Introduction
Art provides a means of self-expression. Some individuals refer to graffiti as rude art while others claim that it represents modern forms of self-expression and creativity. Depending on the definition an individual supports they may identify with or against graffiti. Singapore`s law classifies graffiti as vandalism and presents punitive measures for individuals who involve themselves with graffiti in public places or property. With its classification as vandalism and individual may pay up to one thousand Euros as a fine or serve three years’ incarceration along with eight strokes of the cane. The punishment described by the Singaporean law for graffiti appears as appropriate because the nation seeks to reduce this form of vandalism. Further, graffiti writers from other countries should respect the Singaporean law. Graffiti writings present the manifestation of youthful criminal behaviors and fighting it has cost other nations great expenditures while it still recurs. Tourists have a compelling duty to observe the laws within the host country and should not receive protection from their home nations. Further, the repairs after vandalism have cost Singaporean agencies much revenue and the trend close associates with terrorism and gang activity.
Graffiti represents the manifestation of youthful behavior in crime. In “Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control, and Resistance”, the writer describes graffiti as a new youthful art representation which exists in America and the countries beyond. Graffiti writers continue to undermine the urban environments and a number of authorities (Ferrell, 1995). It indicates that a graffiti writer exists as misfits who know the law but continue to undermine the set regulations. Considering the youthful nature of the graffiti writers, then the Singaporean laws regarding the issue are appropriate because they seek to tame the acts of youthful behavior in crime at early stages. Failing to implement the law at this stage presents the nation with a generation of lawbreakers and individuals who fail to respect public and private property. Identifying graffiti as a rebellion and vandalism as the manifestation of this rebellion presents the need to address the situation. Therefore, the Singaporean law seeks to deal with graffiti as a manifestation of youthful rebellion.
Fighting graffiti has cost other nations high amounts of money but still it occurs. In the US, anti-graffiti campaigns have cost the police agencies and other community agencies high amounts of finances. These finances continue to increase because the countries lack a law, which classifies graffiti and presents punitive measures for individuals who engage in graffiti. These agencies create anti-graffiti campaigns because they understand that graffiti promotes social segregation, which may further lead to disunity within a nation (Morelli & Goldman, 1998). With the increase of contemporary graffiti writings in urban environments, it creates segregation within the available social space. The Singaporean anti-graffiti law, which classifies the act as vandalism appears as, appropriate because other approaches of dealing with graffiti have not worked in other nations. The anti-graffiti campaigns include involving helicopters to conduct regular patrols, using night vision goggles, home cameras and graffiti resistant coatings to protect against graffiti. With the option of developing legislation, which punishes the graffiti writers, a nation needs not to undergo all these expenses to combat graffiti vandalism.
Individuals have a compelling duty to obey the laws within the country they reside. At the said moment, the British graffiti writer resided in Singapore. From this, they operated under the Singaporean laws whereby the anti-graffiti and vandalism law exists as one. Based on the compelling duty to obey the set laws as highlighted by Ross (1930), the individuals should receive the suggested punishment. Considering that, the same law protected the graffiti writers while he stayed in Singapore (Morelli & Goldman, 1998). The law presents two sides and the British man benefited from one side. At the time, the British man had taken a tour to Singapore and, therefore, had an obligation to observe the laws governing the nation. The graffiti writers should follow the Singaporean law regarding vandalism and graffiti given that they work in Singapore. Otherwise, when residing within their home countries graffiti writers only have an obligation to observe their native laws (Boll, 2005). Based on the place where the graffiti writer committed the act, he should receive punishment according to the law rather than the laws, which govern his current home nation. A tourist may become a victim of the law from the host country.
Vandalism increases the expenditure for the Singaporean agencies. Considering the expenses incurred while repairing the trains wagons and public places, which have become vandalized due to graffiti, the punitive measures presented by the law, are appropriate in the Singapore situation. In recent times, train stations and trains have become target points for terrorists and gangs who find it an ideal point to execute missions (Ramakrishna, 2011). These areas also hold high human traffic and the security threats pose challenges to many agencies, which operate within the stations. Further, a nation with other issues on the development agenda cannot keep spending its finances in the repair of such vandalized items. In this light, the law serves as a restricting factor, which prohibits individuals from engaging and practicing graffiti writing. In addition, it serves as a guide, which indicates the procedure and punishments due for any individual who involves themselves with the prohibited activities. With the prohibition of graffiti writing, individuals who aim to abide by the law refrain from the prohibited activities (Ramakrishna, 2011). It further reduces the cases of vandalism in the form of graffiti. It also lowers the challenges of finding and implementing a fair punishment for individuals found performing graffiti writing. With a description of the fine and incarceration, term law enforcers have easier work as they have the guided process of dealing with the offenders. Based on the expenses associated with renovations then the Singaporean law serves appropriately and creates order within the society. The law ensures that individuals value the private and public property and that the Singaporean agencies do not incur more expenses, which relate to repairs and renovations. Individuals who engage in the vandalism pay the fines to incur the repair costs.
International law guides that in such situations a nation should hand over the offender. Whenever an individual commits an offense within another jurisdiction, they become subject to the laws, which govern that jurisdiction according to international law. Further, an individual does not cease to be an offender by the aspect of exiting one nation or holding a different nationality. Within the same context, the Singaporean law may only operate within Singapore and graffiti writers within other nation’s have no obligation to observe the law (Cohen, 1987). The Singapore law regarding graffiti and vandalism does not exist as part of the treaty. Only a treaty has the legal binding for application within different jurisdictions. Therefore, in a treaty`s situation, the graffiti writers should respect the Singaporean law. The treaty means that the provisions within the law bind the individuals from all signatory nations. Further, a nation must observe the international laws and ensure they administer the human rights in their basic form. The Singaporean law does not limit the human rights and freedoms within its jurisdiction. The anti-graffiti law does not limit individuals from engaging in their rightful activities. In fact, the anti-graffiti law only limits individuals from the destruction and damaging of public and private property. It offers a standard of conduct within the Singaporean society and guides how individuals should regard and handle public and private assets. It further protects the property from harm by other individuals and presents the approaches in punishing these individuals. For this reason, the Singaporean law is appropriate because it does not limit individuals from enjoying their rights and the suggested punishment does not lead to destruction of life. The punishment presents a solution for the menace.
Conclusion
While observing laws an individual needs to observe the laws, which govern their host nation, not their home nation. Graffiti represents youthful criminal behaviors, which if further allowed developing might lead to the destruction of public and private property (Boll, 2005). The Singaporean law enables the nation to save on the costs incurred during the repair of vandalized items. The anti-graffiti law does not limit the freedoms and rights of the individuals. Further, the Singaporean law only governs Singapore.
References
Boll, A. M. (2005, April 4). Australian Year Book of International Law. Nationality and Obligations of Loyalty in International and Municipal Law. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/2005/4.html
Cohen, E. (1987). The tourist as victim and prot of law enforcing agencies. Leisure Studies, 6(2), 181-198.
Ferrell, J. (1995). Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control, and Resistance. Youth & Society, 27(1), 73-92.
Morelli, M., & Goldman, M. (1998). A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Teaching Philosophy , 21(1), 105-108.
Ramakrishna, K. (2011, August 8). Singapore: SMRT Security Breach's Strategic Implications In Post 9/11 Era - Analysis | Eurasia Review. Singapore: SMRT Security Breach's Strategic Implications In Post 9/11 Era - Analysis | Eurasia Review. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://www.eurasiareview.com/08092011-singapore-smrt-security-breachs-strategic-implications-in-post-911-era-analysis/
