THE TALE of two cities－Singapore and Hong Kong－goes beyond their competition in the economic arena. Almost simultaneously, each announced a blueprint recently for its future as “one of the world's cultural centres”。
Mr Lee Yock Suan, Singapore's Minister for Information and the Arts, produced an ambitious report in a March parliamentary session. The government, he declared, was keen to establish the island-state as a global city of arts and culture eventually on par with such sites of the Muses as New York and London.
In Hong Kong, the newly formed Culture and Heritage Commission headed by Prof C K Chang, President of City University of Hong Kong, held its virgin meeting on May 10, attended by Mr Tung Chee Hwa, Chief Executive of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
In a brief speech, Mr Tung admitted that the cultural scene of Hong Kong was far less developed than the economic sector and, in cultural affairs, the “software” was lagging behind the “hardware”。
Therefore, the Chief Executive advocated that Hong Kong should strive for a better understanding of the Chinese heritage while drawing upon the Western culture. This would add to Hong Kong's cultural diversity and make the city a genuine global hub of the arts, Mr Tung added.
Prof Chang went on to confirm Hong Kong's stature as a major cosmopolitan centre, citing a recent study conducted in the United States which ranked the city among the “top 10” in the world. The Culture and Heritage Commission, he expected, would help Hong Kong attain even higher excellence in arts and culture.
For years, both Singapore and Hong Kong have prioritised economic growth, taking care of arts and culture only to the degree that they help promote trade and business.
Then, it dawned upon them both that wealth alone cannot give people a creative mind or an enlightened vision, and that entirely fresh perspectives are needed for understanding the role and function of arts and culture.
There's no denying that, compared with Singapore, Hong Kong enjoys more open and liberalised cultural policies as well as more generous public financial subsidies.
Moreover, adjacent to the mainland, Hong Kong has been benefiting from the mainstream Chinese culture. Nourished by the rich heritage, a vernacular Cantonese subculture has evolved, expressing itself in various facets of life including cuisine, custom and tradition, tourism, education, religion, music, movies, painting, architecture, arts and crafts.
The peculiar charm of cultural diversity explains why the Pearl of the Orient appeals to visitors from far and near, who have arrived in myriads year after year.
As a multiracial society, Singapore can do well, too. Given time, the harmonious interaction between Chinese, Malay, and Indian heritages will make the island a cultural hub with a difference.
Indeed, with the advent of globalisation and knowledge-based economy, cultural creativity has been recognised as an impetus for the progress of society and economy.
Therefore, the Singapore government would be well-advised to map out policies on arts and culture conducive to fair competition in an open and liberal environment.
Discussion of cultural issues should be encouraged and different modes of expression allowed, so that talent will be more likely to come and stay, just as seeds sprout and take root more easily in rich soil.
The Singapore government has pledged 50 million dollars for both “software” and “hardware” of culture during the next five years. Likewise, the Hong Kong government has promised a greater share of funding and higher priority for cultural undertakings. Both governments have come to see the importance of arts and culture.
It has been suggested that the Singapore government should help bring about a social environment favourable for artistic creation and bring up a population keen to appreciate worthy works. While financing the building of libraries, theatres, museums, and concert halls, it should refrain, as far as possible, from using the allocations to dictate how the beneficiaries should operate or to interfere in the artists' work.
Then, in time, an atmosphere of art will make itself felt. No more trivial disputes over a painting of nudity, a monologue on stage, or a play's title will be heard.
In my opinion, when people's self-confidence is built up and their mind unbound, they will be able to explore various implications of culture from perspectives and appreciate their own cultural and artistic heritage.
Then the blueprint as drawn up by the government will be translated into reality. It is never too late to start the efforts now that the goal is well-defined.
