Let me do a pseudo intellectual post for a change. I was inspired to read up a bit when I read the report some 3 weeks ago about the sentencing of the 2 men arrested for their online comments. I quote from the ST article (words in green):
Using the 1964 race riots to make a point, he [the judge] said: "Young Singaporeans, like the accused persons before this Court, may have short memories that race and religion are sensitive issues.
"They must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed."
I am not that young but I don't have much memory of learning/reading about the 1964 race riots, so I decided to look the topic up in the books in my own 'collection' (hee hee, yes, I actually own these books). First, I realise I have lost my copy of Mary Turnbull's History of Singapore... grrr... where is it? Anyway, I found my Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Vol 2) and this is what it says about the 1964 race riots (words in blue):
'Meanwhile, even before the 1964 polls, the UMNO... had also decided to enter the 1963 Singapore elections in an effort to present itself as the representative of the Malays there. Although it did not win any seats, UMNO continued its campaign for Malay support in Singapore. The vehicle used by UMNO was... the Utusan Melayu - in which the PAP was vilified as a Chinese chauvinist party led by Lee Kuan Yew. The Malays in Singapore were encouraged to rely on Kuala Lumpur as the big brother who would protect them. Such constant harping on communal issues during 1963 and 1964 resulted in racial riots in Singapore on the occasion of the Prophet's birthday celebration on 21 July 1964.'
('The Political Structures of the Independent States' by Yong Mun Cheong)
Also from Cambridge History of Southeast Asia:
'While merger with the federation and access to a Malayan Common market had been central to PAP policy, the union [Singapore joining the Federation of Malaysia] was flawed by conflicting priorities, intolerance and distrust, aggravating communal tensions in peninsular Malaysia and sparking racial riots in Singapore.'
('Regionalism and Nationalism' by CM Turnbull)
I also retrieved my The Singapore Story which has quite a bit on it, but let me just quote this part (words in red). Our then-PM Mr Lee Kuan Yew addressed the population on a radio broadcast after the riots and this is what he said when urging for calm:
'What or who started this siutation is irrelevant at this moment. All the indications show that there has been organisation and planning behind this outbreak to turn it into an ugly communal clash... But right now our business is to stop this stupidity... Rumours and wild talk of revenge and retaliation will only inflame men's minds.'
I make no comments on all the above as this is just a pseudo academic post. Just filling in what's missing from my 'memory' and knowledge of the riots. Well, I make no comments except my conclusion that: the riots appear to have been the result of larger political factors, not just 'rumours and wild talk' but 'rumours and wild talk' did play a part in aggravating the situation. Okay, another comment on 'rumours'. Rumours may or may not be unfounded.
So back to the judge's comments, on which I will just comment by saying: it is therefore true that 'callous and reckless remarks' have the potential to blow up into something beyond control if the context is right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it). As can be seen in this very recent case in Birmingham. The resultant rioting led to death and injury.
The power of 'loose talk'. (Take a look at these really interesting WW2 posters. Not really directly related to my pseudo academic post but, like I said, the power of 'loose talk'.)
Book References:
Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story. Singapore: Times Editions, 1998
Tarling, Nicholas (ed), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Vol Two). Singapore: Cambridge University Press, 1992
Using the 1964 race riots to make a point, he [the judge] said: "Young Singaporeans, like the accused persons before this Court, may have short memories that race and religion are sensitive issues.
"They must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed."
I am not that young but I don't have much memory of learning/reading about the 1964 race riots, so I decided to look the topic up in the books in my own 'collection' (hee hee, yes, I actually own these books). First, I realise I have lost my copy of Mary Turnbull's History of Singapore... grrr... where is it? Anyway, I found my Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Vol 2) and this is what it says about the 1964 race riots (words in blue):
'Meanwhile, even before the 1964 polls, the UMNO... had also decided to enter the 1963 Singapore elections in an effort to present itself as the representative of the Malays there. Although it did not win any seats, UMNO continued its campaign for Malay support in Singapore. The vehicle used by UMNO was... the Utusan Melayu - in which the PAP was vilified as a Chinese chauvinist party led by Lee Kuan Yew. The Malays in Singapore were encouraged to rely on Kuala Lumpur as the big brother who would protect them. Such constant harping on communal issues during 1963 and 1964 resulted in racial riots in Singapore on the occasion of the Prophet's birthday celebration on 21 July 1964.'
('The Political Structures of the Independent States' by Yong Mun Cheong)
Also from Cambridge History of Southeast Asia:
'While merger with the federation and access to a Malayan Common market had been central to PAP policy, the union [Singapore joining the Federation of Malaysia] was flawed by conflicting priorities, intolerance and distrust, aggravating communal tensions in peninsular Malaysia and sparking racial riots in Singapore.'
('Regionalism and Nationalism' by CM Turnbull)
I also retrieved my The Singapore Story which has quite a bit on it, but let me just quote this part (words in red). Our then-PM Mr Lee Kuan Yew addressed the population on a radio broadcast after the riots and this is what he said when urging for calm:
'What or who started this siutation is irrelevant at this moment. All the indications show that there has been organisation and planning behind this outbreak to turn it into an ugly communal clash... But right now our business is to stop this stupidity... Rumours and wild talk of revenge and retaliation will only inflame men's minds.'
I make no comments on all the above as this is just a pseudo academic post. Just filling in what's missing from my 'memory' and knowledge of the riots. Well, I make no comments except my conclusion that: the riots appear to have been the result of larger political factors, not just 'rumours and wild talk' but 'rumours and wild talk' did play a part in aggravating the situation. Okay, another comment on 'rumours'. Rumours may or may not be unfounded.
So back to the judge's comments, on which I will just comment by saying: it is therefore true that 'callous and reckless remarks' have the potential to blow up into something beyond control if the context is right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it). As can be seen in this very recent case in Birmingham. The resultant rioting led to death and injury.
The power of 'loose talk'. (Take a look at these really interesting WW2 posters. Not really directly related to my pseudo academic post but, like I said, the power of 'loose talk'.)
Book References:
Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story. Singapore: Times Editions, 1998
Tarling, Nicholas (ed), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (Vol Two). Singapore: Cambridge University Press, 1992
Comments