• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Red Card on race issues at Speakers' Corner

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Ah just found it under the misc section:smile:
Speakers' Corner red card

'I felt that the issue had to be addressed.'


MR K. SABESAN: 'I wish to express my strong displeasure over the decision of the police to cancel a planned talk at the Speakers' Corner over the absence of Tamil signages at the airport and other tourist attractions, last Friday, 'Red card on race issues at Speakers' Corner'. I was one of those who received the SMS last Thursday night. I strongly supported the initiative not out of hatred towards other races, but felt that the issue had to be addressed.''
 

one2unite

Alfrescian
Loyal

Sorry, where is the article? Can you please reproduce it here?

By the way, the Maria Hertogh incident happened in 1950 when Singapore was still a British colony where the colonialist class rode supreme. The Maria Hertogh issue turned into an anti-colonial uprising. Had it been a religious issue, the mobs would have attacked christian churches and Chinese and Indian Christians. None of these happened.

So, the Maria Hertogh incident was neither race nor religious riots. It was an anti-British, colonial uprising in the British colony of Singapore.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear One

Ahhh the silly position as alluded to that SDP writer ex TCS reporter guy. I believe Porifiro and I have found that position untenable and a totally biased reading of history.

1. The riots only erupted after the result was announced.
2. The case was abt Muslim's and about a Muslim Girl and her actual status. Red Line issues even today. Note the controversy in Malaysia over conversion.

3. The rioters were unhappy over the results of the case as heard by a western colonial court. They felt that the verdict was unfair, the courts were unfair , etc government was unfair but the bottom line is the verdict in religious and racial terms was to them unfair and they felt aggrieved.

4. Put it simply if the courts verdict had gone the way of the Muslims, there would have been no Maria riots. For that silly anti colonial thing to be true, they would have had to be anti colonial for issues apart from Maria and even if the Maria case had gone their way.




Locke
 
A

Alu862

Guest
Sorry, where is the article? Can you please reproduce it here?

By the way, the Maria Hertogh incident happened in 1950 when Singapore was still a British colony where the colonialist class rode supreme. The Maria Hertogh issue turned into an anti-colonial uprising. Had it been a religious issue, the mobs would have attacked christian churches and Chinese and Indian Christians. None of these happened.

So, the Maria Hertogh incident was neither race nor religious riots. It was an anti-British, colonial uprising in the British colony of Singapore.

You have to buy the article or use uni access. What proof do you have that there was a anti colonial revolt? The Malays were treated a important class by the brits.
 

one2unite

Alfrescian
Loyal
You have to buy the article or use uni access. What proof do you have that there was a anti colonial revolt? The Malays were treated a important class by the brits.

Since you've said that the "article proves it was also a religious issue". I presume you've read it. Could you kindly post it here?

It was an anti-colonial uprising for the "victims" were all members of the colonial class. No churches and no Chinese and Indian Christians were targeted.

The minority aristocratic Malay ruling class received different treatment than the majority ordinary Malays who were no different from ordinary Chinese, Indians and others.
 
Last edited:
A

Alu862

Guest
Since you've said that the "article proves it was also a religious issue". I presume you've read it. Could you kindly post it here?

It was an anti-colonial uprising for the "victims" were all members of the colonial class. No churches and no Chinese and Indian Christians were targeted.

The minority aristocratic Malay ruling class received different treatment than the majority ordinary Malays.

Dutch people were not the colonial class even though they were white. Racial riots doesn't mean you have to destroy churches. it was a protest against ruling so much similar to other protest against rulings.

Malays were always treated different by the British and thne you know who
 

one2unite

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dutch people were not the colonial class even though they were white. Racial riots doesn't mean you have to destroy churches. it was a protest against ruling so much similar to other protest against rulings.

Malays were always treated different by the British and thne you know who

I'm wondering whether the exchange here is level-headed. Sorry, for the conclusion. Good night!
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes agree with you in the main. Tragic personal case for Maria/Nadra. Ghandi Ambalan appears to be disingenuous on this one taking liberties with history to wack PAPs. In any event what is his beef, has the PAP govt used the ISA on him, Dr Chee or any other political dissident following the purported Marxist Conspiracy affair in 87'?

Dear One

Ahhh the silly position as alluded to that SDP writer ex TCS reporter guy. I believe Porifiro and I have found that position untenable and a totally biased reading of history.

1. The riots only erupted after the result was announced.
2. The case was abt Muslim's and about a Muslim Girl and her actual status. Red Line issues even today. Note the controversy in Malaysia over conversion.

3. The rioters were unhappy over the results of the case as heard by a western colonial court. They felt that the verdict was unfair, the courts were unfair , etc government was unfair but the bottom line is the verdict in religious and racial terms was to them unfair and they felt aggrieved.

4. Put it simply if the courts verdict had gone the way of the Muslims, there would have been no Maria riots. For that silly anti colonial thing to be true, they would have had to be anti colonial for issues apart from Maria and even if the Maria case had gone their way.




Locke
 
A

Alu862

Guest
Yes agree with you in the main. Tragic personal case for Maria/Nadra. Ghandi Ambalan appears to be disingenuous on this one taking liberties with history to wack PAPs. In any event what is his beef, has the PAP govt used the ISA on him, Dr Chee or any other political dissident following the purported Marxist Conspiracy affair in 87'?

This settles the problem. The SDP has no facts to back up their new claim on this riot.
 

one2unite

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes agree with you in the main. Tragic personal case for Maria/Nadra. Ghandi Ambalan appears to be disingenuous on this one taking liberties with history to wack PAPs. In any event what is his beef, has the PAP govt used the ISA on him, Dr Chee or any other political dissident following the purported Marxist Conspiracy affair in 87'?


Under colonialism, be it British, Dutch, French, etc, the spark that ignited the fire of an uprising against injustice and exploitation had had its origin always in a minor, sometimes unrelated, incident. The Maria Hertogh custodial case in 1950 became the catalyst to vent the frustration of the locals against the inhuman colonial oppression.

I’ve read Gandhi’s article in SDP web site and also a comment that appears below by an academic/scholar.

Tan Tai Wei - Fri, 19 Sep 2008 5:23 pm

Thanks,Gandhi,

Interesting. Although the Maria Hertogh riots were provoked crucially by the colonial government's not only taking Maria away from her Muslim foster home, but placing her in a convent, no Christian church nor chinese and indian christians were targeted by rioters.

So, your interpretation that it was more an anti-colonial protest against the insensitivity of masters to the subject people, rather than a racist or religious conflict, is discerning. (I was a small boy, and we were living just by a kampong off Tanjong Katong Road. We were christians and chinese. But the malay youths who were on their way with parangs, etc., to join the mob at the junction of Tanjong Katong and Geylang Road stopping RAF buses and slaughtering wives and children of RAF personnel on board, bypassed us. Infact, we continued to receive gifts of malay cakes and dishes from families we hardly knew well (they knew we were six poor children of a father who had been bedridden by stroke.)

As to your references to the ISD's arrest of Vincent Cheng and company, and Francis Seow, I could add that those seemed more like examples of the 'the boy crying "wolves" '.

They don't teach Aesop Fables in school these days, so readers may need to be told that in that story, a sheepboy shouted 'wolves', where there there was none, so many times that when a real wolf appeared, no villager believed him, and his sheep were devoured.

Reverse the interpretation of the fable, and we have this moral.

The cases of Francis Seow, and Vincent Cheng and those social workers and others, were, as we can now see, so evidently flimsy and concocted that their arrest under ISA only serves now to cast doubt (in addition to 'recently declassified documents' from the record offfice in London) about the justifiability of those large-scale and graver arrests of Lim Chin Siong and others.

If the same persons, and/or same sort of persons, could have some years later used ISA quitely unnecessarily, then we can believe that, even in those crucial situations in the longer past, they had similarly abused the ISA.




And yet another interesting point to note is Mr Chiam See Tong, MP for Potong Pasir who was also of the view on the Maria Hertogh in that it was neither a race nor religious riot. In an exchange with the PAP in parliament in his earlier days, Mr Chiam articulated this position and it could be verified from the Hansard.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear One2Unite

With that position the assertion is that because the riots only killed the british and because the Malays were unhappy with the British over the Maria affair. It was a purely anti colonial riot and not a race and racial thing at its heart ?

Firstly you have refused to answer the following questions. If it was an anti colonial riot, if the verdict had gone the way of the Muslims, would there have been a riot or would the muslims have been cheering the colonial government. Secondly what if the gov had been a chinese gov under Lim Yew Hock or LKY and not a colonial gov under the whites as it happened in 1950 ? Do u really think the chinese would have been spared ?




Locke
 
A

Alu862

Guest
Wait a minute, since when was there such nationalist fevour in the Malay class that they would take to the streets (just when a girl's religious identity was being legally placed)? Did you not learn your history that there was little nationalist sentiment in Singapore? Each class was loyl to their own side--Chinese were concern with their main people (as seen in Chinese support for the Sino Jap war) Indians (well back home) and the Malays just were comforted that they also had some degree of bumiputra privileges.

Then suddenly after WWII we have an "anti colonial" riot with the rioters being Malay?
 
A

Alu862

Guest
Furthermore the ISA did not arise because of this. It arose because of the perceived communism threat in Malaysia and Singapore
 
Top