| 1964 race riots in Singapore | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part of theIndonesia–Malaysia Confrontation | ||||
 The Straits Times on 22 July 1964, reporting on the riots the day earlier and the imposition of a curfew | ||||
| Date | 21 July 1964; 61 years ago (1964-07-21) 3 September 1964; 61 years ago (1964-09-03) | |||
| Location | ||||
| Caused by | Political and religious tensions between ethnic Chinese and Malay groups | |||
| Methods | Widespread rioting, looting, assault, arson, protests, property damage, murder | |||
| Resulted in |
| |||
| Parties | ||||
| ||||
| Lead figures | ||||
No centralised leadership Yusof Ishak | ||||
| Casualties and arrests | ||||
| Deaths | 23 (July riots) 13 (September riots)[1] | |||
| Injuries | 454 (July riots) 106 (September riots)[1] | |||
| Arrested | 3,568 (July riots) 1,439 (September riots)[1] | |||
| Detained | 945 (July riots) 268 (September riots)[1] | |||
| Charged | 715 (July riots) 154 (September riots)[1] | |||
Part ofa series on the | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| History ofSingapore | ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Early history (pre-1819)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
British colonial era (1819–1942)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Japanese Occupation (1942–1945)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Post-war period (1945–1962)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Internal self-government (1955–1963) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger with Malaysia (1963–1965) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Republic of Singapore (1965–present)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 Singapore portal | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The1964 race riots in Singapore were a series of communaldisturbances andracial conflicts between theMalay andChinese communities inSingapore. They occurred just months after Singapore'smerger with Malaysia on 16 September 1963 and were regarded as the most serious and prolonged racial violence in the nation's postwar history.[1] Although 1964 was marked by general racial tension, the term specifically refers to two major outbreaks on 21 July and 2 September, particularly the former, which was more severe and resulted in 23 deaths and 454 injuries.[2]
The riots had significant political consequences and raised concerns about Malaysia's racial stability following Singapore's inclusion. Around this period,secret negotiations were initiated between the Malaysian federal government and the Singaporean state government on the possibility of separation. The events were later regarded as pivotal in leading to theindependence of Singapore in 1965, shaping its national policies ofmultiracialism andmulticulturalism. It also provided continued justification for laws such as theInternal Security Act (ISA) to monitor and curb potential incitement of racial or religious hostility.[3]
In 1997,Racial Harmony Day was established to encourage racial and ethnic harmony amongSingaporeans, especially through schools and grassroots organisations. It is observed on 21 July, marking the anniversary of the most severe riot in 1964.
On 16 September 1963, Singapore merged with Malaysia to form a single federation that was motivated by economic and security considerations. The move was intended to counter the spread ofcommunism inSoutheast Asia and to give Singapore access toMalaya's natural resources and domestic market. In addition, Singapore had gained full internal self-government following the1959 Singaporean general election, although theUnited Kingdom continued to manage its external affairs. The proposed merger was therefore seen as a path for Singapore to achieve complete independence from British control. Meanwhile, theFederation of Malaya had already attained full sovereignty from Britain on 31 August 1957 through theMalayan Declaration of Independence.[4]
Malaya'sPrime Minister at the time,Tunku Abdul Rahman, had initially rejectedPrime Minister of SingaporeLee Kuan Yew's proposal for merger, fearing that it would strengthen the communist movement backed by theMalayan Communist Party (MCP) and that the majorityethnic Chinese in Singapore would upset Malaya's racial balance, reducing the Malay population further. At that time, the Malay population in Malaya stood at around 45%.[5] TheMalayan Chinese, who are ethnic Chinese living in Malaya rather than in Singapore, had already made up a significant portion of its population prior to the merger. They remain an important community today, although their proportion of the total population in modern-day Malaysia hasgradually declined since the 1960s.[6]
Tunku eventually changed his stance and became supportive of a merger with Singapore after the anti-communist Singaporean leaderOng Eng Guan who was previously expelled from thePeople's Action Party (PAP) went on to win a by-election as an independent in1961. This convinced him that the communists did not hold decisive influence or broad support among the Singaporean Chinese. The Malayan government, however, remained concerned about the PAP's stability, fearing that its collapse could create apower vacuum that the communists might exploit by using Singapore as a base to spread their ideology into Malaya.[7] Furthermore, maintaining a Malay or indigenous majority after a merger was made possible through the inclusion of the former British territories ofSabah andSarawak in the federation, even though the native populations there were not ethnically Malay. Together, the Malays and the indigenous peoples ofEast Malaysia came to be collectively referred to as theBumiputera in modern-day Malaysia.[8]
The PAP, Singapore's ruling political party, and theAlliance Party, Malaysia's governing coalition led by UMNO, held sharply contrasting political ideologies. UnderLee Kuan Yew, the PAP advocated a non-communal approach that emphasised equality for all citizens regardless of race or religion. In contrast, UMNO, led byTunku Abdul Rahman, promoted policies granting special rights and privileges to theBumiputeras, regarded as "indigenous" to Malaysia. This was presented as a form ofaffirmative action for the majority to address the economic disparity faced by Malays compared to the more affluent minority ethnic Chinese population, one that had its roots in thedivide and rule practices of theBritish colonial administration. To maintain stability, a tacit agreement was reached in which Tunku assured Lee that the Alliance would stay out of Singapore's domestic politics as long as the PAP restricted its political activities to the island.[9][10]
Despite this prior understanding, the Singapore branch ofUMNO contested the island's1963 state general election, standing in three constituencies with large Malay electorates.[11] Meanwhile, theSingapore Alliance Party, supported by its federal counterpart, also fielded 42 candidates in the election. However, the coalition failed to win a single seat and received limited support from the localMalay Singaporean community.[5][12] Conversely, the PAP secured 37 out of 51 seats, a result that further strained relations between the two.[13]
Lee intensified his call for a "Malaysian Malaysia" and sought to transform the PAP into a political party representing the whole of Malaysia rather than only Singapore.[14] After the breakdown of the political truce, the PAP fielded nine candidates in the1964 federal general election on 25 April and won a single seat atBangsar inSelangor, which UMNO leaders viewed as an intrusion into Malaysia's political arena and a personal humiliation for the Tunku.[13][15] Lee's vision of a Malaysian Malaysia was met with suspicion and hostility by UMNO as they saw it as a challenge toMalay political dominance.[16] In retaliation, UMNO and its allies escalated an anti-PAP propaganda campaign through newspapers and political rallies to weaken the party's influence and win support from the Malay Singaporean community, deepening tensions that would later culminate to these communal riots.
The first major riot of 1964 took place at thePadang on 21 July during aMawlid procession celebrating the birthday of the Islamic prophetMuhammad. Around 20,000 people, mostlyMuslims, had gathered for prayers and religious observances, though the event also featured a series of fiery and provocative speeches by the organisers. During the procession, a glass bottle was thrown into the crowd and struck a participant on the head, triggering violent clashes between members of the crowd and nearby bystanders, many of whom were Chinese or non-Muslim. The unrest quickly spread to other areas, escalating as more objects were thrown and fights broke out. In response, the entirelocal police force was activated alongside theMalaysian Infantry Regiment (MIR), withtear gas deployed to disperse rioters and an island-wide curfew imposed. Multiple accounts exist regarding the incident and the exact circumstances that led to the outbreak of violence remain disputed.[17][18]
The official state narrative regarding the cause of the riots of 21 July attributes a significant instigating role to UMNO and the Malay-language newspaperUtusan Melayu, which was under UMNO's influence. According to this view, both the party and the newspaper fuelled anti-PAP sentiment among the local Malay population through inflammatory headlines and repeated criticisms of the PAP. Founded in 1939 byYusof Ishak,Utusan Melayu was originally a more moderate publication, describing its mission as one to "fight for religion, race and its homeland," with particular emphasis on defending Malay rights and status.[19] However, after the 1959 election that brought the PAP to power in Singapore, the newspaper increasingly adopted a confrontational tone, including portraying the state government's eviction of Malay residents from theCrawford area for urban redevelopment as discrimination against Malays.[5] It failed to report, however, that Chinese and other non-Malay residents were also relocated as part of the same redevelopment programme.[13]
To address Malay grievances,Lee Kuan Yew convened a public meeting with various Malay organisations on 19 July at theVictoria Theatre and Concert Hall.[20] UMNO was angered at being excluded from this meeting. During the discussion, Lee assured the local Malays that they would be given opportunities in education, employment and skills training to help them compete effectively with the non-Malays in Singapore.[21] However, he declined to promise the granting of "special rights for the Malays". While this meeting satisfied some Malay community leaders, it also provoked discontent among more hardline and right-wing factions who felt that Malay concerns were not being sufficiently addressed.[5][22] The Singapore Malayan National Committee remained unconvinced of Lee's assurances. In an effort to rally Malay opposition against the PAP government, leaflets spreading false rumours that the Chinese were planning to "kill" Malays were circulated across the island on 20 July. The dissemination of such misinformation continued during theMawlid procession, contributing to the outbreak of the riots.
