Unmasking the city hall facade a study of its visuality in images 24

2.3

Billboard


2.3.1

The Façade as Image


Against the enveloping darkness, the City Hall façade stood silently, unlit (Figure 1).
Two symmetric columns of illuminated words floated on the façade of the building,
moving in tandem with each other. Tracing a slow trajectory over the façade, the texts
slowly made its way up vertically, from the plinth to the frieze. Bold and uniform in
its typeface, the texts declared:
DECENCY IS

MUCH WAS DECIDED

A RELATIVE THING

BEFORE YOU WERE BORN

DEPENDENCE CAN BE
A MEAL TICKET

DESCRIPTION IS MORE
VALUABLE THAN
METAPHOR

MURDER HAS

ITS SEXUAL SIDE

MYTHS CAN MAKE
REALITY
MORE INTELLIGIBLE1

Titled For Singapore, a series of illuminated texts was projected onto the City Hall
façade over the duration of three hours at night. Conceived by American
contemporary artist Jenny Holzer, the artwork was a collection of statements that
revolved around the themes of war, peace, sex and death. Commissioned by the
National Arts Council, the governmental body responsible for spearheading arts
development in Singapore, For Singapore inaugurated the opening of the first
Singapore Biennale in 2006, a ten-week showcase of local and international
contemporary art.2

Significantly, for seven years before the projection of For Singapore, the production
of official images of the façade came to a halt, in a departure from its constant
1

The statements of For Singapore are drawn from an unreleased video documentation of the event, provided by
Jenny Holzer Studio. Subsequent statements quoted in the study are referenced from the same source.
2
Ben Slater (ed.). Belief: Singapore Biennale 2006, 4th September to 12th November 2006 (Singapore: Singapore
Biennale Secretariat, 2007), p.1.

143


imaging in the years after independence. The $10000 monetary note circulated
between 1989 and 1999 was the last official image propagated of the façade before

the commissioning of For Singapore (Figures 5&19). Crucially, two years before the
‘ship’ series monetary note was issued in 1989, the administrative function of City
Hall was abolished.3 While the City Hall façade continued to serve as the stageset for
the national day parades, its interiors underwent a refurbishment.4 The building was
subsequently annexed by the adjacent Supreme Court to accommodate the Academy
of Law.5 Despite the change in the function of the building’s interiors, its façade
remained the same. The image of the City Hall façade with its classical architectural
forms thus exhibits a pliability that can be easily transferred.

However, in 2005, the Academy of Law announced that it would vacate the building.6
This was followed by the announcement that City Hall would be refurbished into an
art museum tentatively titled the National Art Gallery, which was to be completed in
2014 (Figure 3).7 Since then, the building fell into a transitory state, with no real
functional usage. Seen in light of multiple functional changes, the lapse in the
production of official image of the façade might be attributed to the uncertainty of a
permanent role for the building. For once it was decided that the building was to be
transformed into the National Art Gallery, the imaging of the façade was resumed
immediately a year later during the Singapore Biennale with For Singapore.

3

Pugalenthi Sr. Singapore Landmarks: Monuments, Memorials, Statues & Historic Sites (Singapore: VJ Times,
1999), p.32.
4
ibid.
5
ibid.
6
Supreme Court Singapore. “History.” Available from: />accessed on 20 November 2011.
7

Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. “Transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s
Speech at National Day Rally 2005 on 21 August 2005 at NUS University Cultural Centre”. Available from:
accessed on 20 May 2011; “About the
Gallery”. Available from: accessed on 20 May 2011.

144


For Singapore’s projection of a series of text utilised the City Hall façade as a flat,
two-dimensional surface. Bold and uniform in its typeface, the formal composition of
the illuminated texts exuded a commercial aesthetic that transformed the image of the
façade. Neutral in tone, the short and effective one-liners projected onto the façade
were designed to impart condensed, bite-sized information. Disseminating messages
that could be absorbed in an instant, For Singapore was tailored to catch the attention
of the passerby. Combined together, the illuminated aesthetic of the façade and the
laconic writing style signalled an appropriation of advertising practices through its
juxtaposition of image and text. Illuminating the façade with short, everchanging
texts, For Singapore strived to deliver a striking message in the shortest amount of
time. In doing so, the façade acquired a life of its own, communicating messages like
a large, oversized billboard.

