Drama Box and the Social Theatre of Singapore: Cultural Intervention and Artistic Autonomy, 1990–2006

By How Wee Ng

This pioneering study provides an essential guide to the formative years of Drama Box, a leading Chinese-language theatre company in Singapore. How Wee Ng presents a compelling narrative of how Drama Box has emerged as a prominent force in the field of theatre for social intervention, effectively amplifying the voices of marginalised communities and establishing itself as a foremost advocate of cutting-edge, socially oriented artistic practice. Ng’s in-depth analysis of Drama Box’s most influential works during this pivotal period, and his meticulous examination of the social, political, and economic contexts of their productions, illuminate the remarkable balance the company has achieved in its engagement with government policy, censorship, and financial imperatives, while fiercely defending its artistic autonomy. As well as unveiling the remarkable history of Drama Box, the book offers readers a unique lens through which to understand the complex relationship between the arts and state authority, and the broader socio-cultural and political landscape of contemporary Singapore.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pagesetters
• Release date: Mar 9, 2024
• ISBN: 9789811888106

How Wee Ng

Dr How Wee Ng is Lecturer at School of Humanities, University of Westminster. His research interests include Sinophone cinema, theatre, television, literature, and broadly, the exclusionary politics of representation related to ethnicity, gender, and class in visual culture. His new monograph Worrying about the Audience in Postsocialist China: The Censorship Discourse on Chinese Television will be published in 2025/2026.

Book preview

PREFACE (2011)

This book grew out of my Master’s thesis, which was undertaken in Nanyang Technological University’s Chinese Programme division. I began writing the thesis in 2005 and completed it in 2009, and it discussed socio-cultural developments and dramatic works that spanned 1990 to 2006.

Many changes have occurred in Singapore society since I started this project. These include the rapid increase in foreign-born residents, and the staging of Pink Dot in 2009 at Speakers’ Corner (equivalent to Singapore’s first Pride Parade). These events were met by an increasingly boisterous cyberspace of blogs and forums, all illustrating the collective momentum driving Singapore’s aspiration to become a global city.

During the same period, Drama Box produced more works and launched more initiatives. In 2007, the company launched its training programme, Blanc Space Playwright Series; and its youth training arm, ARTivate. It toured Shanghai with performances of Drift, as part of a cultural diplomacy exercise spearheaded by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts and the National Arts Council (NAC). In 2008, Drama Box staged site-specific community theatre performances such as IgnorLAND and its Desires, which examined themes related to local geography, history, and society. The same year, the company received its first major grant from the NAC. In 2009, it collaborated with the Ministry of Education, working with curriculum planning specialists to develop a systematic programme for the creative teaching of the Chinese language, including co-authoring a pedagogical guide titled Drama Happens in the Classroom. The following year saw an even more important milestone for Drama Box — the 20th anniversary of the company’s founding. It marked the occasion with SCENES, which celebrated Singapore’s Chinese-language theatre by showcasing a selection of seminal homegrown Chinese-language plays.

Singapore’s growing economic prosperity and the apparent liberalisation of its cultural policies did not mean that Singapore’s theatre practitioners were given a freer creative space. To achieve greater artistic autonomy, artists still struggled as they negotiated, compromised, contended, and even colluded with the state. Drama Box’s September 2010 community theatre event Shh… a date with the community is an illustrative case. To celebrate the 10th anniversary of its first community theatre production, the company originally scheduled three short Forum Theatre pieces to be performed at various outdoor spaces. These plays were: Elevator (which told the story of a gay man who was ostracised when he was growing up in Singapore in the 1960s and 70s); Believe It or Not (which depicted a devout character forced to adopt extreme methods of communication when he felt unable to communicate his messages within his social circles); and Love’s Education (which explored how restrictive mainstream information channels compelled curious youths to look to the Internet for information about sex). Three weeks before the scheduled performance, the Media Development Authority – the official regulatory watchdog for Singapore’s media and artistic content – indicated that the performance would be allowed only in an indoor venue. In response, Drama Box submitted a new proposal to the authorities that proposed adjustments to the layout of the outdoor performance, as it hoped that the event could still take place outdoors. This proposal was rejected. The company had hoped that the performance would lead audiences to reflect on freedom of expression and censorship. Ironically, the performance itself was censored. Eventually, Drama Box submitted a completely new script, Shh… censorship: a forum theatre performance, which was approved for an outdoor performance space.

