Swift accounts

By now, this part of the world is in full knowledge that the Taylor Swift performances here had been significantly subsidized by the Singapore government. This was done so that the artist would perform here exclusively. I don't listen to Taylor Swift but this episode involving the government is disturbing.

• This subsidy means public funds were used. I am a tax payer, I certainly did not consent my money being used this way. The counter-perspective, advocated by the ministers & members of the public who are revelling in this exclusivity, is that the returns generated by this agreement are more than the amount forked out. The government refuses to disclose how much returns were potentially on the cards. Together with the subsidized amount, these remain confidential. In fact the government is threatening legal action against any entities leaking these details in the public domain (TODAY online, 4 March 2024). This reeks of desperate insecurity. Also, this benefit - does it return to all tax payers in some ways? If it is for the general good, there are parties who would benefit from this more than others.
• This is a clear exercise in depravation. The haves are preventing the have nots from something, tangible or otherwise. The pro-haves are saying this deal with Miss Swift was done a while ago so those who are crying sour grapes now might have a hidden agenda. This aside, I just feel that we should not be proud of seeing others being deprived of something especially when you are buying out the circumstances. Reminder - we are observing a regional existence, there are others around us. If we are not mindful of our ways, others would react / retaliate to our detriment. Is securing a exclusive entertainment performance really something to be proud of? Of course, some are saying it's not about Taylor Swift but the economic gambit.