Oral History Assignment

Oral History Assignment

Reflections of the riots of 1964

For this research, I am grateful to meet a pair of husband and wife who lived through the one of the challenging times of post World War 2 Singapore. Mr Mohamed and his wife, Madam Laily are the parents of a friend. Even though the events took place forty years ago, they could remember it just like it was a fresh nightmare. I must pardon my exaggeration but to interview these two special individuals gave me a different perspective towards the infamous racial riots of 1964. I was given a perspective of the alleged suppressed race.

Mr Mohamed and Madam Laily were chosen to be interviewed because both of their lives were influenced by the racial riots. In fact, Madam Laily was the one to be interviewed, however in the course of the interview, Mr Mohamed was invited to join in. Even though both of their lives were influenced by the riots, both of them were projected differences. These differences I found interesting and this would allow further scrutiny in the analysis of oral and written history.

Biography of the interviewees.

Mr Mohamed is now 52 and currently unemployed. He is the one of the few unfortunate employees who were retrenched during the economic crisis. In 1964, he was only twelve years old. He lived in a kampong along Serangoon Batu Lima. His neighbours were predominantly Chinese.

Madam Laily is now 49 and working as a housewife. In 1964, she was 19 years old. She lived in a kampong along the same stretch of road as her husband. Her kampong was at Serangoon Batu Enam. Unlike her husband, her kampong was most predominantly made up of Malay families.

The trouble times of 1964

The year 1964 was a troubling time for young Singapore. Rather, it was a troubling times for the whole South East Asia region as a whole. Malaysia was facing communist problems. Indonesia was seen as terrorist to the region. Singapore was facing communal unrest. 1964 was not a year of joy.

With historic references and accounts, Singapore has encountered a number of riots preceding to the one of 1964. The Maria Hertogh riots of December 1950 have demonstrated the racial unrest that lingered among the multicultural residents of Singapore. Its structure was almost identical to the riots of 1964. Both of them were sparked by religious reasons and several racial groups being targeted and involved. The Malays in Singapore were blamed for their violence towards the Europeans, Eurasians and as well as the Chinese. Even though the death toll of that riot was sixteen, it did not have the “wider political and communal ramification” as the one in 1964. (Leifer, 1964)

Even the student riots during the mid-1950s did not fit the pattern of the 1964 disturbance. The student riots were caused by frustrated national feelings of the young Chinese-educated youth which was further encouraged by Communist cadre. Its effects were strictly political and were not directed to any racial groups.

Even after the riots of 1964 have ceased, the nation was rocked again by series of bomb explosions by local Indonesian trained saboteurs and infiltrators. A total of 17 bomb explosions have occurred in various parts of the island. The following year, there were five bomb explosions within its first four months. One of such was the MacDonald House bombing which killed three and injured 33.

The Riot

July 21, after a mere 10 days after an occurrence of a communal violence in Bukit Mertajam in North Malaysia, Singapore faced one of the worse racial turmoil in its history. It was reported in Singapore Year Book 1964, the riot broke out “when a Malay precession was passing through a predominantly Chinese area.” Apparently the report missed out on what actually triggered the initial clash which I believed to be a very important point.

According to an account by Michael Leifer, that “predominantly Chinese area” turned out to be Geylang. He mentioned that when the precession reached Geylang, some of the Malays “provoked incidents with the Chinese”. And as the number of Malays getting involved increased, the Chinese “retaliated”. In spite of immediate police action and imposition of curfew, the clashes continued sporadically. One of the aggravating factors was the intervention of the Chinese secret society.

The two reports were unable to pinpoint where the initial riot took place and where did it escalates to. Mr Mohamed and Madam Laily were able to mention areas that were greatly affected by the riots. Places like Tai Sheng, Telok Blangah, Jalan Kayu, Paya Lebar, Orchard Road and North Bridge Road were mentioned by them as hostile areas. Apparently, their accounts could not be backed up by the abovementioned written accounts. Inversely, the written accounts were not supported by Mr Mohamed and Madam Laily.

When asked why they did not mention Geylang as a hostile area, Madam Laily answered because there was lot of Malays staying there. And to attack such an area was almost suicidal for the Chinese. She mentioned further that the Chinese attacks on Malays were not random in nature however the victims were. Even though her answer was logical, the written report by Leifer contradicts it. I am facing a dubious interviewer. However, I was more interested in her account rather than challenging her spoken facts.

The Attacks

As Madam Laily mentioned, the attacks were not random. She claimed to witness a group of angry Chinese mobs being transported from place to place in lorries. They were armed with parangs and spears. Again, my references failed to support Madam Laily’s claim. To cause further confusion, my references did not mention of the manner of these attacks being carried out. However, my initial aim to interview both Mr Mohamed and Madam Laily was to see the perspective of the kampong people rather than to do factual comparisons.

Mr Mohamed told me that these Chinese gangsters tend to move in large groups, usually in lorries and randomly attacked Malays who either was alone or in smaller numbers. In some sense, the mob chose their victims.

Madam Laily’s brother was attacked in such manner. He was walking back from work along Jalan Kayu when a group of armed Chinese men chased him. They were armed with parangs, spear and other weapons. He ran and went into a kampong. The mob gave chase. The village leader or Imam, allowed him to seek refuge in his house. Unfortunately, the mob attacked the Imam’s house and at the midst of the turmoil, the Imam was impaled by a spear. And as quick as they came, the mob ran away, leaving the Imam to die in front of Madam Laily’s brother. Her brother was so traumatize with such an experience that he felt ill for a month.

