Where did the $365 million Arts Budget Go?
NUS music groups fail to feel the effect from the Arts Budget.
FEATURE by Deon Toh
For Mohammed Hanis B Ishak, Vice-president of the Original Music Society, it has always been a struggle to cover his group’s monthly costs. When Minister for Finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, announced in his Budget 2011 speech that the Singapore arts scene was to receive a $365 million boost, Hanis thought things would change for the better. But this was not to be the case.
President of NUS Jazz band, Chan Wei Nian, is experiencing a similar situation. His band’s budget also did not see an increment. These are just two examples of NUS groups who had high hopes of better funding following the national announcement of the $365 million arts budget.
Like Hanis and Chan, many Singaporeans anticipated an improved support for arts practitioners and institutions. Despite approaching the final quarter of 2011, arts and cultural societies in NUS have yet to benefit from this move.
This increment of more than 50 percent from the previous budget was aimed at encouraging “groundbreaking new work” and enabling “more Singaporeans to fulfill their aspirations for careers in the arts.” In particular, music groups in NUS have failed to encounter any of its trickle-down effects.
The OMS of NUS, which is also a member of Singapore’s independent music scene, has not benefited from the new budget. Despite being part of NUS, OMS is independently run and not funded by the institution. The society strives to find avenues for self-sustenance, while NUS only provides a storage space for their equipment. Similar to other groups, OMS has not felt a difference despite the increased budget.
“In terms of NUS groups, I’d say no, we haven’t felt the effects of an increased arts budget, or perhaps I’m not aware of it,” bemoans Hanis. He also mentioned that OMS is still charged for the usage of school facilities, such as training rooms, and their overhead costs have not decreased.
Similarly, the NUS Jazz band is also experiencing the same situation. Being a member of the school’s Centre for the Arts, the group receives funding from the university and a venue for its activities. However, Chan says he “did not sense any difference in the policy of releasing funds, or any increase in expenditure for (the band’s) development.”
“Our funding has been reasonable to support our musical ventures although the policy for using funds have been stringent,” states Chan. He continued that he was “not entirely sure about the considerations or procedures behind funds allocation.” The lack of transparency prevents musicians from understanding the rationale behind funds allocation, or if there has been any increase in the fund pool.
According to CFA’s Talent Development and Programming Assistant Manager, Sing Moh Li, CFA did not get an increase in budget this year. She added that their funding from NUS gets slightly reduced each year to ensure more efficient use of their budget. However, Sing did not reveal the exact allocation of funds.
A regular performer and NUS student, Han Tingyan mentions: “most aspiring musicians have no knowledge of the funding by the government.” Likewise, Han did not hear of any funding opportunities provided to independent musicians like him. He goes on to add that “not enough emphasis has been placed in funding musicians in Singapore.”
Having witnessed little or no tangible effects of the budget increase, NUS students have been left wondering about the funds invested into the local arts scene.
Perhaps more transparency of how the $365 million is being distributed would allow Singapore musicians to understand the amount of assistance they are receiving, and which aspects of the music scene are being improved on.
Ultimately, Hanis concludes by saying that “what Singaporeans need is a belief that our local art are worth marketing to not only locals, but also foreign countries, and that we can be respected on the global stage”.
For Mohammed Hanis B Ishak, Vice-president of the Original Music Society, it has always been a struggle to cover his group’s monthly costs. When Minister for Finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, announced in his Budget 2011 speech that the Singapore arts scene was to receive a $365 million boost, Hanis thought things would change for the better. But this was not to be the case.
President of NUS Jazz band, Chan Wei Nian, is experiencing a similar situation. His band’s budget also did not see an increment. These are just two examples of NUS groups who had high hopes of better funding following the national announcement of the $365 million arts budget.
Like Hanis and Chan, many Singaporeans anticipated an improved support for arts practitioners and institutions. Despite approaching the final quarter of 2011, arts and cultural societies in NUS have yet to benefit from this move.
This increment of more than 50 percent from the previous budget was aimed at encouraging “groundbreaking new work” and enabling “more Singaporeans to fulfill their aspirations for careers in the arts.” In particular, music groups in NUS have failed to encounter any of its trickle-down effects.
The OMS of NUS, which is also a member of Singapore’s independent music scene, has not benefited from the new budget. Despite being part of NUS, OMS is independently run and not funded by the institution. The society strives to find avenues for self-sustenance, while NUS only provides a storage space for their equipment. Similar to other groups, OMS has not felt a difference despite the increased budget.
“In terms of NUS groups, I’d say no, we haven’t felt the effects of an increased arts budget, or perhaps I’m not aware of it,” bemoans Hanis. He also mentioned that OMS is still charged for the usage of school facilities, such as training rooms, and their overhead costs have not decreased.
Similarly, the NUS Jazz band is also experiencing the same situation. Being a member of the school’s Centre for the Arts, the group receives funding from the university and a venue for its activities. However, Chan says he “did not sense any difference in the policy of releasing funds, or any increase in expenditure for (the band’s) development.”
“Our funding has been reasonable to support our musical ventures although the policy for using funds have been stringent,” states Chan. He continued that he was “not entirely sure about the considerations or procedures behind funds allocation.” The lack of transparency prevents musicians from understanding the rationale behind funds allocation, or if there has been any increase in the fund pool.
According to CFA’s Talent Development and Programming Assistant Manager, Sing Moh Li, CFA did not get an increase in budget this year. She added that their funding from NUS gets slightly reduced each year to ensure more efficient use of their budget. However, Sing did not reveal the exact allocation of funds.
A regular performer and NUS student, Han Tingyan mentions: “most aspiring musicians have no knowledge of the funding by the government.” Likewise, Han did not hear of any funding opportunities provided to independent musicians like him. He goes on to add that “not enough emphasis has been placed in funding musicians in Singapore.”
Having witnessed little or no tangible effects of the budget increase, NUS students have been left wondering about the funds invested into the local arts scene.
Perhaps more transparency of how the $365 million is being distributed would allow Singapore musicians to understand the amount of assistance they are receiving, and which aspects of the music scene are being improved on.
Ultimately, Hanis concludes by saying that “what Singaporeans need is a belief that our local art are worth marketing to not only locals, but also foreign countries, and that we can be respected on the global stage”.