Save in style, her intention was no more nobler than those of
vandals IMO.
Why should she be treated in ways different?
And I dont trust this guy called Shanmugam.
He has stepped into the fore and plead on her behalf.
Street art sits in a very grey area, and it's illegal
anywhere in the world.
The way you feel about her situation depends on what you first
notice when you look at her work. If you saw damage first you'll
probably be outraged, but enough people saw the self-deprecating
side of the messages first to make a fuss.
Unlike what Fricker and Fay did it spoke to the Singaporean in
us. The moneylending, tuition and rental ads that are also
illegally pasted on lamposts and walls don't serve any wider
interest either.
A cynic would question whether all this is deliberately playing
into her hands. By playing the martyr she's raised the profile of
an illicit activity.
