” (Gramsci, 1978:7) They emerge into history out of

“preceding economic structures” (ibid), expressing the interests of the church or

landed aristocracies. They belong to a “different historical time” from the organic

intellectuals created by the new class (Sassoon, 1987:142).

However, these traditional intellectuals are still organic to one class, such as the

feudal aristocracy, thus should this feudal mode of production survive, though in a

subordinate form, “these intellectuals still provide an organic function in terms of

feudal class” (ibid), yet still being traditional as opposed to the new dominant class.

Said takes this notion of the organic intellectual, “always on the move, on the make”

(Said 1994:4) and extends the definition of an intellectual to mean anyone connected

with the production or distribution of knowledge (ibid, 9).

Defining an intellectual as “an individual endowed with faculty for representing,

embodying, articulating a message, a view, an attitude, philosophy or opinion to, as

well as for, a public,” (ibid, 11) Said’s public intellectual does so on the basis of

universal principles – “that all human beings are entitled to expect decent standards

of behaviour concerning freedom and justice from worldly power or nations, and that

deliberate or inadvertent violations of these standards need to be testified and fought

against courageously (ibid, 12).

The intellectual is public because he/she is “an individual with a specific public role

in society” (ibid), akin to Gramsci’s organic intellectual, who is an organiser and

articulator, yet while Said agrees that intellectuals are of their time, “herded along by

the mass politics of representation” (ibid, 21) they cannot only act as mouthpieces of

the ruling class.

8    

   

Instead, they must do the opposite - resist official narratives, justifications of power,

and “whole trends of thought that maintain the status quo and keep things within an

acceptable and sanctioned perspective on actuality” (ibid, 22). Said is inspired by

Mills’s take on the “independent artist and the intellectual,” the few remaining

personalities able to resist and fight the stereotyping and death of genuinely living

things. Unmasking of these stereotypes within mass thought geared to the demands

of politics requires the intellectual likewise to be centred in the value of truth in

political struggle (Mills, 1963:299).

Yet the problem of the natural tendency to “turn towards the political world” is

problematic for the intellectual; how far should an intellectual go in interpreting live

events to participating in social change and transformation? (Said 1994:110)

Representations of an intellectual “are always tied to and ought to remain an organic

part of an ongoing experience in society”, they are not to be “transfigured and frozen

into creeds, religious declarations, and professional methods” (ibid, 113).

Can intellectuals truly be articulators of universal truth while resisting the drift

towards considerations of power? After all, intellectuals are rooted in a particular

social group and must work within the system constructed by the dominant social

group of their time.

1.4.2  Intellectuals:  Articulating  Hegemony    

While Marx was inclined to believe that the rule of a certain class depended solely on

material power, Gramsci’s contribution to Marxist thought was his focus on cultural

and intellectual factors, the establishment of a ruling class’s “moral, political and

9    

   

cultural values as conventional norms of practical behaviour” through the doctrine of

hegemony (Femia, 1981:3).

Hegemony is a unity of leadership and domination, “consensual aspects of political

control” (ibid, 25). Althusser posits the purpose for hegemony as learning “the rules

of the order established by class domination” to ultimately reproduce the means of

production; more precisely, “a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology”

(Althusser, 1970:102).

Althusser, like Gramsci, makes the same distinction between political society and

civil society, the two halves which make up the State. While political society

comprises of the army, the police, and the courts, structures which he defines as

Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA), all “functioning by violence” (ibid, 110), civil

society is comprised of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) i.e. the churches,

schools, family, trade unions, communications and culture (ibid, 111). ISAs function

by ideology, although “they also function secondarily by repression” (ibid, 112).

Seemingly disparate, they are unified in the ideology of the ruling class. The

importance of ISAs is this – “no class can hold State power over a long period

without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological

Apparatuses” (ibid).

This reproduction of the ruling ideology, through the ISAs, indirectly reproduces

roles which the society needs, such as the role of the exploited, the role of the agent

of exploitation, the agent of repression, or a professional ideologist (ibid, 118) which

can be interpreted to mean the ruling class’s intellectuals.

10    

   

1.4.3  Ideology  

Since this hegemony of the ruling class affects the reproduction of roles (intellectuals

or otherwise), it is essential to look also at the basis of ideology, what purpose it

serves, the form and content it takes. Gramsci believed that ideologies have “a

validity which is ‘psychological’; they organise human masses, and form a terrain on

which men move, acquire consciousness of their position, struggle, etc” (Femia,

1981:162).

Yet how does this psychological validity work? Althusser suggests we see “ideology

as an imaginary construction,” (Althusser, 1970:121) that ideas of human subjects

only exist in his actions, inserted into practices which are governed by rituals (ibid,

128) and it is the process of interpellation “of individuals as subjects” ironically

through the functioning of the “category of the subject” (ibid, 130) that an individual

realises himself as a subject; having a role.

1.5  Situating  the  Current  Study  

The literature on intellectuals has evolved from Benda’s classless superior

intellectuals to Gramsci’s class-bound intellectuals grounded by economic modes of

production. Contemporary analysis by Said provides a different practical perspective

to Gramsci’s organic intellectual with the idea of the public intellectual, speaking

universal truths to power.

Local studies have been done on intellectuals in Singapore, such as Chan (1976)14,

who outlined four possible roles an intellectual might have in the Singaporean

context, with varying degrees of state co-option15, but these roles were constrained to

the realm of politics. Tay (1997)16 continues by conducting qualitative interviews

11    

   

with local intellectuals to see if a civil society in Singapore is existent and active.

Koh (2000)17 elaborates on the challenges of intellectuals in civil society, including

the lack of empowerment, agency and risk-taking resulting from the tight grip of the

state. Finally Tan (2008)18 explores post-colonial political dissidence to explore the

relationship between power and intellectuals.

In this study, I argue that intellectualism has changed along with the trajectory of

national policies regarding history, culture and the arts, creating a new generation of

intellectuals distinct from the past. Secondly, I will uncover if the new intellectual’s

changing engagements with the state allow for greater agency and expression.

1.6  Methodology  

Firstly, it is noted that the state, in constructing national history, requires Althusser’s

ISAs which directly pulls in the civil society, specifically the realms of culture and

education into this study.

Next, the three fields of academia, literature and film were chosen as prime mediums

of narratives as they provide a narrative way of story-telling, as opposed to

conceptual arts for example, which requires specialised knowledge for interpretation

and is therefore ambiguous to the general public. Secondly, while intellectualism is

commonly associated with academia, this study takes Said’s notion that anyone

producing or distributing knowledge is an intellectual, which broadens the mediums

available for analysis.

12 informants were chosen in all, with four from each medium. Purposive sampling

was used to pick out personalities known for their works in their respective fields.

For example, Robert Yeo has been a pioneer of Singapore English theatre, with his

works (prose, poetry and plays) strongly representative of Singapore’s changes

12    

   

through the decades. At the other end of the spectrum, multi-disciplinary artist Ho

Tzu Nyen is an up-and-coming public personality, and also the local representative

of Venice Biennale 201119.

(Each informant’s biography is listed down in the Annex section of this study.)

All the informants have firstly engaged in projects and activities related to national

history, and secondly, have changed the way in which national history is relatable to

the general public through the dissemination of their works.

The mode of inquiry of these 12 informants was via semi-structured personal

interviews each lasting no more than two hours. Following Burgess’s aims that such

interviews provide “the opportunity for the researcher to probe deeply, open up new

dimensions of a problem and secure vivid, inclusive accounts from informants that

are based on personal experience” (Burgess, 1982:107), it was not enough to merely

read the texts they produced. The focus instead was on their aims, inspirations and

thought processes for why they developed and created the texts in the way that they

did.

Secondary sources then included these texts they produced in the form of poetry,

play, prose, film and academic journals. Although brief mentions will be made to

them, the analysis will concentrate mostly on the results of the interviews.

 

1.6.1  Limitations    

Firstly, due to the schedules of these personalities, two interviews, that of Boo Jun

Feng and Tan Pin Pin, were not granted. Thus interviews previously done on them

via press reports or press kit material were used in their place.

13    

   

Secondly, taking into account the power relations between this researcher’s position

as an undergraduate and some of the personalities, especially the academics

(historians), there was some unease from this researcher in not possessing the

capabilities of understanding the academics’ perspectives and works. Said mentions

“the cult of the certified expert” (Said, 1994:77), which is a mindset present in

academic institutions and professor-to-student relations. However, neutralisation of

this unease was attempted by positioning the researcher-self as a blank slate,

allowing the academics to explain and elaborate their works as they would to an

interested member of the general public.

   

14    

Chapter  Two  

The  Public  Intellectual  

This study takes on Said’s criteria for a public intellectual. His criteria is clear –

firstly, an intellectual is endowed with the faculty for “representing, embodying,

articulating a message, a view, an attitude, philosophy or opinion” (Said, 1994:11).

Secondly, such articulation is to and for a public. Lastly, this articulation requires

commitment and risk, for the purposes of advancing human freedom and knowledge.

Transposed to the local context of Singapore, is Said’s public intellectual still

applicable? This chapter traces the trajectory of local intellectuals who have worked

in the post-independence period till today and will analyse their challenges with

regards to Said’s criteria. Finally, a comparison between the Gramscian and Saidian

model will be made to ascertain the type of intellectualism that was found in the past.

2.1  Motivational  Provocation  

The theme of motivational provocation, the immediate impulse to respond based on a

strong opinion - is highlighted among many of the respondents and is a major

catalyst for their involvement in projects related to national history.

“There were a lot of conversations buzzing in my head that just couldn’t go into poetry...I was inspired by motivational provocation. I was always intrigued by politics (after attending the Political Studies Centre) and the possibilities of an opposition.” (Robert Yeo)

The Singapore Trilogy Yeo wrote in the 1970s was a culmination of his own life

experiences as well as his friends’ who had been taken in for detention. “Tan Jing

Quee, who was one year ahead of me in university...he joined the Barisan in order to

contest as a matter of convenience, and after that he was taken in. That was part of

15    

   

my concern...part of my consciousness in creating the Fernandez character.” Tan Jing

Quee was at that time a trade unionist contesting in the 1963 elections and lost. After

the elections he was detained in Operation Pecah for allegedly being involved in the

Malayan communist movement, which the PAP government deemed to be creating

civil disorder20. Likewise, the character Reggie Fernandez is an opposition politician

defeated by another character Chye, who is led off by Internal Security Department

(ISD) men to be interrogated for his defamatory speeches against the government.

Later he is imprisoned and subsequently released after agreeing to a public

confession.

It was these broad provocations, his disagreements on the way ISD was used for

incarceration, as well as the handling of politicians on the opposition by the PAP

which prompted Yeo to write and stage his trilogy.

These broad provocations, such as Yeo’s, served as the collective basis for

intellectualism, what Said would posit as being borne out of asking questions,

making distinctions, essentially seizing hold of memories as they flash up in

moments of danger (Said, 1994).

On the other hand, Hong provides a different perspective as a historian. Her

provocation comes in the form of inaccurate or presumptuous statements regarding

history from official statements, a challenge which she sees the need to address. “Our

young don’t know history, and I ask; how come they don’t know? You (the state)

didn’t want them to know, right? So it’s always some situation or circumstance...”

Thus we can infer that Hong aims to question and dispute policies which takes

advantage of history in their justifications, such as Singapore’s celebration of its

appearance in Gavin Menzies’ book, 1421, on the Cheng Ho voyages as well as the

16    

   

opening of the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall in 2001, which Hong sees as the

state’s venture to “bridge the modern-minded Singapore Chinese and the Chinese

revolutionary and world history personage” (Hong & Huang, 2008:187).

Likewise, film-maker See’s two short films on political dissidents Said Zahari and

Chee Soon Juan are projects developed from strong feelings of public

misconceptions regarding both the local political climate and these personalities

themselves. “What struck me was how different he (Chee) was as portrayed by the

media, and that was quite revelatory to me, I wanted to translate that to the audience,

as well as his unique political career.”

Having understood the basis of their intellectual involvement, the next section charts

the context in which the intellectuals functioned in, which directly affects their

activities.

2.2  Challenges  of  the  Public  Intellectual  

The challenges of intellectualism for Said is that the possibility of an independent,

autonomous, functioning intellectual tends to be beholden and constrained by

affiliations to academic institutions, political parties or think tanks (Said, 1994). The

intellectual is always the mouthpiece; a representation of his/her associations as a

result. The solution he posits is the spirit of amateurism – “the caring for ideas and

values despite restrictions of a profession” (ibid, 76), not for rewards but an interest

in making connections across lines and barriers by looking at the larger picture.

However, amateurism is constrained by four factors, namely specialisation,

certification, the drift towards power and the free market system. This section will

thus focus primarily on the first three factors as they were salient challenges for this

17    

   

particular generation of intellectuals. This is bearing in mind the overarching

capitalist system, which the PAP took to guarantee economic stability, and thus also

social and political stability (Chua, 1995).

2.2.1  The  Challenges  of  Specialisation  and  Certification  

Said defines specialisation as losing sight of the raw effort of constructing art and

knowledge, which results in not being able to view them as choices and decisions,

commitments and alignments, but as impersonal theories and methodologies (Said,

1994).

The specific distinction of these intellectuals is the motivation and engagement with

issues beyond their individual vocations, a result of pure interest and passion. This

also allows for the intellectual to use mediums of their activities interchangeably to

better suit a project’s particular agenda.

For example, while Yeo writes about political dissidence in The Singapore Trilogy,

he also delves into social issues as varied as the impact of schizophrenia, marriage,

procreation and the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. “I want to raise issues

which are vital for the development of society, I wrote a play recently about a friend

who is schizophrenic, and I’m writing a libretto. I hope to also publish my critical

essays on culture.” Yet all these issues fall under two broad themes, that of the search

for identity and the importance of conservation and heritage in the midst of flux and

finding values one can comfortably live by21.

The same themes of conservation and heritage are inherent in Tan’s work as

president of the Singapore Heritage Society (SHS)22, especially in the area of

editorial work for books as varied as books targeted for children to a photography

18    

   

book of tombstones. Both projects aimed for public awareness of urban spaces, the

first of Kampong Glam, the latter of local cemeteries.

It is also this passion for history which Tan, who by vocation is an adjunct law

professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS) which prompts him to be

actively involved in national history, in the work for SHS, or commissions to write

biographies (on David Marshall for example).

While specialisation is not problematic for these intellectuals, they face a greater

obstacle from certification. Certification is what Said terms “the cult of the certified

expert” (Said, 1994:77) including the need to speak the right language, cite the right

authorities, which thus convene into political correctness in line with national

security and/or foreign and economic policy. The example of the Cold War is

mentioned, where it was to be undoubtedly declared evil, with the necessity of Third

World emancipation through freedom from communism. To disagree would mean

interfering with national policy.

For instance, as Yeo prepared to stage his play ‘One Year Back Home’ in 1979, he

was met with opposition from the then Ministry of Culture who deemed his play too

incendiary. There were accusations of “attacking the PAP policies, with reference

also to the government’s handling of chit funds”, leading Yeo to believe that his play

was being read like a pro-communist document (Yeo, 2001:29). The delay was also

caused by the 1980 General Elections, a sensitive period where plays with characters

of members of political opposition were disapproved (ibid).

From a macro perspective, we can infer that arts and culture was recognised by the

state as merely “icing on the cake” as Seet expounds, where all considerations were

strictly socio-economic.

19    

   

2.2.2  Drift  towards  Power  

The third pressure is “the inevitable drift towards power and authority in its

adherents, towards the requirements and prerogatives of power, and towards being

directly employed by it” (Said, 1994:80). He mentions the use of academic research

in the U.S for direct application in Third World countries via covert activities and

sabotage in the macro scheme of furthering commercial and political agendas.

The necessity for local intellectuals operating in the sphere of arts and culture in the

post-independence period to adhere to state agenda can be explained via the ideas of

crisis mentality and subsequently, communitarianism.

Crisis mentality is what Chua (1995) elaborates as an “overanxious tendency in the

administrative machinery to take pre-emptory pragmatic measures to avoid certain

presumed problems” (ibid, 19). Crucial key developments such as the British

withdrawal from Singapore, the Communist insurgency, the racial riots, even

Sukarno’s Konfrontasi campaign which led to the bombing of MacDonald House in

1965 led to the public acceptance of the rule of PAP, giving it the legitimacy that was

needed. The Hock Lee bus riot specifically is noted by Yao (2007) to be an event

turned into a national spectacle, rendering Singapore’s history as traumatic, infusing

the real with memories of “past dangers and bloody chaos” (ibid, 40).

Crisis mentality and the subsequent legitimacy of the PAP were instrumental in

cementing the ideology of pragmatism in Singapore, with a single-minded focus on

economic development which would guarantee the survival of the nation. What Chua

pinpoints as the kernel of the PAP’s pragmatic logic – “instrumental rationality”

(1995:59) fulfilled the objectives of justifying state policies, no matter how

interventionist they were.

20    

   

Yet instrumental rationality was not enough to fully ensure the continual support and

legitimacy of the PAP, thus the need to instill the idea of communitarianism - society

as community, the precedence of collective interests over individual ones, with the

family as the fundamental unit and the nation-state at the apex (Yao, 2007).

What this meant for intellectuals at that time was the need to balance both the

nurturing of a new cultural scene in the context of nation-building with the pressures

of the government’s pragmatic logic.

Yeo explains the scene of (then) local theatre company’s Third Stage arrest23 for

being allegedly involved in the Marxist conspiracy in 1987, where they were claimed

to be receiving orders from student leader Tan Wah Piow, who also allegedly was

plotting to overthrow the government (Peterson, 2001).

