Edit: It has since been brought to my attention that a separate post by the data collection agency has provided some specifics to the poll. This sheds light to the basic intent and methodology of the survey, but does not change my response below.
—————
Recently, The Straits Times (national English newspaper of Singapore), published an article listing down the top 5 most crucial jobs to keep Singapore going: #1 Doctor/Nurse, #2 Cleaner, #3 Garbage collector, #4 Hawker and #5 Deliveryman. ST also published the top 5 least crucial, under the title ‘Top 5 non-essential jobs’,: #5 HR manager, #4 Business consultant, #3 Social media manager/PR specialist, #2 Telemarketer and #1 Artist. You can read the article here.
Guess what, the article blew up. There were heated discussions, calm explanations, each providing perspectives and with all social media, there were memes. Mostly from people defending the artists. But this puzzled me. If mathematician/physicist appear in the top non-essential spot, I wouldn’t have given it any notice. I admit, I am probably non-essential, especially in a pandemic. People might think that a pandemic requires more brain power, hence funding should go into science. Yes, but science is broad. From where I come from (i.e mathematics and physics) we are facing a stall in funding all round, across all grant agencies, it is clear that academic pursuit is clearly a non-essential in this case. But this led me to realise the first important question:
1. Who is an artist?
This was not explicitly mentioned or stated, but looking at comments, there seem to be no single definition. To me (I might be wrong), graphic designers are not artists, they are graphic designers. Just like how ‘scientist’ is too broad a definition and I wouldn’t call myself one, I take the view that respondents to the survey might have thought of ‘artist’ as painters/sculptors (basically the jobs of the 4 ninja turtles), but the readers interpret it as all inclusive. During the initial stages of circuit breaker, TCM is considered non-essential, but medical doctors are essential. So, while doctors and nurses receive their recognition by being #1 in the top 5 most essential jobs, I haven’t heard from a TCM sensei that he/she finally got his/her recognition that he/she is essential. In fact, I’m baffled at how doctors/nurses did not get 100%, but I digress.
My point is this: If you do not fill in ‘artist’ in your immigration form when you go on a holiday to another country or in your CV, then you are not one! Seems simple. This narrows down a lot of the people who are arguing their case for graphic designers, photographers, actors, musicians, dancers, authors, podcasters, YouTubers, Getai singers, tik-tokers etc. You get my point. I think this was what ST was also trying to imply, but failed terribly at doing so. So let’s give benefit to poor definitions as a point of contention and I agree to put aside this narrow definition that I am making and consider all who claim they are artist, as artist for the moment. Then this leads us to the next question:
2. Why artist?
There are so many layers to this, but I would like to take just one point of discussion. The survey is conducted in the context of ‘most crucial in keeping Singapore going’. Now, ‘keeping …going’ are active words and thus, I would think the respondents did the survey in our present context when every one is in “lockdown”. If you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, “art” does not fall into the lower categories, but in the upper echelon. Therefore, in the context of a pandemic, is it essential? Probably not, but in time of peace, is it essential? I would say absolutely, yes! It engages the community on a psycho-social level.
The idea of “essential” is situational. In the context of the pandemic that we are going through, I am not surprise that it came up in the top 5. Was there a better way to present this information? Definitely. The subjective nature of the question alone, when taken out of context will be poorly interpreted, and the responses to the article shows. (BTW, where are all the other people representing the others who are in the top 5? If HR manager is #1, would the outcry be the same?) No one is saying ‘artists’ are useless, just not of absolute importance in a time like this.
We can’t quote Singaporeans singing ‘Home’ during COVID-19 as an example of how art brought Singaporeans together, because people were singing ‘Home’ are in the comfort of their own homes, they are not the ones “fighting the battle”. They have all the time in the world to think about their own existence and not have to worry for their own lives. The doctors on the frontlines are not singing ‘Home’, because they are in a constant battle and clearly, us singing ‘Home’ and clapping don’t really help the work that they are doing. Does it help those in the comfort of their own homes feel united as a country? Probably, because we have our basic needs met, especially safety. Was singing ‘Home’ essential to the work that doctors/nurses are doing? Probably not. The art was essential to some, and clearly non-essential to others because situations are different.
My point is this: Let’s take a step back. In the grand scheme of things, for a country facing a pandemic, is it essential to have art? Maybe artists are questioning the relevance of other professions and why they are not on this list. Well, that’s the same question we all have and it’s a question that we won’t get an answer to unless the raw data of the survey is released (I’ll get to that in a bit). Now, suppose this question is asked, not during a time of pandemic, but a time of peace. Would the response be different? Maybe another ST poll will sort that out, again, we don’t know. But what I do know is the perception that people have about artist in general. This brings me to my third question:
3. Why the outcry?
With BLM, protests, all of us being locked in and having heavy exposure to social media. I think it has cultivated an environment where everyone can have a view and no one is wrong, unless ethically wrong. But I want to say that this is exactly the reason why artists are also frustrated. No one (that’s all of us, non-artists) wants to admit that we are in the wrong, especially in our perception of what an artist do, how they contribute and the impact they have. When my P3 results were bad, I managed to convince my parents to dropout of piano lessons. The view that academics is more important than musical talent is something that is ingrained in our grandparents’ generation (and the next). Survival is key, and as we have discussed earlier, this need to survive is manifested in education, thus relegating arts to secondary. You see, our parents, and their parents are not wrong in their perception that art is non-essential, because they grew up in an environment where art is a luxury.
