PinkDot 2012!

I actually changed my flight from the USA to make sure I could attend this. Manned the IndigNation booth and then helped to clean up rubbish afterwards.

My sister came too - parents couldn't be convinced, but my mum did lend my sister a pink T-shirt.

An open letter on "Same-sex union can't be labelled 'marriage' ", Straits Times, Saturday May 19, 2012, A38.

I sent off an e-mail to journalist Andy Ho yesterday in response to his editorial piece against gay marriage. I also put it on Facebook, where it's gone viral - 900 likes and 350 shares in 14 hours! I've cleaned up the typos, added some links, and scanned in Mr Ho's original article. (It's actually a fairly complex viewpoint, not vitriolically homophobic at all - well worth reading. Click the text version or the scanned version to read it.)

Dear Mr Andy Ho,

As a gay man, I'd like to thank you for sharing your views in your article "Same-sex union can't be labelled 'marriage'" printed in the Straits Times on Saturday May 19, p.A38. I truly appreciate the fact that you're standing up for civil unions, which is more than any other senior writer is doing so far.

However, I would not like to thank whichever editor was responsible for commissioning Adam Lee to print that huge anti-gay logo beside your editorial. It is offensively homophobic, almost inflammatorily so, just as a star and crescent crossed out would be anti-Muslim or a female symbol crossed out would be anti-woman. I think you'll agree that it misrepresents the fact that your article is a good deal more balanced than that.

I myself am in favour of same-sex marriage, and I'd like to two points in your article which I believe are problematic.

First, you draw on the idea of marriage being akin to a trademarked symbol, not unlike McDonald's or Yale University. It's not. It's a concept that's evolved over the years and is interpreted differently by different cultures. In the same way that "porridge" and "carrot cake" mean different things to people in Singapore and New York, "marriage" means different things to an 18th century Chinese merchant with ten stay-at-home wives and a 21st century Filipino household where husband and wife work in different countries for years on end.

Currently, our standard definition of marriage is a union two people make because they are in love and want to support each other. Children have little to do with it. And of course, sterile opposite-sex couples are allowed - almost encouraged - to adopt. Same-sex couples should also have that right, given that studies have shown they are equally good parents as their opposite-sex counterparts, if not better.

Also, remember that "gay marriage" is not an abstract concept: there are already ten countries in the world which allow same-sex marriage. Some people with these marriage certificates are living in Singapore. If you're attempting to limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, you're pretty much trying to close the stable door after the horses have bolted.

Second, you claim that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would "tarnish [the] symbolic value" of marriage. Though this statement is too abstract to be proven right or wrong, I'd like to point out that contemporary societies which have legalised same-sex marriage have seen no harm come to opposite-sex marriage in terms of climbing divorce rates. The concept may have changed, but actual people aren't suffering.

[N.B. My original post claimed there were no greater instances of abuse and no steep declines on childbirth. I can't find stats on domestic abuse, and it seems childbirth is declining in the world anyway. Still, if these were grave problems, same-sex marriage opponents would be using them in all their diatribes.]

Once again, I'd like to thank you for your support of same-sex civil unions. As you know, this year's PinkDot is on Saturday, 30 June at Hong Lim Park. I hope you'll come. I'm going to make a large sign saying "I support civil unions" so that you can hold it for everyone to see. That is the message that Singaporeans need to hear.

Yours sincerely,

Ng Yi-Sheng
Writer, reporter and educator


Mr Ho has replied graciously and says he'll be out of the country on 30 June. Several people have pointed out that arguing for same-sex marriage or civil unions is redundant until we get rid of our sodomy laws. Good point, but when you think about it, which one wins over heterosexual hearts more - two men who want to wear tuxedos or two men who want to get naked?

I've decided I'm voting for Tan Jee Say.

Was vacillating until I read this Yawning Bread article.

For those of you who can't decide, this one-stop chart is useful too.

Go to Pink Dot, Sat 18 June, Hong Lim Park!

'Cos I can't. I'll still be in South Africa. :(



Please SAVE THE DATE:
WHAT: PINK DOT 2011
WHERE: Hong Lim Park
WHEN: Saturday, June 18, 2011
WHAT TO WEAR: Of course, PINK!
TIMINGS: Activities commence 4.30pm, Concert begins at 5pm, Dot is formed at
6pm

*Please note: According to the park's terms and conditions, only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents may participate at the events held at Hong Lim Park. However, foreigners are most welcome to watch and observe.

For media enquiries and interviews, email writetopinkdot@gmail.com.

More info here

Some tweets from Adrianna Tan

I was at the SDP party at Quality Hotel the night of polling day, so of course I was mega-bummed that we didn't get a single seat (though our voter share rose to 36%, a real improvement over the 2006 average of 23%). We celebrated when we heard how WP has a GRC and an SMC, but we really needed to give PAP a stronger message than that.

Adrianna Tan, famed blogger of Popagandhi.com and media advisor for NSP, must also have been bummed. Still, she could be proud that they gave Goh Chok Tong's Marine Parade GRC a jolly good shelling.

And it felt good this afternoon to read her last series of late-night tweets at @skinnylatte:


"I feel like I'm going to sleep to a brand new SG. 2016 and beyond will see our future in more colours than white. I for one cannot wait.

Whatever happened or didn't happened these elections, we eroded their share, and showed them they cannot rule with the mandate of heaven.

We've gained and lost so much as an opposition, but that's politics.

I've seen opposition unity, I've seen talented young people working 24/7, I've seen old guards demonstrate astute political judgement;

I've worked with a dedicated volunteer corps from all walks of life; renewed our love for this nation.

If it's taught us all anything, it's that they aren't infallible, they cannot be given more chances, and we have to get better by 2016.

I've spent the last few hours talking to beloved friends who are in London, NYC and DC — each of them plotting their political futures.

People care, and care greatly. Have never felt more Singaporean than when I walked to the stadium in my Singapore Die Hard Fan Jersey.

I don't think the PAP achieved what they set out to do: to determine our next generation of leaders.

They ran such a bizarre, incoherent campaign, that if they were any lesser as a party it would have splintered all over their faces.

If you watched their campaign carefully, it had all the red flags of a succession struggle and internal bickering.

I think, and I hope, we'll have one more PM in white. And then let's close off this dynasty."


Inspiring words indeed. Thanks Adri! And good luck to us all for the next five years.

Why I'm volunteering with SDP.

I've realised, somewhat to my embarrassment, that I'm actually a bit of a political centrist when it comes to Singapore politics. I'm from a (very) upper middle-class background, and as such I really haven't suffered a lot directly from the PAP's policies. I also think the party's done a good job of guiding us through the economic crisis - we've barely suffered, compared to most developed nations, from Japan to the US to the EU member states.