“I was encouraging people to write (as the chair of the Drama Advisory Committee then), I was saying things like, firstly, write your own plays. Secondly, don’t be afraid to be seen as critical of the government and third, don’t let the government set the agenda for you.” (Robert Yeo)

This occurred within the era of the start of state censorship; the need to adhere to the

government’s boundaries for intellectual and artistic production for fear of the

possibility of arrests and the shutting down of theatre groups.

Nevertheless, state censorship didn’t mark the death of local arts. As Seet explains,

the careful scrutiny of the political climate and context allows for one to circumvent

censorship. In the case of the Third Stage arrest, Seet mentions that “that was the

time of Marcos and PETA24 which was using drama as a subversive instrument.

Singapore felt very vulnerable, and it was unfortunate that Third Stage was arrested.”

While the freedom of expression was possible, there was also the need to be careful

about it via learning to engage with the authorities, namely the Public Entertainment

21    

   

Licensing Unit (PELU) and the National Arts Council (NAC). These techniques

included handing in the written script to the PELU for compulsory vetting, but

adding in extra lines for the actual performance.

Through the examples shown above, it can be seen that while intellectuals at that

period of post-independence had a certain amount of space to engage in cross-

disciplinary projects, they were still constrained by state power and ideology in the

form of direct censorship through its cultural arms of the NAC and PELU.

2.3  Post-­‐Independence:  The  State  of  Intellectualism  

Said’s autonomous independent intellectual in the local context is challenged by the

formation of these local intellectuals themselves. Firstly, they can be seen instead as

fitting the Gramscian model of an organic intellectual, ‘functionaries’ who would

exercise an organisational function in the fields of production, political

administration, and more specifically for this study, culture (Gramsci, 1978).

This can be seen from the examples of Yeo and Tan, who were both sent abroad to

further their academic careers as a lecturer and lawyer respectively. Yeo especially

can be seen as the product of the civil service at that time, where civil servants were

made to attend the PAP’s Political Studies Centre25 set up by Lee Kuan Yew to

educate senior civil servants about political realities and the communist threat that

was an urgent predicament of that period.

For Gramsci, it is the ruling class which determines the interests of society, and

where a society’s particular cultural and moral level must correspond to the needs of

the productive forces of development (Gramsci, 1978), yet while these intellectuals

22    

   

can be said to be functionaries of the ruling class, they were also simultaneously

fulfilling the roles of public intellectuals.

“I believe passionately in the idea of making a nation. Once in your lifetime, you’ve got a chance to participate in the birth of a new country, and I was, if you like, a committed nationalist.” (Robert Yeo)

The idea of having a stake in shaping the nation is a constant theme, be it Yeo in the

realm of theatre or Tan in the field of academia. They fulfil the Saidian notion of a

public intellectual not as a consensus builder or a critic of government policy, but

one “maintaining a state of constant alertness” (Said, 1994:23). This can be seen

through the taking on of projects outside one’s vocation and facing the risks of the

consequences in articulating their ideas to the public.

Another example with the advent of the local film industry was the possibility of

using film as a medium to articulate opinions on Singapore society. Tan (PP), in her

documentaries, always seeks to unpeel layers of state discourse, urban and socio-

economic development to expound on their effects on citizens. In ‘Invisible City’,

she fleshes out the atrophy of memories in national history, consequences of what

she mentions, “self-censorship, death, or decay of artefacts.” In it, she tries to

uncover lost narratives of people, such as the Chinese student activists in the 1950s,

and places long torn down for urban development.

Intellectual projects such as these epitomise the reflective spirit which is essential to

Said’s public intellectual. While these local intellectuals might have started off as

organic intellectuals, their transition to public intellectualism cannot be ignored as

well. Though Said’s criterion for public intellectualism is not completely fulfilled, as

seen by the challenges of censorship and state policies, nonetheless subversive

techniques, in theatre for example, remain useful for the continuation of intellectual

activities

   

23    

Chapter  Three  

Enter  the  New  Intellectual  

3.1  Contemporary  Society  and  the  Public  Intellectual  

The importance of a national culture and arts only emerged with the 1989 Report of

the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts, which called for the development of

the ‘software’ of arts and culture since the ‘hardware’ i.e. institutions and

infrastructure had already been put in place26. The main recommendations included

organisational and cultural facilities improvements, resulting in the introduction of

the National Arts Council (NAC) in 1991, and the National Heritage Board27 (NHB)

two years after. Plans for Esplanade: Theatres on the Bay also took off from there.

“We have reached a stage in our economic and national development when we should devote greater attention and resources to culture and the arts in Singapore. Culture and the arts add to the vitality of a nation and enhance the quality of life28.” (then 1st DPM Goh Chok Tong, 1989)

As Chong (2005) explains, the economic imperatives of culture and the arts were

sidelined for a new goal – that of “personal enrichment” (ibid, 556). This meant that

the arts were now deemed to “broaden our minds and deepen our

sensitivities...improve the general quality of life... (and) strengthen our social bond29”

while at the same time contributing to the tourist and entertainment sectors.

“When I came home in 1991, NAC was started to spearhead the arts, so by then it (the arts) was recognised not only as a social glue, but to give graciousness and class to what otherwise would have been a parvenu society.” (K.K. Seet)

In the same year, the Shared Values were introduced, as then DPM Goh suggested

the need for a national ideology to anchor the Singaporean identity. The Shared

Values would be a guide for all Singaporeans to live by, an incorporation of the

24    

   

Singaporean heritage, attitude and values which would help the nation survive and

succeed (Yao, 2007).

The culmination of efforts to establish some form of culture and arts were rolled out

to achieve two general purposes – firstly, for the continuation of nation building

efforts to nurture a national identity via personal enrichment “through the creation

and sharing of Singaporean stories, be it in film, theatre, dance, music, literature or

the visual arts”30 and secondly, to develop creativity as the key source of economic

growth.

With these changes in place, was public intellectualism still able to exist in the same

form it did in the post-independence period? What new themes and challenges have

arisen from the contemporary context of Singapore society, and what are the

consequences of them? Using the same Saidian framework, the next sections will

evaluate the changes of the intellectual today.

3.2  The  Singapore  Story:  Revisited  

Perhaps a continuation on the theme of motivational provocation, the general pull for

the intellectuals working in contemporary times is the necessity to question and

revisit national history; to reconcile the historical lacunae of the past. The grand

narrative of the government in the forms of NE and The Singapore Story are thus

problematised.

Most projects of these intellectuals examined two particular periods of Singapore

history, namely the communist and communal riots leading up and after 1965, and

the founding of Singapore by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819.

25    

   

Yao posits the argument of history as trauma to explain the eternal fascination and

longevity of the 1950s and 60s with the younger generation, in particular the Hock

Lee bus riots as essential to the culture of excess, ceaselessly alerting people to real

and imaginary dangers and to find means to prevent them (Yao, 2007).

“The 1950s and 60s do seem rather like a mythical period, Singapore was really a completely different place in terms of spirit, the political ferment happening, the passion, the rise of indigenous identity. And the Chinese school riots, their political presence.” (Ng Yi Sheng)

What these intellectuals do is to question these national memories to add depth and

multiplicity to the discourse, not necessarily to dispute official accounts but to

understand the complications which were ongoing. “You’ve got certain leaders and

policies, but what social history brings are experiences that are not fully oppositional,

it is more tangled.” (Loh Kah Seng)

No doubt that in trying to address the national discourse via individual

interpretations, the ideology of pragmatism and crisis mentality mentioned earlier is

likewise questioned and re-evaluated. But the extent of this demystification is

dubious, as the instrumental rationality in place described by Chua (1995) is still the

guiding element of the system which has produced these intellectuals themselves.

With the onset too of the Shared Values, the idea of the consensus based on

collective interests is arguable as “the elected political leadership assumes the

position of defining both the consensus and the national interests by fiat” (ibid, 191).

The next two sub-sections will continue to use Said’s criterion for the public

intellectual to analyse the new context the intellectuals have to work in.

26    

   

3.3.  Singapore  Today:  Challenges  of  the  Public  Intellectual  

3.3.1  The  Challenges  of  Specialisation  and  Certification  

The academic field, rather than film, theatre or literature, limits the intellectual in

terms of areas of research one should or can work on. This can be seen from Loh’s

elaboration –

“Actually, none of them (academic projects) were from my own choice. They were

things I was already doing at work, like leprosy, or things my supervisor suggested to

me.” His comment gives an insight to being an academic today, where being a

historian means always having to take on new positions and look for new insights,

sometimes having to comply with suggestions from seniority or follow intellectual

trends. Much time spent on research also means there are lesser motivations for

involvement in activities outside the realm of scholarship.