While this incident demonstrated the continued official curtailment of artistic freedom, new avenues did open up for the Singapore arts community during the first decade of the 21st century, in the less rigorously monitored cyberspace. In addition to websites, theatre companies in Singapore used blogs, Facebook, and Twitter to promote their works and cultivate audiences. Such online platforms allowed these companies to document, discuss, and critique the censorship of art (such as the case of Shh…) in mainstream discourse, and even to call for action and mobilise the public to participate in social movements.

However, it is worth asking whether the ‘freedom’ given to theatre companies on the Internet was anything more than symbolic. Was the actual effect rather to relegate their artistic autonomy to the confines of cyberspace? What was the significance of social theatre in Singapore? With a highly interventionist state and a relatively nascent civil society, how much cultural intervention could Drama Box’s work actually produce?

Drama Box addressed the topic of state power in Shh… censorship, which featured a couple going through a divorce. They gave their children no say in discussions about the dissolution of their marriage, even though the divorce would have a profound effect on all their lives. In front of their children, the couple even pretended that everything was fine. The script’s Chinese title was 心虚, which means guilty conscience. Pronounced xinxu, these two characters were also homophones for the Chinese phrase, "a new Shh. The title had the obvious intention of satirising censorship. But did it also imply that Singapore’s theatre practitioners were trapped in a vicious cycle? Would theatre in contemporary Singapore be inevitably hampered by state discourses? By using paternalistic parents in this play to symbolise the state, was Drama Box positioning itself, by default, as children who should be dominated, disciplined, and silenced? Though the company tried to use online resources and engaged in discussion with the authorities, the alteration of its original script ultimately meant giving up its artistic autonomy. Such a move inevitably legitimised the state’s hegemonic status, and enacted its imposed (self) censorship. Faced with overbearing regulators, the artists – with a guilty conscience" – seemed to acquiesce to the system of censorship. Within the official vision of ‘Global City of the Arts,’ was there any room for artists’ autonomy? In fact, one might ask: Shouldn’t artistic freedoms be integral to a ‘Global City of the Arts’?

These questions were my personal thoughts and reflections on Drama Box’s directions as the first decade of the 21st century drew to a close. To appreciate Drama Box’s artistic contributions since 2006, further research and discussion would be useful. Due to space constraints, this volume is unable to examine Drama Box’s more recent works. I hope my reflections on the company’s practice between 1990 and 2006 will generate greater interest in the art and history of Singapore theatre, from the public, critics, scholars and artists.

Singapore, 2011

INTRODUCTION

From ‘Theatre That Activates’ to Community Theatre

A Historical Overview of Singapore’s Chinese-Language Theatre

Singapore’s modern Chinese-language theatre is closely linked to China’s May 4th Movement of 1919 (Fang 2006, 29). The earliest works of Singapore’s Chinese-language theatre were created in the 1920s, and were characterised by a social consciousness that hoped to improve social morality, addressing issues such as smoking and gambling, opposing traditional Chinese medical science, and advocating the use of the new calendar (ibid, 30). Quah Sy Ren notes that from the enlightenment and education of the public and the criticism of undesirable popular customs in the 1920s, to the promotion of new (socialist) ideology in the 1930s, and the support for China’s war efforts against Japanese aggression, [Singapore’s early Chinese-language theatre] was always closely tied to China’s social and political movements (2005a, xiv).

This tendency to think of theatre as a tool for social reform deepened from the 1950s to the 1970s. In Early Post-War Chinese Theatre in Singapore (1945-1959), Zhan Daoyu discusses the use of Chinese-language theatre in Singapore’s anti-colonial movement after World War II (2001). Han Yong Hong’s Master’s thesis, Chinese-Language Theatre in Post-independence Singapore (1965-1978), analyses how Chinese-language theatre connected with student and worker movements in Singapore up to the 1960s and 1970s (2000a). Both works illuminate Chinese-language theatre’s critique of social issues, and its connection to various social movements in Singapore.

