What does it mean to be a truly independent theatre practitioner? Perhaps an old question that warrants reflection, or, to most people, a dated one that is futile to discuss upon: every theatre practitioner is an independent individual anyway. To the critics having the view of the latter, it is attempt to evade the question that might question their credibility, or not to provide a concrete answer to it in fear of losing to the criticism of subservient associations and affiliations that undermine independent voices; the co-option of one’s body by a larger hegemonic body. This phenomenon is not uncommon in the Singapore theatre scene, for soft power levied by larger, well-funded, monetary-resource endowed companies in terms of providing ready employment to theatre-practitioners, their abilities to provide a sense of artistic identity, their abilities to provide constant employment on a long-term basis, strong reassurance of longevity in regular income; as what the person who coined the term Joseph Nye referred to as primary currencies the institutions’ values, culture and policy practices that can repeal and attract theatre-practitioners to want what they want” (1) (Nye).
