.png)
Revitalising the Local Arts and Heritage Scene: The SG Culture Pass
- Harry Lee and Finna Ng
- 1 day ago
- 9 min read
In this Explainer, find out...
How does Singapore’s arts scene compare with commercial entertainment, and why is public engagement relatively low?
What is the SG Culture Pass and how would it increase participation in local cultural activities?
What challenges does the SG Culture Pass face, and what challenges might limit its long-term impact?
Introduction
In 1968, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew described poetry as a “luxury we could not afford”. Mr Lee’s opinion was, of course, contextualised by the existential struggles faced by post-independence Singapore. Decades later, however, while Singapore has transformed economically, that deeply ingrained pragmatism appears to continue to influence Singaporeans’ perceptions of local arts and heritage.
The SG Culture Pass, launched in 2025 by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), is a S$300 million initiative aimed at addressing this challenge by making arts and heritage events more accessible. Read on to find out more about the SG Culture Pass, and what this means for Singapore’s arts and heritage scene.
Challenges and Opportunities in the Local Arts and Heritage Scene
To understand the impetus for the SG Culture Pass, we must first survey the key challenges and opportunities defining Singapore’s current arts and heritage scene. This will enable us to appreciate the problems the SG Culture Pass aims to alleviate.
Challenges
An Uneven Playing Field for Local Artists
Let us begin with the key challenges. Today, local artists are fighting an uphill battle to reach greater audiences. When international artists and bands like Coldplay and Taylor Swift announce concerts in Singapore, pricey tickets ranging in the hundreds or even thousands are grabbed in a matter of hours. When tickets for local gigs are set at a fraction of that cost, we would expect to see higher visibility. Yet this is often not the case, with local shows often struggling to fill seats. Clearly, we are more than willing to break the bank for global artists over local ones.
The problem, therefore, lies not just with the affordability of local arts events but also the difference in our perceived valuation of local culture compared to global culture. More precisely, the issue lies in a lower willingness to pay for local culture, rather than an inability to afford them. If the constraint was purely financial, relatively affordable local performances would have already outperformed expensive global acts.
Singaporeans are Not Used to Paying for Cultural Events
Furthermore, Singaporeans are simply not used to paying for local arts and heritage. In explaining the Government’s decision in 2013 to do away with entry fees for Singaporeans and PRs at National Heritage Board (NHB) museums and institutions, surveys showed that even though 75 per cent of Singaporeans felt it was important to visit museums and participate in heritage activities, only 20 per cent actually did so, citing cost as a consideration. Since then, visits to national museums have doubled, suggesting that affordability remains a constraint alongside broader issues of the perceived value of local culture. The underlying challenge therefore lies in getting Singaporeans to “see the value of local arts and culture”, and to foster a lifelong habit of supporting the local arts and heritage scene.
Harsh Local Critique
Beyond the issue of paying for local arts and heritage lies an expectation problem. Singaporeans are acutely aware of overused tropes in the local cultural production, often viewing them as cliche and boring. In the arts scene, this fatigue with predictable local themes has, over time, changed the way local artists are judged. Instead of evaluating them in the local cultural context, Singaporeans often measure the success of local artists through the yardstick of global artists, only really paying attention when they have broken new ground overseas. For instance, Singaporean singer-songwriter Yuele gained widespread attention only after becoming the first Singaporean to join the US National Public Radio, joining the likes of Taylor Swift and Adele.
Local artists are seen to have “made it” only if they manage to reach beyond Singaporean audiences. This tendency to equate success with international reach makes it difficult for artists to make a name for themselves locally.
Strengthening In-Person Engagement Post COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic devastated Singapore’s arts and heritage scene and altered consumer patterns. Participation in physical arts and heritage events declined significantly, while digital consumption became the dominant mode for consumption of local content. However, this increase did not offset the overall decline in arts attendance. At the same time, the pandemic accentuated perception of the arts as “non-essential”, with practical concerns taking precedence.