I'm also occasionally wary of SDP policies and rhetoric - the party feeds off the growing resentment of foreign immigrants in Singapore, and I think that's dangerous. Immigration may be a bad idea, but it's important to guard against an irrational hatred of all people of one class or race. (And yes, the new PRC immigrants can be seen as a different race from Singaporean Chinese. Race is a fluid concept, and depends on customs and group affiliations as much as skin colour and language.) There's also a manic tone to their website articles that makes me uncomfortable.

Still, I knew in these elections I had to support the SDP. This is why I've been volunteering with them: selling papers at rallies and signing up as a polling and counting agent. Here's why I'm doing this:

1) SDP believes in human rights.

No other opposition party sticks up for human rights as much as SDP. Their leaders and members protest against the death penalty, against Singapore's economic ties with with the Myanmar military junta and the Internal Security Act.

This is of special interest to me, because I'm gay. The SDP was the first political party to formally call for the end of Section 377A, our male-male sodomy law, on the grounds that it's discriminatory, way back in 2006. Dr Chee Soon Juan's a committed Christian, but that doesn't interfere with his belief in basic human equality and decency.

All this isn't empty talk, either. The party puts its money where its mouth is. The candidates this year include the openly gay social worker Vincent Wijeysingha and the former political detainees Teo Soh Lung and James Gomez. (Gomez was detained briefly in 2006, following his campaign for the Workers' Party).

We don't just need opposition candidates to suggest new solutions; we need them to speak up in parliament as the moral conscience of the nation. SDP is one party that cares less about political expediency than if something's right or wrong.

2) SDP gets persecuted.

My sympathy tends to be with the underdogs. And because SDP speaks up, it tends to get hammered. Its members have been sued and detained by the government countless times for exercising their right to free speech.

This is how I got to know the central party members, actually. I turned up at court to support my artist friends who'd been charged with SDP members for illegal assembly, and for contempt of court - they'd worn kangaroo T-shirts to protest the "kangaroo courts" of Lee Kuan Yew's defamation lawsuits. I've seen Chee Soon Juan and Gandhi Ambalam forced to attend court in shackles, and I've seen public prosecutors stammering at how to twist evidence against the party, even when the defendants have demonstrated the flaws in these unjust laws that should disqualify the cases on technical grounds.

All this is in the past five years, mind you. Those of you older than me will remember the PAP's vendetta against Chee Soon Juan that reduced him to bankruptcy.

The persecution's still going on this election, in a muted form. I'll forgive Vivian Balakrishnan for exposing Wijeysingha as gay - yes, it's a personal matter, but any pretty much any politician with this information would have used it to his advantage. What I won't forgive is his linking the orientation to pedophilia and his invocation of a "gay agenda" - an insidious term that suggests that a gay politician must have a hidden agenda to overthrow moral order, rather than simply wanting to a chance to govern.

Then there's the whole New Paper story claiming that Dr Chee was starting a protest march in Sembawang. I know it's a tabloid paper, but that was seriously low.

3) The SDP came to me.

That's my last reason. I might've just been an enthusiastic guy cheering on speakers at party rallies, but then lo and behold: SDP actually decided to contest my constituency, Holland-Bukit Timah. Plus they brought in a star team: Vincent Wijey, Michelle Lee, Dr Ang Yong Guan and Tan Jee Say - all excellent speakers, and from very different backgrounds, which the PAP might call "strange bedfellows" but which I call inclusivity.

As one of the more upper-income GRCs, we've been long dismissed as a lost cause for opposition parties - rich folks must be too comfortable with the status quo, surely, to want some change. I'd despaired of ever being able to vote unless I got myself a full-time job and moved out of my parents' home.

But they came to us. And as a first-time voter, I'm really grateful for that.

I think a lot of us who've been deprived of voting feel the same way. We feel like the PAP's cheated us of the right to exercise our democratic rights. Now it's the first time we can actually exercise those voting muscles, and we're sure as hell going to flex them in the direction of freedom.

This is something we've got to thank all the opposition parties for, regardless of how much or how little we may respect their speakers. They've come up and made a lot of us feel like a genuine democracy for the first time in our lives.

Truth is, I'm not optimistic for our chances. After the disappointment of the 2006 elections, I feel like it'd take a miracle for the opposition to even claim a single GRC.

But SDP, WP, NSP and SDA have given us hope. And for that solace, I thank them, and pledge to get off my ass more to help them out.

A pretty moving note on the elections

I'm volunteering for SDP this year, but I really wanted to share this note I got this morning on the Arts Community e-group (names withheld).

Dedicated to Chiam See Tong and all Singaporeans*


In this General Election, I may appear to some people as a kind of political whore. My best friend and I were running all over the island to attend the nominations and rallies. We have not stopped thinking about Singapore (some of you may dismiss it as "politics") since the nomination day, even in our sleeps, and I know that we are not alone. I have many friends who are doing the same, and those who don't run around like a getai star are always faithfully at the computer feeding us up-to-date information like the statellite (you know who you are :)).

It is as if the elections have consumed our lives, but I would like to see it that we are all woken up, and realised that if we do not actively participate and claim our narratives, there is no doubt that the ruling party will literally consume all of us.

I have been planning to write a piece on the six reasons why I cannot allow PAP to hold absolute power in parliament, but after attending tonight's rally at Potong Pasir, I can't help myself but to write about how Mr. Chiam See Tong have touched and enlightened me.

I attended two rallies prior to this: SDP and WP rally at commonwealth and serangoon respectively. I was very impressed by the "Winning-11" team that the SDP has garnered as each of them respresented to me a distinct and genuine interest in the "software" (to quote Dr.Ang) of the society - teacher, social worker, ex-political detainee, psychiatrist... I am convinced that they will take care of the less priviledged in the society, and they have promised to give half their allowance to the needy in the community if they were to be elected. Over at WP rally, although I was not particularly impressed by what the candidates had said, the number of people who were there to listen was intoxicating and certainly, WP will be a great catalyst for change in the parliament.

However, after two rallies, I felt I had a bit enough of the PAP bashing. The attack of the lack of accountability and problems of PAP is of course, very relevant and necessary (I am still going around with "vote opposition" statements pasted on my back) but personally I think I am clear enough about the atrocities of the ruling party: What PAP propagates is basically a selfish, self-preserving culture. All the bad policies and tactics they have devised is a result of this warped immoral thinking, and definitely, it is poisoning the society inside out. I had enough of it, yes, I am fed up! And so I really wanted to know what are the dreams of the opposition parties. I wanted to know how they think about human life. I wanted to know how they can lead Singaporeans to feel beautiful again. Is there someone who can wake up the sleeping flowers in our hearts?

I found the answer in Mr. Chiam See Tong today at SPP rally.

Mr.Chiam began his speech with the question of why he decided to leave Potong Pasir and contest in Bishan-Toa Payoh. He answered, "for the promotion of democracy. There can never be democracy if there is no opposition in the parliament." There isn't a fancy slogan like first-world parliament, which at times really makes one wonder what it means. Mr.Chiam's
fight is for democracy, and he will never retire with a peaceful mind if he does not see this happening in Singapore. This is the reason why he has to break a GRC, the dirtiest divide-and-rule tactic the ruling party has devised since JBJ won a seat in Anson.

Do I doubt Mr.Chiam's fight? There is very little room for doubt when you see him in person: frail in physique, strong as steel in the mind, and gentle as a whispering father in his speech. There is almost no room for doubt when you think about how he and Mrs.Chiam have suffered under the government's brutality (he still doesn't have his own office) trying to
serve the residents in Potong Pasir the best that they can. And there is absolutely no room for doubt when you continue listening till the end of his speech, because he values every individual as a human being capable of living her or her life to the fullest, and is not just a pawn or a statistics.

I will describe to you my memory of the conclusion of his speech, which took place after quite a long pause. I imagined that his team was worried it would be too tiring for him to continue, but he insisted to carry on.

Like a grandfather telling a story to his grandchildren, Mr.Chiam told us how Lee Kuan Yew first assessed this man called Chiam See Tong. LKY looked at his O level certificate. (laughter from the crowd)

"He counted very carefully. 1. 2. 3...5. Only 5 O levels?" (another round of laughter)

"How many of you have 5 O level?"

My best friend shouted "I don't have any!" as several in the crowd raised their hands.

Mr.Chiam smiled in his heart (I could feel) and replied,

"Then you and I are the same. And I have become a lawyer now."

At this point, the crowd cheered so loudly that a friend who was sleeping on the other side of the estate was woken up by the uproar. After a round of hearty laughter, the crowd fell silent as Mr.Chiam continued speaking (he apologised in the beginning that we have to be very quiet because he couldn't speak loudly). He told us that it is o.k if we are not as smart as the others, and it is o.k if we do not seem as successful as the others. Some of us maybe late bloomers, but all of us have the potential to be better people, as long as we stay true to ourselves and keep trying.

"When there is life there is hope, when there is hope, there will be change."

I will always remember how effortlessly he had delivered that line and how many people were moved to tears while listening to him speak. Besides the immediate reference that despite two strokes, Mr.Chiam continue his fight for change in Singapore, I believe that these tears are also the most heartfelt human emotions that can only be brought out by the encouragement of a most loving father.

It is okay. It is okay.
You have not failed.
I have not failed.
We have not failed.

Just keep trying, my child,
together, let's keep trying.

With each living breath,
We can be better.
We will be better.

Thank you Mr. Chiam See Tong. I was in such a despair after reading and witnessing so much atrocities and brutality that the ruling party and Lee Kuan Yew have done to gentle people like you, Dr. Vincent Cheng, Ms Teo Suh Lung, Dr. Lim Hock Siew and many more people who have been forever silenced in the PAP version of history. I was in such a despair thinking how Singaporeans will disappear with the influx of yet another 1 million foreigners. I was in such a despair thinking how our children will have to grow up in this self-perserving culture that propagates bottomless fear and arrogance thinking about nothing but Money. But tonight, you have shown me, shown all Singaporeans, the light. And I am not angry and upset anymore.

Singaporeans. This election has nothing to do with GRCs. It is time to stop all these ongoing, useless debates and arguments that the ruling party wants to confuse you with. It is time to stop all the hype about Tin Pei Ling Vs Nicole Seah, Worker's Party conspiracy, Mas Selamat, upgrading lifts, grow and share etc.

This election is, with no doubt, about the past, the present, and the future of Singapore. It is about how PAP has completely crippled our rights to claim the power of our narratives as a living community and worthy individuals. It is about how they do whatever they want without a single question asked or answered. It is about how we, the citizens of Singapore, want the stories of our forefathers and mothers to be remembered and told; It is about how we, the citizens of Singapore, want to write our story from now; It is about how our children, the future citizens of Singapore, can be the writers of their stories without fear.

Ultimately, it is about trying to achieve democracy and equality in Singapore, as long as we have one more living breath.

Singaporeans.

Singapore is not PAP.

I love Singapore very much, but not the PAP.

Please, please don't let them bully and silent us anymore.

*大选后五年如何光景？别再冷眼旁观，请为新加坡投入一份爱心！*

新加坡人一向是温驯的一群，喜欢安分守己，不问世事。
一提到政治，就马上谈虎色变，避而讳言，事关受华文教育的上一代人，为了“关心社会
”而做出的牺牲太大了，以致大家觉得只要赚够钱，让家人有一个窝就好了，什么叫做“民主”，只是一个抽象的问题，于己无关。没钱的只盼有钱供一个组屋，有钱的梦想有朝一日买更大的房子，很多人于是不敢投反对票，怕人民行动党的恐吓，怕选区得不到提升，产业的增值就没有保障。问题是，放眼一看就知道，五年十年一晃，新加坡已经不再是我们过去脑海中的人间天堂了，我们恐怕不能再沉迷于泡影之中了！

今年大选所爆发的空前82席激烈争战实在反映了一点：新加坡民主党、国民团结党等各自奋起提出政治方针（还有“影子预算案“），以及工人党呼吁的第一世界国会和人民行动党的一党专政之间，所关系到的已经不单是“抽象”的“民主”问题，而是低收入家庭和许多就业人士切身的“民生”问题。现在新加坡的外来人口，已经占了总人口的百分之四十，简直骇人听闻（人力部长林瑞生光明正大地说：两个新加坡人对一个外国人，比率“刚刚好”），这所带来的社会问题是可想而知的。这不是一个某某国度的移民和本地民性存在隔阂的问题，而是新加坡一个弹丸小国的人口负荷问题，包括了随着外来人口而来就业问题以及物价、房价高涨的问题。试想现在生活都成问题，人们的公积金还都埋在房屋贷款的无底洞里头，退休后还有什么活路？而政府除了建赌场以外，还在为社会作什么建设呢？

