Singapore Withdraws a Grant, Then the Book Wins Abroad
In 2015 the National Arts Council withdrew an S$8,000 grant for Sonny Liew's graphic novel The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye over "sensitive content"; in 2017 the book won three Eisner Awards.
Topics: arts and humanities, politics
Example
What happened: On 29 May 2015, shortly before publication, the National Arts Council (NAC) withdrew an S$8,000 grant for Sonny Liew's graphic novel The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, which retells Singapore's history through a fictional cartoonist and features figures such as Lee Kuan Yew and his left-wing rival Lim Chin Siong. The NAC said its "sensitive content" "potentially undermines the authority or legitimacy of the government and its public institutions". The book was published anyway and on 22 July 2017 won three Eisner Awards, the top prizes in American comics, making Liew the first Singaporean to win them.
Use it for: state funding gives governments influence over what art is made, because a grant can be withdrawn when a work challenges official views.
Why it matters: most Singapore artists depend on public grants, so a withdrawal signals which subjects are risky; but the work can still reach audiences through private publishers, which limits the power of funding as a form of control.
Limit: The government did not ban the book, which was sold freely in Singapore; the case shows the limits of public funding, not censorship, and supporters of the decision argue that taxpayers need not fund work that attacks the state.
Key facts
- On 29 May 2015 the National Arts Council withdrew its S$8,000 grant for The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, saying its sensitive content did not meet funding conditions.
- The NAC said the book's retelling of Singapore's history potentially undermines the authority or legitimacy of the government and its public institutions, and so breached its funding guidelines.
- The book depicts real figures including Lee Kuan Yew and Lim Chin Siong and events such as the Hock Lee bus riots.
How to use this example in a GP essay
Should the arts be funded by the state?
Claim
state funding gives governments influence over what art is made, because a grant can be withdrawn when a work challenges official views
How the evidence supports it
most Singapore artists depend on public grants, so a withdrawal signals which subjects are risky; but the work can still reach audiences through private publishers, which limits the power of funding as a form of control
Limitation
The government did not ban the book, which was sold freely in Singapore; the case shows the limits of public funding, not censorship, and supporters of the decision argue that taxpayers need not fund work that attacks the state.
Relevance
It is the best-known Singapore case on whether state funding comes with conditions on content, with a clear outcome when the artist went ahead without the money.
Limitations
- The government did not ban the book, which was sold freely in Singapore; the case shows the limits of public funding, not censorship, and supporters of the decision argue that taxpayers need not fund work that attacks the state.
Evaluations
arts and humanities evaluation
Support
Losing the grant did not stop the book; it went on to win Singapore's own literature prize and three Eisners, which shows that challenging art can find audiences without state money.
Counterargument
Liew had an established career and a publisher willing to take the risk; younger artists who depend on grants may simply avoid sensitive subjects, so the chilling effect is invisible.
Rebuttal
Both can be true: the case proves that funding conditions do not decide what gets made, but they do shape what most artists choose to attempt.
Additional support
The book won the Singapore Literature Prize after the NAC withdrew its grant, which shows one part of Singapore's arts world honouring a work another part declined to fund.
politics evaluation
Support
The NAC stated its reason openly, that the content could undermine the government's authority, which shows funding being used to protect an official account of history.
Counterargument
Governments everywhere decide what to fund, and choosing not to pay for a work is different from banning it; the book was sold freely in Singapore.
Rebuttal
The difference matters, but public arts money is meant to serve the public, which includes people who disagree with the government, so a political test for funding is still open to criticism.
Additional support
The book gives space to Lim Chin Siong, Lee Kuan Yew's left-wing rival in the 1950s and 1960s, which is why it became a test of how far state-funded art can depart from the official account.
Sources
- Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (2015-06): Censorship by Financial Sabotage: Cartoonist Sonny Liew Loses Singapore Arts Grant
- Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (2015-06): Financial Setback Doesn't Stop Sonny Liew Graphic Novel from Selling Out
- Global Voices (2015-06-04): The Singapore government pulled the funding for this comic book and now readers only want it more
- Malaysiakini (2015-06): Singapore Arts Council pulls grant for graphic novel
- Malay Mail (2017-07-22): Graphic novelist Sonny Liew is first Singaporean to win prestigious Eisner