This has presented a persistent challenge to renew public engagement with the arts and heritage, particularly for in-person experiences. During the pandemic, many small- and mid-sized visual art galleries faced plummeting sales as restrictions disrupted the traditional gallery model. Similarly, museums saw a sharp decline in viewership, with attendance only returning to pre-pandemic levels in 2024. While digital consumption of arts and heritage content has sustained since the pandemic, it cannot replace the immersion of in-person events. The SG Culture Pass would help Singaporeans rediscover the value of in-person cultural engagement by addressing the affordability and visibility.
Opportunities
Despite the above challenges, opportunities remain in Singapore’s local art scene.
According to the NHB’s Heritage Awareness Survey 2024, heritage and cultural events continue to receive strong public support. 50 per cent of respondents reported participating in Intangible Cultural Heritage activities, including community heritage events and religious festivals. At the same time, youths also expressed a desire to engage more deeply with heritage. Beyond their interest in history, many were also interested in lesser-known aspects of Singapore’s heritage, including archaeology, vernacular languages, artefacts and craftsmanship.
Similarly, in the post-pandemic period, there has been increased public interest in hands-on art forms. Specialised activities including pottery, knitting and woodworking grew in popularity, with many participants viewing them as stress-relieving as therapeutic. This growing interest suggests that Singaporeans are increasingly receptive to niche and participatory art forms.
The SG Culture Pass
The SG Culture Pass is an initiative by MCCY. It is designed to encourage Singapore Citizens to engage more deeply with the country's arts and heritage scene. Launched during SG60, it provides all Singapore Citizens aged 18 and above with $100 worth of credits that can be used to offset ticket purchases for eligible homegrown arts and heritage activities offered by authorised ticketing partners. The credits are valid from 1 September 2025 to 31 December 2028, giving recipients over three years to explore cultural offerings at their own pace. Crucially, the range of eligible activities is extensive. Indeed, included in the Pass are experiences like:
Performances;
Exhibitions;
Immersive experiences like learning tours; and
Participatory workshops across literary, performing, and visual arts, as well as heritage programmes.
This wide range of offerings reflects a deliberate effort to increase accessibility for as many Singaporeans as possible. It recognises that different people engage with culture in different ways and that a one-size-fits-all approach would leave large segments of the population untouched.
Beyond the credits, the initiative was notably paired with unconventional partnerships pursued by MCCY to embed arts participation into everyday life. One such example is a year-long collaboration themed “Date with intention: Culture brings us closer”. This saw MCCY partnering with dating app “Coffee Meets Bagel” to position cultural experiences as alternatives to the typical dinner or café meet-up. This reframes arts attendance as a social activity, which can be particularly appealing to younger Singaporeans. The scheme has also been expanded to reach communities that conventional arts outreach often leaves behind. For example, MCCY is partnering with the Agency for Integrated Care to engage nursing homes so that residents facing mobility challenges can still use their credits to enjoy local arts events. Over 70 eligible events now include accessibility provisions for persons with disabilities.
The scope of the Pass has also been refined in response to community needs. From March 2026, credits can be applied toward the purchase of SingLit (short for Singapore Literature) titles such as fiction, poetry, plays, and literary essays in all four official languages authored by a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident at the point of publication. Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr Edwin Tong has framed the Pass not merely as a financial instrument but as a catalyst for a broader mindset shift, countering a tendency among Singaporeans to more readily spend on foreign entertainment. In this sense, the SG Culture Pass represents a long-term ambition to cultivate a durable and distinctly Singaporean cultural identity through art.
Merits and Drawbacks of the SG Culture Pass
Merits of the SG Culture Pass
While still in a considerably early phase, the Pass has already demonstrated meaningful impact across multiple fronts. The most immediate indicator is its strong early uptake. As of 1 January 2026, over 1.1 million Singaporeans had registered for the scheme, with nearly $10 million in credits utilised by more than 136,000 people. Particularly telling is the demographic breakdown. Youths aged 18 to 35 accounted for half of all credit usage. This suggests the scheme is successfully drawing in individuals from a younger demographic, who are typically associated with declining arts participation.