In retaliation and to further inflame tensions between the Malays and the PAP, UMNO organised its own meeting attended by around 12,000 people. The event was chaired by UMNO Secretary-GeneralSyed Jaafar Albar, who referred to Lee as an "Ikan Sepat" (three spot gourami), a mud-dwelling fish, and called forcollective action against the local Chinese allegedly led by the PAP.[23] While this meeting was underway, racial tensions were already at a breaking point in Malaysia. Communal violence had broken out inBukit Mertajam inPenang, resulting in two deaths. This incident was regarded as a precursor to the larger riots that broke out on 21 July in Singapore.[5]
Othman Wok wrote in his autobiography that a reporter from theUtusan Melayu had told him about the potential riots even before they occurred, which led to official suspicions that UMNO leaders might have been involved in orchestrating the unrest.[24] Othman also recounted several key political meetings held between Malay community representatives and Singaporean politicians to convey their concerns. Accounts from these meetings suggested that the Malays in Singapore had no significant grievances, and that Syed Jaafar was responsible for instigating unrest. The issues raised by the Malay community mainly concerned infrastructural problems in Malay schools, which contradicted the claims made by UMNO and theUtusan Melayu.[24]
UMNO and the Malaysian federal government blamed Indonesian forces for stirring up potential conflict among the Malay Kampong regions.[25] This was denied by W. A. Luscombe, the second secretary of the Australian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, due to a lack of evidence.[7]
From the Malaysian government's point of view, Lee Kuan Yew and PAP were responsible for instigating the riots and discontent among the Malay community in Singapore. UMNO and Tun Razak attributed the Malays' anger and hostility towards the Chinese to Lee Kuan Yew's speech on 30 June 1964, which they described as spreading inflammatory remarks about UMNO's communal politics.[7] However, the American Embassy refuted these claims by stating thatUtusan Melayu could have misquoted Lee's speech.[25]
On the other hand, PAP and Lee Kuan Yew strongly believed that the 1964 July riot was not a spontaneous one, as UNMO had always tried to stir anti-PAP sentiments and communal politics among the Singapore Malays. Furthermore, they had often used fiery speeches andUtusan Melayu as a tool to propagate pro-Malay sentiments and to sway their support towards UMNO.
On the afternoon of 21 July 1964, about 20,000 Malays representing the differentMuslim organisations in Singapore had gathered for the procession to begin to mark the birthday celebrations of prophet Muhammad. The procession started atPadang and was planned to end at the Jamiyah Headquarters located at Lorong 12,Geylang area.[17] The UMNO narrative of the July 1964 Racial riot on public forums and history textbooks is simplified and remembered as a riot that involved 20,000 Chinese throwing bottles and rocks at the Malays at the Padang. In reality, some scholars[19][13][25] argue that the bottles and rocks being overthrown[clarification needed] and clash with a Malay policeman who tried to restrain the Malays were not the reasons for the cause of the riots. But rather, part of the reasons could be also attributed to the distribution ofleaflets to the Malay community before the start of the procession by a group namedPertobohan Perjuangan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapore.[25]
The leaflets instigated anti-Chinese and anti-PAP sentiments among the Malays as it called for a greater union of the Malays to oppose and wipe out the Chinese as they were believed to be starting a ploy to kill the Malays.[19] SUMO's (Singapore Malay National Organisation) Secretary-GeneralSyed Esa Almenoar had given a fiery speech on the need for the Malay community to fight for their rights instead of giving a religious and non-political speech.[24] This further heightened the suspicions that the Malays had toward the PAP and the Chinese community. The procession was being led byYang di-Pertuan Negara,Yusof bin Ishak and other PAP political leaders such as Othman Wok.[24] The procession went alongArab Street, Kallang and Geylang areas. The riots occurred around 5 p.m., where a few Malay youths were seen to be hitting a Chinese cyclist alongVictoria Street, which was intervened against by a Chinese constable.[25] Othman recounted in his autobiography that while he and his team were along Lorong 14, a group of youths believed to be from UMNO shouted "strike the Chinese" and these youths were seen to be marching in front of Wok's contingent. The riots which occurred around Victoria and Geylang had spread to other parts of Singapore such as Palmer Road and Madras Street.[24][25] The police force, military, and theGurkha Contingent were activated to curb the violence and at 9.30 p.m., acurfew was imposed whereby everyone was ordered to stay at home.[18]
The riot saw serious damages to the private properties, loss of lives, and injuries sustained by the citizens. According to the reports from the police force, a total of 220 incidents were recorded with 4 people being killed and 178 being injured.[17] Furthermore, close to 20 shophouses owned by the Chinese around the Geylang andJalan Eunos regions were burnt down.[25] The curfew was lifted at 6 a.m. on 22 July 1964. Clashes and tensions between the Malays and Chinese re-arose, so the curfew was re-imposed at 11.30 a.m.[18]
Political leaders of both Malaysia and Singapore, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew, each led national radio broadcasts and emphasised the need to maintain peace and harmony among the different racial and religious groups. Both appealed to the people to remain indoors and not participate in any unlawful acts.[19]
