Sticker Vandal ought to be treated like what she is, a vandal.

I do not see any point in petitioning online for her to get a lighter sentence. It is a wrong message to send out to any potential vandals out there. Vandalism is vandalism.

These stickers and spray painted roads might put a smile on your face. Then again, it might not. How would you feel if you see these sticker or spray painted texts on the door of you home? Your car? Your pet dog? I’m sure as hell not going to find this amusing.

This is plain wrong.

Here’s why I think she should be severely punished.

  1. She knows that high profile vandals in Singapore are usually dealt with severely. For example Michael Fay and Oliver Fricker. She knew what the consequences are and still chose to commit the crime.
  2. When it became evident that her acts are getting a lot of attention, she did not stop. She carried on doing it. This is basically her ego telling her that she is above the law and nobody can touch her. This should not be encouraged. Nobody is above the law.
  3. Loan shark runners are doing the same thing. If I were to artistically vandalise a door, or a corridor or a lift landing with O$P$, can I call it art and get away with it? Probably not.

She wilfully committed a crime and should be prosecuted according to the law.


One thought on “Sticker Vandal ought to be treated like what she is, a vandal.

  1. Interesting read but I have a bone to pick with some of your reasons stated.

    First. You spoke of how she carried on with her acts wantonly after knowing they were receiving much attention and then you proceeded to make the grave assumption that she did so because of ego. However note that the attention her work garnered were mostly of incredulity and praise so she could have construed it as an approval to carry on instead (I do not necessarily have to agree with this but do read on).

    Second. I believe the object/property on which the “vandalism” was made is a paramount issue. In probing it, one would need to ask, “would a reasonable person be offended by the location and the content of the vandalism?”. For example, if I made intricate and aesthetically pleasing carvings on the trees within a HDB estate, would it really bother anyone or even cause non pecuniary detriment as opposed to doing it on publicly or privately owned door/walls? On a more interesting note, I believe when loan sharks do their O$P$ dance on walls and are caught, they are not charged under the foul act of vandalism? Do correct me if I’m wrong.

    Last but not least. I do agree, if you do the crime then you’ve got to be prepared to do the time. Right? However laws merely provide a guiding framework for socially acceptable behaviour. However, they are and will always be rigid (even the lawmakers knew of this which was why the Courts of Chancery (equity) were set up back in the day), which is why we have the judge and the Courts to interpret them. That being said, I believe the petition was merely asking that the vandal be charged under the Misc Offences Act (which seems to fit the bill more) rather than the Vandalism Act and I fully agree with particular regard in this aspect. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for reading!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *