By Howard Lee

The government’s immediate response to the riot in Little India has to be commended as a textbook example of the components needed to respond to a crisis. However, this well-orchestrated and affirmative response cannot be mistaken for depth of understanding about the crisis in its totality, and much is still needed to assure citizens about the future that lies in the wake of the incident.

In the traditional crisis communication model, we have often been told to put a CAP on it – Concern, Action, Perspective. Concern was well demonstrated by our leaders. Members of Parliament for the constituency went down to ground zero to assure residents. Even the Prime Minister himself expressed condolence to the family of the deceased. Much was also said about the need for calm and to refrain from inciting further violence between Singaporeans and foreigners.

Action was in abundance. Emergency services responded as best as they could, police subdued the rioters without deadly force and arrested suspected perpetrators. Restrictions were subsequently placed on alcohol sales, alleged to be the “cause” of the riots. Police presence was beefed up in Little India. A commission of inquiry has been called.

And finally, everything was put in Perspective. This is a remote example that does not speak for the generally peaceful migrant worker population. Rioting is illegal and the perpetrators will be dealt with in accordance with our laws, which have been upheld firmly that night, for which the Home Team deserves a massive pat on the back. As an inquiry has been called, “netizens” should refrain from speculating on the cause of the riot and wait for the verdict.

Even more amazingly, all the politicians who have voiced out about the riot have been saying pretty much the same thing – in essence, for citizens to exercise restraint and not speculate on the cause of the riot.

Singaporeans will sleep well, knowing that everything is under control, and our government has done a great job in protecting the Singapore way of life.

Or can we?

Indeed, most if not all of the statements in the above CAP model cannot be disputed. Our leaders had a crisis thrust upon them, and the need to respond affirmatively is of paramount national importance. Singapore has not had a riot since independence, and citizens have a right to be concerned. Credit must be given to what is by all counts an excellent dosage of crisis communication, well-coordinated to boot. But has the responses merely secured an immediate truce, or contribute towards an effort for longer-term peace?

Some parallels can be drawn from the London riots in 2011. Nipping at the heels of the London 2012 Olympic Games, the riots risked derailing the government’s plans to project the city as a choice destination for visitors. The rioting continued until the UK government “reclassified” the rioters as hooligans, looters and criminals, whereupon the police took action to arrest them on sight. The continued refrain was that the incident remains a one-off incident and in no way reflected the actions of regular Londoners.

However, some bouts of thinking following the incident suggested that the root cause of the London riots might not be as simple as a case of pure criminality. The theory is that people don’t riot just because they feel like going on a crime spree. Understanding the reasons, often social ones, behind rioting offer a better perspective on how such future incidents can be prevented.

What of our Little India riot? While the speed of response from the government was commendable, the substance of the response has to be evaluated more closely. There was too much inference to the rioters as drunks, and this has also been, unfortunately, carried to the death by mainstream media. Can the influence of alcohol be the only contributing factor to the riot?

Oddly, it is more telling to examine some of the side remarks made by our leaders:

“The COI will also review the current measures to manage areas where foreign workers congregate and give suggestions on how they can be improved, Mr Lee added. He also said last night’s riot at Little India was an isolated incident and it should not tarnish our views of the foreign worker community in Singapore.” (from Today Online)

The two statements, coming from the same person, appear to contradict each other. If the riot was an isolated incident, why would the congregation areas of foreign workers be a concern? Singaporeans from all walks of life, too, congregate in numbers for alcoholic consumption. Do we also now take a look at these congregation areas?

And there is this other one:

“Whenever you have an incident like this, we have those on the web who will cast it as foreign worker related,” [Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew] said. “I urge everyone to look at it in a calm manner and give the police the support they need. It is not the time to go into the 6.9 million issue again. Let’s confine it to just this situation.” (from Today Online)

Besides contradicting the COI’s current charge to look specifically at “areas where foreign workers congregate”, this statement also drew reference to “the 6.9 million” issue. Why the concern that people will draw references to that? Have we reached a state where enough people automatically link unruly behaviour by foreigners with our immigration policies, such that the Transport Minister has to offer a media statement to anticipate and diffuse it?

What are the underlying issues behind the riot? There could be one or many. Some have suggested lack of policing know how in preventing an escalation of the situation. Some have suggested that the rioters have felt marginalised to begin with and the accident that killed one of their fellow countrymen was only the spark that ignited the simmering resentment within.

Any one or more of these hypotheses could be right, or wrong. But clearly, alcohol consumption is definitely wrong as an underlying cause for the riot. It is at most the trigger, not the fuel.

Unfortunately, the current narrative suggests that the government will look at the incident in isolation, without reference to other social factors and a deliberate steer towards alcoholic consumption, ignited by the death of a comrade, as the chief culprit.

Such an approach is short-sighted and will leave us no better at managing future incidents. It will also mean that our efforts are geared towards responding to incidents (e.g. more police on the ground) rather than preventing such incidents from happening to begin with (e.g. building better police rapport with the ground).

As such, now that calm has settled in – applause to the citizen peace-makers and the Home Team alike – it is time to get down to a complete and honest evaluation of all that has gone wrong, so that we need not go through this again.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

US-North Korea summit is the inspiration for Singapore’s Miss Universe national costume this year

Oh. My. Goodness. Singapore’s entry for the national costume segment of the…

约占教育部全年预算1.8巴仙 国际生奖学金、学费补贴预算共2.38亿元

工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon Perera)续在国会追击教育部,质问该部对国际生的开支。贝理安询问教育部长,过去10年来,政府每年在国际学生平均开支多少;以及在技职学院、初级学院和自主大学的学生总群体人数中,目前接受政府任何形式财务援助的外籍学生巴仙率。 为解答议员提问,王乙康表示,第一点,我国教育体制核心目的是为国人服务,没有国人会因为国际学生而从高等教育学府中被排挤。 他说,高等学府都有设下录取资格,在本地和国际上保持水准,确保学生有能力应付学业,且能符合市场和业界需求。 在上月8日,教育部长王乙康透过书面回答,我国政府确实为国际学生提供少量奖学金,每年总支出高达1亿3000万新元。不过,他解释政府的确为就读于我国学校和自治大学的国际学生,提供少量奖学金。有关的奖学金总值相当于教育部年度预算的130亿元中的一巴仙,即1.3亿元。 王乙康在今日也重申,130亿元大部分都用在本地学生身上,确保教育成本可负担。 他说,虽然上次已阐明,国际学生的奖学金仅占教育部年度预算的1巴仙,但一些网络消息却扭曲报大叔,从1.3亿元夸大到三亿元。 “真正的开支,我相信肯定少过1.3亿元。”至于国际学生的大学学费补贴预算,则为1亿800万元。 故此,加上奖学金和学费补贴,政府针对国际生的预算总开支,高达2亿3千800万新元。 强调各国透过大学招揽人才 王乙康认为,如果我国不录取国际学生,那么本地学生将会失去同其他国家学生建立关系的机会,也没有机会扩大社交圈子。此外,他强调全球各国都一样,都是透过大学来招揽人才,即便新加坡的人才也被他国招揽,人才的竞争是全球性的。 王艺康补充,全球最佳大学如牛津、耶鲁、慕尼黑大学等都有提供奖学金,很多欧洲大学提供奖学金或免费学费等,有400名我国学生在法国和德国大学受惠。…

WP’s Pritam Singh assures the public that their votes in GEs have always been a secret

Singapore’s Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition (LO) Pritam…

The Hougang Divide

By Ghui – Recent events have given Singaporeans an opportunity to make…