Last updated on October 1st, 2015 at 10:42 am
By Tiffany Gwee
Words related to the recent talk about CPF had been found scribbled on a number of bus stop signs and pavements. Photos of the graffiti have been making their rounds on the internet.
All instances of vandalism share a similar message - they are all in support of blogger Roy Ngerng, who was recently sued by Singapore's Prime Minister Mr. Lee Hsien Loong for his article on the CPF.
The graffiti reads, "WE SUPPORT CPF BLOGGER RETURN OUR CPF MONEY FROM R/AC 'N' M/AC ABOVE 65 YRS $5000 BAL M/AC". There is an assumption that R/AC refers to Retirement Account and M/AC refers to Medisave Account.
The pictures below are some instances of the graffiti.
Cause for Concern?
Some citizens have expressed concern over the recent vandalism case - stating it to be a 'new act of rebellion' and 'protest'.
Judging from the similarity in words and handwriting in all these cases, it can be safely said that this might just be a one-off incident done by an individual.
However, this situation cannot be taken lightly as vandalising on public property is a crime. If this really sparks off a 'new act of rebellion', this may just be the start of a slew of graffiti protesting against the lawsuit against blogger Roy Ngerng.
Facebook user Halifi Allkamal noted that "Singaporeans are very angry" and that "this may be just be the beginning". Jeffrey Lim commented that "soon more of this (vandalism acts) will happen in Singapore" and that "it is just a matter of time".
Uncivilised Way of Protest?
Some online readers expressed their discontent with the individual's way of protest. Quite a handful noted the act as "uncivilised" and "stupid". User Taxi Low commented that vandalism is "a big no no". "This is not the way to go. I am very saddened. The good of the movement can be potentially jeopardised by irresponsible ACTS. PLEASE STOP. BE CIVILISED."
Many also talked about how vandalism of public property is a crime and that this way of protest is just unacceptable.
Underlying Anger
From what I had read from different online reports on this graffiti case, it seemed like there were a lot of people who also sided with the person who scrawled the message. Several readers believed that this was done without choice because there was "no other way" the individual could have gotten his message across.
Could this anger then be a start of more cases of vandalism? Only time can tell but for now, there certainly are quite a few that share similar sentiments with the vandal.