“We don’t get brownie points for public talks; we need to publish in journals and

books.” (Loh) These “brownie points” that Loh talks about mean economic benefits

such as a career promotion or a pay raise. Nonetheless, he is active in trying to

engage the public with national history, through the publication of books and

collaborating with groups such as the SHS to conduct public forums and conferences

on specific topics, such as Singaporean alternative history, for the sake of his

“passion” and “commitment” to history.

A positive change from the past is also the ease at which intellectuals are producing

multi-disciplinary works, crossing genres and mediums to better suit individual

projects. Ho for example, avoids pigeonholing his vocation, and describes himself as

a researcher, writer, director and filmmaker simultaneously. His aim is to circulate

27    

   

ideas, viewing knowledge in its most visceral form, thus purposely making the

mediums of his projects ambiguous.

“Film, art installation or lectures, these are just manifestations of the project. What I was looking for was a way to articulate a mode of life no longer enchained to the notion of identity and origin. This was not a disavowal of history, but a true engagement with the complexity and multiplicity of the past.” (Ho Tzu Nyen)

Going one step further from Loh’s research on alternative history, Ho goes beyond

the creation of an alternative narrative to counter the master narrative which already

exists. Instead, he looks at how history itself is perceived, for example, through

syncretising Greco-Roman myths and linking them up to the mythical founding of

Singapore by Sang Nila Utama31.

Certification in the new context also appears in two forms – certification by the

industry and the state. The need for certification by the industry is especially

pertinent in gaining recognition to prove one’s worth in the local community,

although this is tied to the larger state power at hand.

An example here is the Life! Theatre Awards, which Seet mentions to be both a bane

and boon to theatre practitioners.

“My relationship with them in any point in time is always proportionate to how much praise I’ve heaped upon them for their most recent work. As much as they (practitioners) complain about it (the flawed judging practice), it (the awards) still bothers them.” (K.K. Seet)

His comment shows the emphasis placed on recognition, for the sake of gaining

incentives in the form of public sponsorship schemes and grants which theatre

companies and practitioners are reliant upon.

First though, the state’s changing relationship with the arts and cultural sphere has to

be elaborated to explain its role with regards to nation building and economic profits.

28    

   

3.3.2  Drift  to  Power  in  the  Free  Market  System  

Yao suggests that after three decades of high-technology manufacturing, precision

engineering, science and biological research as the vehicle of economic growth, the

realisation that this was not enough fuelled the research for a new model of

development, leading to a new knowledge-based, entrepreneurial economy (Yao,

2007).

Creativity thus became the new key word, with the creative industries poised to

become an important part of the future economy. Besides encouraging competition

within local industries and jobs - style, aesthetics and freshness were spill-over

effects hoped for by the state32. This required the “loosening up of the political

culture and pervasive state control” (ibid, 152).

Such a shift in the mode of development was likewise upheld by government projects

such as the RCP which called for the broadening of an audience base, a professional

pool of local arts talent, raising the international profile of Singapore as an arts hub

and an overall enhancement of the local arts and cultural scene33. The change from

previous policies is not just in the economic imperative, but also the government’s

bid to reconcile local standards with international norms in going global (Chong,

2005).

This has led to the provision of grants34 for arts companies, scholarships and

bursaries for arts students or artists training locally and abroad, boosting the

production and variety of local literature, theatre and film. The film industry for

instance, started receiving state attention in the 1980s, leading to its push to become

a regional hub for film production and distribution. Film programs and educational

29    

   

grants were initiated with tax break packages offered for joint capital ventures

(Birch, 1996).

Today, upcoming directors such as Boo Jun Feng travel the international film festival

circuit to showcase their works, winning awards in the process35. Strikingly, Boo’s

‘Sandcastle’ goes deep into Singapore’s communist past.

“National identity in Singapore has been forged through years of propaganda...there has been some rupture or disconnection between my generation and the one that has preceded us, where romantic idealism has been replaced by calculative pragmatism.” (Boo Jun Feng)

While communism would be seen as a taboo topic in the past, it is now seen as a way

to re-engage with national culture and heritage. Likewise, Ng finds no problems

working in Singapore writing potentially subversive material. “With branches of the

government like the NLB and the NAC, people still recommend me for writers’

festivals, even if I have written ‘dissent-ish stuff’.”

Ng notes that the state has seemed to relax its policies towards the censorship of the

arts. Subjects like “sexuality” and “political dissidence” are topics he deems now

more permissible to discuss openly. Yet the concept of the OB-markers36 is still

evident and in place. “You never have the right to put things on; it’s always at their

(state) level.”

This revival of national heritage is part of the plan to further commercial and thus,

the state agenda as well, yet the question remains if the widening of cultural space

has allowed for the discursive dialogue of knowledge and art between the

intellectuals and their respective audiences. After all, the problem of OB-markers, by

definition of their ambiguity37, allows for the manipulation of the state whenever

they see fit. OB-markers, being intangible, exacerbate the problem of censorship as

they cannot be defined and thus, cannot be refuted.

30    

   

To conclude, the state’s focus on creative industries has resulted in the growth of

infrastructure and artistic opportunities for these intellectuals. They too, also seem to

be given the autonomy for engaging and pursuing multi-disciplinary projects, yet

there is still the question of the contestation of autonomous space.

The new intellectual will be more elaborately defined in the next chapter, via

comparison with the intellectuals working in the previous era. It will also discuss

both sets of intellectuals working in the present context, and what has changed in the

intellectual’s relationship with the economy and the state.

31    

31    

Chapter  Four  

Deciphering  the  New  Intellectual  

4.1  Engaging  the  Public:  Past  and  Present  

A noticeable change from the older to the new generation of intellectuals is in the

way they both perceive the role and functions of an intellectual with regards to their

own work. “Intellectual spirit, I think, is something that is innate and almost like a

calling. I feel so for myself.” Tan’s quote shows that he see it as a “calling’,

elaborating it as the duty of those who are well educated and know more than the

general public. Giving back to society is emphasised, via engagement in civil society,

for example Tan who was also engaging in local issues as president of The

Roundtable, a non-partisan political discussion group which has since shut down.

With the advent of the Internet, there have also been more opportunities for

collaborations for intellectual discussion and activities, as seen by Hong’s

involvement in starting up s/pores38 together with writers from the different fields of

academia, literature, film and so forth.

“We’ve got an upcoming issue on s/pores where there are interviews with AWARE, The Necessary Stage, TWC2 – addressing immediate issues about what it means to be a woman, or a foreign worker in Singapore. We hope to make it a real collective.” (Lysa Hong)

In comparison, this perception of intellectualism as a calling or duty is no longer

applicable to the younger generation of intellectuals. There is hesitation in accepting

the title of an intellectual, and as Ho puts it – “Duties are uninteresting. It is far more

important to be an interesting person (as opposed to an intellectual), and there are ten

thousand ways to be interesting.” He elaborates by rethinking the idea of an

32    

   

intellectual to mean people who are “intelligent, open, curious, engaged with the

world.”

This change can be seen from the slow decline of nationalistic fervour that was

present in Yeo and Tan’s generations. What this means is not just an adjustment in

self-perception for the intellectuals, but also in the way the engage the public through

their works.

“As a writer, it is about writing a good story that will interest other people, a good topic that catches on something to do with power, or a group overlooked in community, or a way of thinking about life. I’m just coming from where I’m coming from.” (Yu-Mei Balasingamchow)

The new intellectual is an accidental intellectual, intellectualism not derived from a

sense of duty, but as a disseminator of new ideas and concerns.

What specific changes have caused and nurtured their intellectualism in Singapore?

The previous chapter pulled together salient topics such as censorship, state control

of the arts, and the impact it has had on old and new intellectuals alike. The next

chapter will expound more.

4.2  Speaking  Truth  to  Power:  Past  and  Present  

4.2.1  Censorship  

“Even art can be commodified, many artists would have to take his measure of success using material terms. From the point of view of his peers, they probably wouldn’t look down on him, but larger society would make this sort of equation.” (K.K. Seet)

What Seet mentions is the growing commodification of the arts, where works of

intellectuals are ultimately economically valued according to the needs of the global

and local economy. Since most engaging in artistic production make use of public

funds via grants for projects, it is also accepted that these funds come with

33    

   

conditions, with the onus on intellectuals to accommodate to strict rules and

regulations.

Censorship in this case is viewed as an indirect pressure stemming from the

challenge of the drift towards power within the free market. Present in two forms,

censorship is a direct regulation or state policy, or an indirect curtailment of

intellectual activities via the fear of the removal of state sponsorship, manifesting

itself as self-censorship.

An example of a direct regulation would be The Films Act39, amended in 2009 to

ease the ban on party political films, allowing for material considered factual,

objective and not seeking the dramatise or present a distorted picture of politics in

Singapore to be disseminated. Yet Tan (PP) notes that - “getting a license to screen a

film is a tiny mosaic in a whole industrial system of management and administration

that filmmakers, programmers and distributors are subjected to.” The Act, touted as

progressive, is seen by filmmakers such as See instead to be piecemeal legislation

essentially censoring in more explicit detail40. The state still controls screening

venues and filmmakers’ grants.

