Chinatown mural of samsui woman holding cigarette to remain unchanged with building owner fined S$2,000

The controversial Chinatown mural featuring a samsui woman holding a cigarette will remain unchanged, according to a joint statement released by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Ministry of Health (MOH) on Wednesday, 10 July.

The decision comes after a period of public debate and feedback regarding the mural, which has sparked significant discussion among Singaporeans.

In the statement, the URA and MOH clarified that the mural is considered an art piece rather than an advertisement for tobacco, which would be against the law.

They acknowledged that the artwork, while not explicitly promoting smoking, could be seen as normalising the habit, which conflicts with MOH’s policies. Despite these concerns, the authorities have decided not to alter the mural.

“This is in view of the fact that the mural is not an advertisement for tobacco, which is against the law, and is largely perceived as an art piece,” stated the URA and MOH.

However, they noted the mural’s potential to “normalise smoking” and emphasized the importance of addressing this issue without modifying the artwork.

The building owner was fined S$2,000 on Wednesday for carrying out unauthorised works on the conserved building and for continuing with the works despite reminders to obtain approval.

The mural artist, Sean Dunston, had shared on Instagram on 19 June that he was instructed by the URA to remove the cigarette from the mural by 3 July. However, following public feedback, the URA informed the landlord on 21 June that they would re-evaluate their stance.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Sean Dunston (@seanpdunston)

In the joint statement, the authorities highlighted the diversity of public opinion, with some expressing concern about the normalisation of smoking, while others argued that the mural should be preserved as an art piece.

“Most members of the public do not see this as an advertisement for cigarettes,” they said. The URA and MOH appreciated the constructive and respectful tone of the public discourse.

Criticism from netizens has been vocal, with many questioning the initial directive to alter the mural. Commenters on social media platforms, particularly on Mr Dunston’s Instagram post, expressed their support for the mural and questioned why the URA responded to a single complaint.

Many emphasized that the mural accurately depicted historical realities and should not be changed based on contemporary sensibilities.

In addressing the fine imposed on the building owner, the authorities reiterated the importance of adhering to conservation and protection guidelines for Singapore’s built heritage.

They stressed that proposals for murals on conserved buildings must be submitted for approval before any work commences to ensure cultural sensitivities and values are considered.

“As murals on conserved buildings are prominent visual markers that enhance the character of our conservation districts, URA requires all owners of conserved buildings to submit their mural proposals for approval,” the statement read.

The authorities concluded by reminding owners of conserved buildings to obtain the necessary approvals before starting any work, warning that failure to comply would result in enforcement actions, including prosecution for severe cases.