~ By Ng Yi Sheng ~

Comic courtesy of Cartoon Press

25 year-old Samantha Lo (aka SKL0) has broken the law. It doesn’t matter that she’s brought a smile to our faces with her witty sticker and graffiti projects. If you look at the wording of the Vandalism Act of 1966, you’ll find that the legality of her actions just isn’t up for debate.

Here’s what’s forbidden in the case of private and public property (unless you’ve got prior permission):

a)… (i) writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public property or private property any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing;

(ii) affixing, posting up or displaying on any public property or private property any poster, placard, advertisement, bill, notice, paper or other document; or

(iii) hanging, suspending, hoisting, affixing or displaying on or from any public property or private property any flag, bunting, standard, banner or the like with any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing; or

(b) stealing, destroying or damaging any public property.

This is why Lo’s getting charged even for pasting up removable stickers on traffic lights. As you can see from a)(ii), it’s illegal even to scotch-tape an ad for your lost dog on an HDB wall.

So why is Lo getting so much sympathy? It’s not just because she’s an artist. Nor is it just because she’s a young, educated, Chinese woman. (Due to our prejudices, this is the class of people we most expect to protect from, rather than accuse of criminal behaviour.)

No, what’s really compelling about this case is how different it is from the two high-profile cases of vandalism in Singapore’s history. Let’s review:

1) The Michael Fay Incident, 1994. An 18 year-old American schoolboy named Michael Fay was arrested for fifty counts of vandalism, including a series of attacks on cars in HDB estates conducted with hot tar, paint remover and hatchets. He was sentenced to four months in prison, a fine of S$3,500 and six strokes of the cane.

2) MRT graffiti incident, 2010. 33 year-old Oliver Fricker from Switzerland cut through the fence of an SMRT Changi train depot. He spray painted two MRT carriages with the words "McKoy Banos”, the tag of an international graffiti artist duo who has left their mark on trains all over the world. He was arrested and sentenced to five months in jail and three strokes of the cane, on charges of trespassing and vandalism. (SMRT staff failed to report the act for two days, because they assumed the colourful graffiti was part of an ad campaign.)

You’ll notice that both these cases were tinged with the idea of invasion: they were cases of foreigners venturing into the heartland and the public transport system to commit acts of destruction (in Fricker’s case, to the wire fence and SMRT’s reputation). The average Singaporean was hardly going to complain about arrests here.

Photo credit: David Chein

Lo’s work, on the other hand, was immediately understandable as an act of reclamation. She was a Singaporean citizen transforming sterile public spaces by making them more idiosyncratically Singaporean, via the use of Singlish. It was if the traffic lights and roads she marked were being taken back from the Singapore government and returned to the Singaporean people. They were now “our grandfather objects”, as the artist might have said – landmarks we had every right to inherit and call our own.

(It definitely helped that the designs for her work were done up in official-looking fonts, quite unlike prototypical American-style graffiti tags. Her “My Grandfather Building” piece is an exception to this, and I would argue that it’s her weakest piece.)

Lo’s work is important because it’s finally teaching Singaporeans how and why unlicensed graffiti can be a good thing – how it doesn’t necessarily destroy or devalue public space, but can instead make it more meaningful. So yes, she broke the law, according to the Vandalism Act. But in the process, she’s managed to show us that it really isn’t a very good law.

This shouldn’t be surprising to us. It’s an antique piece of legislation, hardly amended over half a century, making no allowance for the creative, risk-taking city-state that we (and I’m including the government here) want to become.  I’d even argue that to a certain extent, we’ve already become that creative place. After all, Lo felt safe enough to blog about her works. She’s of a generation that didn’t grow up in fear, and that’s a wonderful thing.

I’ve signed the petition to reduce her criminal charges, because I like her work, and I like what she represents. But letting her off easy is not the ultimate aim we should be going for.

What we need to do is to change the law.  We don’t need a complete repeal, of course. But the idea that someone like Lo should be locked up or caned for brightening up a space is crazy. Fines or community service should be akperfectly good deterrent in themselves.

In the near future, someone else is going to be caught painting or otherwise marking public property as part of an art project. The artist might be a man or a woman, a citizen or a foreigner; the work might be good or bad.  But it’s almost certainly not going to result in as much of sympathy as Lo’s experienced. A petition won’t save this person – only a change of laws would.

I’m therefore calling for a redress of the Vandalism Act. I want there to be some differentiation between wantonly destructive acts and creative acts, and I want punishment to be proportionate to crimes committed.

We’re already a more progressive Singapore than we used to be. Draconian laws will only drive us backwards.

