Graffiti – Art or Eyesore?

(Should graffiti be classified as a crime punishable by the law?)

It has been more than a month since 32-year-old Swiss software consultant, Oliver Fricker, and his alleged British accomplice, Lloyd Dane Alexander, broke into the Changi train depot and spray-painted graffiti on the side of a SMRT train.

Fricker, who has been arrested and is currently on trial for trespassing into a protected place and committing two counts of vandalism, could face a cocktail of criminal penalties including a fine, jail sentence and even caning. This is the second criminal case involving foreign vandals in Singapore’s history, with the first being American Michael Fay’s offence of spray-painting cars in 1994.

In the light of these events, public interest has been stirred up not only about SMRT’s lax security protocols but also about the notion that graffiti art in seen as nothing more than vandalism in Singapore. Two key questions remain – can graffiti be considered art and if so, whether there are sufficient art spaces designated for graffiti lovers to express themselves.

(Haji Lane - one of two places in Singapore where graffiti thrives)

In Singapore, graffiti art thrives in two well-known landmarks, one being the row of shophouses at Haji Lane and the other being the Skatepark @ Somerset. While graffiti is permissible by law at the Skatepark @ Somerset, offenders at Haji Lane could be prosecuted if caught.

Savtantar Kumar, a 48-year-old sales manager at the Paramount Traders store along Haji Lane, commented that while he considers graffiti as an art form, some works are just hideous, unsightly and reflected badly on the professionalism of his business.

(Blurring the line between art and messy scribbles on a wall)

52-year-old Canadian Matt Zanef, a Director of International Business, said, “Graffiti is okay but it shouldn’t affect anyone’s business. In my country, we can see graffiti on the walls of buildings while travelling on the trains. Designers should be allowed to express themselves but there is always a border they cannot cross and they should ask for permission. If we give graffiti artists full rein, we might find graffiti on our cars and no one wants graffiti on their cars.”

With the out-of-bounds markers of the Government’s stance towards graffiti remaining vague, many are wondering if Fricker would have been penalised as severely if he had committed the act in a public space that was not designated as a protected place.

As with the case of Michael Fay in 1994, the latest case of vandalism has sparked debates as to whether Fricker should be made to pay for the repainting of the train and clock hours of community service, instead of being caned.

“In Canada, graffiti is also considered vandalism but offenders receive warnings and pay fines, without being prosecuted or jailed,” said Zanef.

Agreeing with the Government’s stance of dealing with Fricker, Kumar said, “I think the punishment is justified because Fricker caused damage to public property that taxpayers contributed to. Knowing that Singapore has strict laws, he intentionally took the risk and disregarded the law of the land.”

While it may be an eyesore to others, some people are seeing more in graffiti than just scribbles on a wall. Following Fricker’s act of artistic vandalism, a Facebook page entitled ‘Honestly, the graffiti on the MRT was quite nice.‘ has been set up, with more than 13,000 members at the time of publication.


(SkatePark@Somerset, where graffiti is the art of choice)
With the designation of the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park and the Town Councils’ setting up of noticeboards for the public to post promotional flyers, perhaps the government should explore designating more art spaces for graffiti artists to express themselves.

After all, Singapore is touted and promoted as an international hub of all sorts. Perhaps one day, local ‘Banksy-ies’ might just put Singapore on the world map, with a little help from the government of course.