By Terry Xu
Update – Video footage of the bus showed that at no point in time did the pants of Sakthivel dropped when he was on bus.
The death of Sakthivel Kumaravelu was the incident which sparked the riot on December 8 in Little India along Race Course Road. The official story has been expressed as a timeline by the police and widely publicised by the local mainstream media.
littleindiariots_timeline
However, here is a somewhat alternative story of what transpired on 8 December 2013 we pieced together from various sources and interviews with workers.
From interviews with people who know Sakthivel Kumaravelu, the worker who died in the accident. He was said to be at Little India that night to collect medicine from his mother which was being delivered by one of his cousins coming to Singapore.
Sakthivel Kumaravelu was said to have boarded the bus around nine pm to return to his dormitory in Jurong. He also drank alcohol and was said to be tipsy when he went up the bus.
According to those we spoke to, Sakthivel was involved in a commotion and the bus driver wanted him off the bus but failed to get him to leave. He then got the time keeper or bus coordinator of the bus service, Grace Wong, to get him off the bus. After he was off the bus, the bus started to drive off.
While making the left turn at the corner of the road, the bus slowed down. Sakhtivel decided to run after it but lost his balance after putting his hand on the bus and fell on the road. (read here for the official version of the accident)
Without seeing Sakhtivel, the bus first ran over his head by the front wheel of the bus and then pinned him under its back wheel as the bus came to a stop.
accidentscene_02
The bus driver had been alerted by the then panicked bus passengers.
(Warning – graphical images) Sakthivel’s funeral photos showed a somewhat disfigured face. There is also a photo of him pinned under the rear wheel of the bus.
The passengers alighted and wanted to save his life. They approached the bus driver and asked him to move the bus so that Sakthivel could be extricated from its wheel. However, the bus driver did not do so.
From third party accounts, we understand that the bus driver said he would not move the vehicle but did not explain why he couldn’t. In interviews with coach drivers, we understand that the standard operation procedure for drivers to act in such an event is to not move the vehicle until the police arrive. The area in which such an accident takes place could also be a potential crime scene.
Some of the workers then decided to get Grace Wong who was at the boarding area to persuade the driver to move the vehicle so that the body/person could be extricated.
However the workers were not able to convince Grace Wong or the driver to do so and one worker attacked her in anger. On seeing this, another foreign worker tried to shield her and shoved her up the bus so that she would not continue to be attacked. Once she was up the bus, the driver locked the doors.
In an account said by one of the shopkeepers, the workers tried to lift the bus to extricate the body but did not succeed in doing so.
The workers starting hitting the bus and threw objects at it out of desperation to have the driver move the bus and also out of frustration that their countryman is still underneath the bus.
One of the man around the bus is saying, “The bus driver is inside, the bus driver is inside”.

The fire engine arrived first and civil defence personnel started the process of extricating the body from under the bus.
When the police and ambulance finally arrived, the victim was declared dead on the spot by the paramedics.

After the body was extricated and left on the road, third party accounts mentioned that the body of Sakthivel was not covered with police tent.
The paramedics then went to attend to the driver and Ms Grace Wong, and escorted them out of the bus and into the ambulance by the police.
While the driver was escorted away from the scene of the incident, anecdotal accounts indicated that someone shouted in Tamil something about how the authorities were racially biased. There were also some heated moments between the uniformed personnel and crowd seen from videos taken as well as accounts from our interviews.

And for some reason, the crowd erupted in furore, throwing debris, beer bottles at the uniformed personnel in anger.
We interviewed the store owner of the shop which is nearest to the site of the incident. He said that the people in the crowd grabbed his vegetables and started throwing at the police, and some of them went in to ask if they had any empty beer bottles. When he said no, the people went out and started digging the trash bins for what they wanted.
At the scene, we can see that parts of the pavement are smashed and the cement supposedly improvised to be projectiles to throw at the police.
pavement
The police retreated back to their vehicles while the mob continued raining projectiles on them.
At one point, the crowd of rioters advanced and started overturning the vehicles, setting them on fire.

According to someone who was on the ground that night, the people who were hiding in the ambulance were told to get out of the vehicle by the mob because the mob wanted to burn the vehicle.

