Samsui woman mural can remain, but building owner will be fined $2,000 for not getting approval: URA, MOH
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
The fine was issued because the owner “began work” on the mural “without approval from URA”.
ST PHOTO: ARIFFIN JAMAR
Follow topic:
SINGAPORE – The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Ministry of Health (MOH) said in a joint statement on July 10 that the controversial mural of a samsui woman with a cigarette on 297 South Bridge Road can stay without modification.
But URA has issued a composition fine of $2,000 to the building owner for the unauthorised mural. According to the statement, the fine was issued because the owner “began work” on the mural “without approval from URA”.
It added that on March 22, “URA informed the building owner’s representatives that approval had not yet been obtained for the mural, and requested that a submission be made immediately”.
According to the statement, an application for conservation permission was submitted only on April 11, after the mural was completed.
A request from the authorities to resubmit a proposal by May 22 was also not met.
The URA and MOH statement said: “Had prior approval been sought, MOH would have raised concerns about the depiction of smoking to be featured in a prominent mural like this, and requested modification.”
It said the mural “does normalise smoking”, even though it added that “most members of the public do not see this as an advertisement for cigarettes”.
The authorities are looking at ways to minimise that impact.
“We will therefore work with the building owner to find appropriate ways to mitigate any impact that the mural may have in promoting smoking, without modifying the mural itself,” they said.
The controversy erupted when Singapore-based American artist Sean Dunston took to Instagram on June 19 to say URA had ordered the erasure of a cigarette from a mural
It is well documented that samsui women smoked cigarettes as a form of recreation after their hard labour and even stored cigarettes under their trademark red headgear. South Bridge Road was where many of these pioneering migrant women from Guangdong province lived.
Later on June 21, the URA said it had taken note of additional feedback regarding the mural and had asked the landlord to delay any works to the mural until the review was completed.
Checks by ST on July 10 showed that the mural remains unchanged.
The joint statement reminded owners of conserved buildings to obtain the relevant approvals before commencing works, and that “failure to do so will result in enforcement against offenders, including prosecution for egregious cases”.
A spokesperson for Shepherd Asset Management, the representatives of the landlord, said it is happy with URA’s decision and will be paying the fine, adding: “We are glad that our samsui woman has sparked so many lively debates and discussions among Singaporeans. It is proof that Singaporeans can hold differing opinions while maintaining our strong sense of community and spirit.”
When asked about appropriate solutions to mitigate the public health impact of the mural, the spokesperson said: “Going forward, we expect to be collaborating closely with URA and MOH to find said appropriate solutions.”
Singapore-based American artist Sean Dunston took to Instagram on June 19 to say URA had ordered the erasure of a cigarette from the mural.
PHOTO: SOPHIA O
In an e-mail to the landlord dated July 10 which communicated its decision to retain the mural, the URA reiterated that “the depiction of smoking in the mural is not aligned with MOH’s anti-smoking policy”. “This was the basis of our assessment,” it added.
Earlier, on June 18, the URA had also e-mailed the landlord with feedback from an unnamed member of the public that the woman depicted “looks more like a prostitute than a hard-working samsui woman” and was “offensive”.
In a phone call with ST, Dunston said of the URA’s decision: “I’m happy that we don’t have to modify the mural – it’s actually really cool that the URA took this position on it and took a different tack dealing with this than they normally would.”
He added, however: “I don’t understand how to mitigate the possible repercussions or promotion of smoking without modifying it, but I am open to ideas whatever it is that they are proposing.”
Dunston said that he is in discussion with his clients for a possible solution and so far has come up with an idea to include a possible plaque with a public service announcement about the dangers of smoking.