Inaugurating the opening of the Singapore Biennale, this projection was a highly
visible event. It was held in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank Meetings (Meetings), which saw the convergence of 16,000 foreign
delegates and 1,600 international print and broadcast media in the country.8 Through
the distribution of free passes, the foreign delegates and media were encouraged to
attend the Biennale.9 The projection of For Singapore on the City Hall façade was
thus given an international audience. Circulated as an image in the international press
and media, the City Hall façade did not only appropriate the aesthetic of a billboard. It
functioned like one. Significantly, Beatriz Colomina has described architecture’s

engagement with media such as television, publications and photographs as such:

8
9

Stephanie Yeow. “Totting up the numbers,” in The Straits Times, 21 September 2006, p.11.
Chew Seng Kim. “Culture on the Agenda,” in The Straits Times, 5 September 2006, p.3.

145


It is a space that is not made of walls but of images. Images as walls… This is the
space of media, of publicity.10

Colomina’s remark, made in reference to Le Corbusier’s use of media to promote his
architectural ideas and projects, posits a distinction between architecture in real space
and the space of media. For Colomina, the space of media transforms architecture into
an image to be circulated around the world. And in doing so, media flattens
architectural space into a two-dimensional entity. In the space of media, an
architecture of image dominates, or, “images as walls.” She notes that Le Corbusier
was particularly adept at adapting architecture for the media, or the production of an
architecture of images.11 The image took precedence over space in the photographs of
his houses, which were doctored to enhance the project’s formal qualities, and
sometimes at the cost of their spatial properties.12 This was because Le Corbusier saw
the propagation of architectural images in media as a way of disseminating his ideas
and concepts. In the space of media, communication dominates architecture over
space.

However, there exists a difference in the conception of the façade as image in Le
Corbusier’s projects and that of City Hall’s. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the City Hall

façade was conceived as an image that made visible the identity of Singapore as a
British colony. As an image, the façade communicates its message through allusion,
or by means of references to the established symbolism of neo-classical architectural
forms. On the other hand, in Le Corbusier’s conception of the façade as image,
meaning was conveyed through the inherent, formal properties of the building, or the

10

Beatriz Colomina. Privacy and Publicity: Mass Media as Modern Architecture (Massachusetts: The MIT Press,
1994), pp.6-7. Italics are mine.
11
ibid, p.8
12
ibid, 114.

146


abstract architectural forms that were determined by programmw and structure. The
projection of For Singapore on the City Hall façade, however, yields yet another kind
of image. By superimposing texts onto the City Hall façade, what results is not just an
image, but an “imagetext.” Coined by W.J.T. Mitchell, the term is used to designate
composite artworks that combine image and text.13 A nexus of vision and language,
the intersection of image and text simultaneously maintains and collapses the
boundary between the pictorial and the literal. The text of For Singapore functions
both iconically and textually. It has a shape, scale, and form of its own that endows it
with a pictorial quality, one that transforms the City Hall façade, while at the same
time communicating a message through its text.

It was, however, not the first instance that text had intruded onto the imaging of the

City Hall façade. Before the projection of For Singapore, texts had been illustrated on
the façade on the back design of the $10000 ‘ship’ series monetary note titled
“National Day 1987” (Figure 5). In the illustration, a banner featuring the words
“Together Excellence for Singapore” was stretched across its parapet. Read against
the illustrated scene of the national day parade, the text served to strengthen and
reinforce the nationalistic message of unity conveyed through the image.

However, in For Singapore, the texts refuse to explicate the image of the façade.
Broaching diverse subjects that range from faithfulness and love, to truth and death,
there is no explicit relationship between the text and façade. In his study of text-image
relations, Michel Foucault has posited that in some instances, words “play an
ambiguous role: supporting pegs and yet termites that gnaw and weaken [the
13

W.J.T. Mitchell. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, 1994) p.89.

147


image]”.14 His proposition is best explicated by Roland Barthes, who has forwarded
two functions of text in relation to images: that of anchorage and relay.15 For Barthes,
text do not just function as the “supporting pegs” of an image through anchorage, or
the stabilization of the pictorial space through the imposition of a fixed set of
references. Texts can also function as “termites that gnaw and weaken” an image
through relay, or the allusive potential of words. Connotative in nature, such texts
operate to contest and subvert the existing meaning of an image. Seen in this light, the
texts of For Singapore, which do not offer any anchorage of meaning, serve not to
denote, but to connote the image of the façade.

Because of the amalgamation of the visual and textual, the imagetext of For
Singapore poses a challenge to the iconological method. Conceived by Erwin
Panofsky to study artworks produced during the Renaissance, iconology posits a strict
divide between the pictorial and the literal, which do not merge or intersect.16 This is
primarily due to the nature of artworks produced during the Renaissance, which were
often commissioned to depict theological themes. In Panofsky’s conception, there is a
one-to-one iconographic correspondence between biblical texts and images. Images
exist as purely visual entities. Words are relegated outside of the picture frame.