Thus circumvention of this is done in two ways. See for example, uploads and

archives his films online so as to circumvent the need for licensing and approval

from MICA.“The information and the films are always there when someone wants to

look them up.” Tan (PP) however uses a more subtle method of approaching her

documentary topics in order to soften any political issues that might arise from them.

“I am very interested in politics, but I approach politics in a different way from Martyn. The whole point (of Invisible City) is to give you a sense of how tenuous memories are. The approach is less direct...it is more insidious as well. If you start to question your beliefs, then you have to question everything.”

34    

   

Tan (PP)’s careful and nuanced form of social documentary allows her to stay clear

of politics, which she states is a question of survival in order to continue making

films locally. The difference of using such a filming narrative is that while See’s film

‘Zahari’s 17 Years’ is still banned, Tan’s films have shown in local theatres and have

won international and local accolades.

Seet also posits that censorship should not always be seen negatively. “Without

censorship, everything would be explicit and boring; the cleverness is in ingeniously

circumventing all these boundaries.” A clear example would be Tan’s films in which

political themes are veiled by acceptable themes related to national heritage and

restoration.

Self-censorship is the greater challenge for the intellectual. In knowing that using

public funds requires accountability, artists are more likely to consider the weight

and repercussions of their activities, for fear of restrictions.

“I got into a clash with the Esplanade, because of some piece which showed civil servants in an unflattering light and another on Malay prayer in comparison with gay sex. So you need to ask if you’re hurting your publisher, or your co-producer.” (Ng Yi Sheng)

Ng points out the challenge of balancing the intellectual’s autonomy with state

restrictions. It is not just the concern of how autonomous an intellectual can be, but

also the new problem of a co-dependent relationship between the state and the

intellectual.

4.2.2  Autonomy:  Biting  the  Hand  that  Feeds  The difficulty of accepting commissions with strings attached is a real situation

experienced by most intellectuals today. Tan mentions the need to forgo certain

35    

   

privileges - “I never accept a commission that has any kind of editorial censorship.

So autonomy comes at a price, I turn down a lot of things. I don’t make money.”

This acceptance is the result of “choosing the risks and uncertain results of the public

sphere” (Said, 1994:87). But the scenario is different for new intellectuals who have

more opportunities of rewards from the state today.

Yeo saw the relationship between him (at the time when his plays were staged) and

the state as tenuous, yet he affirms the need to ‘test the waters’. “I don’t know how

you can cut it to have a good working relationship, you have to use your instincts,

see how far you can go with this government.” He was successful because while he

was prepared to be pragmatic, he would take his chances and cheat on the regulations

proposed by the state41.

Yet Yeo brings up the next point of the possibilities of autonomy while having close

affiliations with the state. In this specific case, while Yeo was attempting to stage his

play, he was also chair of the Ministry of Culture’s Drama Advisory Committee,

which prompted allegations of privileges his peers assumed he would attain from

the affiliation. In speaking truth to power, Said counts on the “intellectual’s

unbudgeable conviction in a concept of justice and fariness” (Said, 1994:94),

enabling them to reconcile the profession of equality and justice and the less edifying

reality (ibid). In this matter, Yeo never assumes his supposed immunity. Through

being as transparent as possible in dealing with his position as chair of the

committee, he sought to complement his active role as a theatre practitioner with his

chairing responsibilities. “So I wasn’t scared of anything, because what I do is an

open book.”

36    

   

The line between cooperation and cooption with authority is not so clear now with

the advent of economic and commercial gains coming in with state grants for the

arts.

Seet believes that the younger intellectuals have established a co-dependent culture

with the state and its supporting arms of the MICA and NAC, with little chance of

independence. “Everything has this kind of co-dependency right. You don’t expect

the state to give you for nothing, you don’t expect the state to give it to you for

nothing either.”

Citing an example of playwright Alfian Sa’at who, prior to receiving the Young

Artist Award42 from the NAC in 2001, questioned the validity and authority of the

Cultural Medallion Award since it is an endorsement from politicians who are at the

same time “sentencing my fellow artists.43” However, he accepted the award two

years after his statement was made. Seet is adamant that such behaviour is a distinct

characteristic of the new intellectual.

“I would never feed off the hand which I disrespect. The only thing that can be taken away from you is that grant money. So in this case, it’s almost like I want to have my cake and eat it too. And I just disagree; I don’t think that’s clever.”(K.K. Seet)

This is the point of departure between the different generations of intellectuals.

While the new ones have no qualms with accepting public funds and at the same time

demanding full autonomy as artists, the older intellectuals see the two as

incompatible, even amoral.

In fact, this co-dependency culture has been so naturalised that to live without it

almost seems inconceivable. Ng attributes artistic constraints to the acceptance of

money from the state, which propels considerations of its effects on the publisher, or

co-producers. “In theory, we’ve got many of us, we could decide to write freelance

37    

   

for foreign plays, but we have a certain level of comfort, we aren’t angry enough.”

Thus, the lack of complete autonomy is attributed to the dependency of government

funding, of which complete rejection is unlikely, leading to the continuation of this

co-dependency.

4.2.3  Commodification  of  Intellectualism  

There have been mentions of the knowledge based economy and the current role of

arts and culture in providing both a cultural ballast and economic boost for

Singapore. To elaborate, Ong explains the catalyst for this in the aftermath of the

Asian financial crisis, “a ‘New Singapore’ needed to capture innovative technologies

and foreign experts to spark new dynamics of intellectual growth.” (Ong, 2006:177)

Neo-liberalism as an exception is introduced in Singapore as a “technicalisation of

politics” towards the “management of social life” (ibid, 178), where politics would

be reduced to identify problems, make technical interventions, thereby shaping

human conduct. Ong posits that Singapore has redefined itself in relation to “an

emerging network of symbiotic flows”, thus “intertwining its future with global

organisations” which in return “set new norms for its citizens” (ibid, 179).

Essentially the consequence is the emphasis on the intellectual worth of each citizen,

since this form of neo-liberalism takes on the form of a “complex ecology” (ibid,

180) – where knowledge, practices and actors interact and collaborate within niches

not bound by spatial or conventional borders. Though Ong states the fields of

finance, engineering and biotechnology as the primary sites of this ecology, the

sphere of arts and culture is likewise affected.

38    

   

National culture or history becomes subsumed into state plans for the smooth

running of the complex ecology when it is incorporated into national projects such as

the Renaissance City Plan (RCP), which has a strong global outlook. Culture cannot

afford to be just local anymore; instead Singapore plans to be the epicentre of

Southeast Asian art, while bringing in international cultural offerings from around

the world. For example, the latest RCPIII plan has two aims for future Singapore, to

develop a ‘Civic District44’ with notable cultural institutions, and to “position

Singapore as a choice destination to create and premiere original content focusing on

Singapore and Asia.45”

The second situates national history as a sign of “an increasingly reflexive society”,

with national retrospection as a crucial activity in the generation of cultural content,

precisely by these intellectuals themselves. This functional approach is an example

of Ong’s technicalisation of politics, where the state sets in place techniques for

decision making, an “invisible hand giving the right directions but not actually

controlling things” (ibid, 180).

Intellectualism thus becomes a transactional activity, a giving up of intellectual

worth in exchange for economic benefits in the form of grants or the enhancement of

social connections which would allow an intellectual more opportunity in the

network of global organisations. As Seet remarks -

“Part of the success of the artist is unfortunately linked to material success. Outside of your circle, they will dismiss you as a failure, they won’t see it as you acting out of artistic integrity because you don’t want to conform, or because you don’t want to succumb to capitalistic forces...they’ll see it as a sign of the lack of talent.”

However, the complex ecology brings benefits which ironically solve the problem of

public funding. As Ho states, “Governmental funding is one, but not the only source

of money for me in producing artworks.” There is a good mix of private investors

39    

   

and institutions such as museums or galleries which can be tapped as potential fund

sources. Yet for Ho, one is still beholden to the state or the market whichever option

is chosen.

What is clear is that the growing encouragement of retrospection in the form of

unearthing national history cannot be seen as separate from the complex ecology

Singapore has set out to use as a current developmental system. In situating itself as a

crucial node in the flow of global transactions, local intellectuals are instrumental in

helping the country sustain its global position via the production of culture.

In conclusion, the new intellectual is faced with the challenge of commodification of

artistic production, since the state has evolved to become part of the global economy.

Commodification also brings the problem of a co-dependent relationship between

intellectual and state, a new phenomenon that is specific to the intellectuals working

in the current context.

   

40    

Chapter  Five  

Conclusion  

5.1  The  Bi-­‐Directionality  of  Intellectualism  

This study has traced the trajectory of national policies, from the period of nation

building after Singapore’s independence in 1965 to the beginnings of a cultural

industry in the early 1990s and its evolvement into a crucial element in making

Singapore a global hub today. Intellectuals, situated in their particular socio-political

and historical contexts, have inevitably been shaped by the the state’s policies,

designed firstly for economic pragmatism, and secondly to maintain political and

cultural hegemony within the larger society.

