What The Eras Tour Tells Us About Southeast Asian Diplomacy
Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour needs no introduction. Spanning five continents, featuring a setlist comprising ten studio albums and each show a whopping 3.5 hours – Swift’s ongoing tour is highly ambitious. It is also reportedly the highest-grossing tour of all time, breaking records in ticket sales, tourism and dominating mass media coverage to an unprecedented scale. Described as Swift’s apotheosis, the tour’s impact has extended far beyond pop culture, evolving into a pivotal cultural, economic and sociopolitical phenomenon. Across the globe, host cities to Swift’s tour have been bolstered by substantial boosts to tourism and commerce, with manifold rise in demand for services such as hotels and airline bookings, fuelling trickle-down effects on local economies.
Southeast Asian rifts over Singapore’s exclusivity deal
The tour’s Asia Pacific leg catapulted the concerts into the geopolitical realm when six sold-out shows in Singapore stood out as Swift’s only stop in Southeast Asia. Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin publicly alleged that the Singapore government had paid subsidies of $2 million-$3 million (£1.6m-£2.4m) per show to Swift’s concert promoter AEG in an exclusivity deal, sparking diplomatic tensions in the region. Subsequent complaints from neighbouring states soon followed. Filipino statesman and economist Joey Salceda accused Singapore of operating by ‘the law of the jungle’, attempting to ‘lock other ASEAN neighbours out of the tour’, demanded an explanation from the Singapore embassy in the Philippines. Compounding sentiments of disappointment in the region, Indonesian President Joko Widodo expressed that Indonesia, (Southeast Asia’s largest and most populous nation by a significant margin) boasts infrastructure that is more than robust enough to host the tour. Widodo highlighted the massive outflow of capital from Indonesian fans into Singapore’s economy through flights, hospitality and spending on local businesses, claiming that over half of attendees at the Singapore shows were Indonesians.
Singapore’s Tourism Board released a statement confirming that the Singapore government did provide a grant to Swift through AEG to secure six shows in the nation. The board refrained from publishing any exact figures but Minister for Culture Edwin Tong noted, in response to Thavisin’s claims, that the amount was ‘nowhere as high as what’s being speculated online’. When confronted with the issue by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong cited that Swift received a grant from Singapore’s tourism recovery fund, celebrating the agreement as successful. Lee confirmed that the deal did contain exclusivity clauses but assured that the move was not intended to be unfriendly toward Southeast Asian neighbours.
Singapore’s deal promptly spurred other states to implement legislative changes to boost competitiveness in attracting international gigs. Indonesian Tourism Minister Sandiago Uno pledged to digitise and truncate the permit process for international entertainment acts, with Investment Minister Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan declaring that provisions were in the works for local business operators to secure similar exclusive contracts with other musical artists in the future. Hong Kong leader John Lee Ka-chiu emphasised that the city must be ‘relentless’ in attracting mega cultural events, stating that authorities would invest public funding to replicate similar success.
The incentives of a regionally exclusive deal with one of the world’s biggest popstars are plain. Yet, the scale of regional outcry and the diplomatic and legislative aftermath of a one-off exclusivity agreement may be surprising. This begs the question: why is this such a big deal? Commentators note that regardless of other regional stops, the tour dates in Singapore would have been immensely lucrative anyway. What did Singapore stand to gain from exclusivity?
Understanding the scale of Singapore’s profit from the arrangement may help put regional dissent into perspective. Ahead of the tour, Bloomberg forecasted that Swift’s six shows would increase Singapore’s GDP by 0.2 percentage points. Singapore channelled prominent investment into harnessing fan frenzy, placing Swift at centre stage across the city in the lead up to the shows. The iconic Marina Bay Sands enchanted fans with curated light and water shows, and elaborate installations celebrating Swift’s musical evolution, while restaurants, wellness and retail outlets offered endless pop-ups, activations and discounts to concertgoers. Singapore regional bank United Overseas Bank (UOB) offered pre-sale access to cardholders – and subsequently experienced a 45 percent increase in card application volume in the ticket sales period. Swift’s US tour leg was already reported to have transformed the travel and gig economy, bringing a windfall to local tourism and hospitality: her impact on Singapore was no exception, although it was drastically magnified. Hotels reported record occupancy levels with a 30 percent increase in demand and travel platform Traveloka reported that flight bookings to and from Singapore increased sixfold. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) indicated tourism receipts of between S$350 million - S$450 million (£204m-£262m) in the first quarter of 2024 collectively generated from concerts by Swift and British rock band Coldplay, with analysts estimating that over half of concertgoers were from overseas.
Singapore and ASEAN
Singapore, a tiny island-state often opined to punch above its weight, saw 22 million people–over three and a half times the country’s population–competing for tickets to Swift’s six shows. The diplomatic row offers an interesting lens into small state diplomacy and the importance of soft power. In an era of global politics marked by trade and military standoffs, countries without strength in size or force rely on influence and reputation to sustain security and project power.
Situated in Southeast Asia, the wealthy state is a founding member of The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a political and economic bloc comprising ten states. Apart from Indonesia, all the union’s members are relatively small nations, and six out of ten [NL1] are island-states. Formed in the 1960s with the original goal of combatting communism, the bloc’s members are highly diverse in ethnicity, language and culture, and host a varied spectrum of political regimes, ranging from semi-democracies to authoritarian states.
