By Gaurav Sharma
The Little India riots of last Sunday have sparked much debateĀ about the role of the Singapore Police ForceĀ and itsĀ decision not toĀ use undue force, service revolvers and anti-riot equipment such as the tear gasĀ to quell the violent mob.
So much so that the policeĀ had to clarify theĀ position on its Facebook page yesterday. āPolice officers displayed maximum restraint andĀ did not fire any weapon throughout the incident. This also prevented theĀ incident from escalating further,ā it said.
Minister SĀ Iswaran said explained on TVĀ last night: āUse of force to calm a riotĀ situation is a double-edged sword. While some would argue that it might haveĀ helped in controlling the situation much earlier, the counter-point can alwaysĀ be that it would have lead to further loss of property and even lives. Thus,Ā what to do is a decision that had to be taken by the officers on the ground andĀ I am sure the police took the right call.ā
And ifĀ past experiences of similar such incidents around the world are anything to goĀ by, the law agencies in Singapore did the right thing.
Internationally,Ā what happened during the Arab Spring in the last three yearsĀ and during theĀ riots seen early this year by one of the most peace-loving nations in the world,Ā Sweden, are a proof of that.
The riotĀ in Little India was essentially a rampage, an impulsive reaction, by an angryĀ mob on seeing one of their colleagues being crushed to death by a privateĀ bus.
As Lu Yeow Lim, commander of Tanglin Police Division, elaborated on TVĀ yesterday: āWhen the Singapore Civil Defence ForceĀ and the initial lot ofĀ police personnel arrived at the scene, the gathered crowd was not violent. It’sĀ just when our people moved to extricate the deceasedās body from below theĀ vehicle, the mob turned violent.ā
TheĀ policeĀ told the media yesterday that even during the riot, the mob whileĀ using metal rods and cement blocks to damage the vehicles on the scene, was onlyĀ hurling projectiles at theĀ officers. Since no close-range weapons wereĀ used, there was no āimminent dangerā to its officers, the spokespersonĀ added.
ImagineĀ what would have happened if policeĀ had used firearms to disperse the crowdĀ and some more lives were lost.
ChancesĀ are this would have angered the mob even further and the commotion would haveĀ spread to the neighbouring Serangoon and Buffalo Roads. My own experience ofĀ covering riots and violent protests as a journalist in India substantiates thisĀ theory.
What isĀ even more remarkable in this episode is that thisĀ restraint was shown by aĀ police force whose majority officers have not faced anything of this nature everĀ before. It was almost four decades ago, during the infamous racial riots ofĀ 1969, that police in Singapore had to respond to suchĀ lawlessness.
SanityĀ demanded that instead of rioting and destroying public and private property,Ā people present at the scene of the accident should have called the police andĀ handed over the driver to them.
The lawĀ would have taken its own course afterwards, including sentencing of the driverĀ and compensation for the victim.
Rather,Ā the story is now about rioting.
The mobĀ frenzy has pushed into background the fact that a life, probably of a soleĀ breadwinner from a poor family, was lost.
Let us notĀ forget this as we continue to debate the whys and hows of theĀ riot.