It is worth noting that Chinese-language theatre had broad appeal in Singapore for over five decades. In a lecture on Singapore theatre, Kuo Pao Kun – the playwright distinguished for his contributions to Singapore theatre from the 1960s till he passed away in 2002 – points to the number of people who attended productions staged by Chinese-language theatre company The Children’s Playhouse in the 1970s as an example: They staged plays at the National Theatre to an audience of about 3,400 people. They could run one production at least 10 times, which meant that a total of more than 35,000 people had watched their play (Davis 2001a, 96).

In an article discussing modern Singapore theatre, Kuo introduces the term ‘theatre that activates,’ using it to describe Chinese-language theatre’s stance of social critique and social reform from the 1920s to the 1970s. He points out that government suppression of political activity in the 1970s brought about the end of such theatre (1996, 171). In 1976, the Singapore government arrested a large number of Chinese-language theatre practitioners, including Kuo, under the Internal Security Act (ISA), on the grounds of suspected subversive activities and armed terrorism.¹ From then on, Chinese-language theatre fell from prominence, with a sharp decline in the number of performances and a dwindling in the scale of theatre groups and the number of theatre practitioners. The political climate traumatised many theatre practitioners, draining them of their creative power, and, in some cases, leading them to cease participating in theatre altogether.² Due to these factors, Kuo observes that ‘theatre that activates’ disappeared.

The decline of Chinese-language theatre was also partly due to Singapore’s language and education policies. When Singapore became independent in 1965, the government regarded English as a working language that could promote economic development. This culminated in the marginalisation of Mandarin and Chinese varieties,³ which brought about the decline of Chinese-ed schools and suppressed the development of related fields. Chinese-language theatre dwindled greatly as a result.

By the 1980s, Chinese-language theatre had become much more subdued. But it still had a sense of social responsibility, and began to explore and represent the Singaporean identity. Additionally, boundaries between languages in theatre performances began to blur, and staged performances began to feature mixed languages (Mandarin, English, Malay, and Chinese varieties). One example of this was Kuo’s No Parking on Odd Days (1986).⁴

However, economic prosperity and changes to Singapore’s social structure, coupled with the popularity of television, led to fundamental changes in lifestyles and recreational preferences. As a result, audiences for Chinese-language theatre continued to decline. While small-scale Chinese-language theatre performances (such as The Assassin, the Medium, and the Masseur)⁵ for niche audiences began to flourish,⁶ Chinese-language theatre could not compete with the rising popularity of English-language theatre in the 1990s, in terms of both audience size and the scale of operation.⁷ Furthermore, as William Peterson notes, English-language theatre was the darling of the government, as this form of theatre was viewed as one way to promote Singapore’s ‘New Asia’ brand abroad (2001, 3). By the turn of the new millennium, the widespread popularity of Singapore’s Chinese-language theatre had become a thing of the past.

The Establishment and Status of Drama Box

By the early 2000s, the Chinese-language theatre companies that remained active in Singapore were The Theatre Practice,⁸ Drama Box, and The ETCeteras.⁹ Drama Box was co-founded in 1990 by a group of graduates from the National University of Singapore (NUS), including Kok Heng Leun, Tan Chong Boon, Raymond Leong Thim Wai, Tang Tuan Choon, Goh Yanying, Rachel Lim Swee San, Calvin Loo, Lee Hwee Ling, Ho Sheo Be, and Jacky Liu.

By the end of the 21st century’s first decade, Drama Box had grown into not just one of the most active full-time theatre companies in Singapore,¹⁰ but also one of the major companies supported by the National Arts Council (NAC).¹¹ By the end of August 2009, Drama Box had presented more than 80 works and explored many forms of artistic practice. These included original works, adaptations of foreign classics, commercial mainstream musicals, experimental productions, outdoor community theatre, radio Forum Theatre, and theatre workshops for teachers, students, social workers, psychologists, and counsellors. Drama Box is one of the theatre companies listed in the 2006 Singapore: The Encyclopedia. In addition, since its inception, news reports about the company have frequently appeared in Singapore’s Chinese-and English-language newspapers. This demonstrates the important position occupied by Drama Box in Singapore theatre. More importantly, in many of its works, Drama Box centres the marginalised and oppressed members of society. In so doing, it challenges mainstream ideology by constructing a theatre committed to social intervention. This element of its artistic practice challenges Kuo’s statement that ‘theatre that activates’ completely disappeared from the Singapore theatre scene after the 1970s.

