This Creative Hub invites artists, coinciding with either festivals or holidays, to activate the back alley (now a publicly accessible space) with temporary installations and commissioned wall paintings and events. These pop-up events are led by the hub’s art direction team, and supported by video documentation. One of their key strategies to increase visibility of their events is to invite key online influencers (KOL) to photograph themselves in the space and share these photos on social media.

Key Takeaways:

• Audience

• It is important to understand your audience. Ask yourselves these questions: Where will they be and what will they be looking for? Would a simpler and easily accessible design be more suited rather than a polished, minimal design language?

• Audience Development Develop a recognizable online and offline presence. This can be done with a cohesive brand story (written and graphic de sign), engagement on social media and collaborating with relevant organisations and people.

• Understand your network, your niche 35@Jetty is interested in participating in the narrative of the UNESCO world heritage site, and connecting with local arts practitioners. As a Creative Hub, this is an example of how we can connect directly with the physical community around a certain location.

7.3 Cultivating Networks

Network infers to a set of relationships and connections, internally or with other communities. Networks allow knowledge to be shared while finding support in social relationships and solidarity.

Many Creative Hubs have cultivated regional networks, and/or part of coalitions/advocacy groups.

New Naratif— transnational solidarity New Naratif situate themselves as a regional media advocate that is interested in uncovering Southeast Asian voices. They advocate freedom of expression, freedom of information and democratic practises. Shifting away from the state-owned news outlet, they are an independent media organisation and seek to bring awareness to marginalised stories.

New Naratif has also managed to find alliances with other organisations who are doing work within the same regional space on marginalised voices.

Recently they co-organised a conference,  Transnationally Asian Digital Conference. This conference connected regional publishing collectives such as Lausan Collective (Hong Kong) and New Bloom Magazine (Taiwan). The conference maintained that they “were able to capture the anti-nationalist and internationalist perspective, across Asia and in the Asian diaspora”.

New Naratif offers a social impact through connecting transnationally between diasporic conversations. Through their online collaborations with other organisations, standing up for freedom and justice promotes transnational solidarity and awareness.

SeaShorts Film Festival—

Southeast Asian cinema  SeaShorts Film Festival is organised by Next New Wave, an initiative founded in 2015 to nurture emerging filmmakers. It is a not-for-profit cultural organisation bringing independent films to the forefront. The 2020 SeaShorts program was supported by several regional networks of film organisations such as the Asia Centre Japan Foundation, National Youth Council of Singapore, Taipei Economic and Cultural office in Malaysia, FINAS and more.

The festival is made up of many screenings from competition submissions to S-Express, an annual presentation of short films across Southeast Asia. The programmes are selected and curated from a country programmer, usually a writer, director, or festival organiser. In its 3rd iteration, the audience for the festival grew from 500 to 2,000 a month.

However, the experience of Chinese-funded film companies was not without controversy. First, the imbalance of capital and power meant that Malay filmmakers sometimes faced constraints on creative autonomy. Although film subjects were often drawn from Malay culture, decision-making power frequently rested with Chinese producers or management. This structure of “cultural mediation” could provoke questions about who held the authority to interpret culture. Second, with political changes and the rise of nationalism in the late 1960s, cultural policies increasingly emphasized localization and national identity. The Chinese-capital-dominated film system began to face challenges. State intervention in the cultural industry gradually shifted film production from a market-oriented model toward one more closely tied to political and cultural agendas.

Even so, the historical significance of Shaw Brothers and Cathay in the Malayan era should not be overlooked. They not only helped bring about a “golden age” of Malay cinema but also left a lasting impact on visual culture in Southeast Asia. Looking back today, this history reminds us that culture has never been the exclusive domain of any single ethnic group; rather, it is continually produced through the interaction of diverse forces. The experience of Chinese-funded film companies in Malay cinema exemplifies a coexistence of cross-cultural collaboration and tension. It highlights the complex relationship between capital and culture, and shows how film, as a modern medium, can become a space for communication and negotiation in a plural society.

In sum, Malay cinema in the Malayan era should not be viewed merely as a product of ethnic culture, but as a dynamic practice shaped by colonial history, capital flows, and cross-cultural exchange. The involvement of Shaw Brothers and Cathay renders this history more multidimensional: it was both an economic expansion of Chinese capital into Southeast Asia and an opportunity for the reinvention of local culture. In today’s globalized context, revisiting this experience may offer valuable insights into the future of cultural industries—particularly how to find a more creative and inclusive balance between market logic and cultural diversity.

Commetary by iconada.tv: Malay Films in the Malayan Era: The Experience of Chinese-Funded Film Industries (Shaw Brothers and Cathay)

The history of Malay cinema during the Malayan era is often simplified as a form of cultural memory divided along linguistic and ethnic lines: Malay-language films belonged to the Malay community, while Chinese-language films catered to Chinese audiences. However, a closer examination of its industrial structure and aesthetic practices reveals a far more complex historical landscape, rich with cross-cultural dynamics. In particular, Chinese-funded film companies—represented by Shaw Brothers and Cathay—played roles in the development of Malay cinema that went beyond mere capital investment. They were also institutional builders and cultural intermediaries, and their experiences reveal the interweaving and negotiation of visual culture within the plural society of late colonial Malaya.

From an industrial perspective, the entry of Shaw Brothers and Cathay provided Malay cinema with a stable production system and commercial model. In postwar Singapore and Malaya, the film market gradually recovered, but local resources were limited. Technical equipment, professional talent, and distribution networks all required integration. Drawing on its filmmaking experience in Hong Kong, Shaw Brothers transplanted the “studio system” to Southeast Asia, establishing a division of labor spanning scriptwriters, directors, and actors. This allowed Malay-language films to be produced under relatively industrialized conditions. Cathay, meanwhile, strengthened exhibition and distribution through its connections with local cinemas, forming a cross-regional commercial network. This Chinese-capital-led industrial structure, to some extent, laid the foundation for a “modern film industry” in Malay cinema.

Yet this industrialization was not a one-way process of cultural export; rather, it involved localized reinterpretation and reinvention. Although Shaw Brothers and Cathay were driven by Chinese capital, their primary market consisted of Malay audiences. As such, their content and form had to respond to the cultural expectations of Malay society. Malay films of the 1950s and 1960s often drew on traditional stories, folklore, and moral narratives—such as courtly romances, heroic legends, and religious allegories. These themes aligned with Malay cultural values while also resonating emotionally with broad audiences. Notably, in narrative structure and visual style, these films frequently blended elements from Indian cinema (song and dance), Hollywood genre conventions, and the narrative rhythms of Chinese-language films, producing a “hybrid” cinematic language. This cross-cultural aesthetic was not merely a commercial strategy but also a reflection of the inherent diversity of Malayan society.

Within this process, the establishment of a star system also played a crucial role. Malay film stars, exemplified by P. Ramlee, were not only symbols of local culture but also products of the industrial systems created by Chinese-funded companies. Through contract systems and image construction, Shaw Brothers and Cathay turned actors into marketable cultural icons. In doing so, audiences not only identified with characters but also participated in the formation of a modern consumer culture. This star system not only boosted box office returns but also subtly shaped the aesthetic tastes and lifestyle aspirations of the Malay middle class.