（The author was a journalist in Hong Kong, and is now a sub-editor with Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
新港文化別苗頭
丞之
新加坡與香港何其相似！在經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域競爭外,文化范疇里也幾乎同時(shí)宣布要成為“國際文化中心”。
新聞及藝術(shù)部長李玉全三月在國會(huì)發(fā)表了《文藝復(fù)興城市》報(bào)告書,豪情壯志地宣布政府有意把新加坡變成一個(gè)的頂尖藝術(shù)城市,最終與紐約、倫敦等藝術(shù)名城比美。
香港方面,原定今年元旦成立,取代“殺局”（解散兩個(gè)市政局）后協(xié)助港府制訂文化政策的文化委員會(huì),在獲委為主席的城市大學(xué)校長張信剛教授領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下,5月10日召開首次會(huì)議。
特首董建華親自出席,發(fā)表簡短演說,他強(qiáng)調(diào)香港的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展遠(yuǎn)勝文化發(fā)展,文化硬件的建設(shè)亦較軟件優(yōu)勝。他認(rèn)為香港應(yīng)加深了解中國文化,同時(shí)吸收西方文化,令香港更多姿多彩,成為真正的國際文化中心。
張信剛教授為了進(jìn)一步證實(shí)香港是一個(gè)國際大都會(huì),又引述最近美國研究人員遴選了香港為世界十大都會(huì)之一,期望文化委員會(huì)能帶領(lǐng)香港更上一層樓。
盡管有人譏諷新加坡所定位的“文藝復(fù)興”只是爭奪世界文化中心城市的一個(gè)噱頭,但這何嘗不是新加坡領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的期望呢！
新港兩地一直以來崇尚經(jīng)濟(jì)主導(dǎo),過分強(qiáng)調(diào)文化藝術(shù)的經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值觀,現(xiàn)在同時(shí)醒覺金錢無法提升創(chuàng)造力、拓闊思維空間,因此需要以全新角度給文化藝術(shù)重新定位。
毋庸諱言,香港開放與自由的文化政策、官方的財(cái)政資助,程度上優(yōu)于新加坡,不僅因?yàn)榈赜蛏辖咏腥A文化傳統(tǒng),更重要的是把區(qū)域性的廣東文化融注生活中,無論教育、旅游、飲食、禮俗、宗教、音樂、電影、建筑、繪畫、工藝,都凝聚成獨(dú)特的多元化魅力,也解釋了為何每年有千萬游客,要一窺“東方之珠”的奧秘了。
新加坡是多元種族的社會(huì),除了華族文化外,馬來文化、淡米爾文化也是重要支柱,利用這種優(yōu)勢,假以時(shí)日亦可成為“不一樣”的文化中心。
事實(shí)上,在全球化的趨勢和知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)的要求下,文化創(chuàng)造力已成為經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)發(fā)展一個(gè)著力點(diǎn)。政府制訂藝文政策總體方向時(shí),首先要拓展公平競爭和開放的空間,鼓勵(lì)民間對(duì)文化內(nèi)容的多元詮釋,和容許不同表達(dá)方式,才能提供廣闊的沃土,讓種子發(fā)芽茁壯成林,間接在吸引人才方面更易薈萃精英,愿意在此落地生根。
財(cái)政支援方面,新加坡政府未來五年將撥款5000萬元“投資”軟件及硬件設(shè)施；港府也承諾增加常規(guī)撥款,在資源分配的優(yōu)先次序得到照顧,反映兩地政府意識(shí)到搞文化事業(yè)無財(cái)不行的道理。
論者認(rèn)為,政府大事建設(shè)圖書館、劇院、博物館、音樂廳之余,更要提升民眾鑒賞力,及營造活潑的創(chuàng)作環(huán)境,不要以撥款作撒手锏,為文化藝術(shù)作官方“定性”,或介入具體的創(chuàng)作內(nèi)容,才能讓人感受到藝術(shù)的氛圍,再也不會(huì)有人為一幅*畫像、一出陰道獨(dú)白、一個(gè)劇名,嘮嘮叨叨地作低層次的爭論。
個(gè)人認(rèn)為若能解放思想,喚起自信,在長期浸*下,人們都能從各個(gè)角度去探討文化問題,欣賞屬于自己的文化與藝術(shù)遺產(chǎn),那政府描繪的壯麗遠(yuǎn)景,并非海市蜃樓。只要有目標(biāo),任何時(shí)候起步都不會(huì)太遲的。
Mr Lee Yock Suan, Singapore's Minister for Information and the Arts, produced an ambitious report in a March parliamentary session. The government, he declared, was keen to establish the island-state as a global city of arts and culture eventually on par with such sites of the Muses as New York and London.