In the analysis of For Singapore, the iconological method is utilizsd, albeit with some
refinements. Instead of theological texts, the image is read against social, cultural, and
historical discourse, as well as the statements projected onto the façade. In doing so, a

14

Michel Foucault. This is Not a Pipe (Berkeley: University of California Press, c1983), p.38.
Roland Barthes. Image Music Text (London: Fontana Press, 1977), p.38. Subsequent write-up on the function of
texts as anchorage for and relay of the image are drawn from this source.
16
Erwin Panofsky. Meaning in the Visual Arts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp.26-54. The
following write-up on the relationship between image and text in iconology is referenced from this source unless
footnoted otherwise. For further elaboration on the use of the iconological method in this study, please refer to
Chapter 1.3.
15

148


one-to-one correspondence between image and text, or painting and theological
literary forms, as Panofsky has advocated, is no longer assumed. Moreover, while the

iconological method reads images against texts, it does not provide for an
examination of the latter. In this instance, Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the
“utterance,” which studies language as a product of its social context, is utilised in the
analysis of the projected statements.17 Like iconology, which studies formal
properties as symptoms of the ideological landscape that produced it, Bakhtin studies
the style, intonation, and content of texts as reflections of social and cultural
conditions. While the motives behind the artist’s conception and patron’s commission
of For Singapore are taken into account, the objective is not to recover their
intentions, but to examine the messages that the façade as billboard conveys.

Significantly, For Singapore constituted part of Holzer’s Truisms series, which had
been projected on various buildings around the world.18 First conceived in 1977,
Truisms first manifested itself as a series of street posters.19 In 1982, the statements
were shown for the first time on a LED (light-emitting diode) board at Times Square,
New York.20 Subsequently, electronic signs became the dominant mode of
dissemination for Truisms, until it was supplemented by Xenon lamp projectors in
1996.21 Utilized in the projection of For Singapore onto the City Hall façade, the
Xenon lamp projectors produced a commercial aesthetic similar to electronic signs,
while allowing texts to be projected onto building surfaces.
17

Mikhail Bakhtin and V.N. Voloshinov. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (New York, Seminar Press,
1973), pp.86-90. The following write-up on the concept of the utterance is referenced from this source unless
footnoted otherwise.
18
For examples, see “Projections: City Index,” available from: Accessed on
25 October 2011.
19
David Joselit, Joan Simon and Renata Salecl (eds.). Jenny Holzer (London: Phaidon Press, 1998), p.23
20

Anne Ring Paterson. “Jenny Holzer and Barbara Kruger at Times Square,” in Peter Madsen and Richard Plunz
(eds.), The Urban Lifeworld (New York: Routledge, 2001), p.366.
21
Barbaralee Diamonstein. Inside the Art World: Conversations with Barbaralee Diamonstein (New York:
Rizzoli, 1994), p.111.

149


Till today, the presentation of Truisms at Times Square in 1982 remains one of the
most prominent instances in the history of its projections.22 Situated within the sea of
billboards that populate Times Square, the artwork appropriated advertising language
and practices through its visual aesthetic and writing style. The nonsensical and
parodic nature of its text subverted advertising conventions to offer a critique of the
consumerist culture that had manifested itself in the overwhelming landscape of
billboards that has come to define Times Square.

In contrast, the context that surrounded the projection of For Singapore on the City
Hall façade could not be more different. The City Hall building, located at the center
of the colonial district, marks a landscape that is completely free of billboards and
advertisements. Guidelines set up by the Urban Redevelopment Authority only allow
outdoor signage along designated areas, in order to safeguard Singapore’s streetscape
from visual clutter.23 As part of the preservation areas in Singapore, the colonial
district does not lie within the designated areas. What, then, does the superimposition
of illuminated texts onto the City Hall façade seek to appropriate? And as a gigantic
billboard, what was the message that For Singapore was striving to convey?

22

Anne Ring Paterson. “Jenny Holzer and Barbara Kruger at Times Square,” pp.366-383. The following write-up

on Holzer’s work at Times Square is inferred from this article.
23
Urban Redevelopment Authority. “Circular Package to Professional Institutes on Guidelines for Outdoor Signs,”
available from: accessed on 3 November
2011.

150


2.3.2

An Ambivalent Mask


Projected onto the City Hall façade, For Singapore attracted an audience that went
beyond the foreign delegates and media that had converged in Singapore for the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank Meetings. A free outdoor party open to
the public was held at the Padang on the inaugural night of the Biennale.24 Attended
by 2000 people, it took place simultaneously with the projection of For Singapore on
the City Hall façade, thus increasing the visibility of the artwork.25 By bringing For
Singapore out of the institutional boundary of the museum, it was able to garner the
attention of a wider audience. Besides the regular visitors to the museum and the local
arts community, it was also targeted at the ordinary man on the street.

