TR EMERITUS

I just saw a news clip in the Today Newspaper, which said that Mr. Louise Ng, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency (GRC) was being investigated by the police for holding up a “smiley face” encouraging people to support their local hawkers. The full story can be found at: [LINK]

It goes without saying part of the reason why the police are investigating Mr. Ng is the fact that the Onlinecitizen, one of our socio-political websites asked if Mr. Ng had obtained a public license to do so and whether he’d be charged for holding up a smiley face in public if he had not. This is a particularly pertinent question especially when it comes right after an activist called Jolvan Wham put Singapore on the map by getting charged for causing “public disorder” for holding up a placard of a smiley face. So, in fairness to the Online Citizen, it was important to raise the issue of whether there were any “double standards” in how the law was being applied to an MP and an activist.

However, what I find particularly interesting is why the smiley face has become a symbol of public disorder. There is, as far as I know, no evidence of any terrorist group that has resorted to using an emoji, let alone a smiling face as its symbol. The smiley face as far as I know is a symbol of happiness.

So, why did the authorities find so threatening about Mr. Wham and Mr. Ng holding up a smiley face in public. Mr. Wham’s case is particularly interesting in as much as he was charged with “public disorder.” What exactly was the public disorder that he caused? Did he cause any damage to any property? Did he harass members of the public? Did he hold any symbols glorifying racism like the Nazi or Confederate flags? Mr. Wham’s crime was the fact that he stood in public holding a smile. How exactly was that “Public Disorder.”

Look, nobody is against laws to protect public order. Even the online media, which is more “anti-government” in its slant has not gone after the government when it canes vandals. What people do question is why the “smile” has become such a threat to the established order. One might suggests to the powers-that-be in Singapore that by not allowing someone to stand there holding up a smiley face in public, they are only going to drive the symbol underground and more importantly, the act of turning a symbol of happiness into a symbol of anarchy is a sign of internal weakness when you see threats in the most innocent of things.

Tang Li

*Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.

14 Responses to “Smiley in Singapore is the symbol of Anarchy”