The spatial and cultural differences between ASEAN states have important implications for the union’s dialogues, neighbourly relationships, trade, and migration flows. ASEAN’s ethos is distinct as a union; discourse is guided by principles of solidarity, territorial integrity and the foremost value of non-interference. Coined ‘The ASEAN Way’, this methodology of quiet diplomacy honours Southeast Asia’s cultural and political plurality. However, some experts perceive that approach as a major limitation of the organisation, arguing that norms of consensus and noninterference have hindered its ability to address domestic issues such as widespread corruption, and human rights violations including Myanmar’s military takeover and the Rohingya refugee crisis. Overlapping claims amongst states regarding territory in the South China Sea have also prevented the organisation from standing as a united front against China, which has been accused of military swarming to gradually seize control of the islands in recent years. While the organisation has indisputably propelled the region forward in trade and influence, the union’s impact in other areas has been limited, with some dismissing ASEAN discourse simply as talk.
Small state diplomacy
ASEAN’s guiding principles shed light on the gravity of regional unhappiness, echoed in Filipino lawmaker Salceda’s complaint that Singapore failed to abide by the law of a ‘neighbourhood of countries bound by supposed principles of solidarity and consensuses’. Yet, in a region with major ideological differences, rife with wealth and power disparities, it is apparent that the realities of consistently conducting solidarity and consensus-based diplomacy may be overly idealistic. Politicians arguing over Taylor Swift may appear to be an amusing spectacle to onlookers, but the dispute is microcosmic to larger questions surrounding the limits of noninterference and territorial integrity in a union that is so ideologically and demographically disparate.
Salceda remarked that Singapore played by ‘the law of the jungle’, the notion that the strongest survive and self-interest must be prioritised. While intended to be accusatory, Salceda’s observation suggests an international landscape that Singapore has been conscious of since its founding and has proactively embraced. The nation has been described as ‘strategic and aggressive’ in facilitating a conducive and vibrant environment for business and opportunity, offering a plethora of tax incentives and subsidies encouraging investment and innovation. Noncompete agreements, like the exclusivity deals of Swift’s concerts, are common practice in the entertainment industry, and Singapore’s move in the event tourism space is not unlike the state’s strategies to entice investment and development in other sectors.
Investing in state-of-the-art connectivity, infrastructure and security have been the linchpin to Singapore’s rise and staggering modernisation in the span of a generation. The selection of Singapore as the destination for US President Donald Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un’s landmark summit in 2018 is testament to the nation’s success in boasting first-rate security, law and order and infrastructure, in addition to a track record of political stability and neutrality – an image that its neighbours have yet to attain in the global arena.
Ideas of staying competitive and self-sufficiency are not confined to the nation’s incentives for corporations: they reverberate as mantras from the very foundation of Singaporean society. Singapore’s total defence ethos, notably devised with reference to strategies of Sweden and Switzerland, include a strong advocacy for psychological independence that aim to inoculate citizens with resolve and resilience. National education messages are printed on banners in school foyers and splayed across canteen walls, reading “No one owes Singapore a living... we find our own way to survive and prosper, turning challenge into opportunity.” Whether the agreement with Swift undermines ASEAN’s spirit of cooperation remains up for debate, but it is clear that the state’s relentless dedication to elevating itself as a regional hub and a bastion of modernity, vibrancy and security, has paid off.
The concerts’ benefits for Singapore were apparent, but what did Swift stand to gain from the agreement? Despite hefty payments, commentators highlight that Swift likely did not need Singapore’s money, but choosing Singapore offered assurances of safety and connectivity for her fanbase, which is largely comprised of young female fans. The groundbreaking scale, extensive visibility and media dominance of Swift’s tour have elevated the susceptibility of her arenas to threats of political violence – particularly apparent in the thwarting of planned jihadist attacks on her Vienna shows in August 2024. The cancellation of shows in Vienna marked the first time Swift had called off performances since 2014, when a coup d'état in Thailand prompted the singer to cancel her Bangkok performances. Taiwanese vice presidential nominee Jaw Shau-king alleged that Swift declined offers to bring the The Eras Tour to Taiwan due to ‘geopolitical risks’ in optics, cementing the importance of a state’s security and global reputation in its ability to secure gigs at the scale of Swift’s.
For small states, hosting renowned international acts are not a mere perk, but can constitute a critical component of public diplomacy and nation branding. Fostering a reputation as safe and robust yet glitzy has been a long-term strategy of Singapore’s to embed itself in the global consciousness, despite its small size. Regionally, it is clear that ASEAN’s principles, while commendable, may not be the most pragmatic in a geopolitical climate where nations remain committed to self-sufficiency. The controversy surrounding Singapore’s exclusivity agreement with Swift shines a spotlight on competing aspirations amongst Southeast Asian nations, hampered by the bloc’s principles and vulnerabilities. In today’s turbulent world, the future of ASEAN relations and the bloc’s goal of consensus-building amidst diversity will continue to be put to the test.
Image courtesy of Paolo V via Wikimedia Commons, ©2023. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