The projection of For Singapore during the Singapore Biennale was in line with the
NAC’s strategy to establish Singapore as a cultural centre. It was an endeavor that
began in 1989 with the Report of the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts,
which advocated the establishment of institutions and infrastructures for the arts.26 In
2000, with the institutions and infrastructures in place, NAC began to focus on the
development of arts programs and events to establish Singapore as a “global arts

city”, or a cultural centre in the globalised world.27 This culminated in the
Renaissance City 2.0 report published three years later, which outlined a series of
concrete strategies that would propel Singapore into the global arts scene.28 And it
was in this report that the Singapore Biennale was first conceived.

Specifically, the Renaissance City 2.0 report recommended that visual arts
development could be enhanced through the organization of a biennale dedicated to
24

Mugilan Rajasegeran. “Glowing start to Biennale,” in The Straits Times, 2 September 2006, p.1.
ibid.
26
Singapore Ministry of Information and the Arts. Renaissance City Report: Culture and the Arts in Renaissance
Singapore (Singapore: Ministry of Information and the Arts, 2000), p.4.
27
ibid.
28
Singapore Ministry of Information and the Arts. Renaissance City Report, p.1.
25

152


contemporary artworks.29 Thus, in 2006, NAC invested in the Singapore Biennale, a
multi-million dollar inaugural event. Besides stimulating local arts development, the
Biennale was also conceived as a tool to project a favorable national image through
its visual arts program. In the same report, it was suggested that “culture [can be used]
as a means of image-branding” to shape foreign perception of the country.30 It
proposed that “…arts and culture have the potential to help us project Singapore’s
“soft power” in the global marketplace”, and that “a country’s national image…[is]

important…a high reputation in one area can….[give] a nation a perception
advantage”.31 According to NAC, one of the primary objectives of the Singapore
Biennale was:
…to position Singapore prominently as an international centre and regional thought
leader in the field of visual art… complement[ing] the achievements of other areas of
the arts and cultural scene, collectively enhancing Singapore’s international
image...32

And the commissioning of For Singapore was one of the ways that the goal of
“enhancing Singapore’s international image” was achieved. Having exhibited in
major cultural capitals of the world with numerous awards under her belt, Holzer is
well known for her repertoire of original and cutting-edge woks.33 Her reputation as
one of the most important contemporary artists working today helped to position
Singapore as a leader in the visual arts scene. Significantly, Singapore was also the
first Asian city to host the Truisms series. The commissioning of For Singapore thus
showcased the nation’s ability to compete regionally on cultural terms. Hence, besides
29

ibid.
Singapore Ministry of Information and the Arts. Renaissance City Report, p.35.
31
ibid.
32
National Arts Council. “Singapore Biennale.” Source: accessed 20th
October 2010.
33
Holzer has exhibited in the major cultural capitals of New York, London and Paris, as well as the Venice
Biennale 1990, for which she won the Leone d’Oro grand prize for the United States pavilion. For a detailed
description of her works, please see Chiem & Read. “Jenny Holzer: Biography” Source:
accessed 21st October 2010.

30

153


promoting arts development in Singapore, For Singapore also served the objective of
enhancing foreign perception of Singapore as a cultural centre.

The objective of “enhancing Singapore’s international image” was also achieved by
holding the Biennale in concurrence with the Meetings. The foreign delegates, and
international print and broadcast media that had arrived in Singapore for the Meetings
gave the Biennale a global audience. The Biennale catered not just to the local arts
community and art-going public, but also to the 16,000 foreign delegates from 184
countries and 1,600 international print and broadcast media that had converged in the
country.34 Significantly, the co-organizer of the Biennale, Peter Ang, was also the
organizer of the Meetings.35 In an interview, Ang affirmed the integration of both
events as “an excellent opportunity to showcase Singapore”.36 During the events, the
City Hall building functioned both as the delegates’ registration centre, and the site of
the Biennale.37 In a bid to draw the foreign delegates and media to the Biennale, they
were given free entry to the exhibitions.38 The Biennale thus represented a great
opportunity for NAC to enhance the country’s image through the event’s visual arts
program.

