JUNE 29 — Having recently met distinguished and experienced dramatists, actors, poets, dancers and musicians, a common topic of discussion is how friendly the new government will be to the arts. There seems to be three key perspectives to this question.
My initial reaction is to say that the arts will flourish primarily for the reason that, since the election, freedom of expression has become more entrenched. We have already seen the mainstream media beginning to respond to demands for more critical and intelligent coverage, while civil society is keen to institutionalise these gains by ensuring that the government will follow through on promises to repeal oppressive legislation. The early lifting of Zunar’s travel ban provided an early encouragement, but I hope the zealousness of RTM showing the World Cup is matched by a similar zeal in reforming its structure and governance.
The expanded democratic space should benefit those in the arts and creative industries, and hopes are high that international performers who presently shun Malaysia for fear of censorship will want to come to our shores — though the latter will also require the cooperation of local councils.
But greater freedom of expression is secondary for those who already thrive creatively. “We still need money,” they say. Indeed, funding is a perennial problem of those involved in the arts — whether to produce, stage or curate their performances or exhibitions — whether from government, private benefactors or ticket sales. Since being involved with three such organisations, I realise the difficulty in chasing the same people for money every time, particularly when I’ve already asked them to support education for stateless or autistic children! It is clear that there are huge expectations on the government to plug the gap from public funds through a dedicated agency.
A good idea, I say, but only with independent and competent people making the decisions as to who benefits from these funds. If the politicians make the decisions, then inevitably cronies will benefit and political pressures — including perceived electoral considerations based on race and religion — will infect the process. So if there is to be an arts funding mechanism, then the people making those decisions — just as members of the Judicial Appointments Commission — should be suitably qualified and non-political. An element of decentralisation would also be desirable, so that all states and communities have access to the national stage; this in turn might require a revision of the National Culture Policy ostensibly in place since 1971.
A minority view holds that there should be no government funding of the arts at all, particularly in the age of debt-clearing and pressures on other ministries such as education and health. These advocates might even question the need for an arts ministry, both to prevent the risk of government interference and to ensure a free market environment: After all, it is up to practitioners to prove their worth and if audiences agree, then they will sustain it themselves. However, this attitude is at odds with the practice of most democracies (including those rich with Unesco World Heritage sites) which do have government ministries to protect and cultivate arts, culture and heritage: The key question is what powers they have.
This leads to the third complaint, which is the naming and configuration of the ministry itself. From the leaked cabinet list, it is to remain the Tourism and Culture Ministry, rather than a reversion to the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry (itself a result of a reconfiguration from the previous Culture, Youth and Sports Ministry).
The argument here is twofold: Firstly, that a dedicated ministry specifically mentioning arts and heritage (instead of being subsumed under culture) means better targeting of resources; secondly, that culture should not be linked to tourism. Rather, culture should exist for Malaysians, as an expression of ourselves to ourselves for ourselves, and not for the primary benefit of tourists — a mindset that often leads to the prioritisation of what ministry officials deem profitable or “exotic” (particularly when it comes to Sabah and Sarawak).
I was glad, then, to discover that our new Education minister agrees entirely that culture should feature prominently in every young Malaysian’s upbringing: Not just as a pedagogical tool in subjects from history to languages and even sports, but as an essential component in understanding what it means to be Malaysian.
Having said that — while the nation moves to the latest Namewee collaboration with Ning Baizura and Sasi the Don celebrating the World Cup and Merdeka — the government must never be allowed to have a monopoly on defining our culture.
* Tunku Zain Al-’Abidin is patron of the Seremban-based Euroasia Association of Performing Arts and Hands Percussion Malaysia, and trustee of the Chopin Society of Malaysia
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
