The Little India riot has definitively shaken the core of Singaporean society. The first riots in decades, it is an anomaly in the socio-political culture of Singapore, long famed for its law, order and lack of violent outbursts. Yet, rather than label it as a one-off, singular incident, fuelled by the excesses of alcohol, it is essential to delve deeper into the incident, identify the causal mechanism and identify factors that could have potentially been long term causes for the violence that engulfed Race Course Road on the 8th of December 2013. It is even more crucial that we see the bigger picture, and look beyond the riots to understand the social dynamics of our changing society.
An earlier columnist noted that “we should not play socialist too readily”, but I would counsel otherwise. The riot must be studied in create depth by academics, policy personnel, and most importantly perhaps by the general public in order to discern the key lessons that can be learnt from such a tragic and regrettable incident. The Maria Hertogh riots of 1950 and the race riots of 1964 were crucial lessons on the potential fragility of race and religious relations in Singapore while the Hock Lee bus riots of 1955 and other riots in the 1950s were definitive lessons in the capacity for socialist trade unions to bring the state to a standstill. These lessons have played an undeniable role in shaping the perceptions and policies of the government in Independent Singapore. The ghosts of history demand that we treat the Little India riots with the same caution and respect.
Locating the role of alcohol in the riots
It has been suggested that alcohol was the primary cause of the riot. The death of a fellow worker, Sakthivel Kumaravelu, an Indian national, at the hands of a bus, roused passions already doused with alcohol, which led to violent protests by approximately 400 workers, which eventually led to the destruction and torching of an ambulance and several police patrol cars.
There can be no denying that alcohol related nuisance has been a permanent fixture in Little India in the last decade or so. There is also little argument against the fact that both Sakthivel Kumaravelu and a vast majority of the rioters were heavily intoxicated. Alcohol consumption must thus be seen as an important factor in terms of understanding the riot. However, one must also question if firmly placing the blame on alcohol alone is a somewhat simplistic argument. Alcohol was perhaps an enabler, with the workers’ intoxication, pushing them to go further than they would usually dare to, however, it cannot be seen as the cause for the riot. Alcohol consumption does not lead to rioting, otherwise, both Clarke Quay and Boat Quay along with other popular nightspots would have seen numerous riots rather than the usual incidence of nuisance.
Furthermore, such violence, at such magnitude has never been seen in Little India before, despite excessive alcohol consumption being a permanent fixture. Nuisance, small skirmishes and open rioting are very different phenomenon and must not be grouped together with a perception of path dependence. It is my argument that there are far more deep lying factors that lie at the root of the dissatisfaction and unhappiness of the workers’ that manifested itself in the form of violence on the 8th of December. Social norms and the perception of foreign labour in Singapore is a key issue that must be addressed.
The social stratification of foreign workers in Singapore
Social stratification is a reality of all societies, where divides based on socio-economic status exists. Singapore is no different and indeed, in recent times there has been active debate on closing the widening inequality within Singapore. However, while this debate has included Singaporeans, PRs and expatriates, it has largely excluded the position of transient foreign workers, who arguably have the worst living conditions in our country. This largely has to do with the negative social perception that we accord the foreign worker population in Singapore. It may sound harsh when articulated but it is an undeniable truth that we largely conceptualize these workers as a necessary nuisance, which we need but would rather not see. We do not see them as part of greater Singaporean society, but rather as units of labour that we must uncomfortably accommodate.
This mentality must change. Much like the samsui women and coolies of yore, these worker populations form the foundation on which our nation’s growth is based on. They perform the tasks and do the jobs that our population is not prepared to do, tasks which are largely back-breaking, uncomfortable and largely undesirable to a vast majority of the population. They sometimes lack the sophistication and poise that we have come to expect in a largely educated First World nation but they are an essential part of our national fabric, a crucial factor in our success and growth. We must shed the ‘pariah’ label that we have accorded them, but in order to do so, we must first take the uncomfortable step of acknowledging that such a perception exists.
