News Straits Times dated Jan 5, 6 and 11, 2004 covered the issue of graffiti - generating public discussion on whether the act is a form of vandalism or work of art.

A majority of the people interviewed (of which the walls of their premises were "chosen" to exhibit the graffiti) would of course feel that such an act is wrong and deserves punishment.

Apart from that, leading human rights advocate Ramdas Tikamdas, who was also interviewed, viewed such an act as demeaning to the human rights struggle in our country and said that it took us two steps backwards.

I have come across the 'notorious' graffiti in some of the walls in Bangsar and it was, (and as some of us would agree), done tastefully. Anyone who did it has great artistic talent and that was not all. He or she who also possessed notably, good social consciousness and passion for human rights issues, which, I am sad to say, is depleting in our society. So, I wondered is it the act of spraying the walls of public property in the middle of the night (that is the only "safe" time to do it) that provokes the anger of the public or is it the glaring messages that those mute graffiti carry, which, in depth - is very thought provoking and honest?

I kept on pondering - is it because the usual graffiti which carries lovelorn confessions like "Abu Sayang Ana", or the equally common admission of existence such as "i wuz ere!" or even the vulgar ones which I think is very much self-explanatory, has set a certain standard for how graffiti should look like or stand for?

For the past years, we stayed silent and relaxed when we encountered these useless scribbles on the toilet walls, because the message is "safe" and "comfortable". There is a bit of grumbling here and there, of course, because now, the owner of the premises must buy fresh paint to cover those spots, but at the back of our minds, we are relieved that this is not the work of socially conscious youths with an agenda. In addition, the mainstream media such as NST need not cover that story more than once because graffiti in that context is just a mere prank.

Furthermore, we are left in awe at the growing number of expensive billboards in our cities, which are funded by major companies (read: capitalist), advertising empty messages of their products or modern lifestyles. So are murals, wallpapers and artworks that are confined in galleries - these are OK, too. We prefer the orchestrated mainstream designs to the anonymous work of art done in free-style and provocative manner. To us, the later deserves harsh penalties and the perpetrators are only in for trouble.

From a different perspective, let us continue thinking - was the aesthetic carvings of animals, spirits and nature done by the nomadic cave dwellers on the walls of caves, during the primitive time graffiti? Not forgetting the GIs during the World War II who made chalk drawings on the tanks and the Catholic and Protestant protesters used to paint slogans on Belfast, Northern Ireland walls. Was that the work of irresponsible people with a penchant for destroying public property or was it, actually, another form of symbolic communication inspired by one's creativity and struggle to express opinion within a suppressive condition?

Dr Joe Austin, assistant professor PhD (American Studies), University of Minnesota, a popular culture professor, did extensive studies on the intersections of urban history, youth culture, and popular culture (particularly film) in the United States and also visual productions of youth cultures themselves, such as graffiti and posters.

In his research, he noted that "graffiti is a way for people to express themselves when they don't feel they can publicly". Among the reasons cited are "because the message is unpopular, public speaking is discouraged or they don't want their words to be attributed to them." For better or worse, graffiti allows someone an anonymous voice. Thus, the suppression and lack of space to voice up one's concern due to oppressive laws, control over media and even, dogmatic values in one's society is a valid reason of why some people, or specifically youths, who are victims of the above reasons resort to graffiti.

In regards to Ramdas Tikamdas' opinion, with due respect to his position as the president of Hakam, I beg to differ. Although, graffiti is rarely used for political statements as the case is in the United States (because over there it is associated with the hip-hop culture), graffiti has, in fact been used as a form of protest against injustice and human rights violations in other parts of the world.

In Nicaragua, graffiti carries strong political messages that call for popular mobilisation. Whereas since the collapse of the Soviet Union, graffiti bearing anti-America messages and revolutionary slogans were seen on the walls of that city's historic buildings as a sign of protests by some anonymous public.

I will not, however deny the fact that graffiti also emerged in the forms of hate speech and gang graffiti which are purely criminal vandalism, used in depicting violence and immoral values, marking the border of the gang's territory or venting anger towards their enemy. However, in respect to the graffiti, which was highlighted in NST, I could not see how any of those graffiti could trigger or promote negative reactions from and to the public. Apart from being well done, it also carries positive messages on human rights and society. In some instances, it also was able to present current issues in humorous and witty way such as the national service issue.

To me, those graffiti should stay on those walls as a reminder to all of us that there are so many issues unsolved and justice unclaimed in our country. I am of the opinion that graffiti is also one of the effective way to advocate social issues. I mean, look at how much publicity it is getting from NST! What with three follow-up news and coloured pictures of the graffiti!

With such limited space for youth to speak up their opinion, feelings and angst, with so many prejudicial mindsets towards the new generation which are deep rooted in our judgmental perception towards their appearances and academic qualification rather than their ideas, imagination and social opinions, it is only fair and rightful for them to articulate their ideas and feelings via graffiti.

The very characteristic of those "detested graffiti" skillful sprays of colours done in style, liberative, fun, honest and non-pretentious should be accepted as a very sincere manifestation by some sector of the society who support our struggle for reform and justice. Don't forget that reform requires us to dare to be different and breaking the tyrannical norms!