Will government-endorsed graffiti program work?
In "The FlipSide", local blogger Belmont Lay lets loose on local politics, culture and society. To be taken with a pinch of salt and parental permission is advised. In this post, he talks about how government-endorsed graffiti only makes the authorities look bad.
In case you haven't heard, there will be a new programme come September to teach the public how to create graffiti art in public places approved by the authorities.
This is very likely the government's attempt to make the public think that it can be cool, funky and forward-looking for endorsing street art. Technically, it's a project of the Singapore Street Festival, which is supported by the National Youth Council.
This new programme was even announced to coincide with the court case where the Sticker Lady and her accomplice pleaded guilty to several counts of mischief for illegally spray painting and pasting stickers on public property.
So the most important question then: what are the real effects of such government-endorsed "vandalism"?
Hopelessly uncool
By endorsing graffiti, young and hip Singaporeans who are in the scene are going to increasingly view the government and themselves as hopelessly uncool.
Graffiti art -- or any kind of young people movement -- is hip precisely because it's forbidden or frowned upon by the old fogies.
Why do young people smoke? Drink? Have sex? Because it is bad for them. And it makes old people uncomfortable and offended.
Giving the seal of approval, therefore, is at best, insulting. At worst, a travesty.
Therefore, rule number one: to prevent widening the generation gap any further, old people should sit in one corner, while tsk tsking and wagging a finger, instead of giving the thumbs up.
Youths naturally feel more empowered when they see that.
Control freaks
Next, to legitimise graffiti and to set up specific spaces for it will only make the government look like control freaks.
Well, this is nothing new to Singapore, of course.
We can think of similar instances in the past where the aim is to curtail the potential messiness that might ensue.
In parliament, we have the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme. One of the roles of the NMP is to serve as the token opposition.
But of course, they aren't real opposition like the Chee Soon Juan type of opposition. It is kind of like an endorsed, "lite" version.
Next, there is Hong Lim Park, specifically set aside so people can go and demonstrate with picket signs.
Away from the streets and roads where other people cannot see them.
You see, everything in this country is clearly demarcated.
There is barely any dynamism. There is no element of surprise. It is all predictable -- and deathly boring.
And that's why a lot of young people are going mad. More than half of the 2,000 people surveyed last year said they want to emigrate.
Alienating
Lastly, the government might think that it's very clever in being able to subvert the norms of a defiant street art form for its own agenda.
But they might want to think twice.
Look, this is not going to work. Particularly for any self-respecting graffiti artist with street cred who will undoubtedly feel alienated by such a move.
Graffiti is no longer graffiti when it's endorsed by the authorities.
Graffiti is not just about creating colourful pictures. It is a way of life, a form of politics at its rawest and it's something that cannot be taught.
You either have it or you don't. Its principle is about subverting norms.
Government-endorsed graffiti, therefore, just takes the fun out of it.
And it is through initiatives like these that the populace can't help but feel they are living under a government of convenience, rather than conviction.
No amount of spray paint can obscure this feeling.
Belmont Lay is the editor of New Nation, an online publication that doesn't endorse government-endorsed graffiti.
Related links:
Sticker Lady vs Amy Cheong: Who got it worse?
Why are Singapore's single undergrads not dating?
Why you cannot put a price on National Service
Why Singaporeans don't want kids