Having been in the shadows, relegated as non-essential, for 2 to 3 generations, Singapore has reached a point where we cannot deny the importance of the arts. For those who take a broad definition of ‘artist’, you also need to acknowledge how things have significantly improved. You may not be the generation that enjoy the explosion of the arts, but at least acknowledge that we are making progress. But for all of us non-artists, we need to listen to this cry of frustration. Why is it that a student can do triple science, and be considered smart/on the road to success, yet triple arts (music/singing/dancing etc.) is not even offered in our schools, I am looking at the mainstream schools.
At the end of the day, it all boils back down to the system in which we have set up. I was in a pure science class, with many friends musically and artistically talented, some are even good at woodworking. Yet, they are forced to concentrate on their science/mathematics subjects, because ‘L1R5 must count science/maths’. If music is compulsory for all and must be counted in my L1R5, I would be as worried as they are, because my success in life now hinges on something that I may not be entirely interested in. For far too long, many in the arts are in a system where they are assessed based on things they are not so passionate about, schools (through no fault) send a message to them that certain subjects are more important than others. If all my life, the indicator for my success is based off something I am not good at and not something I am good at, then I am in the wrong system. The system has to change.
My point is this: Where do we go from here as a society. Status quo is not an option (once this pandemic is over). We need to have an environment where talents are equally recognised across all fields. I think this conversation is important and shouldn’t be brushed off. This report has rubbed some nerves and rightfully so, because this is a conversation that artists want to have, yet we are tone-deaf to it. This brings me to where I want to direct this discussion, back to where it all started. That survey.
As someone from academia, my initial sentiments was that if the underlying research was bad, then any feelings that resulted from that is just poor judgement and an over-reaction; sensationalised and hypersensitive. Then it struck me, that this is the kind of life that our artist friends have been living all this while. Science trying to exert its superiority over what is right and not so right; what people should and should not feel; what you should take and should not take with a pinch of salt.
You see, as a researcher, I am embarrassed at how the results were reported. I can’t speak for journalists, but as a researcher, I am going to say this report was not handled properly at all, at some point, it might even be unethical. Firstly, there were only 1000 respondents. This is not even 0.03% of the Singaporean population. Clearly not representative. For them to write an article that not only is highly unrepresentative, but no information is given as to how the respondents are stratified, is a shame. I would even go to the extent to say that this is the kind of research that people do when they wanted to prove that vaccine causes autism – it’s of no societal or scientific value.
Next, many people have lost their jobs or risking pay cuts, many of whom I know are in the industry of arts (broadly defined). To publish an article of this nature at this time is just inappropriate. Yes you may publish the top 5 most essential, but was there really a need to publish the top 5 non-essential jobs? Especially when it does not relate to any other part of the report. To publish something so insensitive given the struggles that Singaporeans are facing as a nation, is a shame. It seems like a deliberate attempt to stir outrage and conversations, which gives them more editorial views, and further milk sentiments for newer “op-eds”.
Any experiment should be able to be replicated. I am demanding that ST does the same survey again, on a bigger group, at least 10% of the population (age, sex, SES stratified) and show that the results can be reproduced to an acceptable degree of error (let me give 2%). Of course, who am I to demand? So I conducted my own survey, asking my Instagram followers whether they agree or disagree with what was published, whether the results of the top 5 non-essential jobs will change.
I know the results, but I feel that publishing it will be worthless, because that makes me the same as ST, it is not stratified, no control and probably cannot be replicated. I don’t want to stoop to that level. If you ask me, ST should revoke that article and apologise for their poor reporting and how it was unnecessary for a country, whose citizens are still in distress about the loss of jobs/cut in pay and having to deal with this additional psychological stress of convincing people that they are important.
The slightest consolation, though through no credit of ST, is that this article has now revealed what Singaporeans may feel, and this could be a starting point for important conversations to fix what is systemically wrong and ideologically wrong with our society and people.
You see, a job can only become non-essential to a country if the skills that the person possesses becomes obsolete to the tasks one is doing. If self-driving cars become commercially and economically viable, then that will make taxi drivers and bus drivers non-essential. In which case, drivers will have to upgrade their skills to learn non-routine tasks so that they are able to find a job that machines cannot replace. However, the skills that come with art is in itself non-routine. Nothing that my friends, who are artists, do is routine, so in no way are they non-essential, and they will probably remain essential long after researchers become obsolete.
But I confess, throughout the majority of this episode (even while writing the initial parts of this article), I have been using my head to try and rationalise the situation. But what I am essentially doing is using my head to rationalise the importance of others. I realise that when I do that, I fail to understand the life and passion that artists have. When I used my brain to rationalise who is and isn’t an artist, I fail to see the value and creativity that each of them uniquely have. So whether we take a broad categorisation or narrow categorisation of ‘artist’ is not at all important. Like what a friend of mine said, “If you are going to use your brain [to rationalise or find answers], I think it isn’t going to work. It’s completely irrational~ use your heart instead”. To understand the opposition and anger towards the article, sometimes all it takes is to do what artists do best, to feel and express what you sense around you – the goal – to make this world slightly more colourful, more thoughtful and more pleasing to the ears.
Joel Lai's Webpage 