This reach extends meaningfully into the heritage space as well. Museums, heritage trails, and cultural institutions tracing Singapore's multicultural history have also seen increased footfall from the younger cohort. Likewise, this signals a renewed interest in Singapore’s heritage from a demographic that might otherwise have felt little connection to it. This is reinforced by the partnership with “Coffee Meets Bagel”, which works to normalise arts participation as part of social life. In turn, cultural outings are positioned as a natural alternative to the typical dinner or café meet-up for younger Singaporeans.
The Pass has also served as a valuable visibility engine for smaller, ground-up arts organisations that have struggled to reach beyond a familiar niche audience. For independent theatre companies, literary collectives, and community arts groups, being listed as an eligible programme under the SG Culture Pass exposes their work to a wider pool of potential attendees who are actively browsing for ways to use their credits. The pass then functions as a “valuable kickstarter”, providing smaller players with a meaningful boost in visibility and foot traffic at a critical moment.
Underpinning this is the deliberately affordable pricing of eligible programmes, with events starting from as low as $2 and most priced below $50. This allows Singaporeans to stretch their credits across multiple experiences rather than exhausting them in a single redemption. This provides room to experiment with unfamiliar art forms at minimal personal cost.
Taken together, these features suggest that the SG Culture Pass is achieving what a purely financial subsidy alone could not. It is broadening the reach of the local arts ecosystem, and giving Singaporeans meaningful reasons to engage with their own cultural landscape.
Drawbacks of the SG Culture Pass
While the initial rollout has certainly energised the arts industry, it is equally important to examine the potential pitfalls and the groups that might still be left behind by the scheme.
Perhaps the most fundamental question the Pass has yet to answer is whether one-off credits translate into genuine habit formation. It remains unclear whether first-time attendees are returning after their initial redemption, making it difficult to assess whether the scheme is building durable interest in Singapore's arts experiences. Without sustained engagement, the Pass would only result in a temporary spike in attendance rather than the long-term cultural shift that was envisioned.
The scheme is also distinctively exclusive to citizens, leaving out a substantial share of Singapore's resident population. Permanent Residents (PRs), Employment Pass holders, and Student Pass holders are ineligible despite making up a significant proportion of those living and working in Singapore. For example, PRs alone account for approximately 8.8 per cent of the resident population. Many of these individuals are deeply embedded in Singapore's cultural communities, contributing to and consuming local arts in meaningful ways. Their exclusion not only limits the scheme's reach and undermines its broader ambition of deepening a shared national cultural identity. This is especially so given that Singapore's social fabric is shaped by a far more diverse set of residents than the citizen category alone captures.
Finally, while the Pass does much to stimulate audience demand, it does little to address the supply-side pressures that continue to weigh down on Singapore's arts scene. Artists face persistent income instability, high venue costs, and the considerable challenge of sustaining public interest over time. If the sector cannot produce a sufficiently compelling and varied slate of programmes to warrant repeated visits, the credits will eventually run dry without leaving a lasting cultural legacy. In this sense, the Pass is a necessary but insufficient condition for the kind of thriving arts ecosystem Singapore is working towards.
Conclusion
The SG Culture Pass represents one of the most targeted arts and heritage policy interventions Singapore has undertaken. Since its launch, it has generated considerable buzz that points to genuine public interest: strong early redemption figures, sold-out programmes, and new partnerships across the arts and heritage landscape. In Singapore’s development-driven context, such visible enthusiasm for arts and heritage is encouraging.
Yet enthusiasm at launch and sustained cultural change are different, and credits will eventually expire. The scheme's legacy will hinge on whether Singaporeans who experience the arts and heritage through the Pass for the first time choose to return on their own accord, even without further subsidies. It also depends on whether the arts sector proves compelling and diverse enough to keep them coming back. A subsidy, however well-designed, can open a door, but it cannot compel anyone to walk through it twice. The SG Culture Pass is therefore best understood as a catalyst, and whether it ultimately reverses the long-held perceptions of Singapore remains to be seen.
This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.
By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.