As I have argued, intellectualism has transformed dramatically. In the watershed

event of national independence, the Gramscian organic intellectual model was

applicable in fulfilling the new state’s much needed organisational and technical

needs. Intellectuals such as Yeo and Tan are clear examples of functionaries who

entered the academic vocation. However, they gradually evolved into Said’s public

intellectual – articulating opinions to and for a public on the basis of freedom and

justice, in their case, building up a local cultural and arts scene that was sorely

needed at that time. Again, with the change in focus onto creative industries as a new

model for economic development today, the current intellectual is one whose artistic

production is commodified according to the needs of the local economy which is

informed by global processes in what Yao explains as the complex ecology.

I have also indicated that the co-dependency culture prevalent in today’s context is

something the intellectual cannot help but be tied up in, yet there is the possibility of

41    

   

agency and greater autonomy. For instance, Ho himself is perhaps part of the

complex ecology’s network of global flows – in pursuing funds and directly tapping

the market in the form of global investors, the issue of state dependency can thus be

resolved.

Thus the fate of local intellectualism cannot be said to be fully reliant on state

policies, even if, as Kuo (1999) notes that “the state and its numerous agencies

control the bulk of the public funding for the arts, exhibition venues and festivals.1”

Since the state itself is situated within the structures of the global economy, there is

the possibility that even with the eventual commodification of artistic activity, the

intellectual can re-enter the local space and affect state policies with regards to the

ongoing tussle between the issue of censorship and autonomy. What Sa’at mentions

– “the fact remains that the primary source of the artwork is the artist2” – is still the

fundamental source on which the local creative industries will always be based on.

5.2  Nation  Building:  The  State  and  the  Intellectual  

The economic imperatives of recovering national history for global cultural

consumption thus provides the bonus of uncovering lost narratives via intellectual

production in the fields of academia, literature, film etc. Oon’s article on the rise of

leftist history is an example of mending Singapore’s historical lacunae. More

importantly, it is also an example of how intellectuals can affect nation building

through public discourse and the dissemination of their research. New intellectualism

invariably impacts state legitimacy, as well as the state’s political power.

                                                                                                                         1  Kuo  Pao  Kun,  `Re-­‐positioning  the  Arts',  in  The  Arts  Magazine  (November  /December  1999),  pp.  19±22  2  See  note  43.  

42    

   

However, the question of how the state manoeuvres itself in the complex ecology for

the necessary domination of political and economic power still remains.

Undoubtedly, state ideology will continue to evolve, as can be seen from Chua’s

(1995) analysis of the logic of pragmatism and subsequently, communitarianism, as

the guiding force of state discourse. The hopeful outcome of intellectualism’s bi-

directionality remains uncertain.

   

43    

   

Endnotes                                                                                                                            1 “In search of the Other S’pore Story”, Clarissa Oon, Aug 14 2010, in the Review

section of The Straits Times 2 Such as ‘The Fajar Generation’(2010), a collection of personal accounts of

members from the University Socialist Club such as Poh Soo Kai, Tan Jing Quee,

Koh Kay Yew, Lim Hock Siew and several others. There was a consequent book

forum at the National Library in August last year. Also, ‘My Side of History’ (2003)

by Malayan Communist Party (MCP) secretary-general Chin Peng, ‘Fong Chong

Pik: The Memoirs of a Malayan Communist Revolutionary’ (2008) by Fong Chong

Pik, known as The Plen, MCP’s point man in Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s. 3 Such as Comet in Our Sky, a collection of essays by Lim Chin Siong’s friends and

edited by Tan Jing Quee and Jomo K.S. 4 Such as ‘Lee’s Lieutenants’ (1999) edited by Lam Peng Er and Kevin Y.L Tan,

‘Paths not Taken’ (2008), written by academics and edited by Michael D. Barr and

Carl A Trocki and ‘The Makers and Keepers of Singapore History’ (2010) on

challenges of exploring alternative history, edited by Loh Kah Seng and Liew Kai

Khiun. 5 Henceforth, the terms ‘government’, ‘state’ and ‘PAP’ will be used interchangeably

as the Singapore government follows a unicameral parliamentary model which the

PAP has had control over since independence. 6 In the form of oral history interviews and transcripts kept in the National Archives

of Singapore (NAS). 7 This was discovered after a survey done by the Ministry of Education (MOE),

where students turned out to have little knowledge of significant historical events

such as the Hock Lee bus riots7 or political figures such as The Plen. 8 “Do you know what happened 32 years ago?” by Leong Ching Ching, published

July 22, 1996 in The Straits Times. 9 See Koh, A. 2006. “Working against globalisation: the role of the media and

national education in Singapore.” Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(3), 357 –

370. 10 Lee, H. L. 1997. Speech by BG Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister at the

launch of National Education on Saturday 17 May 1997 at TCS Theatre at 9.30am :

Ministry of Education, Singapore

44    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         11 Another example was Total Defence Day in commemoration of the Japanese

invasion in 1942.

12 On 21 July 1964, Malay ultra-nationalists who were eager for UMNO to regain

political ground in Singapore, made use of urban resettlement evictions of Malays as

leverage to fight for their rights. What was supposed to be a celebration of Prophet

Muhammad’s birthday at the Padang turned into a riot fuelled by roving armed

Malay youth. After four days of rioting, 22 people were killed and 461 injured. (see

Singapore: A Biography, p.417) 13 The presentation was put up by the National Heritage Board as a supplement to the

NE launch. (see The Straits Times, Budget Debate, 1998 at

http://www.straitstimes.com/Budget%2B2008/Latest%2BNews/Story/STIStory_212

070.html) 14 See Chan, Heng Chee. 1976. The role of intellectuals in Singapore politics: an

essay. Dept. of Political Science, National University of Singapore. 15 Be it complete co-option, an ally of power, or on the margins of power as an

independent intellectual. 16 See Tay, Eugene. 1997. Intellectuals in Singapore. Dept. of Sociology, National

University of Singapore. 17 See Koh, Tai Ann. 2000. The Role of the Intellectuals in Civil Society: Going

Against the Grain? in State Society Relations in Singapore edited by Gillian Koh,

Ooi Giok Ling. IPS: Oxford Uni Press. 18 See Tan, Clement. 2007. Dissent in a hegemonic state: intellectuals and political

participation in Singapore. Dept. of Sociology, National University of Singapore 19 The 54th Venice Biennale International Art Exhibition is the oldest and most

important contemporary visual art event in the world. The NAC has earmarked the

exhibition as an important strategy in local outreach efforts for the international

stage. See http://www.nac.gov.sg/eve/eve11.asp 20 See http://s-pores.com/2009/10/detention-transcript/ 21 Peninsular Muse: Interviews with modern Malaysian and Singaporean Poets by

Mohammad A. Quayum. Accessed via

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=vECbRry3LEgC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=

%22robert+yeo%22+%2B+%22one+year+back+home%22&source=bl&ots=zGPM

R-

45    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         SBFf&sig=X_ll_KfV8QngYXQy5732YXGR6Oc&hl=en&ei=HpNmTZb2J8vMrQf

VusTaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwATgU

#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20yeo%22%20%2B%20%22one%20year%20back%20

home%22&f=false 22 The Singapore Heritage Society is dedicated to the preservation, transmission and

promotion of Singapore’s history, heritage and identity through education, research

and advocacy. http://heritagesingapore.wordpress.com/about/

23 Theatre company Third Stage released plays on social issues such as the graduate

mother’s scheme, education policy and the marginalisation of the lower-income and

foreign domestic workers which were current at that time. In 1987, four key

members were detained without trial on the allegation that Third Stage was being

used as a front to subvert the social and political system of Singapore. (http://s-

pores.com/2010/03/third-stage/) 24 The Phillipines Educational Theatre Association (PETA) was founded in Manila in

1967 in response to the lack of social and economic justice under the Marcos regime.

It was an important disseminator of theatre techniques designed to empower

disenfranchised groups. (See Peterson, William. 2001. Theatre and the Politics of

Culture in Contemporary Singapore. Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.) 25 The precursor to today’s Civil Service Institute. “Interviews: Tay Kheng Soon and

SPURS”,

<http://www.newsintercom.org/ nucleus/plugins/print/print.php?itemid=58> 26 See Renaissance City Report, Culture and the Arts in Renaissance Singapore,

Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, 1999

(app.mica.gov.sg/Data/0/PDF/2_FinalRen.pdf) 27 The National Arts Council was established as a statutory board under what was

then MITA to help nurture the arts and develop Singapore into a vibrant global city,

while the National Heritage Board headed promotions of Singapore’s artistic,

cultural and historical heritage. (Annex A of the Renaissance City Report, p.62) 28 See 26. 29 See Report of the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts (Singapore: Ministry

of Culture, 1989), 3. 30 See 26, pg.32.