新加坡的经济增长（双位数的起伏波动）和人民生活已经成了两回事。从2001年至2010年，新加坡平均工资的实际增长只有1.1%。根据人力部2009年统计，新加坡家庭中位数收入为2720元，这要是以一家四口计算，根本不够开支。至于新加坡的失业率，自从人力部2006年的3.2%连受雇的外劳也计算在内，本地人的就业实情已经难以说清。网上可以看到这样的故事：本地电脑人才，三年前因为公司一律改聘外地（廉价）员工而遭受裁员，为求生计当了德士司机，经济拮据让他无法不到HDB去要求卖掉五房式组屋，他们说不行，他只好说他跳进MRT火车轨自尽，他们才让他卖掉搬入三房式。但如此一般穷途末路，何止一人？

难怪这回选举中，反对党群众大会数以千计的盛况，和人民行动党的小猫两三只（一些中老年人士，还都是RC包巴士送过去，连送一包饭），已成了强烈的对比。反对党的竞选人士的素质和过去的比起来，也已经是今非昔比，工人党的最新王牌，是英美顶尖大学毕业的法学博士、叱咤国际金融业的商业律师陈硕茂，而民主党的行列中，有毕业自英国的社会工作者Vincent
Wijeysingha博士，有前副总理吴作栋当年首席秘书陈如斯（他本人写了一份报告，分析政府这些年来以船厂、电子厂为经济重点，大量依靠外劳的弊病），还有1987年因内安法身陷囹圄的退休律师张素兰（她一直在为穷人提供免费法律服务；著有《蓝色闸门之外》一书）等等。

其中最耀眼的新星，当然是团结党的巾帼英雄佘雪玲。网上已经把支持她的人潮，和孙燕姿的演唱会相比。她年仅24，却已有大将之风，义正言辞地道出了平民的心声，我们要是说新加坡年青人一向对政治有冷感，她已经象征了新一代的转捩点。现在大选当前，行动党忙着送红包收买民心，但可笑的是，眼见反对党的竞选活动如火如荼地展开，他们便宣布说工资理事会吁请雇主多加薪，另一方面，他们还吁请小贩六个月内不要加价。要是连购买选票都不愿意自己掏腰包，这是一个怎样的政权？佘说得好：你们要小贩六个月不加价，但是成本费用（柴米油盐、水电租金？）不减，这还不说明了当政的根本连人民生活问题的关键都视而不见？

当今网上资讯四通八达，博客、面簿、视频已经成了非官方的自由新闻渠道，纸是包不了火的，尤其是擅于英文的网民，对当政者的声讨已经连绵不绝。我们自认是华校生的，也不能再畏缩，缄默了。很多新加坡人还存在一种错误的观念，以为行动党就是政府，公务员也只能对行动党唯命是从。其实行动党多年来垄断政权的方法也很简单，就是一个金字塔模式，一层一层地笼络，所以总理部长的薪金最为惊人，再来是照顾公务员的饭碗，而很多中层阶级的生活也不错，但穷人呢？GST消费税照样收。民主党要求政府考虑让柴米油盐之类的基本必需品扣除2%，行动党一下就把提议打下来，连大选之际，财政部长Tharman
Shanmugaratnam也顶多担保7%五年不变，请大家回顾上一次大选，一上台几个月，GST就起了，这回不起，难道不会有别的变相收税？

网上视频有一个穷困老妇女在2006年被警察抓走的录像，她没犯什么法，只是心想亲近总理李显龙，把他当包公。我们要是不把几个反对党议员选入国会为人民反映心声，难道也跟她一样梦想见包公吗？新加坡2009年的国家预算里，34%（150亿元）给了国防、内安、外交，0.25%（1.1亿元）给穷人，给老人家和残缺人士更少（4.2千万）。大家说，我们还坚持要高干子弟当议员，还是要有良知的当议员？象佘雪玲这样的人才，她就说：我们要是都贪图荣华富贵，那还不如参加行动党算了？民主党还承诺，要是中选，就把议员收入一半贡献给选区帮穷人。
我国戏剧家及艺术教育家郭宝崑写过一篇史诗般的剧作：《郑和的后代》。故事一方面像是形容华侨先驱飘洋过海南来，接触新文化的心路历程，另一方面讲述的却是身为太监的悲哀。剧本里说，有一种最高明的阉割方法，其实不用直接用刀，而是用手慢慢地按摩孩童的下体，孩子只觉得舒服，以为有保姆在照顾他。日复一日，慢慢地，他就什么功能都丧失了，从此没‘种’了！亲爱的读者，亲爱的新加坡同胞，世界人口又在运动了，我们是否就接受弱肉强食的现实，接受我们被淘汰的可能，接受我们经历新加坡‘独立’建国的这几代文化，都只是殖民政策换手之下的一个牺牲品？

新加坡资政李光耀可以信口开一个数目，说新加坡需要90万个外劳。新加坡法律部长K.
Shanmugam可以说新加坡其实不是一个国家，而是一个城市。新加坡职总助理秘书长杨莉明可以说工人党和民主党提出的最低工资是“冷饭”，无需浪费时间。（其实全世界超过90%国家都有最低工资，中国有，马来西亚也在推出方案）新加坡卫生部长许文远可以说新山的安老院便宜，有车开过去不远。其实你我都可以学人家说，‘国家’经济或是‘城市’经济为前提，每个外劳的三四百元外劳税（人力部网站说是为了“控制”外劳人数），自有经济的道理。但我们放弃了国家的概念，是否也要放弃给予所有工友一个尊严，放弃“老吾老，以及人之老”的一个概念？刘程强提出新组屋调低价格，和收入中位数水平挂钩，发展部长马宝山就说这是“盗储备金”？那么反对党都是土匪还是山寨好汉？

今年是辛亥革命的一百周年。满清政府腐败无能，垂帘听政，挥霍无度，终于落得个悲剧下场。但要是当年改革维新成功，是否历史就应该重写呢？我们该不该连一个“维新”也不敢设想，说成是造反？又很巧，这个五月七、八日的周末原本该作为去年母亲节力挺母语活动的一周年纪念。但既然这么巧碰上大选，是否等于说就省了这一份心，收了红包袋袋平安，管它社会下来五年是什么道路，母亲只教我们听天由命？反对党这一回站在同一战线，背水一战，选民是否还停留在到超级市场购物的心态，贪小便宜，把命运交给别人决定？

最后谨此以两段诗歌献给大家，引自新加坡作家贺巾描绘五十年代华校生的小说《巨浪》：

“不做飘浮的白云
不慕高悬的明星
我愿是那浩海的巨浪，
随著狂风怒吼，
迎著朝霞歌唱。
... ...
明星讥讽我平凡
月光喜欢我犷悍
尽管海底有
暗流、险滩
把我阻拦
我最终要
涌起一座山，
把天地翻转，
把天地翻转！”

Tell the Chinese government to release artist Ai Wei Wei

This post previously appeared on the Canvas, the National Art Gallery's blog. It's still there, but it's been edited for diplomatic reasons. ;)

UPDATE: Time Magazine's done a great story on this. Click here.)


(Image from Ai Wei Wei's blog, via Danwei.)

We know that the Singapore is by no means a model for freedom of speech in the arts. Our government also arrests our artists for dabbling in politics.

But that's the government. We're Singaporean citizens, PRs and residents who care about art, and most of us also care about free speech. Which is why we bloody well ought to tell the Chinese government that we do not approve of their jailing one of their foremost contemporary artists on obscure charges of "economic crimes" - probably linked to his support of pro-democracy activist activities in support of a Chinese Jasmine Revolution.

There's a petition here: http://www.change.org/petitions/call-for-the-release-of-ai-weiwei?alert_id=ZntTBqdKpo_IZtByZSTro&me=aa

Please sign it. Please also share anything else you can think of which could help in this matter. To recap, Ai Wei Wei is most famous for being the designer of the Bird's Nest Stadium, showcased in the Beijing Olympics.



You may have seen his work at Art Stage Singapore - he created the colossal installation "Through" from the remnants of a demolished Qing dynasty house.
(Image via Snippets from the Manila Art Scene.)

He's spoken out against the Olympics, he's been beaten up by the police for testifying regarding casualties in the Sichuan Earthquake, he's been placed under house arrest and this January he had his newly built Shanghai studio destroyed by authorities, while visitors to the Tate Modern were ooh-ing and aah-ing over his "Sunflower Seeds" exhibition, consisting of 100 million handpainted porcelain sunflower seeds.


This February, amidst the government crackdown on pro-democracy activists, he cryptically posted the following on his Twitter account: "I didn’t care about jasmine at first, but people who are scared by jasmine sent out information about how harmful jasmine is often, which makes me realize that jasmine is what scares them the most. What a jasmine!"

On 3 April, government agents arrested Ai at the Beijing airport and seized papers and computers from his studio. That's pretty much all we know right now - no word on where he is or how he's doing.

A petition to release Ai on Change.org has been started by twelve leading figures in the international arts world, including the directors of the Guggenheim, Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, and Tate Museum, have started a petition on Change.org demanding that the Chinese government free Ai Weiwei.

Of course, we should be supporting the release of all the activists, given that many of them have played a more instrumental part in this movement than Ai himself. However, given the Chinese government's pride in its artists, and its new emphasis on showcasing them - they've recently announced plans for the world's biggest art gallery - their arrest of Ai is particularly egregious.

Once again, the petition's here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/call-for-the-release-of-ai-weiwei?alert_id=ZntTBqdKpo_IZtByZSTro&me=aa

Hidup Revolusi Bunga Melur.

Are you Singaporean? Are you gay/bi/allied? And are you voting PAP?

Before you do, you should take a look at what some PAP MPs think about the possibility of repealing our sodomy law - and mind you, this is one of the younger ones:



Granted, most opposition parties have chosen not to take a pro-gay rights stance. But two parties are doing so this year: Singapore Democratic Party and Reform Party. SDP is contesting my ward, too! W00t.

Go Go Next Media Animation!

Finally, some properly snarky coverage of Singapore.



CSJ will survive; he's been through this countless times before. The SDP has a lot more momentum this round of elections, and they had seen it coming a while ago.

Petition appeals for release of British journalist Alan Shadrake

Reporters Without Borders/Reporters sans frontières
22 October 2010

English: http://en.rsf.org/singapore-alan-shadrake-appeal-free-22-10-2010,38648.html
Français : http://fr.rsf.org/singapour-appel-acquittement-alan-shadrake-22-10-2010,38646.html

Reporters Without Borders today launched an international petition calling for the release of British author and journalist Alan Shadrake who is facing two years in prison for writing a book about the death penalty in Singapore.

The petition, which is addressed to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, can be found on the organisation’s website: http://en.rsf.org/petition-alan-shadrake,38642.html

Alan Shadrake, who is aged 75, has been charged with “contempt of court” and the verdict in his case is expected on 26 October. At his trial which opened on 18 October, the prosecutor accused the journalist of making comments “against the independence and integrity of the Singapore judiciary” in his book "Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock". Hema Subramanian, a lawyer from the Attorney General’s Chambers, said that Shadrake’s book contained "baseless, unwarranted attacks…that directly attacked the Singapore judiciary”. She termed the allegations in the book as “outrageous, offensive and irresponsible”.

The journalist’s lawyer, M Ravi, argued that the book was well documented and backed up by evidence. It was a “serious-minded and compassionate examination of the death penalty in Singapore”.

Reporters Without Borders urges the Singapore judiciary to accept Alan Shadrake’s innocence and allow him to leave the country. In fact, the book contains no defamatory remarks, no personal attacks or verbal assaults aimed at undermining the operation of the justice system. Given that it is simply a critical analysis of the institution and its methods as a result of a rigorous and well documented investigation, this work cannot constitute contempt of court.

We would like to stress the fact that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) of which Singapore is a founding member, is a protector of basic freedoms. The Singaporean government in July 1993 joined other member states in supporting the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights 1993 that calls on countries to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that guarantees freedom of expression.

Shadrake has been forced to stay on in Singapore since July in very difficult circumstances. His passport has been confiscated and his health has deteriorated badly since his arrest in July. He has serious heart problems and recently suffered an internal haemorrhage.

The British journalist is also virtually without resources and suffering serious financial problems.

For more information see: http://en.rsf.org/singapore-call-for-the-release-of-detained-19-07-2010,37975.html

Singapore arrests British author Alan Shadrake for criminal defamation

Seems to be related to his banned book, "Once a Jolly Hangman", about Singapore's death penalty. Happened just today. He's 75 years old.

I'm really disgusted with the Singapore government right now. More details at the links below.

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3931-breaking-news-author-of-death-penalty-book-alan-shadrake-arrested

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/author-alan-shadrake-arrested-for-alleged-criminal-defamation/

http://sgblogs.com/entry/alan-shadrake-crime/387001

No to censorship - Regulate instead

I should've posted this weeks ago, but better late than never. Arts Engage has created a position paper on behalf of the arts community, urging the nominally independent Censorship Review Committee to get their act together and actually advocate freeing up culture her instead of just being the MDA's rubber stamp.

I'm slightly involved in the report: they interviewed me and have included the cases of Lee Low Tar, the ContraDiction literary readings and 251 as case studies.