However, when Drama Box was first established in 1990, its founding and early members were motivated solely by their interest in theatre. Those I interviewed in 2006 for this project – Tang, Liu, and Lee Shyh Jih – indicated that the main reason Drama Box was established was to sustain their enthusiasm for acting and creating original works. They did not wish to join an established theatre company, where they would be subjected to the vision of others.¹² In October 1990, several of these NUS theatre enthusiasts (including Kok and Leong, among others) met in the garden of The Substation, an independent arts centre, to discuss matters related to the founding of the company, which they eventually named Drama Box. Lee explained the meaning of the moniker: We hoped that audiences would watch our performances as if they were opening a box full of surprises, with countless treasures waiting to be discovered. (interview with author, November 24, 2006). In December 1991, this group of young people applied to the Registrar of Companies to set up a company, formally establishing Drama Box to realise their dreams. The earliest media report about the company appeared in Singapore Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao on 20 April 1991, and its inaugural production was a double bill on April 20, 1991, featuring The Zoo Story and Singles.¹³

While some of the company’s founding members I interviewed said that they did not have any clear artistic ideas or specific goals at the time the company was established, Kok’s views and hopes for Drama Box were the most defined. In a 1991 interview with Lianhe Zaobao, he expressed a desire to produce socially engaged theatre: We [Drama Box] hope to use theatre to stimulate audiences to think, explore, and express some of our reactions to social phenomena (Fok 1991). When Drama Box became a professional company in 1998, Kok began working full-time as its artistic director, playing a key role in shaping the company’s artistic vision and professional development. For these reasons, this book will often discuss his practice, vision, beliefs, directing, and artistic creations. In particular, his belief that theatre should play a role in social reform has become central to Drama Box’s ethos and one of the most important ideas driving its practice. This coincides with the function Chinese-language theatre played in the past, as a ‘theatre that activates.’

In its early years, Drama Box faced three noteworthy crises. In 1994, several members almost left the company because of career and family commitments that kept them from fuller participation (author’s interview with Lee Shyh Jih on November 24, 2006). In 1998, some members felt that the company’s artistic practice lacked clarity and direction (ibid.; and author’s interview with Kok on December 21, 2005), and they considered closing it. Instead, the decision was made to move to full-time operations in 1998, a development that will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5. In 2003, Drama Box was forced to switch to part-time operations due to financial difficulties.

After restructuring and securing private sponsorship, the company was able to resume full-time operations in 2005. Drama Box also launched many new programmes, including NeNeMas, a social and educational branch that specialised in drama workshops for schools and private institutions.¹⁴ In 2007, the company established ARTivate, a youth branch that nurtures young theatre practitioners; and the Blanc Space Playwright Series, a workshop for local Chinese-language playwrights.¹⁵ In 2010, Drama Box celebrated its 20th anniversary with a series of activities, including SCENES: The Exhibition, which showcased over 80 years’ worth of historical artefacts from Singapore’s Chinese-language theatre. The company also published the two-volume SCENES: An Anthology of Contemporary Singapore Chinese Language Plays, a collection of seminal Singapore Chinese-language plays from 1982 to 2009. Other anniversary events included script readings, theatre seminars, and lectures.

The volume and diversity of these works and activities illustrated the considerable scale of Drama Box’s operations. For me, the principal reason for undertaking this study of the company from 1990 to 2006 is to better understand its ability to position itself precariously within Singapore’s authoritarian political culture as it pursued a socially conscious and critical theatre practice.

Drama Box and the Unique Relationship between Chinese-Language Theatre and the State

Analysing Drama Box’s cultural practice allows us to critically examine the complex relationships between Singapore theatre and the state, which operate in the context of globalisation and fast-changing mediascapes. But how should we view the company’s spirit of social engagement? Is it closely linked to the Chinese-language theatre that was active in Singapore from the 1920s to the 1970s? Can we conclude that Drama Box inherited the spirit of social reform that characterised this earlier Chinese-language theatre? The answer is less than straightforward.