You May Also Like

Agoda credit card promotions for all your 2016 holidays

By SingSaver.com.sg Singaporeans can save even more on hotel bookings with these Agoda…

国会通过《妇女宪章》修正案 赋予更多权力打击“住宅妓院”

“住宅妓院”如雨后春笋般不断出现,并且经常转移阵地,难以打击。但今后当局将会有更多权力对“住宅妓院”采取相应行动,并且会加强打击非法网络经营。 昨日(4日)国会通过《妇女宪章》(Women’s  Charter)的修改提案,其中也包括针对试图转移业务到海外,以逃避法律人士。国家发展部高级政务次长孙雪玲表示,初犯与惯犯均处以更重的刑期与更高的罚款。 自2015年到2018年间,10名被捕的外国女性中,有7名涉嫌在网络上宣传自己提供性服务,而当中均于住宅区中非法提供性服务。2015年期间,16巴仙的女性因网络卖淫被捕,去年更攀升至55巴仙。 随着犯罪数字的高涨,为能打击卖淫活动,若出租用作妓院用,除非他们能够证明自己的不知情,并“合理积极地”(reasonable diligence)确定该场所不被用于此目的,承租人均将承担刑事责任。 “合理积极”,指屋主与租户应透过面对面约谈合租事宜,并对租户或次租户进行身份检查。 若他们人在海外,屋主可以聘请中介确认他们的身份或面谈。 孙雪玲表示,再三确认租户身份是必要的,因为犯罪集团往往利用房屋租凭过程中的漏洞达成目的,包括提供假身份(很有可能是死者身份)给屋主。 此外,法案的修正包括将调查对象延伸至本地人或永久居民,而对于未对有关租户进行身份调查的物业代理,将可能会被罚款,或吊销营业执照。 当局也表示将会与房地产代理理事会(CEA)合作,引入专业准则。 其他的修正包括,若在境外透过网络或应用程式为本地提供性服务,亦被视为犯罪。警方将赋予更大的权力逮捕皮条客或“中介”,即使是辩称为自由业性工作者。目前,只有为性工作者牵线的中介均需被逮捕。…

“相煎何太急!” 港妈泪劝港警视频疯传

香港连日反《逃犯条例》示威行动,示威者与警方僵持不下,氛围紧张,网络上也纷纷流传警方疑似过度使用武力的视频,但仍有示威者尝试缓和气氛,以平和理性的态度试图与警方沟通。昨日(13日)一名港妈声嘶力竭对警员喊话,“我不想要这里变成天安门广场”的视频在网络上疯传,感动无数网民。 视频由港网友Tsang Chi Ho上传长达7分钟的直播示威现场的视频,港妈的喊话立刻引起网友关注。 从视频内容可见当时身穿绿衣与带着眼镜的港妈独身一人与警员谈判,她手无寸铁并在示威者的前头,试图安抚双方紧张的情绪,对着警方喊话,“不要再打小孩了!“ 她喊道,“你们抹清楚自己的眼睛,看清楚眼前的孩子,在你们面前的都是小孩,你现在是人家的爸爸,将来也会是人家的爸爸,以后会有自己的孩子。如果你的小孩以后站出来,被人一棍棍打下去,你会怎么想!” 她说,“我也是作为一个妈妈,你们也有小孩的,你们为什么要这样打这些小孩?你们收队了!够啦!” 接着,她拿下口罩说:“烟雾弹我也吃了,我已经吃了你们几个烟雾弹了,我也有付出代价的,一人让一步了好不好?好不好啊?我不是要攻击你们,我没有武器啊,你们这样欺负我一个女人,你内心过意得去吗?” 但警方无视她的喊话,不断命令妈妈移开,继续对着示威者使用催泪弹、胡椒喷雾,试图驱散示威者。 妈妈不断对着警方声明,“我们都是自己人,都是香港人”,请求警方停止对示威者的使用武力。期间,有示威者鼓噪,她随即安抚示威者,说明她正在与警方谈判,请求他们不要向警方投掷。 “警察也是在上班” 她不断向示威者劝导,“他们也只是在上班,人心肉做,我相信警方也有善良的一面。”…

众筹两万元担保金 田柳金诉讼入禀上诉庭

曾卷入与国大诉讼持久战的田柳金(Jeanne-Marie Ten 译音),近期有意再入禀上诉庭,上诉此前高庭对其诉讼的判决。但首先她必须先支付高达两万元的担保金(security for costs)。 她目前正在网络平台发起众筹,向网民解释其诉讼来龙去脉,并吁请网民支持。她说,她必须在本月22日筹到两万元,并在26日提呈上诉通知,否则诉讼将不受理。 “据我所知,不论是英国还是马来西亚法庭,都没有所谓提成担保金的要求,但遗憾的是,这就是新加坡当前的处境。”她也非议如果在上诉陈情前还有先支付一笔费用,那么法律中保障国人有上诉的权益之意义何在? 2018年7月,高庭驳回田柳金起诉国大疏忽、违反合约、滥用职权及威胁的官司,指田没足够凭据证明指控。 但田柳金坚信,她有理由再把高庭裁决入禀到上诉庭,“在去年的书面判决,其实高庭也指国大也有不当之处”,但她认为尽管有大量文件证据,惟高庭并没有为她被开除和职涯被毁掉,要国大负起责任。 田柳金过去曾是国大设计与环境学院的硕士生,2002年入学。不过她指其导师于2004年利用她的学术研究成果,为一项个人学术作业申请津贴,尔后获教育部八万元津贴。但是之后导师拒绝在该报告中加入田的名字。 担心学术职涯受影响,当时田柳金也曾要求换导师,不过她指责校方站在导师一方,几经投诉都不得要领,她投诉到副教务长后,校方才召开调查委员会调查此事。 田柳金在2005年2月完成论文,但她表示数月后国大开出让田毕业的新条件:必须接受大学对于导师的处置。而田柳金的准硕士资格在2006年9月被剥夺。…