We must review the living conditions of these workers as well as the wages accorded to them. Beyond such tangibles however there are other intangible factors that must be addressed in Singapore and much of this has to do with social welfare and creating conditions that make it possible for them to be part of our imagined community, our nation rather than outliers on the fringes of our state. Firstly, there is a need to provide living space of these groups of workers. The term ‘living space’ here encompasses more than just the crowded dormitories that we pack workers into but rather avenues for them to comfortably spend the few hours of leisure that are accorded to them. The right towards the pursuit of happiness must be extended to everyone, and this can only be present when living space is accorded.
Many of them, I argue turn to alcohol and crowding around small fields in Little India due to a lack of alternatives. Banning alcohol consumption would stifle incidents in Little India, but do little to solve the bigger problem, which is that these workers have little else to do in their leisure, that is affordable with their meagre salary. Every human being deserves rest and recreation and we must realise that these workers are no different.
Let us be a truly first world nation, not just in terms of economic growth and prosperity but also in terms of social welfare. We should strongly consider building community centre equivalents for these workers or expand our present community centres to include activities and options for recreation and relaxation for them. Also, workers who come here, contribute to our economy and perform largely unpleasant and back-breaking tasks should be offered options to better themselves at negligible cost. This would include courses and other educational options. Let us aim to create social institutions that embrace these segments of population rather than cast them into the shadows, which encourages deviant behaviour. If we make them partners in the nation-building process, they are more likely to subscribe to the same social contract that has largely been the basis of the relative peace and order that has defined Singaporean society.
This nation was built by our forefathers, many of whom first came here with the idea of being transient labour. We bettered ourselves, strove and broke socio-economic barriers at an unparalleled rate. As a new generation of Singaporeans take over the helm of our now resplendent and prosperous nation, let us not forget to offer the same opportunities to the less well-off who come here and work tirelessly to provide for a family thousands of miles away, much like our ancestors did.
Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami
The Social Swami 
Looking Beyond the Riots
In Pravin Prakash, Social Commentary on December 20, 2013 at 1:26 pmThe Little India riot has definitively shaken the core of Singaporean society. The first riots in decades, it is an anomaly in the socio-political culture of Singapore, long famed for its law, order and lack of violent outbursts. Yet, rather than label it as a one-off, singular incident, fuelled by the excesses of alcohol, it is essential to delve deeper into the incident, identify the causal mechanism and identify factors that could have potentially been long term causes for the violence that engulfed Race Course Road on the 8th of December 2013. It is even more crucial that we see the bigger picture, and look beyond the riots to understand the social dynamics of our changing society.
An earlier columnist noted that “we should not play socialist too readily”, but I would counsel otherwise. The riot must be studied in create depth by academics, policy personnel, and most importantly perhaps by the general public in order to discern the key lessons that can be learnt from such a tragic and regrettable incident. The Maria Hertogh riots of 1950 and the race riots of 1964 were crucial lessons on the potential fragility of race and religious relations in Singapore while the Hock Lee bus riots of 1955 and other riots in the 1950s were definitive lessons in the capacity for socialist trade unions to bring the state to a standstill. These lessons have played an undeniable role in shaping the perceptions and policies of the government in Independent Singapore. The ghosts of history demand that we treat the Little India riots with the same caution and respect.
Locating the role of alcohol in the riots
It has been suggested that alcohol was the primary cause of the riot. The death of a fellow worker, Sakthivel Kumaravelu, an Indian national, at the hands of a bus, roused passions already doused with alcohol, which led to violent protests by approximately 400 workers, which eventually led to the destruction and torching of an ambulance and several police patrol cars.
There can be no denying that alcohol related nuisance has been a permanent fixture in Little India in the last decade or so. There is also little argument against the fact that both Sakthivel Kumaravelu and a vast majority of the rioters were heavily intoxicated. Alcohol consumption must thus be seen as an important factor in terms of understanding the riot. However, one must also question if firmly placing the blame on alcohol alone is a somewhat simplistic argument. Alcohol was perhaps an enabler, with the workers’ intoxication, pushing them to go further than they would usually dare to, however, it cannot be seen as the cause for the riot. Alcohol consumption does not lead to rioting, otherwise, both Clarke Quay and Boat Quay along with other popular nightspots would have seen numerous riots rather than the usual incidence of nuisance.
