Art Pieces Displayed in Public Areas

Mdm Speaker, launched in 2006, the Public Art Tax Incentive Scheme (PATIS) allows organisations and individuals to get a double tax deduction when they donate, commission, display and maintain public art.

Page: 14

Since the launch of the scheme, five art works have been placed in public areas, four in 2007 and one in 2011.

The other scheme that the Member mentioned is the Art Incentive Scheme for New Developments in Central Area (AIS) and that was in effect from 2005 to 2012. And under this scheme, there were 36 artworks approved and installed in nine developments.

NHB and URA will look into making public, information on art works under the both Public Act Tax Incentive Scheme as well as the Arts Incentive Scheme for New Developments in Central Area.

Mdm Speaker, I have just three supplementary questions. First is: what happens when buildings and developments undergo demolition or major renovations that might involve the removal of previously commissioned artworks? Given that these artworks under the two schemes have either made use of public monies or tax exemptions, how do we then encourage public accountability for these works? And should there be a public agency involved in ensuring the care and consideration in relocating or the re-adoption of these public artworks?

My second question is: what does the Ministry think might be the impact of URA ceasing its Arts Incentive Scheme and how will MCCY continue to encourage the good maintenance and the commissioning of new artwork? Would the Ministry consider increasing the tax incentive from the current two times to two and a half times tax deduction on the cost of maintaining these artworks and commissioning new art, for example?

Thirdly, other than just a listing of the public art available, would the Ministry consider an online resource to share best practices of commissioning public art and case studies of successful collaborations so as to encourage more public art in our landscape?

On the first question on developments that are demolished or which have some impact on the installations, there are indeed public agencies which will look at how to manage the impact on the installations. The agencies are the ones that are responsible for the schemes, namely, NHB, in the case of the Public Art Tax Incentive Scheme and URA, in the case of the Art Incentive Schemes for New Developments. These agencies will then look at what is the best way to manage the installations which are impacted and how

Page: 15

they are to be relocated.

On the second issue of commissioning, since the URA scheme has expired, whether we are looking at new ways in which more public art can be commissioned and installed. Indeed, we are doing so. I have said that publicly in an event a month ago that MCCY is looking at how we can promote more public art, make it more accessible. We are not just looking at PATIS, which is the NHB's tax incentive scheme, but the broad range of schemes that we have today. There is the Art in Transit Scheme by LTA which has already installed, I think, something like 48 installations in quite a number of our MRT stations. There is the CDL Sculpture of the Year Award which is a partnership between CDL and NParks to have sculptures commissioned and installed in our parks.

We are looking at a wide range of different schemes that are available today and then looking at how we can enhance and make public art more available and accessible to Singaporeans.

On the third point about online resources, certainly, that is a suggestion that we will be happy to look at – to make available the information on all the different visual artworks and installations that are in Singapore as well as provide artists and commissioning agents with more information on how best to maintain these artworks. So, that is something we will be happy to consider.