Skip to main content

Where Got Singapore Sound? Representing National Identity in Music: Conundrums and Alternatives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Semionauts of Tradition

Abstract

A lot of talk has been going around about the “Singapore sound”. Government officials, Singapore’s national newspaper The Straits Times, culture magazines, blogs, musicians and music industry professionals have all been weighing in on the matter. Some proclaim such as sound in connection to particular local music groups, styles or genres, others ponder about its unique characteristics, and others yet enquire as to whether it actually exists or not. This search and preoccupation with the existence and nature of the Singapore sound has, however, not been the subject of much academic research to date. This chapter therefore aims to further the discussion and unpack what exactly is meant by the “Singapore sound”, as well as the perspectives of young local musicians about it. During the research, I identified two interpretations, or approaches, towards thinking about the Singapore sound. The first part of the chapter is dedicated to the first approach which posits such a sound as a function of how well it represents the country’s multicultural and ethnically diverse society. Advocates of this approach associate the Singapore sound to two cornerstones of national identity, namely, racial harmony and the upholding of “ethnic” and musical heritage(s). Since this approach is aligned with official discourse, I begin by exploring the way in which the Singapore state has deployed music for the purpose of nation-building. I then briefly outline the current cultural policies and institutional incentives that support this ideologically informed Singapore sound. I follow with several examples of music groups that actively engage with, and attempt to embody, this idea of the Singapore sound through their music-making. The second part of the chapter explores some of the most commonly held critiques of this so-called Singapore sound whose ideology is decidedly multiculturalist. We will discuss the problematically ambiguous use of the terms “ethnic” and “traditional” often associated with this sound, the risk of incentivising formulaic fusion music, the essentialising of “racial” categories, as well as the way in which the institutional environment that is promoting this Singapore sound may in fact produce conditions that discourage creativity and innovation.

I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones.

—John Cage

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

  • 29 May 2019

    The original version of the book was inadvertently published with certain errors and there are some corrections. The chapter has now been corrected and approved by the author.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This can be seen in Singapore’s five core “shared values” which were outlined by Parliament in 1992 as the guiding principles for the country and are as follows: (1) nation before community and society before self, (2) family as the basic unit of society, (3) regard and community support for the individual, (4) consensus instead of contention and (5) racial and religious harmony (Kong and Yeoh 2003a, b).

  2. 2.

    According to the latest census, Singapore’s population is composed of 74.3% Chinese, 13.4% Malay, 9.1% Indians and 3.2% Others (which includes Eurasians and any other minorities) (Department of Statistics Singapore, Population Trends 2016).

  3. 3.

    From its inception, the concept of ‘race’ presumed natural categories positioned in a hierarchy established by God or nature (American Anthropological Association Statement on Race n.d.). Thus ‘race’ became “an ideology of human difference” used to divide, rank and control colonised and enslaved people and to justify European attitudes and treatment of them. Today, racialised thinking creates myths about homogenised ‘racial’ categories, enforcing a naturalised link between phenotype and cultural behaviour, thus implying culture to be genetically determined. There is however no scientific evidence of this. In fact the entire discipline of anthropology has demonstrated time and time again the fact that culture is learnt, not inherited.

  4. 4.

    After independence, the nation-state followed a market-oriented economic policy aimed at attracting foreign direct investment, which led to a tenfold increase of capital to labor ratio (Bercuson (1995, p. 5). But this economic development and liberalism also caused an openness to Westernization in the sociocultural sphere and the perceived erosion of values. This threat of becoming a “pseudo-Western society” motivated by individualism and devoid of responsibility towards the family and society was described in the Straits Times Weekly Overseas Edition (August 20, 1988; September 4, 1988; November 3, 1988, as cited in Kong 1995).

  5. 5.

    MITA has now been renamed the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI).

  6. 6.

    Singlish word (or phrase “anyhow hantam”) which means to do or decide something in a perfunctory manner or by guesswork and hope for luck. Literally, hantam means “to hit” in Malay.

  7. 7.

    For further clarification on the legal status and structure of the TENG Company, please visit: www.thetengcompany.com/about

  8. 8.

    The TENG Ensemble is the beneficiary of an NAC Seed grant (from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2018), and it has received substantial donations (S$200,000 or more) from Temasek, a large Singapore state-owned holding company in 2015 and S$50,000 or more each from the Fullerton Heritage and the Ng Teng Fong Charitable Foundation in 2016 and 2017. The Teng Ensemble Ltd, however, which handles the non-commercial side of their work, is a not-for-profit charity registered under the Singapore Charities Act.

  9. 9.

    Internationally renowned Singaporean composer whose work covers classical, jazz and popular music genres

  10. 10.

    A term, coined by an American news correspondent, that describes the wave of British rock and pop music acts whose popularity grew exponentially in the United States in the mid-1960s.

References

Primary Sources (Interviews)

Secondary Sources

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliette Yu-Ming Lizeray .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lizeray, J.YM. (2018). Where Got Singapore Sound? Representing National Identity in Music: Conundrums and Alternatives. In: Semionauts of Tradition. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1011-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics