By Gaurav Sharma
The Little India riots of last Sunday have sparked much debateĀ  about the role of the Singapore Police ForceĀ and itsĀ decision not toĀ  use undue force, service revolvers and anti-riot equipment such as the tear gasĀ  to quell the violent mob.

So much so that the policeĀ had to clarify theĀ  position on its Facebook page yesterday. ā€œPolice officers displayed maximum restraint andĀ  did not fire any weapon throughout the incident. This also prevented theĀ  incident from escalating further,ā€ it said.

Minister SĀ  Iswaran said explained on TVĀ last night: ā€œUse of force to calm a riotĀ  situation is a double-edged sword. While some would argue that it might haveĀ  helped in controlling the situation much earlier, the counter-point can alwaysĀ  be that it would have lead to further loss of property and even lives. Thus,Ā  what to do is a decision that had to be taken by the officers on the ground andĀ  I am sure the police took the right call.ā€

See also  Police shoot man wielding knife along Bendemeer RoadĀ after he refused to drop his weapon

And ifĀ  past experiences of similar such incidents around the world are anything to goĀ  by, the law agencies in Singapore did the right thing.

Internationally,Ā  what happened during the Arab Spring in the last three yearsĀ and during theĀ  riots seen early this year by one of the most peace-loving nations in the world,Ā  Sweden, are a proof of that.

The riotĀ  in Little India was essentially a rampage, an impulsive reaction, by an angryĀ  mob on seeing one of their colleagues being crushed to death by a privateĀ  bus.

As Lu Yeow Lim, commander of Tanglin Police Division, elaborated on TVĀ  yesterday: ā€œWhen the Singapore Civil Defence ForceĀ and the initial lot ofĀ  police personnel arrived at the scene, the gathered crowd was not violent. It’sĀ  just when our people moved to extricate the deceasedā€™s body from below theĀ  vehicle, the mob turned violent.ā€

TheĀ  policeĀ told the media yesterday that even during the riot, the mob whileĀ  using metal rods and cement blocks to damage the vehicles on the scene, was onlyĀ  hurling projectiles at theĀ officers. Since no close-range weapons wereĀ  used, there was no ā€œimminent dangerā€ to its officers, the spokespersonĀ  added.

See also  S'pore Army & Police STAR WARS day posts draw ridicule & criticisms

ImagineĀ  what would have happened if policeĀ had used firearms to disperse the crowdĀ  and some more lives were lost.

ChancesĀ  are this would have angered the mob even further and the commotion would haveĀ  spread to the neighbouring Serangoon and Buffalo Roads. My own experience ofĀ  covering riots and violent protests as a journalist in India substantiates thisĀ  theory.

What isĀ  even more remarkable in this episode is that thisĀ restraint was shown by aĀ  police force whose majority officers have not faced anything of this nature everĀ  before. It was almost four decades ago, during the infamous racial riots ofĀ  1969, that police in Singapore had to respond to suchĀ  lawlessness.

SanityĀ  demanded that instead of rioting and destroying public and private property,Ā  people present at the scene of the accident should have called the police andĀ  handed over the driver to them.

The lawĀ  would have taken its own course afterwards, including sentencing of the driverĀ  and compensation for the victim.

See also  Woman harasses police officers by recording them in viral video

Rather,Ā  the story is now about rioting.

The mobĀ  frenzy has pushed into background the fact that a life, probably of a soleĀ  breadwinner from a poor family, was lost.

Let us notĀ  forget this as we continue to debate the whys and hows of theĀ  riot.