URA re-evaluates decision on Chinatown shophouse mural depicting samsui woman smoking after public outcry

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is reconsidering its stance on a controversial mural in Chinatown, following significant public feedback. The mural, which portrays a young samsui woman smoking, has drawn both support and criticism, prompting the URA to delay any required changes until a thorough review is completed.

Earlier, the agency under the Ministry of National Development, headed by Minister Desmond Lee, had directed the landlord of the conserved shophouse at 297 South Bridge Road to remove the cigarette from the mural, or else their license would allegedly be denied in less than a month and forced to shut down.

This directive was issued because the mural was painted without prior approval, which is mandatory for any artwork on conserved buildings. The URA had initially rejected the mural proposal after consultation with local stakeholders and relevant agencies, citing that the depiction of smoking contradicted Singapore’s anti-smoking policy.

The URA stated, “After consultation with local stakeholders and relevant agencies, the proposal was not supported as the depiction of smoking on the unauthorised mural is not aligned with Singapore’s anti-smoking policy.”

The URA emphasized the need for proper approval processes, stating, “All proposals for murals on conserved buildings must be submitted to both the building owner and URA for approval before works can begin.”

However, the URA has now decided to re-evaluate its position due to recent public feedback.

In an email update dated 21 June to the landlord, who is represented by Shepherd Asset Management, and seen by Straits Times, the URA stated that it had “taken note of additional feedback regarding the mural.”

The URA requested that the landlord “delay any works to the mural until the review is completed.” The email did not provide a timeline for the review.

The mural’s controversy came to light when the artist, Mr Dunston, shared his experience on Instagram two days ago.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Sean Dunston (@seanpdunston)

His post quickly went viral, receiving over 3,000 likes and numerous supportive comments by Saturday morning. In his post, Mr Dunston mentioned he was instructed to “get rid of the cigarette” by 3 July and was considering alternatives that might be acceptable to the URA.

Mr Dunston also disclosed that the URA’s initial directive was based on a complaint from a member of the public, who described the mural as “offensive” and “disrespectful” to samsui women. The complainant further remarked that the woman in the mural resembled a “prostitute” rather than a “hardworking samsui woman.”

In response to the complaint, Mr Dunston wrote, “To the member of the public that leveled this criticism, I’d like to say that sex workers are very hard working people, and should be treated with as much respect as anyone else. You should ask your Mom about it. Also, if I offended you with this depiction of a Samsui woman, trying to enjoy herself for 2 little minutes between grind after grind, then I couldn’t be more pleased about it. You’re literally my target demographic.”

Many commenters on Mr Dunston’s Instagram post questioned why the URA acted based on a single complaint. Given the overwhelming support for the mural in the comments, the URA’s decision appears even more questionable.

Indiesg_tours, which runs tours, wrote, “We run tours in the district, and this is one of our guests’ favorites. It helps us tell the story of the Samsui women. Many of them came here young (like in your art), and they did backbreaking work, with their only respite being their laced ciggies. What a shame to have to change it.”

Samuel Goh commented, “Write back to URA and ask them to explain clearly which part of this woman depicts a prostitute, and if any part of the drawing is illegal in the state – including smoking. If nothing is illegal, why should it be changed or removed? And if nothing is illegal and they are threatening you to remove it, is that even legal?”

Anthony Soon wrote, “What you painted is factual. As a young boy, I witnessed how strong these ladies were back then. Drinking black coffee from condensed milk cans, eating biscuits, and smoking were the simple ‘luxuries’ they enjoyed during their rest periods. Whoever complained to URA was probably not even born then. Even more ridiculous was the URA person who asked for the mural to be modified. He should be sacked, in my opinion.”