It is extremely disturbing to read the comment made by Mr Kelvin Tan, uncle of Miss Samantha Lo, that he is upset because he doesn't think she should be treated this way and that she was just trying to make an aesthetic statement.
In the first place, what is an aesthetic statement? Would Mr Tan like me to make an aesthetic statement at his home, too?
To those who think she (or others) should have the right to express themselves through street art: Who gave you the authority to express yourself in places that you do not own? State property is state property. It is against the law to deface it, regardless of how whimsical the message may seem.
Who is to say what is for fun, what is subversive, or what is art? How do you draw the line? By mere opinions? Is that measurable?
And there is the issue that seems to be ignored by most supporters of these so-called works of art: Who is going to clean up after Miss Lo?
The cost of removing her alleged creations is higher than the cost of putting them there. To paste a sticker, five seconds or less; to remove it, perhaps more than a few minutes. Spray paint using a stencil on the ground, less than a minute; to remove it, half an hour?
Is Miss Lo or any of her supporters willing to cleanly remove the stickers and spend time on the roads to remove the paint?
Art is to be encouraged, but it should not be an excuse for blatant acts of thoughtless creativity. If one is bold enough to put it there, be bold enough to remove it. It is not your property.
(TNP reader, Jimmy Ho)