A founding principal of this publication is that popular culture matters . This is never more true, and never more worthy of scholarly attention, than in the case of popular culture, which seeks to give voice to that which might otherwise be controlled and suppressed by the state. The two Singaporean comic book artists whose work is considered in this paper have staked their citizenship, their freedom, and their finances in making their art. One has been arrested and the other has had funding for his work publically withdrawn. Both artists, along with their peers, have been subject to the practice of regulatory censorship. This censorship, as shall be demonstrated, is not simply reactive but preemptive . Vague guidelines, inconsistent rulings, disunity among creators, and dependency upon the state serve to create an environment in which comic book creators internalize censorship before they set pen to paper. The censorship of comics in Singapore is becoming naturalized and even invisible to the point that expression considered inappropriate by the state will eventually be, in the words of Pierre Bordieu “unthinkable” (139).

http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/90017549

Traditional art forms often face rapid decline if they are not able to keep pace with a changing society. This article will examine puppet theater as performed by Chinese descent groups in temples and public spaces in Singapore as a case study of the adaptation of particular ethnic traditions at a time of an intense process of modernization. The island state of Singapore comprises various ethnic groups from different religious backgrounds living together in an advanced economy. On the one hand, the government ensures that the ethno-religious framework is protected through policies and laws. On the other, it seeks to maintain social cohesion by not favoring any religious group and by downplaying religious and ethnic divides. As discussed here, notions of “Chineseness” need to be accommodated within state policies based on the “harmonization” of racial and religious differences. The traditional art form investigated here, Chinese puppet theater, is characteristically linked to ethnicity and religion. How, then, does this ritual art form “negotiate” with a state that emphasizes secularism and seeks to elide multiracial and multi-religious differences? This study proposes a distinction between the “state-regulated realm” and the “state-tolerated realm” to suggest how Chinese puppet theater has engaged in negotiation with the Singaporean state to enable it to survive and even flourish. The focus will be on the Sin Hoe Ping Puppet Troupe, which has demonstrated considerable flexibility in adapting to secularized Singapore.

Professor Michael Sullivan, whose book Chinese Art in the Twentieth Century (1959) was the first ever on the subject, while his Art and Artists of Twentieth Century China (1996) is a primary reader for art history students in many universities, recalled his posting to colonial Singapore. His work on Nanyang Art privileged Singapore artists with an international voice. This essay is an edited version of the paper presented by Prof Sullivan at the New Asian Imaginations Symposium organised by NAFA in 2008. He was very happy to have this paper included in this anthology. That evening in September 2012, he asked the editor when the book will be published and the editor promised to send him a copy. He passed away in 2013, a prominent scholar, humble and humane, and a well-loved gentleman who was also an amazingly loving husband who missed his dear wife so much that he took a teaspoon of her ashes with his morning cereals till his doctor stopped him. The Portrait of Khoan was of some comfort and he missed it so much when the museum here loaned it for an exhibition. They ingeniously made a close replica and sent that to him. When the art exhibition was over, Prof Sullivan was so pleased he had two portraits of his wife and he displayed them next to each other.

In this chapter, I argue for the inclusion of two pioneering local Tamil films, Eric Khoo’s My Magic (2008) and T. T. dhavamanni’s Gurushetram – 24 Hours of Anger (2010), as part of Singapore cinema. Both these movies are pivotal to the development of Singapore cinema for two closely related reasons. First, they are filmed almost entirely in Tamil, which is both an official language of Singapore and the indicative language of the Singaporean Indian community. Second, both films heavily feature the otherwise marginalised Indian, and more specifically Tamil-speaking local community. I propose that both these films offer a counterpoint to the existing and dominant Chinese dialect films. At the same time, both Khoo and Dhavamanni appear to undertake a conscientious effort to omit prevalent Indian stereotypes including the constant head shaking and dancing around coconut trees featured in movies from India and Singapore alike. Instead (an)other plausible image for Singapore Tamils is recreated on-screen. My Magic and Gurushetram wilfully position themselves as the vectors of economic adversity and social deviance by showcasing the underground activities of the community such as alcoholism and drug syndicate operations respectively.