Furthermore, such violence, at such magnitude has never been seen in Little India before, despite excessive alcohol consumption being a permanent fixture. Nuisance, small skirmishes and open rioting are very different phenomenon and must not be grouped together with a perception of path dependence. It is my argument that there are far more deep lying factors that lie at the root of the dissatisfaction and unhappiness of the workers’ that manifested itself in the form of violence on the 8th of December. Social norms and the perception of foreign labour in Singapore is a key issue that must be addressed.
The social stratification of foreign workers in Singapore
Social stratification is a reality of all societies, where divides based on socio-economic status exists. Singapore is no different and indeed, in recent times there has been active debate on closing the widening inequality within Singapore. However, while this debate has included Singaporeans, PRs and expatriates, it has largely excluded the position of transient foreign workers, who arguably have the worst living conditions in our country. This largely has to do with the negative social perception that we accord the foreign worker population in Singapore. It may sound harsh when articulated but it is an undeniable truth that we largely conceptualize these workers as a necessary nuisance, which we need but would rather not see. We do not see them as part of greater Singaporean society, but rather as units of labour that we must uncomfortably accommodate.
This mentality must change. Much like the samsui women and coolies of yore, these worker populations form the foundation on which our nation’s growth is based on. They perform the tasks and do the jobs that our population is not prepared to do, tasks which are largely back-breaking, uncomfortable and largely undesirable to a vast majority of the population. They sometimes lack the sophistication and poise that we have come to expect in a largely educated First World nation but they are an essential part of our national fabric, a crucial factor in our success and growth. We must shed the ‘pariah’ label that we have accorded them, but in order to do so, we must first take the uncomfortable step of acknowledging that such a perception exists.
We must review the living conditions of these workers as well as the wages accorded to them. Beyond such tangibles however there are other intangible factors that must be addressed in Singapore and much of this has to do with social welfare and creating conditions that make it possible for them to be part of our imagined community, our nation rather than outliers on the fringes of our state. Firstly, there is a need to provide living space of these groups of workers. The term ‘living space’ here encompasses more than just the crowded dormitories that we pack workers into but rather avenues for them to comfortably spend the few hours of leisure that are accorded to them. The right towards the pursuit of happiness must be extended to everyone, and this can only be present when living space is accorded.
Many of them, I argue turn to alcohol and crowding around small fields in Little India due to a lack of alternatives. Banning alcohol consumption would stifle incidents in Little India, but do little to solve the bigger problem, which is that these workers have little else to do in their leisure, that is affordable with their meagre salary. Every human being deserves rest and recreation and we must realise that these workers are no different.
Let us be a truly first world nation, not just in terms of economic growth and prosperity but also in terms of social welfare. We should strongly consider building community centre equivalents for these workers or expand our present community centres to include activities and options for recreation and relaxation for them. Also, workers who come here, contribute to our economy and perform largely unpleasant and back-breaking tasks should be offered options to better themselves at negligible cost. This would include courses and other educational options. Let us aim to create social institutions that embrace these segments of population rather than cast them into the shadows, which encourages deviant behaviour. If we make them partners in the nation-building process, they are more likely to subscribe to the same social contract that has largely been the basis of the relative peace and order that has defined Singaporean society.
This nation was built by our forefathers, many of whom first came here with the idea of being transient labour. We bettered ourselves, strove and broke socio-economic barriers at an unparalleled rate. As a new generation of Singaporeans take over the helm of our now resplendent and prosperous nation, let us not forget to offer the same opportunities to the less well-off who come here and work tirelessly to provide for a family thousands of miles away, much like our ancestors did.
Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami
Share this:
Related