Besides capitalizing on Holzer’s reputation, the statements of For Singapore are an
exercise in image branding when studied against the City Hall façade. Informal and
colloquial, the statements are voiced by a multiplicity of personae, ranging from an
anarchist, an evangelist, to a stand-up comic. The statements are “utterances,” or

34

Stephanie Yeow. “Totting up the numbers,” in The Straits Times, 21 September 2006, p.11.
Natalie Chen. “Singapore to host biggest IMF/World Bank meet.” Source:
accessed 20th
October 2010.
36
ibid.
37
Hong Xinyi. “Culture on the agenda”, in The Straits Times, 5 September 2006, p.3.
38
ibid.
35

154


verbal communication between individuals that arise out of the immediate social
situation, and the broader cultural milieu.39 For Bakhtin, language can never be
severed from social practices, as it is determined by the cultural landscape in which it
is produced. Thus, he coined the concept of “utterance,” which studies language as a
product of its social and cultural conditions. Conceived by Bakhtin, the structure of an
utterance is constituted by two components – meaning and theme. The “meaning” of
an utterance derives from its technicalities, such as word meaning and grammatical
coordination, while “theme” refers to its style and intonation. Set in vertical motion,
the texts of For Singapore are projected in two separate columns on the City Hall
façade (Figure 1). Carefully aligned, the sentences can be read in relation to one
another, or independently:
DECENCY IS
A RELATIVE THING

DEPENDENCE CAN BE

A MEAL TICKET

DESCRIPTION IS MORE
VALUABLE THAN
METAPHOR

MUCH WAS DECIDED
BEFORE YOU WERE BORN

MURDER HAS
ITS SEXUAL SIDE

MYTHS CAN MAKE
REALITY
MORE INTELLIGIBLE

Read individually, each statement of For Singapore stakes out a position on a subject,
which ranges from perspectives on politics and freedom, to sex and death. While each
of the statements is specific to the issue it broaches, it is ambiguous in its meaning.
Due to the lack of a contextual frame of reference, the significance of the statement is
in a state of continuous flux, unstable and open to interpretation. This ambiguity
remains even when the statements are read in relation to each other. The paired
39

Mikhail Bakhtin and V.N. Voloshinov. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, pp.86-90. The following
write-up on the concept of the utterance is referenced from this source unless footnoted otherwise.

155

statements have absolutely no correlation despite the mode of presentation which
encourages the reading of one sentence against another by aligning them in two
corresponding columns. Instead, what the statements offer are a multiplicity of
ideological positions and convictions, or worldviews. This is reinforced by the
ambiguous nature of the text, which allows for multiple interpretations that may yield
several meanings from a single sentence.

However, while the meanings of the statements are marked by incongruity when read
against one another at the instance of projection, they acquire a dialogic quality when
studied as a body of work over the entire length of presentation:
PURSUING PLEASURE FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASURE WILL RUIN YOU
DECADENCE CAN BE AN END IN ITSELF

GOVERNMENT IS A BURDEN TO PEOPLE
MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT FIT TO RULE THEMSELVES

TRUE FREEDOM IS FRIGHTFUL
ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION CAN BE A FORM OF FREEDOM

IT CAN BE HELPFUL TO KEEP GOING NO MATTER WHAT
IN SOME INSTANCES IT’S BETTER TO DIE THAN TO CONTINUE

USING FORCE TO STOP FORCE IS ABSURD
VIOLENCE IS PERMISSIBLE EVEN DESIRABLE OCCASIONALLY

An interplay of ideological positions is set up in the juxtaposition of different
worldviews. While one voice may proclaim that “pursuing pleasure for the sake of
pleasure” will be ruinous, another voice counters that “decadence can be an end in

156

itself”. The various proclamations challenge and contest each other through a
conglomerate of disparate worldviews and incompatible principles, exemplifying a
heterogeneity of meaning and positions. At other times, the voices affirm each other
ideologically:
POLITICS IS USED FOR PERSONAL GAIN
ABUSE OF POWER COMES AS NO SURPRISE

DON’T PLACE TOO MUCH TRUST IN EXPERTS
MOST ELITES ARE CRACKPOTS

FAITHFULNESS IS A SOCIAL NOT A BIOLOGICAL LAW
MEN ARE NOT MONOGAMOUS BY NATURE

However, even when the various subject positions concur with one another, there is
no replication of meaning. Each declaration is autonomous and carries an equal
amount of authority as another. With no single ideological position dominating the
discourse, the text of For Singapore is an assemblage of worldviews that is plural and
heterogenic in nature.

What the singular forms of the verbal structure exemplify through the disparate,
independent and autonomous worldviews is the concept of polyphony. Coined by
Bakhtin, polyphony refers to the use of a variety simultaneous combination of voices
in a novel to present a dialogic world, one that embodies the ideological positions and
conflicts at work in that society.40 Developed from the notion of utterances, Bakhtin
posits that language, which is a socially specific entity, expresses within its meaning

40

Mikhail Bakhtin. C. Emerson (trans. and ed.). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1984), p.65.

