The Ethnic Riots of July 1964. MALAYSIA

Source E also shows that UMNO believed the trouble was caused because Malays in Singapore had been treated badly and that they “had felt neglected”. Worse still, the “Malays in Singapore” had apparently been “driven out of their homes which they had owned”. Source E claims that this is the basis for the ethnic disharmony which later blew out of proportion and led to the outbreak of ethnic riots. The ethnic riots was not a result of UMNO’s planning and organizing merely to create trouble, but was a result of the conflict which already existed between the races. However, as this speech was given in 1964-the year of the riots itself, by the leader of the Malays- Tunku Abdul Rahman it could have been to instigate others to agree with his views and to seek support in his stand that UMNO was not responsible for the riots.

However, from another point of view, UMNO may actually have a part to play in being responsible for the outbreak of ethnic riots. In Source B, Lee Kuan Yew claims that “all the indications show that there had been organization and planning behind the outbreak to turn it into an ugly communal clash.” He is implying that it is indeed UMNO who had been responsible for the outbreak of ethnic riots by claiming that the ethnic riots were organized and planned, as he could not be declaring that it was his own party, the Singapore government was the party that had planned and organized this “ugly” outbreak. This source was extracted from Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs, which was published in 1998- years after the ethnic riots, and was written as a reflection of the circumstances then. Furthermore, it is unlikely that he wrote this for any ulterior motives because he objectively stated that even during the times of the riot, he had felt that “what or who started [the] situation was irrelevant” and that the most important “business” was to “stop [the] stupidity.”

Source C also appears to indicate that people in Kuala Lumpur who were associated with Utasan Melayu had prior knowledge “that the riots were going to happen”, thus implying that indeed UMNO was responsible for the 1964 ethnic riots, as UMNO was linked and associated with that particular newspaper. Furthermore, it was also reaffirmed in Source D that indeed, Utasan Melayu was the “mouth piece” for UMNO, which comes across in a sort of disapproving and embittered tone. However, we cannot be sure that Othman Wok was telling the truth as it seems unlikely and illogical that an UMNO supporter would be willing to admit to their opposing party- PAP’s minister that they were the ones responsible for the ethnic riots and chaos in 1964. It sounds like mere bragging.

In Source D, it clearly suggests that UMNO was indeed ultimately responsible for causing the riots as it claims that the riots were because UMNO had allowed a propaganda campaign against the Singapore Government to be run by Utusan Melayu, which in turn whipped up communal tension. In this source, the British clearly believe that extremists’ members in the UMNO had no reason to make this up, and indeed we can see from Source E that even the moderate UMNO leaders like the Tunku resented the role that the PAP was seeking in Malaysian politics, which backs up the analysis that the British came up with.

After looking at all the sources as a whole, I can conclude that it is impossible to derive at a conclusion of whether or not UMNO was indeed responsible because, as stated by Source A, the matter is still controversial- there are many versions of the incident, and no evidence to prove that any one of them are true, or more true than another. There is no conclusive evidence either way. Furthermore, the issue of blame is bound to involve subjective perceptions and interpretations of what were complex and complicated events which situations cannot be proven, then and now. Even if the riots were planned, an UMNO supporter could still argue that the root cause of the riots was not the planning but essentially the feelings of resentments amongst the Malay community in Singapore and the conflicts between the two parties that already existed which was the first and most prevailing trigger of the ethnic riots. Thus, I would say that a satisfactory explanation of whom or what was responsible would then have to allow for all these different perceptions of the evidence. Thus I feel that it is impossible to factually claim that UMNO was or was not responsible for the ethnic riots as everyone would have their different perspectives and opinions on the situation.