The main point they're putting across is that instead of censorship, a system of arts regulation would be preferable - something that provides classifications but ultimately leaves the issue of choice to the individual audience member.

Sign the petition against censorship in Singapore at http://sites.google.com/site/artsengagesg/.

From the website:

What is censorship of the arts? It is the control of content, prevention of production and prohibition of presentation, of artistic expressions.

In censorship, ideas and material considered objectionable or problematic by the censor, are suppressed, and often justified as an attempt to protect minors and adults from content that would apparently harm them. But is that really the case?

The value of the arts is not only in their entertainment, but also in the ways in which the arts provides us with food for thought, broadens our perspectives and gives us new insight to the world around us.

Isn't it your right to decide what would or would not be objectionable to you?

The position of the arts community paper on Censorship and Regulation is for regulation - an independent, unexceptional and impartial process of providing information about content that allows art to be produced as intended, and for you to choose what you would experience and enjoy.

Fuck. The Singapore Police Force is using entrapment against gay sex again.

From the Electric New Paper, via Roy Tan on Facebook.

Man gropes cop in cemetery
By Elysa Chen
June 11, 2010 Print Ready Email Article

On May 4, the police conducted an anti-vice operation at the old cemetery along Jalan Kubor, an area known for vice.

The police declined to to give details of the vice activities.

A plainclothes policeman was standing alone in a poorly lit spot when he was approached by Jagadiswaran Krisnan, 32, a coffee house supervisor, at about 10.40pm.

Jagadiswaran struck up a conversation with the undercover cop.

Two other police officers were stationed a short distance away, ready to provide help.

While talking to the officer, Jagadiswaran, a Malaysian, moved closer to him. He told the officer that he was there "to have fun".

Then, he suddenly raised his hand and stroked the officer's chest and private parts.

That was when the undercover cop identified himself and, with the help of his colleagues, arrested the man.

Jagadiswaran was charged with behaving in an indecent manner in a public place. He was fined $1,000 on Tuesday.

**

YS: Indecent manner? I'll give you an indecent manner. Fucking pigs. How do we complain?

I was at the NUS History Seminar yesterday, and they didn't mention Operation Spectrum Once.

I don't think Vincent Cheng was there, either. But I left during the Q&A, so who knows?

Anyway, there was some pretty interesting stuff from Assoc Profs Yong Mun Cheong, Loh Kah Seng and Huang Jianli (all Chinese dudes) about the scripting of national history. Cool bits included:

* the suggestion that we shift our view of Singapore's place in history from a colonisation-decolonisation-post-colonialism perspective to a view of the cycle of Indo-Chinese maritime centres: Srivijaya-Melayu-Temasek-Melaka-Johor/Riau-Singapore.

* the revelation of how the PAP uses the language of crisis for everything: describing kampungs as hotbeds of physical and moral disease and unemployed educated populations are armies. Essentially, they cry wolf.

* the fact that we have a 25-year limit on how long documents can be kept secret from historians and the public, but does the government respect this? Nooooooooo.

* the story of how Indonesia tried to script its national history in the Sukarno era by assembling 40 historians in a room and giving them a four-year deadline, which wasn't followed very well. The resulting books were burned in a bonfire as soon as the Suharto regime took over.

Full house, ya know? Controversy is good for attendance.

NUS History Seminar: Why has Mr Vincent Cheng been barred from speaking? (correspondence continues

I got a reply to my original complaint to the National Library Board. The important point is that it assures Vincent Cheng will be allowed to attend the seminar as part of the audience. Here's our correspondence:


Dear Yi-Sheng,

Thank you for your email to all the members of the NLB Board. We would like to take this opportunity to explain the context and background to the seminar that you had raised concerns.

The National Library is the venue sponsor for the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Singapore History seminar organised by the NUS History Society. NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore. This was in line with NLB's focus for its heritage programmes and exhibitions which explored the role of key movers in Singapore's growth from a fishing village into a modern nation.

NUS History Society (NUSHS) had indicated that Junior College and Upper Secondary students were the target audience and that academics would form the line-up of speakers. The initial line-up provided by the NUSHS for NLB's support were academics from the local tertiary institutions researching on these areas. The academic exploration that the seminar would pursue was also in line with NLB's programming objectives to seek insights into Singapore's history through research and study. The late inclusion of Mr Vincent Cheng, by the society was not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up, of academics, by NUSHS.

As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme such as the panel of speakers need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon. For this particular seminar, the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar based on our initial discussions with NUSHS. The final line-up of speakers provided by NUSHS include Assoc Prof Yong Mun Cheong, Head of the History Department of NUS, Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Loh Kah Seng of NTU, Assoc Prof Huang Jianli with the History Department of NUS and Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Kwa Chong Guan with the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU and the History Department of NUS. Based on this line-up, the National Library is still working with the NUSHS to hold this public seminar this Friday. Mr Vincent Cheng, like any member of the public, is welcome to attend.

Regards,
Amy Gay
Director, Communications
NLB

*

Dear Ms Gay,

Thank you for your reply. I'm glad that Vincent Cheng is welcome to attend as a member of the public, as I'd heard rumours that he would not even be allowed to be present in that capacity.

It remains my sincerest wish that Mr Cheng be allowed to speak as an official guest. However, on reading your reasons for Mr Cheng being excluded, namely that:

1. his inclusion was submitted late,

2. he did not thematically "fit in" with the panel of academics,

I believe it should be permissible for Mr Cheng to be excluded from a future event organised at the National Library, provided that the plans are submitted early and that his panel includes guests with similar backgrounds - e.g. charity workers, former detainees, or other people significant to Singapore's history.

Given the support for Mr Cheng, I fully expect such an event to be scheduled in the near future on your premises.

Yours sincerely,

Ng Yi-Sheng

*

Hi Yi-Sheng,
Thanks for your understanding and reply.
Best,

NUS History Seminar: Why has Mr Vincent Cheng been barred from speaking?

Prompted by my friend Fong Hoe Fang, I sent this letter in to all the board members of the National Library Board. You should too. Their addresses are at the bottom of this mail.

Basically, the issue is that Vincent Cheng was invited to speak at a National University of Singapore History Seminar. He was detained by the Internal Security Department in 1987 as part of a round-up of activists called Operation Spectrum.

A few days ago, news came that NLB had forbidden him to speak at the seminar. Details of the situation are over at Martyn See's blog here.

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I'm a writer and journalist who often uses the National Library
Board's resources and participates in its activities. I've also been
active in working with the NLB to design and execute such activity,
namely the Experiencing Singapore Literature symposia of 2008 and
2009.

