SINGAPORE — There were huge risks, on both the safety and operational fronts, for ordinary police officers to move in on the rioters in Little India, the Committee of Inquiry (COI) was told yesterday.
Being outnumbered, untrained to deal with such chaos and without the proper gear, the toll of casualties among the law-enforcement forces could have been higher had they rushed in instead of holding their positions, said the Deputy Commander of the Special Operations Command (SOC), which quelled the mob on Dec 8 last year.
Worse, had an officer been taken down while trying to stop the mob, “I can envision the crowd then surging on that and being emboldened by that,” added Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) David Scott Arul.
His backing of the police not actively confronting rioters that night comes a day after the police commander in charge of overseeing ground operations was grilled extensively by the COI on why he decided to “stay put ... and did nothing”.
Since the inquiry began, police actions have been scrutinised for whether they were a factor in the melee lasting as long as it did.
But yesterday, DAC Arul pointed out that the ordinary police officers were too scattered into different groups to deal with the mob effectively. They were also not trained or equipped to deal with riots, he added, unlike the SOC, which has intermediate options, such as the riot baton and tear gas.
DAC Arul added that 37 officers were hurt that day, though the police did not engage the crowd. “I fear that if they had engaged the crowd, we would have seen greater injuries. We might have seen much more severe injuries.”
In contrast, only one of his 48 troopers on the ground was injured because the SOC were “well protected” by their gear.
DAC Arul added: “Our folks came in and we dealt with the situation, and in the days that followed, there was a lot of praise for our troops and I was very proud of them.
“But as I heard reports about what the frontline officers had to deal with, their initial numbers on the ground, and the actions they took, frankly I was quite proud of the fact that they managed to hold that line without being overrun.”
However, COI member Tee Tua Ba, a former police commissioner, said that whether the police were running away out of fear or retreating for tactical reasons was up for debate.
And when COI Chairman G Pannir Selvam remarked to DAC Arul that his explanations sounded like an official statement, he replied: “I’m not trying to sell an official line — this is my assessment.”
The committee also again cited the example of Sergeant Fadli Shaifuddin, who thrice charged solo at crowds to disperse them, and asked if the police could have done more.
DAC Arul testified, however, that while the officer’s actions were brave, it was “not the most tactically sound way to engage a riot because you risk this escalation that you may not be able to deal with”.
“For several seconds, he brought the crowd back, they came back on him, and according to his statement, he agitated them more, and the projectiles were still flying, drain covers being thrown like Frisbees across the road,” he said.
The COI also heard that the Deputy Commissioner of Police’s orders for the SOC was to arrest as many rioters as possible.
However, DAC Arul said he was unable to comply because he did not have enough men. That was why he had to focus on dispersing the crowd and arrested only those who resisted.