46    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         31 See Ho Tzu Nyen’s film - Utama: Every Name in History is I. 32 Parliament speech given by the Minister of Information

(www.contactsingapore.org.sg/nm/global talent/speeches) 33 Renaissance City Plan III

(http://app.mica.gov.sg/Data/0/Renaissance%20City%20Plan%20III%20(Bk%201).p

df) 34 These come in the form of Major and General grants, with Major grants going to

arts companies and General grants to assist in the production and operations of

artistic work and activities. See http://www.nac.gov.sg/arts_funding_intro_01.html. 35 Boo Jun Feng has won several awards at the Singapore International Film Festival.

His debut film ‘Sandcastle’ showed at Cannes, Toronto, Pusan and London. See

http://boojunfeng.wordpress.com/bio/ 36 OB Markers, or out-of-bounds marker are political boundaries termed as such by

then Minister for Information and the Arts George Yeo. They shift according to the

political climate, with the state unwilling to define what the limits exactly are. See

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90526st.htm 37 Refer to George Yeo’s comments “OB markers cannot all be defined in advance.

There are many things you do think about before they happen and there are new

things which the human mind is capable of inventing which you have got to respond

to from time to time.” See note 36 for source. 38 s/pores is an online writing collective providing a multi-disciplinary platform for

investigating aspects of historical and contemporary Singapore. See s-pores.com.

39 Implications of the Films Act Bill can be found here with a Reuters news report:

http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/Seelan/news/new-restrictions-to-films-act-

introduced-under-the-guise-of-liberalization-singapore 40 Such as disallowing the making of unbiased and non-partisan political videos that

depict “events, persons, or situations in a dramatic way” or containing scenes of an

illegal political event. For more, see link in note 39. 41 “Like if they said, don’t mention Lee Kuan Yew, and I’ll take his name out. But on

opening night, I’d put it back in, they’re not going to be there, you know what I

mean?”

47    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         42 The Young Artist Award was introduced in 1992 to encourage the development of

young artistic talents in Singapore, it is accorded to artists in the fields of dance,

theatre, music, literature, photography, art and film.

(http://www.nac.gov.sg/lit/lit0101.asp) 43 Alfian bin Sa’at’s response letter to Kuo Pao Kun, `Re-positioning the Arts', in

The Arts Magazine (November /December 1999), pp. 19±22. His letter was

submitted to the Forum page of The Straits Times which denied its publication. It

later circulated among the Singapore Arts Community e-group. 44 Civic District: includes the Esplanade, Asian Civilisations Musuem, Victoria

Theatre Concert Hall, Singapore Symphony Orchestra and Arts House@Old

Parliament House, and soon, the unraveling of the National Art Gallery in 2013 in

the former Supreme Court. (Renaissance City Plan III, p.18

http://app.mica.gov.sg/Data/0/Renaissance%20City%20Plan%20III%20(Bk%201).p

df) 45 See Renaissance City Plan III.

 

48    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Appendix  Annex A

Intellectuals Interviewed: A Brief Biography

Robert Yeo is considered a pioneer of Singaporean English theatre, since before his play, ‘Are You There Singapore’(AYTS), staged in 1974, there had been a dearth in local plays since Singaporean theatre in the 60s-70s was “largely by and for the English-speaking university-educated and featured cultural imports rather than indigenous plays.” (Peterson, 2001:56) He followed AYTS with ‘One Year Back Home’(OYBH) and ‘Changi’, a trilogy that dealt for the first time, the controversial subject of political detention in Singapore45. Besides the six plays he has written, Yeo is also known for his poetry collections45 and editorial work, and has sat on many drama committees, most notably as former chairman of the Drama Advisory Committee, and on the Drama Review Committee for the National Arts Council. In 1991, he received the Singapore Public Service Medal for services to drama.

Seet Khiam Keong, known as K.K Seet, established the Theatre Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore (NUS) in 1992. He has written commissioned books, academic journal articles, commercial magazine articles, and fiction novels. Like Yeo, Seet sits in the Drama Advisory Committee, the Films Appeal Committee for MICA, and the selection panel for the Cultural Medallion and Young Artist of the Year Awards in Theatre. Seet is also a judge for the Theatre Life! Awards and sits on the selection panel for major art scholarships. Additionally, he has contributed to The Renaissance City paper45. In 2009, Seet received the Special Recognition Award from MICA for significant contributions to arts and culture.

Kevin Y.L Tan has spent most of his life as a legal academic. He has taught at NUS’s Faculty of Law for 14 years, and still holds the position of Adjunct Professor at NUS, and at the S Rajaratnam School of International Affairs at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) as well. He runs a consultancy firm specialising in the history and heritage of Singapore, working on exhibitions and commissioned books, as well as providing editorial and publishing services45. Active in civil society groups, Tan has served for the Singapore Scout Association, Singapore Academy of Law Legal Heritage Committee and was also President of The Roundtable, a non-partisan political discussion group45. Since 2001, Tan now heads the Singapore Heritage Society, dedicated to the “preservation, transmission and promotion of Singapore’s history, heritage and identity.45”

Lysa Hong is also an academic, and a historian by training. Previously with the History Department at NUS for 16 years, and from 1992 concurrently with the

49    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Southeast Asian Studies Programme, she stopped in 2000 to be an independent scholar. From 2005 for two years, she came back as a senior visiting fellow at her former department45. Though she started out researching on Thai history and historiography, she also writes on Singapore history and official popular history. She is a founding member of the online writing collective, s/pores, which deals in Singapore studies.

Martyn See is a full time freelance video editor who has helped edit for local directors such as Eric Khoo, Jack Neo, and Tan Pin Pin. While he freelances for commercial work, including government corporate videos, his infamity is derived from releasing his own short films on ex-political detainee, Said Zahari, as well as political opposition leader Chee Soon Juan. Both films have been banned under the law, but appear on video sites such as Youtube45. See was also placed under 15 months of police investigation for his film on Chee.

Tan Pin Pin is also a well-known film maker, although she dabbles in a different genre of film – the social documentary. A law graduate of Oxford University, she took up film and won a Student Academy Award for her documentary in 1996 on grave exhumation, Moving House. Since then, she has produced just under 20 documentaries, including Singapore Gaga and Invisible City, with both films touring the international film circuit45.

Loh Kah Seng is an independent scholar whose interests lie in the urban social history of Singapore and the linkages between past and present in contemporary Singapore. He has published two books including “Making and Unmaking the Asylum: Leprosy and Modernity in Singapore and Malaysia” and “The Makers and Keepers of Singapore History”. He was previously a history teacher45.

Thum Ping Tjin is currently doing his PhD in Modern History at Oxford. He has written journal articles including one on Chinese newspapers in the post-war era as a mediator of culture and politics.

Ng Yi Sheng is a full-time writer who dabbles in fiction, poetry, drama, critiques and non-fiction. He has won the SPH-Theatreworks 24-Hour Playwriting Competition twice in consecutive years. His poetry collection, Last Boy, was awarded the Singapore Literature Prize in 200845. He has been listed in The Straits Times’ Power List 2007: Faces to Watch as a local promising art talent.

Yu-Mei Balasingamchow is a writer currently doing her Masters. She has co-written Singapore: A Biography with Mark Ravinder Frost, a popular history of Singapore. She also researches and writes for travel publications such as Lonely Planet45.

Ho Tzu Nyen is an artist and filmmaker whose works “Utama: Every Name in History is I”, “4x4” and “The Bohemian Rhapsody Project” have won prizes at the

50    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         International Short Film Festival in Paris, and a Special Mention at The Vienna Independent Shorts. His works have travelled the film festival and art exhibition circuit. He writes as the Singapore Desk Writer for magazine Art Asia Pacific. He is also this year’s local representative for the 54th Venice Biennale45.

Boo Jun Feng is a filmmaker whose short films have won awards at the Singapore Film Festival, the Berlin International Film Festival etc. His debut feature film “Sandcastle” premiered at Cannes Film Festival in 2010 and won Best Film at the Vietnam International Film Festival45.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Bibliography  

Althusser, Louis. 1994. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation) in Mapping Ideology edited by Slavoj Zizek. London: Verso.

Asoke Bhaduri. 1995. Gramsci and the Intellectuals: A Critical Study. Calcutta: Ratna Prakashan.

AsiaOne. http://www.asiaone.com/Just+Woman/Story/A1Story20070803-20690.html Retrieved 15 March, 2011

Barr, Michael D. And Trocki, Carl. A. 2008. Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore. Singapore: NUS Press.

Benda, Julien. 2006. The Treason of the Intellectuals. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 2001. “The Historian and His Facts” in What is History?. London: Palgrave.

Chong, Terence. 2005. “Singapore’s cultural policy and its consequences.” Critical Asian Studies 37(4):553-568.

Chua, Beng Huat. 1995. Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.