In Hong Kong, the newly formed Culture and Heritage Commission headed by Prof C K Chang, President of City University of Hong Kong, held its virgin meeting on May 10, attended by Mr Tung Chee Hwa, Chief Executive of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
In a brief speech, Mr Tung admitted that the cultural scene of Hong Kong was far less developed than the economic sector and, in cultural affairs, the “software” was lagging behind the “hardware”。
Therefore, the Chief Executive advocated that Hong Kong should strive for a better understanding of the Chinese heritage while drawing upon the Western culture. This would add to Hong Kong's cultural diversity and make the city a genuine global hub of the arts, Mr Tung added.
Prof Chang went on to confirm Hong Kong's stature as a major cosmopolitan centre, citing a recent study conducted in the United States which ranked the city among the “top 10” in the world. The Culture and Heritage Commission, he expected, would help Hong Kong attain even higher excellence in arts and culture.
For years, both Singapore and Hong Kong have prioritised economic growth, taking care of arts and culture only to the degree that they help promote trade and business.
Then, it dawned upon them both that wealth alone cannot give people a creative mind or an enlightened vision, and that entirely fresh perspectives are needed for understanding the role and function of arts and culture.
There's no denying that, compared with Singapore, Hong Kong enjoys more open and liberalised cultural policies as well as more generous public financial subsidies.
Moreover, adjacent to the mainland, Hong Kong has been benefiting from the mainstream Chinese culture. Nourished by the rich heritage, a vernacular Cantonese subculture has evolved, expressing itself in various facets of life including cuisine, custom and tradition, tourism, education, religion, music, movies, painting, architecture, arts and crafts.
The peculiar charm of cultural diversity explains why the Pearl of the Orient appeals to visitors from far and near, who have arrived in myriads year after year.
As a multiracial society, Singapore can do well, too. Given time, the harmonious interaction between Chinese, Malay, and Indian heritages will make the island a cultural hub with a difference.
Indeed, with the advent of globalisation and knowledge-based economy, cultural creativity has been recognised as an impetus for the progress of society and economy.
Therefore, the Singapore government would be well-advised to map out policies on arts and culture conducive to fair competition in an open and liberal environment.
Discussion of cultural issues should be encouraged and different modes of expression allowed, so that talent will be more likely to come and stay, just as seeds sprout and take root more easily in rich soil.
The Singapore government has pledged 50 million dollars for both “software” and “hardware” of culture during the next five years. Likewise, the Hong Kong government has promised a greater share of funding and higher priority for cultural undertakings. Both governments have come to see the importance of arts and culture.
It has been suggested that the Singapore government should help bring about a social environment favourable for artistic creation and bring up a population keen to appreciate worthy works. While financing the building of libraries, theatres, museums, and concert halls, it should refrain, as far as possible, from using the allocations to dictate how the beneficiaries should operate or to interfere in the artists' work.
Then, in time, an atmosphere of art will make itself felt. No more trivial disputes over a painting of nudity, a monologue on stage, or a play's title will be heard.
In my opinion, when people's self-confidence is built up and their mind unbound, they will be able to explore various implications of culture from perspectives and appreciate their own cultural and artistic heritage.
Then the blueprint as drawn up by the government will be translated into reality. It is never too late to start the efforts now that the goal is well-defined.
