Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herewith are strictly mine as a private citizen and has nothing to do with my employer, the National University of Singapore.
For full disclosure, I know some folks at URA. However, allow me to say that I am writing only because I got provoked by some of what I perceived to be unfair comments online against URA. I haven’t spoken with any of my friends at URA and I suspect none of them are actually involved with this mural affair. Neither would any of them ever think of asking me to write in support of URA. I am just a bloody kaypoh. :-P
For those who have no idea what I am talking about, URA asked some artist to take down a mural and the artist kicked up a fuss online. The way the whole episode has been presented made it seem like URA is completely prudish and unreasonable — and most people don’t bother to read.
For avoidance of doubt, I am pretty neutral about the mural. I don’t think it’s particularly nice, but neither do I find it offensive. If I had seen it in person, I wouldn’t have thought much of it. I certainly wouldn’t have complained to URA or insisted that it be painted over.
I need to admit that when I first read about the incident, I also thought URA was being ridiculous. What’s the big fuss with the cigarette?
The Problem
The real problem is that (i) people need to seek approval before putting up murals; and (ii) the artist did not ask for approval before putting up the mural. If nobody complained, there would not likely be any problems and URA would likely have said nothing. Unfortunately, someone did(!) complain, so URA was forced to deal with it.
In case people wonder why people have to ask for approval before putting up a mural, it is precisely because of incidents like the one we are seeing. Singaporeans have a lot of opinions and will readily make complaints.
And in case people think that URA loves playing censor, or think of themselves as the the standards authority for outdoor art in Singapore, I am almost certain that that’s hardly the case.
I would hazard a guess that whoever is the poor sod who is saddled with the job of approving murals, isn’t particularly enjoying the job. It takes little imagination to realize that his real job is to minimize the likelihood of complaints — and I suspect that URA has already compiled a list of things that might cause complaints over the years and the poor fella in question is merely checking off that list to ensure they don’t hit any landmines. If got new complaints, add more items to the list. Rinse and repeat.
The Real Issue
The real issue is that someone has basically violated our rules (put up a mural without approval) and created a problem for URA. And now, instead of being nice about it and trying to find a peaceful solution to resolve the situation, he takes to the internet to try to apply public pressure on our public service agency, that honest to God was merely trying to keep the peace and minimize complaints.
How should we deal with this situation?
Let me ask this question a different way: suppose someone does something for which he/she is supposed to seek approval for without seeking approval and gets complaints, is it reasonable to expect the public service agency dealing with the complaint to defend the act, or should it be natural for the agency to act the person causing offence to undo whatever caused the offence?
Think about it this way: you rented my HDB flat. In the rental agreement, it says that you cannot paint my walls without my prior approval. It turns out that you still went ahead to paint a mural on my wall without asking. Actually, if I never knew about it and you repainted the walls before moving out, I probably couldn’t care less. Unfortunately, my wife somehow saw the mural, hates it and is now kicking up a fuss. What should I do? Tell my wife she’s being stupid and to shut up, or should I ask you to paint the walls back? Do I look like I am trying to censor your art, or am I merely the poor husband trying to keep the peace?
And that’s not it. You actually went to kick up a fuss online and made it seem like *I* was the one at fault. Now, am I supposed to go and pacify the wife, and also approve the mural (that I would never have agreed to because I know my wife and I worried that she would kick up a fuss, and we actually know that I would be right)?
It is not about art anymore. I actually hardly cared about the art. This is me having to deal with some inconsiderate **** (shall leave this noun for the reader’s imagination) who has caused me problems with the wife and then expecting to get his way by kicking up a fuss online. Is this sort of behaviour something we want to accept in our country?
People need to understand the concept of precedence. If this foreign artist is allowed to get away with this, who is going to seek permission before they put up a mural. People will just happily paint whatever and kick up another Internet fuss. Anyone wants to volunteer to take over from URA the job of dealing with these complaints?
While I would agree that it is good to honour samsui women for their contributions to this country, is the current portrayal the *only* way that art can be created? Can art be done in a way that minimizes offence to our relatively thin-skinned populace?
While I honestly have no objections to the smoking, I actually want to understand: why must she be smoking? Eating, drinking or sleeping cannot? Only smoking then it’s art? If it’s not offensive (to someone), it is not art?
I feel sorry for URA for the flak that it is getting from doing its job. No, it is not trying to enforce censorship.
My Suggestion to URA
First, I would like to offer some support to the poor officer(s) who suay suay have to deal with this issue. Be comforted that there is at least one fellow Singaporean who understands that you are merely trying to do your job. Please don’t let this episode make you lose faith. Hold the faith and please keep doing what you think is right for this country.
My suggestion: no need to get mad. Come 27 July, just don’t renew the Temporary Permission licence. The building will have to be restored to its original condition and the “problem” will go away. What would be the basis for non-renewal? Non-compliance of lawful order. Tenants are expected to follow our rules no? You don’t follow our rules and you expect us to keep renting to you? :-)
An alternative would be to fine Yak Kun $100,000 for putting up the mural before seeking necessary approval (and leave the mural as is). Or maybe it might be cheaper for Yak Kun to commission another artist to paint over the mural, so we can let Yak Kun pick? :-)
It is my humble opinion that it is not plausible as a matter of policy to let this matter pass without someone getting “punished.” If Yak Kun is allowed to get away with this, the public service will get a lot more of such unnecessary public pressure while doing its job. Is that what we want in this country? Can the public service remain functional in such an environment?
Lest people forget why we have rules and are a fine country: we have rules, not for fun, but to keep the system functional. If rules be broken without penalty, our system will break down. Simple as that.
Final Thoughts
I do have *some* sympathy for Sean Dunston and I understand why he is upset. On this note, there is one thing that the foreign artists who hope to work in Singapore need to understand about Singapore and I am surprised that Sean doesn’t seem to understand even though he has supposedly been here since 2009.
This matter is not about censorship: our public service agencies are merely trying keep the peace in this country (and they just dun want no trouble). If you feel like your artistic expressions are curtailed, perhaps Singapore is not where you ought to be doing art.
If the one who had commission the artwork had sought appropriate approval from URA and the public complains about the art, URA will stand up and defend you, or minimally, take responsibility, since they approved it; on the other hand, if you go about doing “unauthorized” art and the public complains, you cannot reasonably expect government agencies to defend you (Why should they? Who are you?) and you better be prepared to take it down.
Before you draw anything, you better make sure that the one who commissioned you actually got their paperwork done right. Actually, artists can also think of this as a business opportunity: do another piece of art and get paid again. :-P
And in case people wonder why I decided to write, it’s because I feel aggrieved for the URA folks and I sometimes feel that it is my duty to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves — simply because I can.
In case people want to post comments, the discussion is here.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Afternote
I would like to thank readers for their comments and feedback. I would like to add 3 points and this is likely that my last word on this issue.
1. Some folks suggested that given that permission was not granted for the mural, URA should have just asked for the mural to be removed. Unfortunately, I cannot even agree with this suggestion because even I think this would be too draconian.
I would admit that this is purely speculative, but given the outburst over the request to paint over the smoking, it would seem to me that if URA had taken this approach, it would have been a complete PR suicide, and sure as hell, you will not find me defending URA. Removing the mural simply on the basis of an apparent administrative oversight is indefensible.
One commentator suggested that we should be more compassionate and compare ourselves to North Korea. I reminded him that 30 years ago, when a white man drew on the walls without permission, he gets a free stay at Changi with benefits; he does not get asked nicely to paint it over.
I consider URA’s approach to be one made in the spirit of compromise, i.e. they can forgive the infraction but that the artist also also need to play along and take a step back to at least “pretend” to address the complaints. But see what happened when URA tried to play nice instead of throwing the book at the artist?
In Chinese, Yak Kun/artist already 理亏. The Asian way of handling such situations is called 一人让一步，海阔天空. But no, people prefer to play chicken and see who can shout the loudest on the Internet?
2. Someone mentioned that if Yak Kun had asked for approval for the smoking, the approval would likely never had been given. Excellent point! And this mural would never have existed and this current issue wouldn’t have been an issue! Now, people understand why URA likes rules?
But hold that thought.
The corollary is that if we let this mural stay as is, then those who play by the rules would be worse off than those don’t.
How is this fair?
Beyond creating what would be a humongous moral hazard, this precedent would become for URA a complete regulatory nightmare moving forward.
3. Thinking deeper about this issue, I realized that I actually don’t care about the mural. Whatever happens to the mural will not and does not impact my life. It is plausible I might never ever see it . I realized that I don’t even know where it is!
I have come to realise that I care about this issue because how it is eventually resolved portents the future of this country.
This is an instance where to me, a public service agency is just doing its job. It seems to me (though some might not agree) that the compromise offered, i.e. “you didn’t ask for approval, but nevermind, let’s see how we can work together not to offend people” is a v reasonable approach to try to resolve the situation.
This will not be the last time that a public service agency will come under siege and public pressure because there are people can stir up public sentiments online. Some folks do so intentionally; others will cause an uproar accidentally.
If the day should come where our public servants do not feel safe doing their jobs and are constantly working under the threat of undue public pressure, I fear that it will be the beginning of the end. :-(
Peace.
