How DARE he make the MRT look nicer?

I really hope Oliver Fricker doesn’t get caned. Or rather, flogged (because that’s what it is).

For those who don’t already know, on the night of May 16 or early morning of May 17, Swiss consultant banker Oliver Fricker and British Lloyd Dane Alexander cut through a wired fence and snuck into the Xilin MRT depot, where they proceeded to graffiti one of the trains without getting caught. Indeed, the whole incident wasn’t reported until the graffiti-ed MRT was photographed, filmed, and put on YouTube.

Lloyd Dane Alexander has since left Singapore, but Oliver Fricker has been caught and his passport has been impounded. He is due to appear in court on the 21st of June. He is facing the possibility of 3 years’ imprisonment, a fine of S$2000 and 3 to 8 strokes of the cane.

To be completely fair, yes, Fricker did a stupid thing, made doubly stupid by the fact that he didn’t GET THE HELL OUT right after he did it. He should not have trespassed and vandalised public property. He should have known that he is in super-strict Singapore, where everything has to be planned, authorised and signed in triplicate. And why did he do it anyway? He’s no silly teenager bored-stiff on a Friday night; he’s an adult with a respectable job that has pretty sweet pay. So yes, he has knowingly broken the law.

But does this act really warrant judicial caning and 3 years in jail?

This is what I see from where I stand:
- Fricker’s act has caused no one physical harm.
- Fricker’s act has not damaged anyone’s property. Sure, the MRT was vandalised, but it’s not that hard to clean off, right? Besides, quite a lot of us Singaporeans actually think it makes the MRT look more interesting, a refreshing difference from the boring standard trains.
- Fricker’s act has alerted SMRT to the flaws and shortcomings of their security system (or lack of one). SMRT could not have learned this lesson in a way that was cheaper or safer; they could have been learning it from an overpaid security consultant, or from the aftermath of a planted bomb. Now they have the opportunity to bolster up their security and improve their system, all without having to spend money on an expert evaluation and without the loss of civilian lives!

By all means, jail him for a bit. Let him sweat in a cell for a few months to a year. Give him a fine so SMRT can be compensated for the cost of having to clean up the MRT (much to my disappointment, because I haven’t seen it for myself yet!) But do we really need to split his skin and make him bleed? Is this our revenge? “For vandalising the MRT, we’ll make sure you’ll never sit down in one again”? Is graffiti really that bad?

My favourite little piece of street art in Wellington that I would always pass to and from town from my house.

In many countries around the world, graffiti is everywhere. It’s pretty much part and parcel of everyday life to see graffiti on concrete and brick walls, sides of buildings, trains, bridges, etc. etc. Sure, a lot of it is just tagging: stupid, ugly and destructive, done by bored and inconsiderate teenagers with zero artistic skills. But some of it is great, as proven by world-famous graffiti artists like Banksy. In many parts of the world graffiti is an art form that is part of a significant urban subculture. Films have even been made about graffiti/street art: for example, Julian Schnabel’s Basquiat, which I watched as part of my Cinema and the City class at Victoria University. In many urban centers of the world graffiti is an indication of a certain level of freedom of expression and artistic license. Sure, sometimes it makes things seem messy or disruptive, but any creative person worth his or her salt will tell you that “mess” and “disruption” are necessary ingredients for creativity, expression and art. Graffiti can be a symbol of openness, of freedom to create and speak and stand out of the crowd. The irritation of certain pieces of tagging and “bad” graffiti is a small price to pay for that atmosphere of freedom and creativity. That’s what I think, anyway.

In Wellington, New Zealand, graffiti was everywhere. The little alleyway I lived in was the domain of a certain group of graffiti artists who went under the name of BMD, and almost every week there was something new. I loved it. And I felt that all this graffiti reflected the indie/artsy feel of the entire city. It was a beautiful and inspiring place to be in, to be surrounded by people who enjoyed art in all its forms.

Also, it really broke the monotony of everyday life to be able to see another new piece of street art, and to photograph it or tell my friends about it. As far as I’ve seen, the respectable graffiti artists would do their pieces on public spaces such as walls, bridges and roads, avoiding historical buildings and private properties. And as long as they do that, I can’t see what the big problem is. Being a graffiti artist does not automatically make you some sort of deviant.

I believe graffiti is how you choose to see it. It can be good, or it can be bad. You can choose to see it in a positive light as artistic expression, or in a negative light as inconsiderate vandalism. Just as it was done in the spirit of rebellion, non-conformity and freedom, the interpretation of the piece is equally free. But the way a society as a whole reacts to it is telling of certain societal characteristics.

No prizes for guessing what Singapore’s societal characteristics are. They are probably going to want to make an example of Fricker, but the only accusation I can come up with is this: “How DARE he make our MRT look nicer?”

Advertisement