Should Chinese be blamed for the incident? Ya, perhaps large part of the responsibility for triggering it… but that doesn’t rationalize any massacre that happen on May 13 and the following days.

This thread is getting long enough… I appreciate the comments, some of it has been enlightening; while some of the others just showed how racial disharmonial on both sides.

Fact is… there are no facts available. Unless I up my ante and start doing interviews and researches, the comments here are merely personal opinions.

Time to close this discussion here… thanks for all the writings and readings. If you feel that you have some great info to share, you are welcome to contact me. Comments closed.

The series of events surrounding the ‘May 13′ riot has been documented by Dr Kua Kia Soong in his latest book May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969 which will be launched on Sunday in conjunction with the 38th anniversary of the tragedy.

This compilation, based on various sets of foreign dispatches and confidential reports at the time – which were declassified recently and made available at the Public Records Office in London – has been dubbed as the first credible account on the incident.

“The real circumstances surrounding the worst racial riot in the history of Malaysia have so far not been made available to the Malaysian public. The official version is fraught with contradictions and inadequacies to which few pay credence,” Kua wrote in the book.

Below are excerpts and summary of the chronology of events based on the declassified documents taken from Kua’s book:

May 10:

The ruling Alliance Party suffered a major setback in the general election although it had managed to retain a simple parliamentary majority. They had lost Penang to the Gerakan Party; Kelantan to the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party while Perak and Selangor were at the brink of falling into the opposition’s hands.

May 11 and May 12:

On both nights, the opposition celebrated their victory. A large Gerakan procession was held to welcome the left-wing Gerakan leader V David back from winning the federal seat in Penang.

May 13:

The MCA which had suffered badly at the polls, announced that it would withdraw from the cabinet while remaining within the Alliance.

A dispatch from a foreign correspondent showed it is evident that there was a plan for youths mobilised by Umno elements to assemble at then Selangor menteri besar Harun Idris’ residence in the late afternoon. A retaliatory march had been planned although police permission was withheld.

When people were still assembling for the parade, trouble broke out in the nearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were burnt. The ensuing carnage at Kampung Baru and Batu Road quickly spread elsewhere in Kuala Lumpur.

The foreign correspondent noted the curfew that was imposed was not fairly applied to all.

“In the side streets off Jalan Hale, I could see bands of Malay youths armed with parangs and sharpened bamboo spears assembled in full view of troops posted at road junctions. Meanwhile, at Batu Road, a number of foreign correspondents saw members of the Royal Malay Regiment firing into Chinese shophouses for no apparent reason.”

Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman immediately attributed the violence as triggered off by the behaviour of opposition supporters after the election result announcement while his deputy Tun Abdul Razak pinned the blame on the communists.

May 14:

The riots continued but on a smaller scale. The curfew was only lifted in staggered hours in various districts to allow people to buy food. The police called out all possible reserves and handed over the northern part of the city to the army.

Police put casualties for the previous night incident at 44 killed and about 150 injured. Another dispatch showed the casualties were mainly Chinese as it stated that out of 77 corpses in the morgue of the General Hospital on May 14, at least 60 were Chinese.

The government’s attempts to blame the communists for the riots were however not taken seriously by the officials at the British High Commission (BHC) who could see that the Tunku was not prepared to blame his own people for the riots, nor was he going to blame it on the Chinese “as a whole”.

May 15:

The King proclaimed a state of emergency. The National Operations Council headed by Tun Razak was formed. Tun Razak was still responsible to the Tunku, but all the powers under Emergency Regulations were vested in him.

The curfew had been lifted temporarily in Kuala Lumpur that morning but the situation had rapidly worsened and more sporadic fighting had broken out. Curfews were re-imposed but food was very short.

The local press was suspended until censorship regulations could be drawn up but no attempt was made to supervise reports sent out by foreign correspondents.

May 16:

The situation was still tense in Selangor with cars and houses being burned and fatalities rising. Death tolls had risen to 89 with over 300 injured. 24 hour curfew remained in force in Selangor and had also been imposed in Malacca. In Penang and Perak, the situation had improved although the curfew remained in force.

Tunku made a broadcast in which he announced the setting up of a National Defence Force to be manned by volunteers. The new information minister Hamzah Abu Samah and Tun Razak gave a press conference pinning the blame for the riots on communist infiltration of the opposition parties.

There were reports of looting by the largely Malay military and their bias against the Chinese Malaysians. Number of refugees were increasing.

May 17:

There were skepticism among British officers toward the official figures for fatalities and the preponderance of Chinese casualties among the dead. The police estimated the deaths at about 100 now while British officers estimated the proportion of Chinese to Malay casualties is about 85:15.

The press censorship invited criticism not only from the local press but also in diplomatic circles especially when official statements lacked clarity and credibility.

In a confidential BHC memorandum to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the coup d’etat has been acknowledged and it has effected the transfer of power not only to “Malay hands” but also to the security forces. The latter’s professionalism is questioned.

The BHC also noted the Federal Reserve Unit, which at the time was multiracial in composition, was the more impartial of the security forces while the Malay troops were discriminatory in enforcing the curfew.

“Discriminatory takes the form, for example, of not, repeat not, enforcing the curfew in one of the most violently disposed of the Malay areas in Kuala Lumpur (Kampung Baru) where Malays armed with parangs, etc continue to circulate freely; with the inevitable result that gangs slip through the cordon round the area and attack Chinese outside it. In Chinese areas, the curfew is strictly enforced.”

May 18:

The Tunku qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted “bad elements”. He also announced the deferment of the Sarawak elections and the continuance of the restrictions on the movement of foreign journalists.

The situation was still unsettled in some parts of the capital city.

May 19:

Less than a week after the riots, the reins of power had effectively passed to Tun Razak, indicating that there had been a plot to bring about the coup d’etat.

“The exact relationship between Tun Razak and the Tunku is not clear. In public Tun Razak says he is directly responsible to the Tunku but he has made it clear privately that he is completely in charge of the country. This could mean the beginning of a process of withdrawal by the Tunku as an effective PM”.

There are some 10,000 reported refugees. The local press was allowed to publish under censorship while foreign journalists had their curfew passes withdrawn. Some opposition politicians were arrested.

May 20:

In a meeting, an Australian High Commissioner had suggested the opposition leaders should be given a role as peace maker but Tun Razak and Ghazali Shafie were firmly against this. “They considered opposition leaders would simply use such an opportunity to promote their own political views.”

The Malaysian Red Cross Society is continuing its daily feeding programme for refugees in various places and over 5,000 had received food supplies.

May 21:

The official statistics of casualties at this juncture were 137 killed (18 Malays), 342 injured, 109 vehicles burned, 118 buildings destroyed and 2,912 persons arrested who were mostly curfew breakers.

May 23:

The declassified documents reveal that Malay troops were not only fraternising with the Malay thugs but were discharging their firearms indiscriminately at Chinese shophouses as they went through the city.

“When confronted by foreign correspondents with reports of racial discrimination, Tun Razak flatly denied them. Following this, curfew passes issued to foreign journalists were withdrawn and reporters were ordered to remain indoors ‘for their own safety’.”

A foreign correspondent’s report showed the Malay hooligans were detested by the law-abiding Malays of Kampung Baru.

Internal security and home minister Tun Dr Ismail indicated that the Internal Security Act would be in future amended to “counter changing communist tactics”. It was disclosed that of the 3,699 arrested during the crisis, 952 were members of secret societies.

May 24:

Law and order has been re-established in Kuala Lumpur and the atmosphere in the town had improved. People were going back to work (in non-curfew hours) and the government offices were limbering into action. The curfew remained in force (from 3pm to 6.30am of the following day). The government was not ready to admit that it was armed Malay youth who had caused the disturbances.

May 27:

The Tunku was under pressure to resign as he was clearly incensed by foreign journalists’ speculations about his weakening position and got his private secretary to write a protest note to the BHC.

May 28:

A confidential report by the BHC to the FCO on this day observed the government’s attempts to blame the communists for the disturbances were an attempt to justify their new authoritarian powers.

June:

The riots had been under control but they were still sporadic outbreaks of civil disturbances. A BHC report noted violence erupted again in one part of Kuala Lumpur on the night of June 28 and 29, a number of houses were burnt and the casualties were officially given as five killed and 25 injured. Some disturbances toward the end of June also involved ethnic Indians.

July:

Renewed trouble in which one policeman was killed was quickly stopped from spreading in Kuala Lumpur by positive police action.

Tun Ismail’s firm stand in ordering the security forces to act firmly ‘without favour or discrimination’ to any communal group and the Tunku’s announcement of a National Goodwill Committee made up of politicians of all parties went some way toward allaying the fears of the people.

Tun Ismail also revealed the total arrests since May now stood at 8,114, comprising people “from all the major racial groups”. Of these, 4,192 had been charged in court, 675 released on bail, 1,552 unconditionally released and 1,695 preventively detained.

Situation in the Peninsula had improved substantially but tension remains high in sensitive areas of Malacca, Perak and Selangor.

Tension had begun to ease until Malay agitation connected with Tunku’s return to a position of influence and the removal of Dr Mahathir Mohamad from Umno’s general committee on July 12 had heightened it again. Malay university students petitioned for Tunku’s resignation and demonstrated on the campus.

1969年的513种族暴动事件的导因，至今仍是一个迷。根据官方说法，这场大马历史上最严重的骚乱事件导致196人丧命，惟其余的详情仍是笼罩在重重黑幕之中。

官方指出，这场暴动主要是由于以华裔为主的反对党支持者，为庆祝在1969年大选胜利而举行游行，挑衅失利的马来人及巫统所引发。

不过社会学者兼社运活跃份子――柯嘉逊博士（左图），却依据最近刚解密的英国驻马最高专员署人员的观察报告、外国通讯记者所撰写的新闻报告，以及外交圈子内流传的机密文件，得出有关513暴动实际上是一场有策划性的政变，以达至推翻当时的首相东故阿都拉曼的结论。

他重申，513事件是一项由当时刚崛起的马来资本家所策划的政变行动，并获得军方及警方的支持，以便从旧贵族的手中夺取权力，以推行新的马来人议程。

他已经将其研究结集成书――《513-1969年暴动之解密文件》，并将会在星期日于隆雪华堂正式推介。

暴徒受操纵，军警袖手旁观

也是新纪元学院院长的柯嘉逊，是在去年特地申请三个月的假期赴英，前往伦敦的公共档案局，研究这批摆脱30年保密条款，终见天日的官方档案。

柯嘉逊的结论与官方说法截然不同。他发现整起513事件并非是一项突然爆发的种族暴乱事件，反之却认为官方说法完全是一派胡言，根本没透露任何可靠的讯息，尤其是指责反对党是导致暴动发生的解释根本站不住脚。

“我的新著显示，该负责任的一方是巫统内部新崛起的国家资产阶级，是这股力量策划了这场政变。当时那些聚集在雪州大臣哈伦住家的人士，其实是拥有一个计划的。”

他指出，外交及情报档案已经显示这点，而官方历史应该揭露真相，而并非把罪名推给那些不应负上罪名的人士。

柯嘉逊揭露说，513事件是由政治人物所操纵的“马来暴徒”所引发的暴动。

他举例说，一批又一批的暴徒突然聚集在哈伦的住家，而当时警方及军人只是采取袖手旁观的态度，置之不理。

暴动之后，敦拉萨大权在握

此外，档案也显示，在暴动发生不到一个星期后，当时担任全国行动理事会主席一职的副首相敦拉萨已经大权在握，显示政变阴谋的确存在。

而在80年代才被突出的国家文化政策（在1971年正式宣布）已经在513的一个星期后被构思出来。这项具争议性的政策强调惟有回教及土著的文化元素，才属于国家文化政策，并一举掀开单元语文、教育及文化的论争。

柯氏也质疑军警人员在513事件中所扮演的角色。

“当时外交圈子议论说，为何在当日暴动发生时，敦拉萨曾经与军警总长会面，不过却没有采取任何行动。”

相反的，他指出大马的安全部队在围剿马来亚共产党的更艰难任务中，尤其是在紧急状态期间（1948－1960年）却以高效率见称。

因此柯嘉逊得出结论，即513暴动只是一场政变的烟幕。他并非是第一个指出513暴动实际上是一场政变的人士，不过却拥有官方的档案来印证这点。

这也是大马公众，首次可以接触到这批有关513事件的全面记录。一直以来，许多外国媒体有关的报道，皆被禁止进入国内，至于有关513事件的国内文件则少之又少。

真正的死亡人数仍是一个迷

不过，仍有一个513的谜团，就连柯氏的新著也无法揭开，即513事件的真正的死亡人数。根据官方数据，513暴动导致196人死亡、180被军火所伤，以及259人蒙受其他武器的攻击。至于，还有9143人则被逮捕，其中5561人被提控上法庭，6000人流离失所，至少有211辆交通工具以及753座建筑物被摧毁或破坏。

解密官方档案及当时的国际媒体报道认为，实际的死亡人数应该更高，不过他们也无法确定准确的数字，不过大家普遍认为多数的受害者是华裔

pls reply to my mail after read that article….would like to know what u think of that.

Thanks for the note though.

read up on malaysia today website. that will help you understand from raja petra’s view.

cheers

I can be contacted here…
http://jeelife.com/contact/