From the video footage, we can see that most of the crowd had dispersed by then time the police was giving its warning. Some are seen leaving the scene via the Little India MRT station.
From an interview of a shop keeper right after the incident, the riot trucks were not deployed at the start of the incident. And by the time it arrived and formed up, there isn’t much of a crowd left.

As the story develops to this point, it is still uncertain what was the spark that started off the unrest.
Workers we spoke to denied being there in Little India on the night of the riot. The accounts they told us were what they had heard from others, through discussions or conversations at their dormitories and elsewhere.
When we asked if any of them or their friends had video-taped the incident, especially when the accident first happened, they said they did not, while some told us that their friends had deleted any videos they had taken, so that they would not get into trouble when the police came to investigate.
Look out for more stories on the Little India incident, including our interviews with some workers who have returned to India.
 
 
 

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

请建屋局正视居家改进计划工程素质

政府推行家居改进计划(HIP),为1986年/更早前的组屋进行翻新,政府承担高达95巴仙费用。翻新后有助延长组屋寿命,也汰换家中老旧或不安全的设施,如旧电插头、厕所设备或解决水管漏水等问题。 然而,今日一则新闻令人痛心:两年前,住在武吉巴督东某组屋单位的15岁少年陈耀斌,却因为在沐浴时,热水器漏电而触电身亡。今日验尸官在法院质询,指出热水器不当使用不符高电流的三脚插头,以及断电器故障,导致意外发生。 死者一家的组屋单位在2015年进行居家改进计划,死者母亲想顺便更换新热水器。建屋局接洽负责的承包商,后者指派旗下的修电分包商JL工程建筑公司,派人来装热水器。 然而,验尸官发现,尽管负责装热水器的监工和工友修电经验丰富,但没有合格修电执照! 为何请无牌电工为组屋修电? 负责为组屋单位进行家居改进计划的承包商和分包商,为何能容许没有修电执照的监工和工友,负责为公共组屋住户提供服务?建屋发展局对此事难道毫不知情?只要把工作交给承包商和分包商去完成,就算大功告成? 而这名“无牌”监工还有到30座公共组屋修电的经验,也发现有78巴仙的热水器,都是以三脚插头接电的。根据新加坡建设局资料,JL 工程的专项是电子工程,但何以负责重要的组屋工程,属下监工和工友都没有合格修电执照?建屋局是否应该着手管制,规范化这种外包承包商参差不齐的素质? 触电事故肇因很多,除了住户本身需提升用电安全意识,也要常检查家中电器是否正常运作。负责调查此事的验尸官在庭上也指出,无论如何,不管是承包商、在场监工和工人,如果发现住户家中有潜在用电威胁,都有责任通知住户,请他们更换,避免不幸事故再度发生。 据报导,质询过程中,分包商总监提到建屋局有指示翻新组屋单位后,也要把原有电器配设恢复原状。吊诡的是,负责修电的监工经验丰富,也坦承发现住户家中使用三脚插头通电热水器不安全,没及时提醒住户(理由是没和死者家属碰到面),而且还是同样以三脚插头接到新安装的热水器。 结果一年后,不幸事故发生在年仅15岁的少年身上。验尸官卡马拉揭露,调查期间,发现插头里中性线(neutral)和地线衔接松弛,中心线和地线甚至已经溶焦在一起。地线连接到热水器外壳,是和金属莲蓬头相连的。通过死者身体的电流估计达0.95A,带来致命电击。与此同时,故障的断路器无法及时断开电流。死者家人后来关掉电源,紧急送往医院抢救,惟已回天乏术。 组屋工程失误时有发生…

Conflict At the Heart of Yale-NUS

~ By Gordon Lee ~ In 2005, it was reported that Singapore’s…

Police's manpower shortage, 'How is that my problem?' – Expat assault victims tell all

~by: Jewel Philemon~ “What are the extra ingredients that require expedited justice?…

GYMMBOXX temporarily closes Bishan outlet for disinfection after being told one of its members was diagnosed with COVID-19

GYMMBOXX, a local gym franchise has informed its members this morning that…