KCC blasted for throwing elderly volunteers under the bus over AI-generated National Day banner

SINGAPORE: Kampong Chai Chee Community Club (KCC) is being bashed online for seeming to throw senior volunteers under the bus as it responded to the backlash against a National Day banner that had been displayed in the constituency ahead of the nation’s 61st birthday.

The banner featured quite a number of errors that led netizens to assert that the banner appeared to be AI-generated, instead of being designed by a human team.

The artwork showed a family waving Singapore flags against a skyline. However, several glaring mistakes quickly attracted scrutiny.

One of the most obvious errors was a flag resembling Indonesia’s national flag rather than Singapore’s, featuring only red and white horizontal bands without Singapore’s crescent moon and five stars. Another flag held by children in the illustration contained distorted symbols, with the stars appearing as indistinct blobs rather than clearly defined five-pointed stars.

The artwork also depicted what appeared to be a “Singapore National Indoor Stadium” – a venue that does not exist.

Internet users later identified additional anomalies commonly associated with AI-generated images. These included a girl whose ponytail appeared to emerge from her left ear instead of the back of her head, while she was also shown holding what appeared to be a random stick with no obvious purpose.

Others pointed to what they described as an unusually visible panty line on the woman in the illustration, arguing that the unnecessary detail further suggested the image had been generated by AI without adequate editing.

Some also questioned several pictograms printed along the bottom of the banner, including what they described as oddly phallic-looking icons flanking the National Day slogan that appeared unrelated to the celebrations.

Images of the banner quickly circulated online, drawing widespread criticism over what many saw as an overreliance on generative AI without sufficient human review.

As the outrage mounted, KCC issued a statement confirming that the artwork was AI-generated. The CC, however, has fanned the flames even further by claiming the banner was the result of a lack of AI awareness from elderly volunteers.

KCC said, “The banner was created and paid for by residents who came together to celebrate Singapore’s National Day and bring some festive cheer to our community. Many of the volunteers are seniors who generously gave their time and effort to make our estate a more vibrant place for everyone. They were not aware that the AI-generated banner contained inaccuracies.

“Once the issue was brought to their attention, the residents promptly replaced the banner on the same day.”

The CC added, “We appreciate everyone who took the time to highlight the matter. It is also a timely reminder that while AI can be a useful tool, its output should always be carefully checked before it is used.”

Some netizens responding to the statement posted photos of the revised banner and said that even the corrections were not handled properly. While the “Indonesia flag” had been corrected, the new banner still features the girl with the ponytail growing out of her ear waving a random stick, the woman with the panty line and the strange pictograms.

Others online argued that KCC had unfairly singled out senior volunteers instead of taking accountability for its own approval processes.

Several commenters questioned why the statement emphasised that the volunteers were seniors, with one writing, “So pushing the blame to the seniors?!” Another said they were “glad to see comments here roasting those in charge for trying to shift blame to seniors.”

Many argued that the issue was never about who created the banner, but who approved it before it went to print.

One commenter said there had been “no need to say who created this”, adding that the real problem was the failure to check the artwork before production.

Others asserted the People’s Association should have vetted the design before it was printed. “Shouldn’t it be vetted through by PA before printing it? Now you shift the blame to residents. Don’t be a loser and shift the responsibility to resident,” one comment read.

Several netizens described the statement as an exercise in blame-shifting. “The best taichi since last time … all the good things is done by the MP members, all the wrongs is of cos done by the residents especially the seniors,” one person wrote.

Another commenter summed it up bluntly: “Bochap attitude la. Now pushing blame lo.”

Others insisted that quality control ultimately rested with KCC’s management rather than volunteers. “It’s a management slop! Don’t blame AI and seniors! The QC is the management’s responsibility,” one comment said.

Another commenter wrote: “Even if it was the seniors who made them, someone had to approve it. So quick to blame the creators but no fault to the approvers eh?”

One netizen questioned how a banner carrying national symbols could have been printed without formal checks.

They noted that highlighting the volunteers’ age only appeared to place responsibility on seniors who had simply been trying to contribute to the community, adding that the key issue was who performed the final review and approved the design.

The commenter pointed out that Singapore’s national flag is protected under the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act, arguing that omitting the crescent moon and stars was far more serious than a simple typographical mistake.

They suggested the CC should introduce a mandatory pre-print review process for any artwork featuring national symbols, with designated approvers signing off before materials are sent for printing so volunteers would not bear the blame in future.

Another commenter similarly said, “Excuse me, no quality check and approval? Please don’t lie. Everything needs to be checked, vetted and approved. The last person who approves it is the culprit. Please don’t blame the seniors. Take ownership.”

Others questioned why professional staff had apparently failed to catch what they viewed as obvious errors. “So you’re saying your highly paid government-linked staff did not do a final QC? Why even bring up the seniors?” one netizen asked.

Another criticised what they saw as an overreliance on AI, saying taxpayers’ money had been wasted on banners that were never properly checked. The commenter questioned why a simple National Day banner had been outsourced to elderly volunteers instead of being designed professionally.

Some felt the episode illustrated why AI should not have been used in the first place. “With all due respect, the AI-specific inaccuracy folly could’ve been avoided entirely by simply not using GenAI in the first place,” one person wrote.

Another suggested National Day artwork should instead become a community project, with youths and seniors working together to create banners by hand rather than relying on AI-generated images.

Others broadened the criticism beyond this incident, arguing that AI-generated artwork often produces inaccurate, low-quality results while undermining professional designers and carrying environmental costs. One commenter urged KCC to educate residents and volunteers about what they described as the “destructive effects” of generative AI.

Some also questioned how credit would have been assigned had the banner been praised instead of criticised. “If we loved it, who would take credit ah,” one commenter asked.

Others remarked that whoever had produced the artwork, all it should have taken was “one quick look” to notice the obvious mistakes. The same commenter also observed that even the replacement banner appeared to retain the strange phallic-looking pictograms, joking that while Singapore wanted more babies, the imagery remained questionable.

Another commenter pointed out that the statement itself had become part of the controversy, writing: “‘Created and paid for by residents who came together to celebrate Singapore’s National Day’ and who are now being thrown under the bus. Do you even realise how poor the optics are?”