Replacing the ban on chewing gum with an awkward guideline on its purchase is the latest gesture by the ruling People's Action Party in the bid to loosen up its grip on society. This seems to be related to the official green light given to bungee jump and topless bar dancing.

Trivial as they might seem to people from other parts of the world; the changes reflect the PAP government's reluctant efforts to move away from micro-managing its people in the past four decades.

Since the mid-1990s, the government began a gradual, yet highly selective and meticulously calculated process of relinquishing its hold on public space.

This has involved artistic events, entertainment industries, media censorship and some limited political discussion forums (especially in the Internet).

But despite its promising beginning, the progress has been quite slow.

Nevertheless, the changes are part and parcel of the government's aim to cultivate creativity in education, arts and, yes, the economy.

To run this global city and the knowledge-based economy (which includes growing creative industries), the government attracts and relies heavily on foreign talents.

Besides the practical reason for this, there is also hope that foreign talent will stimulate creative, innovative and entrepreneurial spirit in the local population.

Cultural Renaissance

However, the recent rise of discourse on culture, creativity, and innovative minds, could mislead those unfamiliar with Singapore's political economy to think of a truly 'cultural renaissance' happening in the country.

There is indeed a flurry of building and re-building places for cultural and artistic events in the city-state, in addition to the promotion of the already existing arts houses and the grandest art house of all, the Esplanade.

And this is exactly the message the government is trying to send to the world: Singapore is no longer the 'cultural desert' people once knew. It is evolving into a cultural centre where creative minds grow and are at work.

But is Singapore truly undergoing such a transformation towards a freer society in which genuine creative minds can flourish? Or, perhaps, a better question: how do we interpret this discourse on culture and creativity over the past few years?

To ask these questions, we need to understand the beginning of the discourse and the logic of the PAP government throughout its almost four-decade rule.

The discourse was launched in the mid-1990s in the midst of an anxiety among Singapore leaders about the city-state's future in the context of globalisation, especially in the wake of a rising China and its Southeast Asian neighbours.

Domestically, the state also realised that it had reached a stagnant level of economic growth. The only possible way to revive it, they reasoned, was to upgrade its economy into a knowledge-based one - a measure deemed as the next stage of global economy in the developed countries.

As a consequence, it had to upgrade its economy and society; hence came the discourse on culture, creativity, and innovation.

According to PAP leaders, culture and minds must be restructured to support the new economic strategy in order to maintain Singapore's economic growth. Thus, from the very beginning, the discourse has been embedded in the larger discourse of 'economic growth'.

Given this, the government attempts to encourage the process of 'producing' a particular type of creativity, that which has the potential for commercialisation.

Instead of letting the society realise its own potential for spontaneous activities, the PAP government came up with certain schemes to 'produce' creativity.

Creativity without freedom

Still, most Singaporeans are too afraid to take the initiative independent of such schemes given PAP's long track record of rigid controls.

To be creative, they need hints, programmes and instructions from the government. Yet, the basis on which they can be creative is not spelled out and 'legalised'.

It is in this context that the discussion of OB (out-of-bound) markers, for example, has surfaced. All this results in awkward and contradictory schemes, such as creativity programmes in schools where teachers are instructed to train children to be creative yet not rebellious.

Clearly, the government is not willing to accept the very condition necessary for the growth of creativity, namely political freedom.

It seems to be quite consistent in preventing any discourse on creativity and innovation to include a serious discussion of aspects of that freedom - for example, the right of free speech.

This is true when we talk about growing the private sector and entrepreneurship in Singapore, which is one of the government's top priorities.

The pervasive effect of the PAP government on the economy has generally been justified by quick reference to Singapore's small size and a 'new national crisis'.

Backing this discourse is the uncritical acceptance of the necessity of globalisation - the new yardstick (in the form of so many rankings of this and that) to which Singapore is measured.

The government seems to be listening to the global voices rather than its own people.

Despite the claim of a new era dominated by globalisation and the populist characteristic of the official discourses, what is happening in Singapore appears to be a repetition of the same logic of instrumental pragmatism held so dear by the PAP government.

Thus, Singapore is, and is not, changing.

However, it is mistaken to equate Singapore with its PAP government.

No doubt, there are grassroots' cultural activities and aspirations for genuine creativity, which are possibly not ready for direct commercialisation, but are essential for the soul of the Singaporean people.

The question is whether there will be enough space for exercising creativity, in the manner that they so choose.


Tomorrow: Winning hearts and minds in the 'war against terror'

More articles in the 'A new Singapore?' series

ROBERT IMAN is an Indonesian PHD candidate at the University of Lancaster, UK. His area of research is on globalisation and the knowledge economy.

Malaysiakini is publishing a 12-part series by different writers on the challenges facing Singapore as new leader Lee Hsien Loong takes the helm. These articles are edited by James Gomez, coordinator of the Monash Asia Institute's Singapore Studies project on civil society. For more information about the project, visit www.jamesgomeznews.com.