In 1990, Singapore announced its goal to "grow into a hub for the arts." What progress has it made?

Activities are bubbling away in schools and universities. There are so many arts groups and performances that I'm not able to keep close track of either, which is a good sign. There is a certain liveliness and a good mix of foreign performances and local productions. The recent Festival of Asian Performing Arts was a great success. We have to evolve from here. What we want is an industry with a life of its own. Government spending is important in creating an infrastructural base, including an array of spaces and theaters, and investing in arts education. But upon this base, an internal market operates.

Complex forces are at work. It's difficult for the Ministry or the National Arts Council or anyone to predetermine the shape of this market. There are fads; the mood of society changes. The arts is not an activity which the government sponsors. If it must be kept alive by official patronage, then it will fail. The arts must have a wide base of support and a lot of skills across a range of languages and cultures. It's coming along. In the end, it must take a form which is in accord with our history and tradition, in line with our hopes for the future.

You have said that artistic creation can't be ordered "off the shelf." Can a hub for the arts be nurtured in the way that Singapore developed its economy?

Visiting foreign troupes are like cut flowers from Europe or Japan. They add to the ambiance but what we want is a variety of local blooms which we supplement with foreign cuts. We are gardeners. The climate we have to accept as given. We can improve the soil. Occasionally we do some pruning and spraying but the plants have natures of their own, which we have to work with. It's a light-handed approach. Sometimes we try a plant we think will grow well but it doesn't take root, so we try a different combination. The important thing is to experiment, select and learn.

Have the "out-of-bounds markers" for the arts changed since the censorship review in 1992, and if so, how?

It has been refined, after taking in the reactions of the larger community. In a recent parliamentary debate we had a conservative MP saying we should not be too strict on the dress code for local television stars. It was an interesting change. It shows we now have boundaries which practitioners and audiences are more or less comfortable with. In fact, [censorship] has almost disappeared as an issue. I have received very few complaints in the past two years -- from arts groups that we are too strict, and from audiences that arts groups are too bold.

Is there any attempt to woo back Singaporean artistes from abroad?

I don't think we should. Our strength is that we don't try to stake total claim on a talent. We send people out, and let the world polish and cut our gems. If you are really good, you would not only perform in the Singapore stage. Also, if you are really good, you would be performing here from time to time. Because the arts industry serves the region, those who live near the hub enjoy a facility which they otherwise could not have. As with everything in Singapore, we get more than what we would as a city-state of 3 million people because we serve, maybe, 300 million.