CNGo. http://www.cngo.com/singapore/play/interview-tan-pin-pin-662797 Retrieved 15 March, 2011

Debord, Guy. 1988. Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, translated by Malcom Imrie. London: Verso.

De Certeau, Michel. 1988. The Writing of History, translated by Tom Conley. New York: Columbia University Press.

Femia, Joseph V. 1981. Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Fong, Chong Pik. 2008. Fong Chong Pik: The Memoirs of a Malayan Communist Revolutionary. Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.

Frost, Mark Ravinder and Balasingamchow, Yu-Mei. 2009. Singapore: a biography. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet; National Museum of Singapore.

52    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Gramsci, Antonio. 1988. The Antonio Gramsci Reader, Selected Writings 1916-1935

edited by David Forgacs. London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1987. Gramsci’s Politics edited by Anne Showstack Sassoon. London: Hutchinson Education.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1987. The Modern Prince and other writings. New York: International Publishers.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1970. Antonio Gramsci: An introduction to his thought, translated by Anne. F Showstack. London: Pluto Press.

Ho, Tzu Nyen. 2003. “A Montage of the City in History Or Some Notes on the Interlocking of Time” in Cinepolitans: Inhabitants of a Filmic City edited by Michael Lee. Singapore: Times Printers Ltd.

Hoare, Quintin. 1978. Antonio Gramsci: Selections from political writings (1921-1926). London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor.W. 1972. Dialectic of enlightenment, translated by John Cumming. New York: Seabury Press.

Hong, Lysa. 2002. “The Lee Kuan Yew Story as Singapore’s Story.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 33(3):545-557.

Hong, Lysa. 2010. “Rejoinder on ‘Alternative Narratives: The Danger of Romanticising the Other’.” RSIS Commentaries No. 117. Retrieved Sept 19, 2010 ( http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS1182010.pdf).

Hong, Lysa and Huang, Jianli. 2008. The Scripting of a National History, Singapore and Its Pasts. Singapore: NUS Press.

Jameson, Fredric. 1981. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Karyawan. 1999. “Minister Yeo on OB Markers and Internet.” The Straits Times, May 26. Retrieved 15 March, 2011 (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90526st.htm)

Koh, Aaron. 2006. “Working against Globalisation: The Role of Media and National Education in Singapore.” Retrieved April 9, 2011 (http://www.cpce.gov.hk/national-education/pdf/Dr._Aaron_Koh_Full_Paper.pdf)

Kwok, Kian Woon. 2001. “Chinese Educated Intellectuals in Singapore: Marginality, Memory and Modernity.” Asian Journal of Social Science 29(3):495-519.

53    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Kwok, Kian Woon. 2010. “The Trouble with Idealism: Reflections on Intellectual

Vocation and Moral Reasoning.” Retrieved March 20, 2011

Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal. 1985. Hegemony & Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso

Lawrence Grossberg, Nelson, Cary and Treichler, Paula. 1992. Cultural Studies. London: Routledge

Lee, Terence. 2002. “The Politics of Civil Society in Singapore.” Asian Studies Review 26(1):97-117.

Lim, Peng Er and Tan, Kevin YL. 1999. Lee’s Lieutenants: Singapore’s Old Guard. Syndey: Allen & Unwin.

Loh, Kah Seng. 1996. The Use of History by Singapore’s Political Leaders since Independence. National University of Singapore: Department of History.

Loh, Kah Seng and Liew, Kai Khiun. 2010. The Makers and Keepers of Singapore History. Singapore: Ethos Books.

Martin, James. 1998. Gramsci’s Political Analysis: a critical introduction. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Marx, Carl and Engels, Friedrich. 2006. “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas” in Media and Cultural Studies, edited by Gigi Durham, Meenakshi and Kellner, Douglas M. MA: Blackwell.

MICA. 2000. “Renaissance City Report: Culture and the Arts in Renaissance Singapore.” Retrieved 7 April, 2011 (http://app.mica.gov.sg/Portals/0/2_FinalRen.pdf)

MICA. 2008. “Renaissance City Plan III.” Retrieved 7 April, 2011 (http://www.nac.gov.sg/static/doc/abo/rcp_iii_report_-_book_1__mica_.pdf)

Ng, Boon Yian. 2003. “OB Markers: We still need them?” Today, June 16. Retrieved 15 March, 2011 (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030616to.htm)

Ng, Yi Sheng. 2001. Onewinged: an anthology of young writing. Singapore: UniPress.

Ng, Yi Sheng. 2006. Last Boy. Singapore: Firstfruits.

Ooi, Giok Ling and Koh, Gillian. 2000. State Society Relations in Singapore. IPS: Oxford University Press.

Oon, Clarissa. 2010. “In search of the Other S’pore Story.” The Straits Times, August 14, Review: Insight.

54    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Oon, Clarissa. 2010. “Art ponders a once-silenced past.” The Sunday Times, August

29, Think.

Ong, Aihwa. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception, Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. London: Duke University Press.

Ong, Weichong. 2010. “Alternative Narratives: The Danger of Romanticising the Other.” RSIS Commentaries No. 113. Retrieved Sept 15, 2010 (http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS1132010.pdf).

Palay, Selan. 2010. “New Restrictions to Films Act Introduced Under the Guise of Liberalisation.” Retrieved 15 March, 2011 (http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/Seelan/news/new-restrictions-to-films-act-introduced-under-the-guise-of-liberalization-singapore)

Peterson, William. 2001. Theater and the Politics of Culture in Contemporary Singapore. US: Wesleyan University Press.

Poo, Soo Kai, Tan, Jing Quee and Koh, Kay Yew. 2010. The Fajar Generation: The University Socialist Club and the Politics of Postwar Malaya and Singapore. Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.

Said, Edward. 1994. Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures. New York: Vintage Books.

Said, Zahari. 2001. Dark Clouds at Dawn: A Political Memoir. Kuala Lumpur: INSAN.

Sankaran, Chitra and K.K. Seet. 2003. “Intersections of the Nation in Two Plays by Robert Yeo” in Complicities – Connections and Divisions: Perspectives on Literature and Cultures of the Asia-Pacific region, edited by Patke, Rajeev.S. Bern: New York.

Seet, K.K. 1992. “Implications of Urban Development on Singapore Creative Writing: The Case of Singapore English Drama” in Malaysia and Singapore: Experiences in Industrialisation and Urban Development, edited by Lee Boon Hiok and K.S Susan Oorjitham. Malaysia: University of Malaya.

Seet. K.K. 2002. “Interpellation, Ideology and Identity: The Case of Talaq.” Theatre Research International Vol 27(2)153-163.

Shils, Edward. 1972. The Intellectuals and the powers, and other essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sim, Jasmine. 2005. “Citizenship Education and Social Studies in Singapore: A National Agenda.” International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher

55    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Education Vol 1(1). Retrieved March 28, 2011 (http://www.citized.info/ejournal/Vol%201%20Number%201/004.pdf)

Singapore Art Musuem. 2007. From Words to Pictures: Art During the Emergency. Singapore: Singapore Art Musuem.

SingaporeKopitiam. http://www.singaporekopitiam.sg/arts-and-entertainment/hobbies-and-recreation/item/812-a-few-points-with-tan-pin-pin Retrieved 10 March 2011

S/pores. http://s-pores.com/2008/01/invisible/

Tan, Pin Pin. 2007. “Invisible City.” Retrieved 15 March, 2011 (http://invisiblecity.wordpress.com/about/)

Tan, See Kam, Lee, Michael and Aw, Annette. 2003. “Contemporary Singapore Filmmaking: History, Policies and Eric Khoo.” JumpCut: A Review of Contemporary Media No. 46. Retrieved April 7, 2011 (http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc46.2003/12storeys/text.html#fnB6).

Tangent. 2007. Tangent Vol. 6 Number 2. Special Issue: The Makers and Keepers of Singapore History. Singapore: The Tangent.

Thum, Ping Tjin. 2010. “Chinese Newspapers in Singapore, 1945-1963: Mediators of Elite and Popular Tastes in Culture and Politics.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 83(1)53-76.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press.

Turnbull, C.M. 1989. A History of Singapore 1819-1988. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Twitchfilm. (http://twitchfilm.com/reviews/2007/07/review-tan-pin-pins-invisible-city.php) Retrieved 15 March, 2011

Wee, Sui Lee. 2007. “Invisible City.” Retrieved 15 March, 2011 (http://www. Reuters.com/article/2007/07/02/film-singapore-film-dc-idUSSIN21006020070704?pageNumber=2)

Yao, Souchou. 2007. Singapore: The State and the culture of excess. US: Routledge.

Yeo, Robert. 2001. The Singapore Trilogy. Singapore: Landmark Books.

Yeo, Kim Wah. 1973. Political Development in Singapore 1945-1955. Singapore: NUS Press.

56    

   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Zizek, Slavoj. 1994. “The Spectre of Ideology.” Pp. 1-34 in Mapping Ideology.

London: Verso