I'm therefore extremely concerned by the news that the NLB has banned
a Singapore citizen, Vincent Cheng from speaking and attending an NUS
History Seminar on 4 June at the National Library.

I do not know Mr Cheng personally. But I do know that by law, he
should be free to speak about his experiences, given that more than 20
years have passed since the events of his detention. What better
occasion is there for this to happen than at an academic event hosted
by the National Library?

Therefore, I must ask: why is the National Library Board blocking this
flow of information? Why is a Singapore citizen being prevented from
sharing knowledge with other Singapore citizens? Are your hands being
forced by another authority? Is this authority blind to the fact that
its actions of censorship are tarring the name of Singapore across the
world?

I strongly urge you to do all you can to reinstate Mr Cheng at the
Seminar. If you need help, please tell us library users. We are
citizens who loves knowledge, and believe in the spreading of
knowledge, and will do what we can to make sure that knowledge is not
destroyed. We trust that you share these values, too.

Yours faithfully,

Ng Yi-Sheng.

yeoh_chee_yan@moe.gov.sg; yee_ping_yi@psd.gov.sg; ad-hass-acad@ntu.edu.sg; annnee@cdl.com.sg; rosina_howe-teo@lta.gov.sg; assgkhoo@ntu.edu.sg;iscgkwa@ntu.edu.sg; suatjien@mediacorp.com.sg; liubill48@gmail.com; desmondlum@lioncapital.com.sg; dhiren_shantilal@kellyservices.com.sg;manogaran_suppiah@moe.gov.sg; martin@halogenfoundation.org; hctan@sp.edu.sg; tteo@sparrowgroup.com.sg; choy_peng_wu@nol.com.sg;zahidi@zarkitek.com.sg; liew_choon_boon@mica.gov.sg

I really should post something about what happened at Pink Dot...

i.e. 4,000 frickin' people turning up!

Here's the (slightly sappy) video:

As for the Yong Vui Kong case, the ****ing judge threw out any possibility of ever challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty ever again, which is ****ed up. But M. Ravi is appealing.

i) Yong Vui Kong result tomorrow, ii) NAC censorship questioned

Yong's appeal trial gets its result out tomorrow. My boyfriend's been working on the case. Full story here at the Online Citizen.

There's a chance that this could overturn the mandatory death penalty law for drug trafficking (not repealing the death bit, but the mandatory bit: i.e. a judge can actually have the chance to make up his/her mind instead of saying go to death row, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.)

I'll be super-happy at Pink Dot tomorrow if the law gets repealed; more than a little bummed if it doesn't.

Oh, and ST Life! did a good front page story today on how arts groups are answering back to the whole NAC sponsorship thing. Slightly optimistic. Cut and pasted below (thanks Alf).

May 13, 2010

Don't play play

Arts groups now realise how strict the OB markers are after the National Arts Council cut Wild Rice's funds by $20,000
By adeline chia

A group of artists have asked to meet the National Arts Counil (NAC) to clarify funding guidelines, following news last week that the council had cut funding for theatre group Wild Rice.

The chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Information, Communication and the Arts, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, has said that he is happy to hear Wild Rice out and to explore the possibility of restoring the $20,000 cut.

Government Parliamentary Committees monitor the policies of particular ministries to provide a wider range of views.

Members of the arts community issued a statement yesterday, signed by 23 people from 14 theatre companies, including Wild Rice artistic director Ivan Heng, TheatreWorks artistic director Ong Keng Sen, Singapore Lyric Opera general manager Ng Siew Eng and The Theatre Practice artistic director Kuo Jian Hong.

They were responding to an NAC statement last week that had said Wild Rice's funding was cut because the council would not fund 'projects which are incompatible with the core values promoted by the Government and society or disparage the Government'.

The artists in their statement took issue with the notion of 'core values', which they said was not clearly defined. Instead, they argued that 'the spectrum of 'core values' must include notions such as tolerance, inclusivity and diversity - the very values that are upheld in a multiracial and democratic country such as ours'.

They said that as the council handles public funds, it should put public interest before those of the state. 'As such, a precondition that works should not 'disparage the Government' has no place in its funding guidelines.'

They added: 'NAC's priority should be directed towards developing Singapore's potential as a world-class city for the arts, and not towards developing the potential of a statutory board - entrusted with public money - as an organ of social control.'

Mr Zaqy, an MP for Hong Kah GRC, said he has seen the group's productions, adding: 'I can understand where NAC comes from. It is given public funds and needs to be accountable to the public. 'On the other hand, the arts need space. If there are grounds to look at restoring the cut to Wild Rice, I am open to exploring it. Hopefully we can find a middle ground for both parties.'

Wild Rice artistic director Ivan Heng, 47, said he will write to Mr Zaqy, but adds that the issue is larger than the funding his company gets from the council.

Wild Rice's annual grant was cut to $170,000, down from $190,000 last year. He said: 'We should not look at this on a case-by-case basis. What we are saying is that the guidelines are wrong. It's not just about Wild Rice getting funding re-instated, we are calling for transparency, accountability and a total re-look of the guidelines.'

The council is one of the major arts funding bodies in Singapore. Last year, it gave out $6.79 million in general grants. Government funding is important because it supplements an arts company's other funding streams, namely sponsorship and ticket sales.

The council has pointed out that its conditions are not new and artists are well aware of them. These conditions are spelt out in any grant application form. In an annex on the form, it is clearly stated that 'NAC is obliged to prioritise financial support away from artistic projects which:
a) erode the core moral values of society, including but not limited to the promotion of permissive lifestyles and depictions of obscenity or graphic sexual conduct;
b) denigrate or debase a person, group or class of individuals on the basis of race or religion, or serve to create conflict or misunderstanding in our multicultural and multi-religious society;
c) disparage or demean government bodies, public institutions or national leaders, and/or subvert the nation's security or stability.'

Mr Benson Puah, chief executive of National Arts Council, told Life! yesterday: 'Arts groups will always need financial support to do all that they want to do. As the arts scene in Singapore continues to develop, there will be greater demands on limited public funds.
'We encourage them to nurture additional funding and community support. In the long term, the arts scene will enjoy greater sustainability and diversity with the broader support of the private and people sectors.'

Alvin Tan, 47, artistic director of The Necessary Stage, said the council's clauses are rarely acted on but 'they are problematic because technically, NAC can use them anytime they like'. He was one of those who signed the press statement.

Over the years, Wild Rice has made news for plays that skewer local politics in a cheeky way. These included Eleanor Wong's satire The Campaign To Confer The Public Service Star On JBJ (2006) and Ken Kwek's Apocalypse: Live! (2008), which explored issues of censorship and government surveillance.

