3 assumptions that led to Little India riot

3 assumptions that led to Little India riot
Central Narcotics Bureau director of investigations Adam Fashe Huddin was the final witness at the Committe of Inquiry into the Little India riot.

The hearings of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) into the Little India riot concluded on Wednesday with testimony from the lead investigator.

Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) director of investigations Adam Fashe Huddin, took the stand as the final witness.

He presented his team's findings on how the riot unfolded and offered suggestions on how another riot could be prevented.

His team of six CNB officers, including himself, had interviewed more than 320 people and conducted multiple site visits to Little India and foreign worker dormitories.

The COI secretariat said the CNB was appointed as it is a neutral party and the investigators have the expertise and experience to aid in the investigation.

It was clear that the riot was sparked off by the road traffic accident that killed Indian national Sakthivel Kumaravelu, 33, said Mr Adam.

His team believes the crowd of onlookers had made three assumptions about the bus driver, the timekeeper and the first responders, causing them to become violent.

1. UNSYMPATHETIC BUS DRIVER

The crowd thought the bus driver, Mr Lee Kim Huat, was unsympathetic to the plight of Mr Sakthivel because he refused to move the bus .

They did not understand that as the man had died on the spot, the bus driver was not allowed to shift his vehicle to free the deceased, said Mr Adam.

So they targeted the driver.

More about

Purchase this article for republication.

BRANDED CONTENT

SPONSORED CONTENT

Your daily good stuff - AsiaOne stories delivered straight to your inbox
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy policy and Terms and Conditions.