157


the ‘worldview’, or the ideological positioning of a subject.41 The concept of
polyphony is used to describe a world crammed full of individual voices, sharing,
affirming, competing and conflicting with each other.42 There is no authoritative voice
controlling or guiding the multiplicity of individual voices in the polyphonic world.
The author, for Bakhtin, still exists behind the work, but does not act as the
omnipotent narrator, or dominate the discourse with a particular worldview:
“…[polyphony] fights against any view of the world which would valorise one
‘official’ point-of-view, one ideological position, and thus one discourse, above all
others.”43 In the vast array of voices and worldviews, the concept of polyphony
presents a world in which no individual discourse stands above any other. This
parallels the multivoiced world set up in the text of For Singapore, where there is no
valorisation of any one official ideological position. The various voices, imbued with
a dialogic quality, are characterised by contradiction and discord, heterogeneous and
disparate in their subject positions.

Commenting on the disparate subject matters broached in the text, Holzer posits that
“Sometimes I think something is more effective if you make it seem official, but then
use a different content.”44 By official, Holzer refers to the presentation of texts from
the Truisms series on building surfaces and electronic signs:
…the big signs make things seem official. The sign is either for commercial things,
which seem very real in the United States, or for genuine public announcements…It

41

Mikhail Bakhtin. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p.39.
Mikhail Bakhtin. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, pp.17-21. The following write-up on polyphony is
referenced from this source unless footnoted otherwise.
43
Mikhail Bakhtin. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p.184.
44
Jenny Holzer, quoted from an interview with Paul Taylor. “Jenny Holzer: I wanted to do a Portrait of Society,”
in Flash Art, 151 (March/April 1990) p.119.
42

158


was like having the voice of authority say something different from what it would
normally say...45

While the “big signs” or scale of projections contribute to “make things seem
official,” it is the image of the City Hall façade that imbues the project with the “voice
of authority.” For the City Hall façade, through its historical associations and classical
architectural forms, is the image of authority. The texts, authoritative and impartial in
tone, draws on the history of the façade as the stageset from which important political
announcements have been made.46 However, the statements on the façade, which
broached the subjects of war, peace, sex and death, offered “a different content” from
the official announcements that have been made on the site of City Hall. What the
statements projected onto the façade sought to appropriate was thus the voice of the
state, or in Holzer’s words, the “voice of authority.”

Significantly, foreign perception of the “voice of authority,” or the Singapore
government, is mired in its reputation as a paternalistic, or ‘nanny state’. Coined by
the international press, the term ‘nanny state’ is used to describe a heavy-handed,

interventionist state that is excessive in its desire to govern and control every aspect
of its citizens’ lives.47 Common examples cited by foreign journalists to support this
perspective includes the country’s ban on chewing gum and Playboy magazine; the
imposition of caning penalty for graffiti vandalism; and the death penalty for
possession of more than 15 grams of heroin for anyone above the age of 18.48 This is

45

ibid.
The City Hall façade was where the self-governance of Singapore was declared in 1959, and the site of the
Malaysian proclamation in 1963. The declaration of independence was also announced, from the prime minister’s
office within City Hall in 1965.
47
As recent as 2010, Singapore was still labeled a ‘nanny state’ in foreign press. See article by Reuters Singapore
Bureau Chief Raju Gopalkrishnan, in the article “Singapore Swing: Nanny State Loosens Up to Attract Wealth”
Source: accessed 21st October 2010.
48
Examples of such articles include: Raju Gopalkrishnan. “Singapore Swing: Nanny State Loosens Up to Attract
Wealth,” available from: />
159


compounded by the implementation of various social engineering exercises in the
form of behavior modification programs such as the Courtesy and Keep Singapore
Clean campaigns, or the Baby Bonus to increase the nation’s birthrate.49 The
considerable number of regulations and restrictions imposed on the citizenry which
leaves little ground for individual freedom, has culminated in the foreign perception
of the Singapore government as a paternalistic state.

Similarly, a long-standing issue between the citizenry and the governing PAP party is

its paternalistic attitude and high-handed approach in its policy implementation that is
more exclusive than inclusive. The issue first surfaced in the 1984 elections, when a
12.4 percent vote swing against the PAP led to a study of voter sentiments.50 Back
then, voters charged that the PAP was arrogant and out-of-touch with sentiments on
the ground by implementing unpopular policies. Despite objections, the views of the
citizenry were not taken into account in policy decisions. Similarly during the
elections of 2006, the vote share of the PAP fell from a high of 75.3 percent to 66.6
percent.51 In a poll conducted in the aftermath of the election, opposition voters cited
the distant and domineering attitude of the PAP as the reason behind their political