Artists interviewed said the funding cut goes against the trend of the opening up of the arts scene in recent years. Regulation of the arts has been done by introducing age restrictions and content advisories to guide audiences in picking what they want to watch.
Slashing funding is a 'softer' kind of censorship, artists said, as it can be used to signal to the arts community what is favoured by the authorities and what is not.

They said it ensures that prickly political and sexual issues are less likely to be represented in productions. As Heng put it: 'It is economic censorship, the oldest tool in the book. They hit you where it hurts.'

Drama Box's artistic director, Kok Heng Leun, 43, who also signed the statement, said that 'NAC should never play a regulatory role through funding'.

'Their job is to nourish the arts,' he said. 'Their responsibility is to make sure that there are enough choices, that there are different kinds of arts activities. It's not for them to say that certain segments of society are not worthy of being represented on stage.'

As for works which disparage the Government, he said: 'If you cannot criticise the Government, then you are saying that the Government is right. Then where is democracy?'

Wild Rice is not the first theatre company which had its funding cut over content. In 2000, the council pulled $8,000 from Drama Box's The VaginaLogue because Kok refused to take down a projected image of a vagina that was used as a backdrop.

After the council pulled out, he could not make enough from ticket sales and the company lost money on the production.

But artists have to accept that some taxpayers prefer to see public monies being directed elsewhere.

Assistant finance manager Nancy Lim, 40, who said that she is 'not in favour of the gay movement', added: 'If we support shows with homosexual content, it is a signal to the general public that we are in favour of this kind of lifestyle.

'In the arts, there is a wide range of topics. We don't have to go into the grey areas.'

There are also taxpayers who think that the arts companies are being disingenuous in thinking that the Government should continue funding companies which put up productions that criticise the authorities.

Arts councils overseas contacted by Life! said their funding is based on artistic and not political considerations.

Mr Graham Berry, who was the chief executive of the Scottish Arts Council, said the primary consideration for the Scottish body when it comes to funding is 'the quality of the work'.

The Scotsman is a Singapore permanent resident and married to MP Irene Ng (Tampines GRC). He said that there are no restrictions on content, but 'people have to stay within the law'.

'If they produce something abusive and offensive, we won't support it. Controversy is part and parcel of the arts. Artists are funded to produce art of distinction and quality, and sometimes that runs contrary to public opinion.'

The arts community here also asks if the council applies its guidelines consistently. Wild Rice, which turns 10 this year, is not the only company to touch on politically sensitive topics in its productions.

The Necessary Stage has also created works with political themes. For example, Haresh Sharma's Gemuk Girls (2008) grappled with the painful effects of political detention on a family.

Theatergoer and civil servant Pan Xuequn, 27, said that The Necessary Stage's plays are not so 'outwardly subversive'.

She said: 'Some of the plays are non-linear and not so easy to interpret, and most of their works are staged in their black box theatre space at Marine Parade.

'Wild Rice is coming under fire because it stages mainstream, well-made plays that are very popular.'

The Necessary Stage's artistic director Tan said: 'Our works don't polarise issues into us and the Government. For us, 'alternative' does not mean 'oppositional' only.'

Theatre companies who choose to operate outside the government funding structure can opt to do commerical theatre.

Dream Academy Productions, owned by lawyer-turned-performer Selena Tan, stages popular musical revues such as the Dim Sum Dollies and Broadway Beng franchises and does not receive funding from the Government.

Tan said: 'It was always at the back of my mind whether I wanted to be reliant on arts funding. Then I will take on certain social responsibilities, such as making sure that my works advance the theatre scene here.'

She chose instead to see 'if it was economically viable to put entertainment out there'. The Finger Players' artistic director Chong Tze Chien, 34, said that alternatives to government funding include staging works outside a theatre so that rental is cheaper, and working with companies overseas to share costs.

'I don't put all my eggs in one basket,' he said.

chiahta@sph.com.sg

Funding based on merit

Many arts councils in the world practise arm's length funding, in which funding decisions are made by the council without government interference.

These include organisations such as the National Endowment For The Arts in the United States, the Canada Council For The Arts, Arts Council England, Hong Kong Arts Development Council and the Australia Council For The Arts.

These are all funding bodies that give artists and arts organisations money to create artworks and activities in disciplines such as theatre, dance, visual arts and music. The main consideration when it comes to assessing whether an artist or arts group deserves a grant is artistic merit.

An Arts Council England spokesman tells Life!: 'There is no clear advice that states that if an activity is overtly political that it is or is not eligible.

'However, if the activity is a promotional tool for a political party, it could be ineligible under the following criteria: applications for self-promotional activities that do not provide public benefit, either immediately or in the longer term, or where the applicant does not have an artistic track record.'

The council awarded £67 million (S$138 million) in grants last year. For the Canada Council For The Arts, criteria for multi-year grants to theatre companies are given clear weights. Seventy per cent is placed on a pattern of positive artistic assessments and 30 per cent given to artistic and administrative stability and sound financial management.

The council awarded C$158 million (S$212 million) in grants to individuals and arts organisations last year.

A spokesman says: 'The council is an arm's length agency and makes decisions about funding using a peer assessment process. At no time is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is responsible for the council, involved in the granting decision process.'

In Hong Kong, the arts council 'assesses all applications mainly based on artistic merits and it is in the council's ordinance that it would uphold the principle of, and encourage, freedom of artistic expression', says a spokesman.

It gave out HK$49.3 million (S$8.7 million) in grants last year. There have been a few high-profile cases overseas where the public questioned councils for supporting certain controversial works and complained about misapplied funds.

A famous case was the National Endowment For The Arts in the United States, which came under fire in 1989. The federal agency granted money to museums featuring Piss Christ by Andre Serrano, an image of a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine, and photographer Robert Mapplethorpe's Retrospective, The Perfect Moment, a showcase of homoerotic images.

Some members of the US Congress found the Mapplethorpe pictures pornographic and Serrano's work was condemned for being blasphemous and offensive to Christians. When considering the agency's budget 1990, Congress reacted to the controversy surrounding the Mapplethorpe and Serrano photographs by cutting US$45,000 from the agency's budget, the precise amount contributed to the two exhibits.

A spokesman for the agency, which awarded US$128 million (S$177 million) in grants last year, maintains that 'the general criteria for NEA grants are artistic excellence and merit'.

Pink Dot is this Saturday, 15 May at Hong Lim Park, 5pm

I missed the first one, and I'm damned if I'll miss the second.



The theme for this year is Focus on Our Families, and the day is the International Day of Families. Ooh, there's short films by Boo Junfeng about GLBTQ people and their families. This one's really touching:



See you there!