May 13 incidentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation,

search
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk
page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
(September 2008)
May 13 incident
Location Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Result Declaration of national emergency
Suspension of Parliament
Temporary establishment of National Operations Council
Resignation of Tunku Abdul Rahman as Prime Minister
Implementation of New Economic Policy
Increased tension between races, especially between Malays and Chinese
Racial issues being played by certain DAP and UMNO politicians

Belligerents
Malays mainly consisting of Perikatan/UMNO supporters Chinese mainly
consisting of opposition supporters

The May 13 Incident is a term for the Sino-Malay sectarian violences in Kuala
Lumpur (then part of the state of Selangor), Malaysia, which began on May 13,
1969. The riots led to a declaration of a state of national emergency and
suspension of Parliament by the Malaysian government, while the National
Operations Council (NOC or Majlis Gerakan Negara, MAGERAN) was established
to temporarily govern the country between 1969 and 1971.

Officially, 196 people were killed between May 13 and July 31 as a result of the
riots, although journalists and other observers have stated much higher figures.
Other reports at the time suggest over 2,000[citation needed] were killed by
rioters, police and Malaysian Army rangers, mainly in Kuala Lumpur. Many of the
dead were quickly buried in unmarked graves in the Kuala Lumpur General
Hospital grounds by soldiers of Malaysian Engineers.

The government cited the riots as the main cause of its more aggressive
affirmative action policies, such as the New Economic Policy (NEP), after 1969.

Contents [hide]
1 Precursors
1.1 Formation of Malaysia
1.2 Ketuanan Melayu
1.3 1969 general election
1.3.1 Run-up to polling day
1.3.2 Election results
2 Rioting
2.1 Declaration of emergency
2.2 Conspiracy theories
3 Repercussions
3.1 Immediate effects
3.2 Legacy
4 Aftermath
5 Political references
6 See also
7 References
7.1 Notes
8 External links

[edit] Precursors[edit] Formation of MalaysiaHistory of Malaysia

This article is part of a series

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prehistoric Malaysia
Early kingdoms
Gangga Negara (2nd–11th)
Langkasuka (2nd–14th)
Pan Pan (3rd–5th)
Srivijaya (7th–13th)
Majapahit (13th-15th)
The rise of Muslim states
Kedah Sultanate (1136–present)
Malacca Sultanate (1402–1511)
Sulu Sultanate (1450–1899)
Johor Sultanate (1528–present)
Colonial era
Portuguese Malacca (1511–1641)
Dutch Malacca (1641–1824)
Straits Settlements (1826–1946)
British Malaya (1874–1946)
Federated Malay States (1895–1946)
Unfederated Malay States (1909–1946)
Kingdom of Sarawak (1841–1946)
North Borneo (1882–1963)
Japanese occupation (1941–1945)
Malaysia in transition
Malayan Union (1946–1948)
Federation of Malaya (1948–1963)
Independence (1957)
Federation of Malaysia (1963–present)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia Portal
v·d·e

On its formation in 1963, Malaysia, a federation incorporating Malaya (Peninsular

Malaysia), Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak, suffered from a sharp
division of wealth between the Chinese, who were perceived to control a large
portion of the Malaysian economy, and the Malays, who were perceived to be
more poor and rural.

The 1964 Race Riots in Singapore contributed to the expulsion of that state from
Malaysia on 9 August 1965, and racial tension continued to simmer, with many
Malays dissatisfied by their newly independent government's perceived
willingness to placate the Chinese at their expense.

[edit] Ketuanan MelayuPolitics in Malaysia at this time were mainly Malay-based,

with an emphasis on special privileges for the Malays — other indigenous
Malaysians, grouped together collectively with the Malays under the title of
"bumiputra" would not be granted a similar standing until after the riots. There
had been a recent outburst of Malay passion for ketuanan Melayu — a Malay
term for Malay supremacy or Malay dominance — after the National Language
Act of 1967, which in the opinion of some Malays, had not gone far enough in the
act of enshrining Malay as the national language. Heated arguments about the
nature of Malay privileges, with the mostly Chinese opposition mounting a
"Malaysian Malaysia" campaign had contributed to the separation of Singapore
on 9 August 1965, and inflamed passions on both sides.

[edit] 1969 general electionMain article: Malaysian general election, 1969

[edit] Run-up to polling dayThe causes of the rioting can be analysed to have the
same root as the 1964 riots in Singapore, the event rooted from sentiments
before the campaigning was bitterly fought among various political parties prior
to polling day on 10 May 1969, and party leaders stoked racial and religious
sentiments in order to win support. The Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)
accused the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) of selling the rights of
the Malays to the Chinese, while the Democratic Action Party (DAP) accused the
Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) of giving in to UMNO. The DAP promoted
the concept of a "Malaysian Malaysia", which would deprive the Malays of their
special rights under the Constitution of Malaysia. Both the DAP and Singapore's
People's Action Party (PAP) objected to Malay as the national language and
proposed multi-lingualism instead.[1] Senior Alliance politicians, including Prime
Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, accused Singapore-based People's Action Party of
involvement in the campaign, as it had done during the 1964 general election
campaign (at the time when Singapore was part of the Malaysian federation
between 1963 and 1965).

The run-up to the election was also marred by two deaths: that of an UMNO
election agent, who was killed by a group of armed Chinese youths in Penang
and that of a member of the Labour Party of Malaya (LPM), who was killed in
Kepong, Selangor.[1] There was a contrast in the handling of these two deaths.
The UMNO worker was buried without publicity, but the LPM casualty was
honoured at a parade on May 9 when some 3000 LPM members marched from
Kuala Lumpur to Kepong, violating regulations and trying to provoke incidents
with the police.

[edit] Election resultsAmidst tensions among the Malay and Chinese population,
the general election was held on 10 May 1969. Election day itself passed without
any incidents, and the results showed that the Alliance had gained a majority in
Parliament at the national level, albeit a reduced one, and in Selangor it had
gained the majority by cooperating with the sole independent candidate. The
Opposition had tied with the Alliance for control of the Selangor state legislature,
a large setback in the polls for the Alliance. On the night of 11th and 12th May,
the Opposition celebrated their victory. In particular, a large Gerakan procession
welcomed the left-wing Gerakan leader V. David.[2]

On 12 May, thousands of Chinese marched through Kuala Lumpur, parading

through predominantly Malay areas, hurling insults which led to the incident.[1]
The largely Chinese opposition Democratic Action Party and Gerakan gained in
the elections, and secured a police permit for a victory parade through a fixed
route in Kuala Lumpur. However, the rowdy procession deviated from its route
and headed through the Malay district of Kampung Baru, jeering at the
inhabitants.[3] Some demonstrators carried brooms, later alleged to symbolise
the sweeping out of the Malays from Kuala Lumpur, while others chanted slogans
about the "sinking" of the Alliance boat — the coalition's logo.[4] The Gerakan
party issued an apology on May 13 for their rally goers' behaviour.

In addition, Malay leaders who were angry about the election results used the
press to attack their opponents, contributing to raising public anger and tension
among the Malay and Chinese communities.[citation needed] On 13 May,
members of UMNO Youth gathered in Kuala Lumpur, at the residence of Selangor
Menteri Besar Dato' Harun Haji Idris in Jalan Raja Muda, and demanded that they
too should hold a victory celebration. While UMNO announced a counter-
procession, which would start from the Harun bin Idris's residence. Tunku Abdul
Rahman would later call the retaliatory parade "inevitable, as otherwise the
party members would be demoralised after the show of strength by the
Opposition and the insults that had been thrown at them."[3]

[edit] RiotingShortly before the UMNO procession began, the gathering crowd
was reportedly informed that a group of Malays on their way to the procession
had been attacked by group of livid Chinese in Setapak, several miles to the
north.[citation needed] Meanwhile, in the Kuala Lumpur area, a Malay army
officer was murdered by Chinese radicals as he and his spouse were coming out
from a movie theater in the predominantly Chinese area of Bukit Bintang[citation
needed]. Due to the incidents,a group of Malay protesters swiftly wreaked
revenge by killing two passing Chinese motorcyclists, and the riot began.

The riot ignited the capital Kuala Lumpur and the surrounding area of Selangor —
according to Time, spreading throughout the city in 45 minutes.[5] Many people
in Kuala Lumpur were caught in the racial violence — dozens were injured and
some killed, houses and cars were burnt and wrecked, but except for minor
disturbances in Malacca, Perak, Penang and Singapore, where the populations of
Chinese people were similarly larger, the rest of the country remained calm.
Although violence did not occur in the rural areas, Time found that ethnic conflict
had manifested itself in subtler forms, with Chinese businessmen refusing to
make loans available for Malay farmers, or to transport agricultural produce from
Malay farmers and fishermen.[6]

Incidents of violence continued to occur in the weeks after May 13, with the
targets now being not only Malay or Chinese but also Indian. It is argued that this
showed that "the struggle has become more clearly than ever the Malay
extremists' fight for total hegemony."[7]

According to police figures, 196 people died[8] and 149 were wounded. 753
cases of arson were logged and 211 vehicles were destroyed or severely
damaged. An estimated 6,000 Kuala Lumpur residents — 90% of them
Chinese[verification needed] — were made homeless.[8] Various other casualty
figures have been given, with one thesis from a UC Berkeley academic, as well
as Time, putting the total dead at ten times the government figure.[7][9]

[edit] Declaration of emergencyThe government ordered an immediate curfew

throughout the state of Selangor. Security forces comprising some 2000 Royal
Malay Regiment soldiers and 3600 police officers were deployed and took control
of the situation. Over 300 Chinese families were moved to refugee centres at the
Merdeka Stadium and Tiong Nam Settlement.

On May 14 and May 16, a state of emergency and accompanying curfew were
declared throughout the country, but the curfew was relaxed in most parts of the
country for two hours on May 18 and not enforced even in Kuala Lumpur within a
week.[citation needed]. On May 16 the National Operations Council (NOC) was
established by proclamation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia)
Sultan Ismail Nasiruddin Shah, headed by Tun Abdul Razak. With Parliament
suspended, the NOC became the supreme decision-making body for the next 18
months. State and District Operations Councils took over state and local
governments.

The NOC implemented security measures to restore law and order in the country,
including the establishment of an unarmed Vigilante Corps, a territorial army,
and police force battalions. The restoration of order in the country was gradually
achieved. Curfews continued in most parts of the country, but were gradually
scaled back. Peace was restored in the affected areas within two months. In
February 1971 parliamentary rule was re-established.

In a report from the NOC, the riots was attributed in part to both the Malayan
Communist Party and secret societies:

“ The eruption of violence on May 13 was the result of an interplay of forces...

These include a generation gap and differences in interpretation of the
constitutional structure by the different races in the country...; the incitement,
intemperate statements and provocative behaviours of certain racialist party
members and supporters during the recent General Election; the part played by
the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) and secret societies in inciting racial
feelings and suspicion; and the anxious, and later desperate, mood of the Malays
with a background of Sino-Malay distrust, and recently, just after the General
Elections, as a result of racial insults and threat to their future survival in their
own country' ”
— Extract from The May 13 Tragedy, a report by the National Operations
Council, October 1969.[1]

[edit] Conspiracy theoriesImmediately following the riot, conspiracy theories

about the origin of the riots began swirling. Many Chinese blamed the
government, claiming it had intentionally planned the attacks beforehand. To
bolster their claims, they cited the fact that the potentially dangerous UMNO rally
was allowed to go on, even though the city was on edge after two days of
opposition rallies. Although UMNO leaders said none of the armed men bused in
to the rally belonged to UMNO, the Chinese countered this by arguing that the
violence had not spread from Harun Idris' home but had risen simultaneously in
several different areas. The armed Malays were later taken away in army
lorries.".[10]

The government did not held responsible for an act of cowardice by few men,
claimed to be soldiers by the Chinese people, who burnt a few more houses.[10]
However, Western observers such as Time suggested that "Whether or not the
Malay-controlled police force and emergency government have actually stirred
up some of the house-burning, spear-carrying mobs, they seem unwilling to
clamp down on them. It was an accusation because the police was largely Malays
and controlled by the government"[7]

In 2007, a book — May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of

1969 by academic, former Democratic Action Party member and former Member
of Parliament Kua Kia Soong — was published by Suaram. Based on newly
declassified documents at the Public Records Office in London, the book alleges
that, contrary to the official account that had blamed the violence on opposition
parties, the riot had been intentionally started by the "ascendent state capitalist
class" in UMNO as a coup d'etat to topple Tunku Abdul Rahman.[11][12]

[edit] Repercussions[edit] Immediate effectsImmediately after the riot, the

government assumed emergency powers and suspended Parliament, which
would reconvene again only in 1971. It also suspended the press and established
a National Operations Council. The NOC's report on the riots stated, "The Malays
who already felt excluded in the country's economic life, now began to feel a
threat to their place in the public services," and implied this was a cause of the
violence.[3]

Western observers such as Time attributed the racial enmities to a political and
economic system, which primarily benefited the upper classes:

“ The Chinese and Indians resented Malay-backed plans favoring the majority,
including one to make Malay the official school and government language. The
poorer, more rural Malays became jealous of Chinese and Indian prosperity.
Perhaps the Alliance's greatest failing was that it served to benefit primarily
those at the top. ... For a Chinese or Indian who was not well-off, or for a Malay
who was not well-connected, there was little largesse in the system. Even for
those who were favored, hard feelings persisted. One towkay recently told a
Malay official: "If it weren't for the Chinese, you Malays would be sitting on the
floor without tables and chairs." Replied the official: "If I knew I could get every
damned Chinaman out of the country, I would willingly go back to sitting on the
floor."[13] ”

The riot led to the expulsion of Malay nationalist Mahathir Mohamad from UMNO
and propelled him to write his seminal work The Malay Dilemma, in which he
posited a solution to Malaysia's racial tensions based on aiding the Malays
economically through an affirmative action programme.

Tunku Abdul Rahman resigned as Prime Minister in the ensuing UMNO power
struggle, the new perceived 'Malay-ultra' dominated government swiftly moved
to placate Malays with the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP), enshrining
affirmative action policies for the bumiputra (Malays and other indigenous
Malaysians). Many of Malaysia's draconian press laws, originally targeting racial
incitement, also date from this period. The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1971
named Articles 152, 153, and 181, and also Part III of the Constitution as
specially protected, permitting Parliament to pass legislation that would limit
dissent with regard to these provisions pertaining to the social contract. (The
social contract is essentially a quid pro quo agreement between the Malay and
non-Malay citizens of Malaysia; in return for granting the non-Malays citizenship
at independence, symbols of Malay authority such as the Malay monarchy
became national symbols, and the Malays were granted special economic
privileges.) With this new power, Parliament then amended the Sedition Act
accordingly. The new restrictions also applied to Members of Parliament,
overruling Parliamentary immunity; at the same time, Article 159, which governs
Constitutional amendments, was amended to entrench the "sensitive"
Constitutional provisions; in addition to the consent of Parliament, any changes
to the "sensitive" portions of the Constitution would now have to pass the
Conference of Rulers, a body comprising the monarchs of the Malay states. At
the same time, the Internal Security Act, which permits detention without trial,
was also amended to stress "intercommunal harmony".[14]
Despite the opposition of the DAP and PPP, the Alliance government passed the
amendments, having maintained the necessary two-thirds Parliamentary
majority.[14] In Britain, the laws were condemned, with The Times of London
stating they would "preserve as immutable the feudal system dominating Malay
society" by "giving this archaic body of petty constitutional monarchs incredible
blocking power"; the move was cast as hypocritical, given that Deputy Prime
Minister Tun Abdul Razak had spoken of "the full realisation that important
matters must no longer be swept under the carpet..."[15]

The Rukunegara, the de facto Malaysian pledge of allegiance, was another

reaction to the riot. The pledge was introduced on August 31, 1970 as a way to
foster unity among Malaysians.

[edit] LegacyThe state of emergency that was declared shortly after the incident
has never been lifted, an action that has been cited by academic lawyers as a
reason for diminished civil rights in the country due to the legislative powers
granted to the executive during a state of emergency.[16]

Many political analysts attributed the Malay "crutch mentality" syndrome to have
arisen from May 13, and a direct result of the affirmative NEP programme. This
had resulted to abnormally large proportion of younger generation of Malays not
being able to compete not only internationally but also nationally.

[edit] Aftermath
The National Operations Council governed the country in lieu of the elected
government.The May 13 Incident led to affirmative action policies, such as the
New Economic Policy (NEP), after 1969 and the creation of Kuala Lumpur as a
Federal Territory out of Selangor state in 1974, five years later.

[edit] Political referencesMalaysian politicians have often cited the May 13

incident when warning of the potential consequences of racial rhetoric, or as a
bogeyman to blanket off discussion on any issues that challenge the status quo.
In the 1990 general election and 1999 general election, May 13 was cited in
Barisan Nasional campaign advertisements and in speeches by government
politicians. Such usage of the incident in political discourse has been criticised;
the Tunku stated: "For the PM (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) to repeat the story of the
May 13 as a warning of what would have happened if the government had not
taken appropriate action is like telling ghost stories to our children to prevent
them from being naughty… The tale should not be repeated because it shows us
to be politically immature…"[citation needed]

In 2004, during the UMNO general assembly Badruddin Amiruldin , the current
deputy permanent chairman, waved a book on May 13 during his speech and
stated "No other race has the right to question our privileges, our religion and
our leader". He also stated that doing so would be similar to "stirring up a
hornet's nest". The next day, Dr Pirdaus Ismail of the UMNO Youth was quoted as
saying "Badruddin did not pose the question to all Chinese in the country ...
Those who are with us, who hold the same understanding as we do, were not our
target. In defending Malay rights, we direct our voice at those who question
them." Deputy Internal Security Minister Noh Omar dismissed the remarks as a
lesson in history and said that Badruddin was merely reminding the younger
generation of the blot on the nation's history.
[edit] See alsoHistory of Malaysia
National Operations Council (NOC)
Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP),
1969 Race Riots of Singapore
[edit] References"Marina Yusof's 'Seditious' Act". Retrieved Oct. 29, 2005.
Rahman, Tunku Abdul (1969). "May 13 - Before and After". Retrieved Oct. 29,
2005.
"The Death of a Democracy" by John Slimming. Book written by an Observer/UK
journalist, who was in Kuala Lumpur at the time.
[edit] Notes1.^ a b c d Professor Dato' Dr. Zakaria Haji Ahmad. The Encyclopedia
of Malaysia, "Government and Politics". ISBN 981-3018-55-0
2.^ Kia Soong Kua - 2007 - 136 pages.
3.^ a b c Hwang, In-Won (2003). Personalized Politics: The Malaysian State under
Mahathir, p. 78. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN 981-230-185-2.
4.^ Al-Mukmin, Hatta (2005). "Keranamu UMNO", p. 104. Abadi Publishing
House. ISBN 983-2215-00-5.
5.^ "Race War in Malaysia". Time. 1969-05-23.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900859,00.html.
6.^ "Preparing for a Pogrom". Time. 1969-07-18. p. 3.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901058-3,00.html.
7.^ a b c "Preparing for a Pogrom". Time. 1969-07-18. p. 1.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901058,00.html.
8.^ a b Hwang, p. 72.
9.^ Hwang, p. 88.
10.^ a b Emery, Fred (June 6, 1969). "The nightmare that lingers on in Malaysia",
p. 11. The Times.
11.^ "Another look at incident on May 13". The Star. 2007-05-14.
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?
file=/2007/5/14/nation/17718816&sec=nation.
12.^ Jeff Ooi (2007-05-14). "Surviving 38 years of the May 13 bloodshed".
http://www.jeffooi.com/2007/05/surviving_the_may_13_bloodshed.php. Retrieved
2007-05-14.
13.^ "Preparing for a Pogrom". Time. 1969-07-18. p. 2.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901058-2,00.html.
14.^ a b Khoo, Boo Teik (1995). Paradoxes of Mahathirism, pp. 104–106. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 967-65-3094-8.
15.^ Emery, Fred (Nov. 8, 1969). "Malaysia unity call against a background of
fear", p. 7. The Times.
16.^ Wu, Min Aun & Hickling, R. H. (2003). Hickling's Malaysian Public Law, p. 34.
Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia. ISBN 983-74-2518-0.
[edit] External links