This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on November 13, 2017 - November 19, 2017

I read with great dismay that the famous Kuala Lumpur Performing Arts Centre (klpac) is at risk of closing down due to a lack of funding. I was there recently to watch the staging of Kandang, the Malay version of George Orwell’s political satire, Animal Farm.

It was my first time at klpac and I was very impressed by the play’s quality and the theatre’s beautiful lush surroundings. The building itself, a refurbished Keretapi Tanah Melayu warehouse, is a good example of how our architectural heritage can be preserved, a positive change from the usual demolishing of old buildings that happens so often in Kuala Lumpur.

One of the reasons for klpac’s coffers running dry is the reluctance of the corporate sector to donate to arts and culture. Corporations, in general, do not see an immediate return on investment in donating to the arts, as it is indeed difficult to put a number on the benefits they can reap from such donations.

Furthermore, the corporate sector is facing a level of uncertainty, which may have drawn attention away from CSR initiatives, in general. In last year’s budget, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had announced an increase in tax deduction, from RM500,000 to RM700,000, for companies that sponsored arts and cultural causes. One would think that this would have led to a flood of corporate donations for the arts but companies are still dragging their feet.

Upon further investigation, I discovered that getting this tax deduction is not as straightforward as it seems. To qualify for it, companies can only sponsor an arts activity or programme that is approved by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. One of the criteria for the ministry’s approval is that the activity must not contain “sensitive implications for race and religion”.

However, said approval is no guarantee of a tax exemption. The company has to then submit another authorisation letter for tax deduction approval, together with a set of documents, after the activity is over.

The problem here is twofold. First, the bureaucratic red tape that potential sponsors need to go through to obtain the tax deduction is enough to put them off donating to art causes. I should add here that the tax deduction is only applicable to corporations, so art-loving individuals who make donations miss out on it.

Secondly, this is yet another display of centralised government authority deciding what we can and cannot watch. “Sensitive implications for race and religion” can be just about anything, and we cannot even decide for ourselves what these sensitivities (if they even exist) are. As art is basically produced to criticise, provoke and make fun of the society in which it exists, the ministry’s criterion can only serve to stifle artistic creativity.

This issue also opens up an important but often overlooked debate of who should fund the arts. Should arts, culture and heritage be considered a public good and receive unlimited funding from the government, which gets its money from taxpayers? Or should the private sector, namely corporations and philanthropists, contribute their wealth to support the arts?

In the UK, for example, heritage causes are fully funded by the government with most national museums offering free entry since 2001. By 2011, their visitor numbers had increased 51%. In addition, about £1 out of every £1,000 in the UK economy can be directly linked to the museum and gallery sector.

While an arts and history lover like me would salivate at the idea of free entry to some of the best galleries and museums in the world, I wonder if such a system would work in Malaysia. Despite the havoc the 2008/09 global financial crisis wreaked on the UK economy, there has not been much opposition to government-funded museums, and many remain convinced that it is important to keep these institutions free.

Whatever taxpayers’ money that is pumped every year into the preservation of arts, culture and heritage in the UK, which could be used instead for ailing institutions such as its National Health Service, is justified by the people’s demand for it.

Could there be a similar scenario in Malaysia? But relying completely on the private sector risks running into problems such as those faced by klpac.

Finding a balance is tricky but the first step we can take is to have a conversation on whether or not arts and culture are a public good worth spending taxpayers’ money on. If we decide that it is not, we must then work out how to make it easier for individuals and corporations to fund the arts. Not allowing the government to dictate to our sensitivities is a good place to start.

Aira Nur Ariana Azhari is an executive with the research unit of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS)

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.