Firstly, Drama Box’s predecessors operated during a time of political turbulence, when Singapore’s national identity had not yet cohered. In comparison, Drama Box functions within relatively more economically prosperous and liberal conditions, and in a context where Singapore’s national identity has been more firmly established. Quah believes that because the company has not experienced cultural repression caused by political factors, its works have no cultural baggage. (1993)¹⁶ I argue that Drama Box’s wider audience reach and the bilingual education of its members puts the company a step ahead of the Chinese-language theatre practitioners of the 1950s to 1970s, most of whom were graduates of ‘Chinese schools.’ In other words, these factors have likely made Drama Box present social criticism and challenges to mainstream discourse onstage more openly.

Secondly, we must begin from a more macro perspective that takes into account the impact of globalisation on Drama Box. In response to the challenges globalisation posed to the local economy, culture, and politics since the early 1990s, the government tried to develop Singapore into a lively ‘Global City for the Arts’ that could attract foreign capital and international talent, and thus enhance the nation’s economic competitiveness. The key programme encapsulating the Singapore government’s utilitarian stance on arts and culture was the Renaissance City Report, whose first phase was issued by the Ministry of Information and the Arts in 2000. These conditions fostered strong collaborative relationships between the arts, business, and politics, and mainstream commercial theatre became favoured by the Singapore government.¹⁷ The works of Drama Box are predominantly non-commercial productions with socially conscious themes, and have often faced official disapproval. This manifested as censorship pressures and the withholding of public funding. As such, in 2003, financial constraints forced Drama Box to move from full-time to part-time operations.

Within Singapore’s linguistic environment and political climate, it was evident that Drama Box was in a doubly marginalised position. The choice to use a marginalised language, Chinese, as the language of performance contributed to its first layer of marginalisation. The second layer derived from its focus on social critique in its productions. Given such apparent disadvantages, how did Drama Box negotiate with the state for artistic autonomy and a ‘theatre that activates’? What strategies did the company employ to attract audiences, build a following, and become one of the most influential theatre companies in Singapore? These are some of the main points that will be discussed in this book.

Scope and Method: Discussing Drama Box’s Works

During the time period under consideration, the works of Drama Box could be broadly categorised into five groups — main season productions, community productions, workshops under the NeNeMas platform, international productions, and the activities of the youth branch ARTivate.¹⁸ It is important to note that NeNeMas and ARTivate were crucial parts of Drama Box’s theatre discourse. However, this book focuses on the company’s theatre performances and community productions from 1991 to 2006. In particular, I will discuss works that were driven by a strong sense of cultural intervention, and productions that expanded Drama Box’s artistic autonomy.

In a society where the government controls most of the political and economic resources, how should we view the element of social engagement within Drama Box’s theatre practice? How should the concept of cultural intervention be defined? Contemporary Marxist discourse on ideology, mainly proposed by Louis Althusser and Antonio Gramsci, provides a frame of reference here. They hold that the ruling class in society establishes an order, and the role of cultural production is to spread and duplicate this order in various ways, and bring about conformity that is aligned with the interests of the ruling classes (Althusser 1971; Gramsci 1971, 12-13). In such a context, cultural intervention is anti-hegemonic as it challenges the mainstream ideas held by the ruling class. Such interventions can be undertaken by civil society, the cultural and intellectual sectors, and ordinary citizens. These articulations for social change are often expressed through literary works and aesthetic critiques, as well as more publicly visible forms such as petitions and demonstrations. As such, theatre can play the role of undertaking social criticism and cultural intervention.

British dramatist John McGrath further defines cultural intervention for alternative theatre (as opposed to mainstream commercial theatre) and community theatre. In his view, the functions of alternative and community theatre are:

1. To contribute to the definition or reassessment of the cultural identity of a group of people or a certain sector of society

2. To provide a channel for the voices of threatened communities and allow them to survive

3. To challenge the integration of culture and consciousness in late industrial and early consumerist society

4. To align with a broader struggle of a group of people fighting for their rights

5. To prevent the values imposed by the ruling class – including the values of a race, the patriarchy, or transnational capital – from being popularised as common sense.

Alternative and community theatre thus pose a challenge to cultural engineers in government ministries, universities, schools, and the media (McGrath 1990, 14). In the political and cultural context of contemporary Singapore, a theatre practice that centres social critique does the work of cultural intervention. This is the position taken in this book as the point of departure for further discussion.

