Advertisement

COMMENT: Alcohol ban in place in Little India for six months — what is the point?

South Asian labourers stand outside a MRT train station after the suspension of sale and consumption of alcohol in the Little India district in Singapore on December 15, 2013. (AFP/Rosalan Rahman)
South Asian labourers stand outside a MRT train station after the suspension of sale and consumption of alcohol in the Little India district in Singapore on December 15, 2013. (AFP/Rosalan Rahman)


Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

Almost two weeks after the riot in Little India, authorities still seem convinced that the situation was a result of alcohol abuse. In their haste to pinpoint a cause and demonstrate a swift response, the police introduced the knee-jerk measure of a ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol.

The alcohol ban which was in place last weekend already hit businesses hard, driving away customers in what would otherwise have been another busy, bustling weekend. But the police have now announced that the alcohol ban will remain in weekends, public holidays and the eve of public holidays… for the next six months.

Alcohol could have been a contributing factor to the riot. Yet the alcohol ban makes little sense. Those who want to drink will still be able to consume alcohol in other parts of the island. In fact, clubs and bars dotted around Singapore still host parties where booze is readily available. This blatantly obvious fact signals one thing: that imposing a ban on alcohol sale and consumption in Little India – and only on the days that migrant workers are likely to get off work – is a way of trying to prevent a specific group of people from having access to alcohol.

This is extremely condescending, and plays up to the stereotype of the “drunken Indian”, unable to manage his own alcohol intake and therefore needing us to manage it for him. The actions of the few have now been used to justify the punishment of many; not just the other migrant workers who simply want to enjoy a beer or two with friends, but the businesses that rely on the sale of alcohol for their profits.

The urge to brainstorm alternative activities to discourage migrant workers from going to Little India belies a very simplistic understanding of what happened that night: that migrant workers + alcohol + Little India = riot, as if these things would never happen in any different circumstances. In our immediate response to the situation we have fallen back on prejudices and stereotypes, easy answers that take a lot less effort than the soul-searching really required.

A ban that lasts every weekend and public holiday for six months could kill a business while doing little to address the issues behind the riot. In our desire to “protect” Little India's place as a beautiful, vibrant part of Singapore, we could have inadvertently brought in measures that would sanitise and dull it down. And if this happens, nobody wins.