The racial riots subsided by 24 July 1964, as the number of communal clashes reported was reduced to seven cases. On 2 August, the imposition of the curfew since 21 July was completely lifted and the high police and military supervision removed.[25]
After the July riots, a period of peace was broken by another riot on 2 September 1964. This riot was triggered by the murder of a Malaytrishaw rider alongGeylang Serai and this incident sparked attempts ofstabbings and heightened violence. 13 people were killed, 106 sustained injuries while 1,439 were arrested.[25]
Indonesia was accused of encouraging communal strife to coincide with the landing of the Indonesian commandos in Johor Bahru.[26] This accusation was found to be highly improbable by the American Ambassador to Singapore, who cited the tense situation following the July riots as the cause of the September riot.[13]
Following the July riots, the Singapore government requested that the Malaysian federal government appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the causes of the riots,[27] but this was declined by the Malaysian government.[28] Following the September riots, the Malaysian government finally agreed to form such a commission,[29] with closed-door hearings beginning in April 1965; however the findings of the report have remained confidential.[30]
According to Lee Kuan Yew, there were irreconcilable differences between the two from the outset, due to the UMNO's communal politics. The racial riots in July 1964 triggered and intensified the political rift between PAP and UMNO. Communal politics was often the central theme of Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's speeches, and he often pointed the finger at the PAP leaders and Lee Kuan Yew for interfering in his political party's decisions and for contesting Malaya's federal elections advocating for a non-communal politics. Furthermore, Tunku Abdul Rahman's encouragement of racial tension and anti-PAP sentiments among Singaporean Malays made it difficult for the PAP to work with UMNO to forge good relations. Thus, these ideological differences in party politics and the outbreaks of the racial riots in 1964 were some of the important contributing factors which led to the eventual separation of Singapore from Malaysia, paving the way for Singapore's independence in June 1965. Singapore was finally declared an independent and sovereign state on 9 August 1965.[5]
The narration of the 1964 race riots often includes the political dimension where UMNO and PAP had a political rift. This narration does not examine how the Singaporeans who had lived through this period of time had viewed these racial riots. Thus, Cheng attempted to revive the memories of the people who had lived through the racial riots, and most of them associated the racial riots as more of religious tension as it took place during Muhammad's birthday procession. Some of the Singaporeans felt that this riot had not much of a significant impact on them since they were living in regions far from Geylang and they did not view this riot as being serious.[2] Contrary to the official discourse which cites Syed Jaafar Albar as the culprit instigating the riots, most of the Malays saw the throwing of a bottle by a Chinese causing the riots while the Chinese saw the Malay's aggressive actions towards their racial group as the main factor for the outbreak of the riot. Most of them did not believe that this riot was due to political incompatibility between PAP and UMNO but rather they viewed this as a mere religious and racial clash.[2]
The July 1964 racial riots played a significant role in shaping some of Singapore's fundamental principles such as multiculturalism and multiracialism once it had gained independence from Malaysia in 1965. TheSingapore Constitution emphasised the need to adopt non-discriminatory policies based on race or religion.[31] Furthermore, the state also guaranteed the grant of minority rights and to ensure that the minorities in Singapore are not mistreated, the Maintenance of the Religious Harmony Act was drafted and implemented in 1990. Furthermore, the Presidential Council for the Minority Rights (PCMR) was established in 1970 to ensure that the bills passed by the parliament are not discriminatory against any racial group.[2] The government has used the recollection of the 1964 race riots to frame the national narrative of "rising from the ashes of violence-producing racial and religious acrimony to religious harmony and civil peace".[31] For instance, former Prime Minister Goh had implemented a new curriculum known as National Education to foster social and national cohesiveness among Singaporeans. In this national education programme, students were taught about the 1964 racial riots to educate the younger generation about the detrimental implications of the racial tension to the cohesiveness of a nation. Furthermore, commemorative days such as racial harmony day was also introduced in 1997 to foster greater cultural appreciation and to enable students to inculcate values such as respect. Every year on 21 July, schools commemorate the racial riots to emphasise the need for tolerance among each other.[2] During this commemoration day, schools recall the racial riots that occurred, but the emphasis on the events are focused on the tension between the Malays and the Chinese rather than on the political and ideological differences between UMNO and PAP.
TheInternal Security Act grants the executive powers against actions that may threaten the internal security of Singapore, including those that "promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or other classes of the population likely to cause violence".
| Kuala Lumpur |
|
|---|---|
| Perak | |
| Penang | |
| Sarawak | |
| Sabah | |
| Other |
|
_(cropped).jpg)