The choice of language for its performances likewise reflects Drama Box’s cultural intervention mindset. Even after shifting to part-time operations for financial reasons in 2003, Drama Box continued to insist on the use of Chinese as its performance language. In an article he penned about the company’s reversion to part-time operations, artistic director Kok wrote that choosing Chinese (and even its varieties) and choosing theatre as a space for interrogation are conscious decisions made by Drama Box, because he felt that Chinese [language and culture] has become a kind of cultural specimen, and there is no room for it to expand in politics, economics, the social sciences, or other fields. (2003) Chinese-speaking people unfamiliar with English had become socially and politically marginalised. If theatre is a form of discursive practice, then Drama Box’s choice to use Chinese as the language of performance and as a vehicle of expression for minority groups can be regarded as a form of cultural intervention.

Despite its often provocative works, I do not think Drama Box’s cultural practice can be entirely placed in the category of political theatre. Generally speaking, political theatre (such as agitprop) demonstrates a strong radical stance of resistance, conveys a clear political message, and tries to mobilise audiences to resist ruling regimes and support alternative voices and organisations.¹⁹

After decades of systemic depoliticisation of social movements and the co-option and censure of cultural organisations, it was difficult for Singapore’s theatre companies to operate like their more radical predecessors. Additionally, the contemporary forces of globalisation and transnational capitalism increasingly blurred the ideological binaries that defined the radicalism of cultural groups in the 1970s. From the 1990s onwards, groups like Drama Box were shaped by and operated in more complex and varied cultural and ideological contexts. Furthermore, the political positions, themes, and forms of expressions in Drama Box’s cultural practice are characterised by diversity and complexity, and not all of its works have clear political goals. It is therefore not appropriate to examine Drama Box through the lens of political theatre. Nor is Kuo’s concept of ‘theatre that activates’ suitable, since it was conceived during a specific era with radically different social conditions.

Instead, in this book, I have chosen to use the term social theatre as the theoretical framework for discussing Drama Box’s theatre practice. In the field of theatre studies, social theatre may not be a commonly used term like agitprop, but it can cover a richer and broader scope. Singaporean English-language theatre director Alvin Tan offers a definition of social theatre that can serve as a useful reference. He believes that while social theatre does not necessarily directly challenge the political status quo the way political theatre does, the former critiques unequal power relationships by focusing on social issues. These may include challenges faced by ethnic minorities within inter-racial community relations (2007a, 186). Guided by this definition, I will use the concept of social theatre as a starting point for my analysis of Drama Box’s cultural practice.

This analysis will unfold as follows. In Chapter 1, Artistic Autonomy in the Renaissance City, I seek to clarify Drama Box’s theatre practice in terms of its cultural, social, and political contexts, and explore the impact of cultural policies on theatre practitioners. Chapter 2, Allegorising Hegemony, discusses Drama Box’s challenge to state ideology and its criticism of social policies. Chapter 3, Theatre That Transcends, analyses Drama Box works that reflect on the media and race issues. Chapter 4, Advocating for Sexual and Gender Minorities, discusses works that examines marginalised sexual and gender groups. Chapter 5, Commercialising for Cultural Intervention, analyses the content and marketing of works from a commercial perspective. Chapter 6, Engaging the People, analyses Drama Box’s community productions and discusses how the company interacts with the state, the media, and private companies, and strives to represent the voices of various marginalised groups.

The primary sources used in this book include my observations of Drama Box’s live performances, and interviews I conducted with various individuals. Because of disrepair at Drama Box’s facilities, some videos and publications were damaged by rain, so some productions could only be analysed through secondary sources. To strengthen the discussion, I have drawn upon a combination of primary and secondary sources, including video recordings of performances, programmes, newspaper articles and play reviews to examine Drama Box’s cultural practice. I hope this will open the way for further analysis of more issues of representation, particularly those related to censorship, gender and sexuality, race, and other such areas.

As of 2010, there is no monograph dedicated to Drama Box. Apart from two Chinese articles I wrote about Drama Box (Ng How Wee 2001 and 2003) and two articles by Kok (2003 and 2004), other relevant critical texts have not focused on Drama Box’s practice as their main object of study. Much of the literature is limited to brief discussions of the company in articles exploring other related topics, or passing mentions.²⁰ I hope that this book, which focuses on Drama Box, will be a meaningful contribution to the study of this company’s significance.

