SUBSCRIBE TO THE BULLETIN TODAY!

Fresh thinking needed for boosting the arts
in HKSAR

Hong Kong has the making of a world-class arts and cultural scene, if we can collectively choreograph it right, writes CHRISTOPHER CHENG

World cities like London and New York are noted not just for their leading business sectors but for their vibrant arts and cultural scene. It is not so much the co-existence of business with the arts but the intricate web linking them together, the binding of the best with the best, that makes for the character of a world city. Small wonder it is business people one often runs into in arts districts like South Bank in London.

Hong Kong's business sector is truly world class, but how does our arts and culture measure up?

There is no doubt we have a variety of acclaimed arts activities. The Hong Kong Arts Festival is one of the most popular in Asia. Every week some of the hundred or so local arts groups are staging performances or exhibitions in some local venue. Our cultural scene, from both East and West, indigenous or exotic, is as varied as the place itself. Yet, despite the variety, we seem to lack the confidence, sophistication and maturity that befit a world city. Our sense of insufficiency is symbolised by that very icon, the windowless building on the harbour front which we call our cultural centre -- we know it is there, but we are not excited about it.

To turn Hong Kong into an arts and cultural capital of Asia is one of the expressed aims of the Chief Executive, C H Tung, and one that has the community's support. But it takes much more than a diligent government to turn the vision to reality. Government has been quite closely involved in arts and cultural activities, but is that the solution or is that the problem?

As arts is a "creative industry," there is something inherently problematic if creativity is to be engendered by government "nannying." It is not that government should devote less money; the use of public resources is always an integral part of arts development. The question, rather, is whether our public resources are effectively used to achieve the desired objective of cultivating a vibrant arts scene. We cannot genuinely breed artistic talent if the process of arts development itself becomes entangled in administrative and bureaucratic processes.

It is very important, therefore, for the government to define its role more clearly. If art is to reflect the character of our society, it can do with more government help, but it should not be a government service as such. Government's role should be confined to being the infrastructure provider, both in terms of facilities like the future West Kowloon arts and cultural complex, and "soft" infrastructure such as promotion of public arts and art education and appreciation. The operation of arts and cultural activities should then be left to the arts community and the public at large. Where there are functions within government which the private sector can well take care of, such as art museums or curating for art exhibitions, these ought to be removed from the government.

Likewise, the channelling of government funding to the arts groups should also be re-examined. There are indeed some arts sectors which require more active government assistance, such as the experimental or avant garde groups. For the majority, especially those of the more established arts, the objective should be to utilise public resources, so to speak, to "give art back to the people."

Since the "creative industry" is at stake, perhaps we are entitled to do some innovative thinking. If a system can be devised whereby the group's performance is related to the public's patronage, then the arts will become more responsive and accountable to the community at large. How about government subsidising the end user directly -- and by end user, I mean the general public patrons, not the art producers -- say, by issuing every school in Hong Kong with vouchers to attend art performances? Or making the government subsidy production-specific and linking it to box office record? The idea is to vest more of the art funding with the consuming public. This will no doubt put more pressure on arts groups to raise their standards; at the same time, it enhances the public's standard of art appreciation. More importantly, greater involvement by the public will engender a greater sense of ownership of our arts.

There is an added significance in nurturing this greater sense of ownership in the face of the current prolonged economic downturn and the accompanying social tensions. As a form of "social capital" for the community, art and culture provides the cohesive force needed to counteract the creeping social disintegration which every society experiences from time to time.

Given the business sector's influence in Hong Kong, it is natural for the community to expect them to play a bigger role in the development of our art and culture. To leverage on the business sector's commitment and expertise should therefore be an important part of the government's art policy. One very practical way to boost business contribution is to double the current profits tax allowance for arts sponsorship. This will be a fine example of government taking the lead by sitting back -- instead of increasing its own administrative overhead in arts, the government can, by doubling tax credit, immediately incentivise businesses into raising corporate sponsorship. The result would be a win-win for all. The government will be sending a strong message of its support for the arts. More businesses will find the encouragement needed to partake in art development. The community will enjoy a richer cultural life with more art productions and performances of higher standards, an evolving art scene of which they can be proud.

But the benefits of a tax incentive goes much further than the extra cash that is raised. Many business people are willing to put their heart where the money is -- witness the many corporate volunteers in arts programmes. To have their commitment and effort redoubled will be an invaluable boost to our art development. For a successful art and cultural programme is as much about management, promotion, marketing and co-ordination as it is about the art itself -- precisely what the business sector is good at. Already many business people are sitting on the boards or committees of the arts bodies. We need more of them to "add value" to the art or cultural projects. True to our business ethos, we are keen to see a multiplier effect for every dollar spent. And we are doing this without any draw on the public purse; rather, we are harnessing the volunteerism of the so-called "third sector" in building up our social capital.

Hong Kong has all the ingredients of greatness -- a wealth of heritage, our East-meets-West, melting pot experience, our success as a world class trade and financial centre, our unique combination of modernity and tradition. I firmly believe that we have the making of a world-class arts and cultural scene, if we can collectively choreograph it right.

Christopher Cheng is the Chairman of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce.