From Indonesia to Thailand, politicians have pledged a range of measures to lure ‘world-class acts’ to boost their own tourism as Singapore reaps the benefits of ‘Swiftonomics’
“Some [US$3 million] in grants were allegedly given by the Singapore government to [promoter AEG] to host the concert in Singapore,” Salceda said. “The catch was that they do not host it elsewhere in the region.”
His comments divided Filipino netizens, with some calling him “petty” while others defended him and argued that the supposed exclusivity clause had deprived the Philippines of a much-needed tourism boost.
Just a week earlier, Thailand Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin first made the claim that Singapore paid Swift about US$2.8 million per show under an exclusivity deal.
He said the government would offer visa-free travel, change the rules on consuming alcohol at concerts, and adjust the operating hours of entertainment venues and when liquor could be sold.
In his interview with Bloomberg, he said the ministry had launched the Indonesia Tourism Fund, with a seed fund worth 2 trillion rupiah (US$127 million), to support music, sports and cultural events.
Last week, the Singapore Tourism Board and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth said Swift had received a grant from the city state, but did not specify the amount or whether it was conditioned on exclusivity due to confidentiality agreements.
While industry observers have previously told This Week in Asia that such grants are a “common strategy” for governments to lure major international acts, Singapore has nonetheless drawn ire from neighbouring countries, who want a piece of “Swiftonomics”.
According to a June 2023 data report from research company QuestionPro, the Eras Tour has the potential to generate US$4.6 billion in consumer spending in the US alone.
In the Philippines, Salceda’s calls to seek an explanation on Singapore’s deal generated a debate among social media users.
“Salceda should force the Philippine government to improve infrastructure, transport, amenities and traffic, rather than ask the Singapore embassy to explain,” one user tweeted on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“Sir, aren’t there bigger national issues than Taylor Swift concerts?” asked another. “This guy Joey Salceda is just petty,” remarked a user.
Others came to Salceda’s defence, arguing that the alleged exclusivity clause could have cost the Philippines dearly in tourist visits and spending.
“I guess it’s a legitimate concern. It’s not about the artist herself but it is that Singapore may have blocked other Southeast Asian countries from an economic opportunity,” another said.
Political analysts said the drama was unlikely to induce bad blood among the Asean neighbours, adding that ties were “resilient” enough to withstand such disagreements.
“Our relations with our neighbours are far more resilient than this, and it will not make such a big impact,” said Dylan Loh, an assistant professor in foreign policy at Nanyang Technological University.
He also warned against conflating the unhappiness of one lawmaker to a country’s view. “It could well be just lawmakers making this point … rather than a representation of a country’s position.”
Agreeing, Alan Chong, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said: “Unless the Philippine tourism secretary or foreign minister actually repeats this accusation, then it becomes a big deal. Because if a senator says it, it can mean anything.”
Chong added that Salceda might have been “posturing for domestic purposes” and it was unlikely to turn into anything substantial, noting that Thailand’s Thavisin had already “let the matter slide” and moved on.
“Tourism is usually regarded as something that’s open for all kinds of creative business deals,” he said. “Every economy that practices or supports tourism has these national subsidies or special budgets.”
Comments
0 comment