up-to-attract-wealth/, accessed 21st October 2010; David Lamb. “Singapore Swing”, in Smithsonian Magazine,
(September 2007), available from:
/>&partnerID=253177&cid=10025091, accessed 21st October 2010; Wayne Arnold. “The Nanny State Places a
Bet”, in The New York Times. 23 May 2006.
49
The National Courtesy Campaign was replaced by the Singapore Kindness Movement in 1997. It aims to
cultivate kindness and graciousness in Singapore society. Singapore Kindness Movement. “About,” available
from: accessed 20 November 2011. The Keep Singapore Clean Campaign was
initiated in 1968 to make Singapore the cleanest and greenest city in the region by addressing the problem of
inconsiderate littering. In 1990, it merged with the Garden City Campaign to form the Clean and Green Week.
Joshua Chia Yeong Jia “Keep Singapore Clean Campaign,” available from:
accessed 20 November 2011. The Baby Bonus was
initiated in 2001 with the objective of improving the country’s fertility rate by providing cash incentives. Ministry
of Community Development, Youth and Sports. “Home,” available from:
accessed on 20 November 2011.
50
“A change of style, not the substance,” in The Straits Times, 13 May 2006, p.9. Further write-up on the 1998
elections is referenced from this source unless footnoted otherwise.
51
Elections Department Singapore. “Parliamentary Elections Results,” available from:

accessed 20 November 2011.

160


stance.52 While the study does not posit a direct correlation between the fall in vote
share and the commissioning of For Singapore, it is raised to highlight the conception
of the PAP as a paternalistic state.

The heterogeneous, contradictory voices of For Singapore thus diverged from the
singular voice of the PAP. The mutually exclusive concepts and judgments forwarded
by the polyphonic voices do not allow for any unitary or authoritarian conception of
life. Read against the City Hall façade, or the exclusive stageset of the PAP, the
voices serve to overturn its reputation as a paternalistic state. The image of For
Singapore, circulated internationally through the foreign press and media, depict the
PAP as an inclusive administration that allows for the coexistence of a diversity of
worldviews, accommodative to differing ideological positions.

On the other hand, while the meaning of the statements projected in For Singapore
presents a heterogeneity of worldviews, an examination of its theme, or style and
intonation, yields a radically different signification:
ENJOY YOURSELF
BECAUSE YOU CAN’T CHANGE

PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR WHAT THEY DO

ANYTHING ANYWAY

UNLESS THEY ARE INSANE

ENSURE YOUR LIFE

PEOPLE WHO DON’T WORK WITH

STAYS IN FLUX

THEIR HANDS ARE PARASITES

EVEN YOUR FAMILY

PEOPLE WHO GO CRAZY

CAN BETRAY YOU

ARE TOO SENSITIVE

The intonation, rhythm and style of each of the statements are uniform throughout the
entire work. Even though the most varied and incompatible of worldviews are
52

ibid.

161


juxtaposed in the text of For Singapore, this heterogeneity is subordinated to the unity
of a single personal style and tone. The singular theme that permeates the voices
reveals the unity of a single world and consciousness. While the voices do not serve
as a vehicle for the propagation of Holzer’s own ideological position, the

homogeneity of style and intonation emanates a strong and singular authorial
presence, indicating a world that is singular and monologic in nature.

This distinction between theme and meaning has been applied to the concept of
polyphony.53 The multivoiced world conceived by Bakhtin is not only autonomous in
terms of its ideological positions, but also independent in its consciousness. Each
voice exists in its own world, with a distinct style and intonation. This ensures that
several fields of vision, each of which is the viewpoint of an independent individual,
is represented, as opposed to a single worldview. On the other hand, the consequence
of a singular theme has been highlighted:
…such a monologic world fatally disintegrates into its component parts, dissimilar
and alien to one another; there would spread out before us motionlessly, helplessly,
absurdly, a page from the Bible alongside a note from a travel diary, a lackey’s ditty
alongside Schiller’s dithyramb of joy.54

Bakhtin’s description sounds eerily similar to Holzer’s methodology in the conception
of Truisms. Holzer has credited the conceptual gestation of Truisms to her penchant
for reproducing the captions of diagrams from books.55 The first texts were written in
response to a reading list that comprised of the works of major thinkers of the century
while she was attending the Whitney Independent Study Program: ‘I was intimidated
53

Mikhail Bakhtin. C. Emerson (trans. and ed.). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, pp.17-27. The following writeup on polyphony is referenced from this source unless otherwise footnoted.
54
Mikhail Bakhtin. C. Emerson (trans. and ed.). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, p.16.
55
Joan Simon. “Joan Simon in Conversation with Jenny Holzer”, in David Joselit, Joan Simon and Renata Salecl
(eds.), Jenny Holzer. (London: Phaidon Press, 1998), p.22. The conceptual gestation of the Truisms series is
referenced from this source.