Another crucial point that both Mr Mohamed and Madam Laily made in the interview was that these attacks were not local, meaning that the attackers were not from their neighbouring kampongs. This claim could suggest why the Chinese mobs travelled in lorries. The couple also emphasized that the Chinese in their neighbour did not show any form of retaliation in spite of the ethnic clashes that were happening.

The Curfew

In response to the increasing racial clashes, a national curfew was imposed. Police and troops were deployed and patrols were made.

Madam Laily did not mention of this, rather she snubbed the capability of police force. She accused of the police being incompetence and ill prepared. The police and troop patrols did not stopped the riots because the areas that were patrolled were either places of economic importance such as Orchard Road or the hostile places. The kampongs were ignored by the authorities.

Madam Laily kampong formed their own form of security as the result. The men of the kampong patrolled their own premises with basic weaponry, such as sticks and parangs. They too had firearms in form of slingshots. More significantly, the neighbouring Chinese offered to cooperate in the security of the two kampongs.

Madam Laily and Mr Mohamed mentioned of the intervention of the Malays from Johor. The Malays from Johor came over to aid the local Malays in terms of security. They offered protection for the locals. Apparently, this particular point was omitted in my references.

Living through the curfew was rather hard for Madam Laily’s family. The family was unable to purchase their food supplies due to the sudden curfew. The family had to ‘disguise’ as Chinese in order to do the provision. Mr Mohamed’s family was more fortunate. The family was living in a predominantly Chinese Penakan. His Chinese neighbours often help his family to get supplies.

The Culprits

This is the critical part in this assignment. There were a number of accusations from political agendas to racial differences.

According to Singapore Year Book 1964, the blame was aimed towards UMNO and their leaders. Tengku Abdul Rahman once said, “I have always asked that leaders to control in what they said to avoid any quarrel… some of them have been careless in the speeches leading to the incidents (the riots) “. Again, the fact that the racial riots took place after historic merger rose suspicion of political agendas being the cause. The year book also mentions “it was the result of taking the political risk of agitating communal grievances, and, once violence started, the thugs and hooligans in each communities took over”. Again, this suggests politics being involved in the riots.

Michael Leifer mentions of “surface harmony” between the Chinese and the Malays being a cause for the intensified racial clash. He sees the clash as settling “a certain old scores” between the two races.

Madam Laily and her husband also see the riots being part of the political game between Singapore and Malaysia. I was shocked when they mentioned the riot was planned by our current Mentor Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew who was then the Prime Minister. Madam Laily’s grandfather was an UMNO member and active in politics during the 1960s. He was the one who gave this accusation. When asked if this accusation was just a “coffee shop talk” shared among her family, Madam Laily answered no. In fact, most Malays knew of such accusations, So, that was when I found out of the anti-Lee Kuan Yew sentiments among the Malays. Suddenly, the term “surface harmony” by Leifer starts to make more sense.

Writer’s conclusion

Requiring historic facts is more demanding than reading one. The line between the truth and the fiction becomes thinner and finer. Historical resources have shown differed speculations on major events like the 1964 riots. This drives more capacities for further discrepancies in the oral history records. Official records such as the Singapore Year Book omitted key information. Is it on purpose as to protect its sensitive nature? We could not know. Should we believe what was written? Madam Laily and Mr Mohamed accounts gave more depth than my references. But still, there is always a human tendency to be discriminating towards the facts. The truth can be exaggerated such that it becomes a white lie. However, humans are curious animals. I am just grateful to meet Madam Laily and Mr Mohamed whose lessons in life prove to be valuable to me.

Reference:

Leifer M. (1964). Communal Violence in Singapore. Select Books: Singapore

The Government Publications Bureau. (1966) Singapore Year Book 1964. The Government Printing Office: Singapore

The Government Publications Bureau. (1969) Singapore Year Book 1965. The Government Printing Office: Singapore

Profile of interviewers: Madam Laily binte Mahat

: Mr Mohamed bin Hashim

Nationality: Singaporeans

Occupation in 1964: Students

Language spoken in the interview: Malay

Duration of interview: 3 hours

Venue: Mr Mohamed and Madam Laily’s residence

TRANSCRIPT FOR THE ORAL INTERVIEW PROJECT

Q: Are you involved in the 1964 riot?

(Mr Mohamed): I was only twelve at that time, how am I going to get involved? Ha, ha.

Q: What I meant was how are you affected by the riot?

Mr Mohamed: During that time, my family was living in a kampong which was dominantly Chinese. We knew each other for a long time. The riots did not affect us much because of the rapport we established with each other over the years. The kampongs were usually the safe places. Unlike Paya Lebar where fights tend to happen. Also Tai Sheng, that was the danger zone.

Q: Where did you live at that time?

Mr Mohamed: I lived at Serangoon, Batu Lima. My wife lived at Batu Enam. Now the area is called Hougang.

Q: When the initial riot broke out on July 21, 1964, where were you?

Madam Laily: I remember that it was on a Sunday when the fight happened. I was with my family then. We only knew of the riot the next day when we returned to school. The curfew only started after a few days. If there was a fight at other places like Orchard Road, we would be held back in school and were not allowed to return home. The school feared that the riot would escalate to our neighbourhood. Furthermore I was from a Malay school and our uniform was the baju kurung (Malay traditional dress). It would be easy for the mob to recognise us.

Q: Do you agree how reports saying that the Malays were the ones who initiate the 1964 riot?

Mr Mohamed: The local Malays did not get involved. The ones were involved were the Malays from Johor. They came down to Singapore not to make the situation worse but to offer help and protection for the local Malays. We, the locals, knew that we were not the ones causing trouble because we have been living in peace among the Chinese over the years. There is no need for riots.