（The author was a journalist in Hong Kong, and is now a sub-editor with Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
新港文化別苗頭
丞之
新加坡與香港何其相似！在經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域競爭外,文化范疇里也幾乎同時(shí)宣布要成為“國際文化中心”。
新聞及藝術(shù)部長李玉全三月在國會(huì)發(fā)表了《文藝復(fù)興城市》報(bào)告書,豪情壯志地宣布政府有意把新加坡變成一個(gè)的頂尖藝術(shù)城市,最終與紐約、倫敦等藝術(shù)名城比美。
香港方面,原定今年元旦成立,取代“殺局”（解散兩個(gè)市政局）后協(xié)助港府制訂文化政策的文化委員會(huì),在獲委為主席的城市大學(xué)校長張信剛教授領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下,5月10日召開首次會(huì)議。
特首董建華親自出席,發(fā)表簡短演說,他強(qiáng)調(diào)香港的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展遠(yuǎn)勝文化發(fā)展,文化硬件的建設(shè)亦較軟件優(yōu)勝。他認(rèn)為香港應(yīng)加深了解中國文化,同時(shí)吸收西方文化,令香港更多姿多彩,成為真正的國際文化中心。
張信剛教授為了進(jìn)一步證實(shí)香港是一個(gè)國際大都會(huì),又引述最近美國研究人員遴選了香港為世界十大都會(huì)之一,期望文化委員會(huì)能帶領(lǐng)香港更上一層樓。
盡管有人譏諷新加坡所定位的“文藝復(fù)興”只是爭奪世界文化中心城市的一個(gè)噱頭,但這何嘗不是新加坡領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的期望呢！
新港兩地一直以來崇尚經(jīng)濟(jì)主導(dǎo),過分強(qiáng)調(diào)文化藝術(shù)的經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值觀,現(xiàn)在同時(shí)醒覺金錢無法提升創(chuàng)造力、拓闊思維空間,因此需要以全新角度給文化藝術(shù)重新定位。
毋庸諱言,香港開放與自由的文化政策、官方的財(cái)政資助,程度上優(yōu)于新加坡,不僅因?yàn)榈赜蛏辖咏腥A文化傳統(tǒng),更重要的是把區(qū)域性的廣東文化融注生活中,無論教育、旅游、飲食、禮俗、宗教、音樂、電影、建筑、繪畫、工藝,都凝聚成獨(dú)特的多元化魅力,也解釋了為何每年有千萬游客,要一窺“東方之珠”的奧秘了。
新加坡是多元種族的社會(huì),除了華族文化外,馬來文化、淡米爾文化也是重要支柱,利用這種優(yōu)勢,假以時(shí)日亦可成為“不一樣”的文化中心。
事實(shí)上,在全球化的趨勢和知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)的要求下,文化創(chuàng)造力已成為經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)發(fā)展一個(gè)著力點(diǎn)。政府制訂藝文政策總體方向時(shí),首先要拓展公平競爭和開放的空間,鼓勵(lì)民間對(duì)文化內(nèi)容的多元詮釋,和容許不同表達(dá)方式,才能提供廣闊的沃土,讓種子發(fā)芽茁壯成林,間接在吸引人才方面更易薈萃精英,愿意在此落地生根。
財(cái)政支援方面,新加坡政府未來五年將撥款5000萬元“投資”軟件及硬件設(shè)施；港府也承諾增加常規(guī)撥款,在資源分配的優(yōu)先次序得到照顧,反映兩地政府意識(shí)到搞文化事業(yè)無財(cái)不行的道理。
論者認(rèn)為,政府大事建設(shè)圖書館、劇院、博物館、音樂廳之余,更要提升民眾鑒賞力,及營造活潑的創(chuàng)作環(huán)境,不要以撥款作撒手锏,為文化藝術(shù)作官方“定性”,或介入具體的創(chuàng)作內(nèi)容,才能讓人感受到藝術(shù)的氛圍,再也不會(huì)有人為一幅*畫像、一出陰道獨(dú)白、一個(gè)劇名,嘮嘮叨叨地作低層次的爭論。
個(gè)人認(rèn)為若能解放思想,喚起自信,在長期浸*下,人們都能從各個(gè)角度去探討文化問題,欣賞屬于自己的文化與藝術(shù)遺產(chǎn),那政府描繪的壯麗遠(yuǎn)景,并非海市蜃樓。只要有目標(biāo),任何時(shí)候起步都不會(huì)太遲的。