---

1 The ISA was a statute created during the British colonial era. It allows the Government to detain a person who poses an active threat to Singapore without going to court for a period of up to two years, and Orders of Detention and Restriction Orders can be renewed for up to two years if approved by the Minister for Home Affairs and the President (Ministry of Home Affairs 2002a). In the 1970s, the Singapore government arrested many leaders of Chinese-language theatre companies under the ISA. See Devan Nair (1976, 218).

2 In her Master’s thesis Chinese-Language Theatre in Post-independence Singapore (1965-1978), Han offered a detailed discussion of the decline of Singapore Chinese-language theatre in the late 1970s (2000a, 134-141). In an interview, Quah also discussed this topic, noting that the whole of the 1970s was crucial in the de-politicisation of Chinese-language theatre. And also, a lot of those detained [under the ISA] went into business upon their release and made a clean break with their political past. As for those who remained in theatre, they could not touch politics (Terence Chong 2004, 226).

3 From 1987 onwards, the Singapore government unified the national education system and changed the language of instruction to English in all schools. Those who had graduated from Chinese-stream schools prior to this switch were popularly called ‘Chinese ed.’ These institutions used Chinese as the primary language of instruction. Most of them were established during the pre-1965 colonial period by wealthy businessmen and Chinese clan associations, with the goal of promoting Chinese language and culture. Kwok Kian Woon noted that the more socially and intellectually conscious students from Chinese-language schools were labelled ‘cultural chauvinists’ and ‘pro-China communists’ because of the leftist legacy of these schools, which were deemed by the ruling establishment to be potentially subversive (2001: 499). The stereotypical image of Chinese-educated students and the state’s mistrust of this group had a certain negative impact on the development of fields related to Chinese language and culture.

4 No Parking on Odd Days, one of Kuo’s best-known works, is about a man who is issued a ticket for a parking violation. He appeals to the relevant authorities, but in the face of a strong bureaucratic system, he cannot resist the temptation to compromise. On June 3, 1986, this play premiered at Shell Theatrette, directed by Kuo and presented by The Theatre Practice which was known as Practice Theatre Ensemble then..

5 The Assassin, the Medium, and the Masseur premiered at The Substation’s Guinness Theatre and Substation Garden on February 22, 1991. It was written by Quah Sy Ren and directed by Tan Ing How and presented by the Chinese Society of the Hwa Chong Junior College Alumni Association. The play’s unique form attracted considerable attention at the time, and it became a seminal work of Singapore’s 1990s Chinese-language theatre.

6 For a discussion of small-scale theatre in Singapore’s Chinese-language theatre scene, see Lianhe Zaobao (1994a).

7 According to official statistics, there was a significant difference in the number of viewers who attended local English-language and local Chinese-language productions. From 1995 to 1999, the average annual audience size for English-language performances was 80,000, while Chinese-language theatre only attracted 16,000 viewers annually. Even during the year that saw the lowest number of English-language theatre viewers, this figure was still more than twice the size of the largest annual viewership for Chinese-language theatre (Han 2001a). For more on the marginalisation of Chinese-language theatre in Singapore, see Goh Beng Choo (1992), Guan Libing (1994), Ng Siang Ping (1995; 1996), and especially Han (2001a).

8 The Theatre Practice is one of Singapore’s first bilingual (in Chinese and English) theatre companies, but most of its productions are performed in Chinese, so I have categorised it as a Chinese-language theatre company for the purposes of this discussion. Its predecessor was the Academy of Performing Arts, founded in 1965 by Kuo and his wife, Goh Lay Kuan. The company performed several leftist works in the 1960s and 1970s, including Hey, Wake Up! (premiered in 1968) and Growing Up (premiered in 1974). These works questioned and resisted national policies. See Quah (2005a).

9 The ETCeteras was founded by members of the Hwa Chong Junior College Alumni Association.in April 1996. The founding members were Lim Hai Yen, Choo Lip Sin, and Baey Yam Keng. According to artistic director Lim, the main aim of the company was to create humorous and thought-provoking drama that expressed the feelings, troubles, and hopes of Singaporeans.

10 According to research by Wang Xuelun in her study of Singapore Chinese-language theatre, about 12 new Chinese-language theatre groups were established from 1990 to 1998 (1999). It is noteworthy that even though English-language theatre became more popular in the 1990s, many new Chinese-language theatre companies were still established during this period. Wang does