How to deal with ‘another May 13’ threat

 

From Kua Kia Soong

After the racially divisive GE15, police have cautioned social media users to refrain from posting “provocative” content on race and religion.

The police warning comes as race-based narratives have dominated social media during and after the election, according to an online hate speech monitoring project run by the Centre for Independent Journalism.

As usual in such “political crises” in Malaysia, the “racial riots” of May 13, 1969, have again been bandied about.

As the author of “May 13: Declassified documents on the Malaysian riots of 1969”, allow me to dispel some myths about the May 13 incident and to give some pointers as to how our country can deal with such threats if we are serious about nipping the problem in the bud.

I believe our existing institutions need to be bolstered and a new law and commission installed.

First, the main thesis of my book, which relied on the declassified documents in the British archives, was that the May 13 incident was certainly not a spontaneous outbreak of violence between ordinary Malaysians in the street, but it was a coup d’etat against the Tunku’s government and it was premeditated and planned.

The documents also bring into question the performance by the forces of law and order in the country which finally brought order only in July 1969.

What are the lessons of the May 13 incident and how can we best deal with this periodically resurrected threat?

1. The security forces must play their professional role

By 1969, our security forces had already been well tried and tested during the war against the communist insurgency between 1948 and 1960. In fact, the Special Branch and security forces had earned a reputation of being one of the best in the developing world. Even the Americans came for advice from our Special Branch during the Vietnam War in the 1960s.

Thus, it is apparent that if there had been no connivance between the security forces and the perpetrators of the 1969 coup, the thugs who carried out the racial slaughter could have been stopped and apprehended forthwith.

In one of the last incidents in early July 1969, the police acted in a way they had been expected to do so when the troubles had first broken out in May:

“Renewed trouble in which one policeman was killed was quickly stopped from spreading in KL last night by the kind of positive police action many observers expected but failed to see on May 13 and 14. Today, with the curfew continuing in the area, riot police carried out further such sweeps. Twenty more arrests were made, and helicopters patrolled over Chow Kit and the nearby Malay area of Kg Baru. Sweeps such as these have been a long-standing feature of police activity in Penang and Singapore. Reliable observers point out that had such sweeps been carried out before, the situation might have improved much earlier. Apart from a couple of minor fires, there was no other activity or violence last night. But the situation remains tense and the killing of the policeman scarcely dampens communal emotions.”

2. We need an ethnically balanced rapid deployment force

When the May 13 incident broke out, there were a few racially motivated incidents in Singapore as soon as news spread of the riots in Kuala Lumpur, but the government there managed to control the situation:

“As soon as the rioting began in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore’s police went on to full alert. They have remained in this condition ever since and are now receiving additional help from a partial mobilisation of the army. A few incidents broke out immediately following the outbreak of violence in Kuala Lumpur which could have been racially motivated, including the shooting to death of a Malay motorcyclist by a Chinese gang. But the real clashes began on May 31.

“Despite the still widespread rumours, the government managed to prevent a riot all last week. Well-publicised surprise police sweeps netted several potential troublemakers. These included an undetermined number of Chinese and Malays from Malaysia who could give no satisfactory explanation for their presence. Some had entered Singapore illegally, and some were found with weapons. Only four officially confirmed deaths plus a containment of violent incidents is, for many independent observers, dramatic proof that the Singapore government’s policies have been, so far at least, effective in preventing a duplication of the tragedy at Kuala Lumpur.

“Most important, Singapore security forces, which appear to have a fair balance among Chinese, Indian, Malay, and Eurasian officers and enlisted men, seem to have convinced Singaporeans that the law will be enforced impartially without regard to racial origin. Although some Malay families took refuge at the RAF’s Seletar Base (to the discomfiture of the British who wished to be compassionate to their local employees without being accused of taking sides), no evidence exists that Singapore’s Malay citizens doubt the determination of their government to protect them from Chinese vengeance coming from any quarter. On a single day, (the) government announced that it had arrested 53 Chinese and 38 Malays – to make this point very clear. ‘This government undoubtedly will hang the Chinese responsible for the murder of the Malays here,’ said a diplomat. ‘It won’t be easy for them, but they’ll do it to establish their absolute impartiality on racial questions.’“(Far Eastern Economic Review, June 1969)

As in the Kampung Medan incident in 2001, the police were perceived to have acted sluggishly during the first three days. Therefore, we believe only a special ethnically balanced rapid deployment force will be suitable for handling any conflicts that involve racial dimensions.

3. Dealing with hate speech – an Equality Act

To deal with the hate speech presented by desperate politicians and their hatchet men, we could benefit from enacting a Race Relations Act modelled on that in the UK (RRA) 1976 which has now been superseded by the new Equality Act 2010.

This legislation was brought in line with European Human Rights legislation and to extend protection to other groups not previously covered, namely, to cover age, disability, gender, religion, belief, and sexual orientation.

There is certainly no softening on racism, racial discrimination, and related intolerances with the introduction of the new Equality Act. This law regards it to be direct discrimination when “someone is treated less favourably than another person because of a protected characteristic”. Under the Act, “incitement to racial hatred” is a criminal offence. The British Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 made publication of materials that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.

The UK Public Order Act 1986 defines racial hatred as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic origins”. Section 21 of the Act makes “incitement to racial hatred” an offence to publish or distribute material which is threatening or abusive or insulting if intended to stir up racial hatred …”

Hate crimes are criminal acts committed as intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder, or such other criminal offence. They are a type of crime in which the perpetrator is sending a message to the victim and their right to belong to that society.

Hate crimes violate the principle of equality between people and deny their right to achieve full human dignity and to realise their full potential. The impact of hate crimes on the greater community cannot be emphasised enough – the social acceptance of discrimination against groups in society is an important factor in causing hate crimes to increase.

Clearly, far right racial supremacists who rail about the dominance of their “race” should be reined in by an Equality & Human Rights Commission and dealt with under an Equality Act. When racial incidents do happen, such as the May 13 incident and the Kampung Medan Incident, the culprits responsible should be swiftly apprehended and charged with murder.

Our Human Rights Commission should extend its jurisdiction to incorporate an Equality Commission. Its work would be to encourage greater integration and better ethnic relations and to use legal powers to help eradicate racial discrimination and harassment.

Thus, its ambit would cover racist stereotyping in textbooks and the press, racial discrimination in the public sphere, employment, education, social services and advertisements.

The commission should be empowered to issue codes of practice and invested with powers to conduct formal investigations and to serve notices to furnish information or documents to enforce the law.

Finally, for a “unity government” to convince Malaysians that it is genuinely keen to institute reforms for better ethnic relations and equality, it is high time our country initiate moves to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). It is the onus of this government to convince Malaysians that we all benefit from a celebration of ethnic and cultural diversity. - FMT

Human rights defender Kua Kia Soong is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.