162


by the list but wanted to address the subjects. I did the best I could with a number of
one-liners.”56 In encapsulating the gist of the subjects broached by the books in
singular statements that were eventually strung together, the creative process behind
the conception of Truisms is rather like “a page from the Bible alongside a note from
a travel diary, a lackey’s ditty alongside Schiller’s dithyramb of joy.” Despite this, the
outcome of Holzer’s approach is not the production of a work which is entirely
‘dissimilar and alien [in its component parts]…absurd.’ As demonstrated in the
analysis of the statements’ meaning, they acquire a dialogic quality in certain
instances. However, this is eclipsed by its consistently singular theme that obliterates
the polyphonic nature of the voices to reveal an underlying world that is inherently
monologic in character.

The text of For Singapore thus projects a deceptive pluralism that does not quite
conceal a singular authorial origin lurking beneath. The paternalistic nature of the
Singapore government is revealed in a political dispute with the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB) and civil society organizations (CSOs)
during the Meetings. At the heart of the matter was the state’s ban on all outdoor
protests, as well as the decision to deny entry to 27 activists who had been accredited
by the IMF and WB to attend the Meetings.57 In the first instance, the state established
that accredited CSOs would only be permitted to express their views inside the
convention venue, as demonstrations were banned under Singapore’s laws. In
addition, the CSOs were prohibited from expressing any opinions that might offend
religious, racial, or ethnic sensitivities, in adherence to Singapore laws. To this, Peter

56

ibid.

Tanya Fong. “No outdoor demos for World Bank, IMF meets, say police,” in The Straits Times, 29 July 2006,
p.1; “14 civil society groups call for event boycott,” in The Straits Times, 13 September 2006, p.6. Further writeup on the dispute is drawn from these two sources, unless otherwise footnoted.
57

163


Stephens, the World Bank’s Singapore representative, urged that outdoor protests by
accredited groups be allowed, as “Effective inclusion of the voices of civil society is
key to ensuring that the Annual Meetings are a success.”58 However, the
government’s firm stance on banning of all outdoor protests led to more than 2000
activists to hold their rallies on the Indonesian island of Batam instead.59

Of a greater significance was the government’s decision to ban the entry of 27
activists into the country. This was despite their accreditation by IMF and WB to
attend the Meetings. The official reason given was that these people could “create
security and law and order problems”.60 In the release of a joint statement, the CSOs
criticised the state for having “draconian security measures”, and called its actions
“repressive”.61 The WB forwarded that the ban was “a breach of the formal agreement
we had with the Government of Singapore, in the Sept 23, 2003 Memorandum of
Understanding”.62 WB president Paul Wolfowitz went on to describe the Singapore
government’s actions as “unacceptable” and “authoritarian,” accusing the government
of inflicting an “enormous damage” to the organization’s reputation through the
implementation of the ban, and remarked that the WB had always worked “with these
representatives of civil societies, and we value their role – even when we disagree
with what they say”.63 Wolfowitz was backed by the European Union, who supported
WB’s stance that the accredited activists had the right to participate in the Meetings.64

58

Peter Stephens, quoted in Tanya Fong. “No outdoor demos for World Bank, IMF meets, say police” in The
Straits Times, 29 July 2006, p.1
59
“Activists plan IMF, World Bank protests on Batam” in The Straits Times, 25 August 2005, p.3
60
“World Bank accuses S’pore of breaching formal agreement” in The Straits Times, 14 September 2006, p.4.
61
Ken Kwek. “14 civil society groups call for event boycott” in The Straits Times, 13 September 2006, p.6.
62
“World Bank accuses S’pore of breaching formal agreement” in The Straits Times, 14 September 2006, p.4.
63
ibid.
64
ibid.

164


Under tremendous international pressure, 22 of the 27 blacklisted activists were
finally admitted into the country.65

The state’s ban on the 27 activists from entry into Singapore indicated its paranoia of
differing ideological positions and worldviews that might be potentially subversive to
its agendas. Revealed through the implementation of a ban was an authoritarian state
that did not hesitate to exploit its legislative powers as a means of political control.
The delineation of official spaces for the expression of opinions and the strict
monitoring of views forwarded for politically sensitive content severely reduced the
latitude for freedom of speech. All these practices demonstrated a hegemonic state
that employed interventionist practices to maintain strict control of civil society at the
expense of individual freedom. In an interview, Holzer put forth that one of the

concerns of the Truisms series was that of “how personal freedom can be preserved
along with the government”.66 In this instance, the government’s attempt to project a
politically liberal style of governance that was inclusive and tolerant through For
Singapore broke down to reveal its hegemonic nature and authoritarian practices. The
polyphonic world of For Singapore falls fatally apart, disclosing instead a monologic
world operating with a singular consciousness.

65
66

ibid.
David Joselit, Joan Simon and Renata Salecl (eds.). Jenny Holzer, p.110.

165