Talk:May 13 incident (Malaysia)

message: removed
"many Malays & Chinese dissatisfied by their newly independent government's perceived willingness to placate the Chinese at their expense"
Need further details as this statement should not be thrown off-hand--Malbear 07:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: placate

message: removed
", but the curfew was relaxed in most parts of the country on May 18 and rescinded even in central Kuala Lumpur within a week."
and changed to
"but the curfew was relaxed in most parts of the country on May 18 and not enforced even in central Kuala Lumpur within a week."
Officially this state of emergency has never been repealed. --Malbear 07:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of curfew

message: I wonder if this article is in compliance with Wikipedia naming policy; for one, the name is too general. Many other important things could have happened on May 13, and due to its naming, this page is liable to be confused with the May 13 article by some new users. At the very least, shouldn't the "Incident" be in lower-case, per policy (correct me if wrong, though)? In any case, I think a more appropriate name would be "May 13 Malaysian racial riots" or something like that.
: I thought about this when I created the article, but couldn't come up with a better name.  It can't be lowercase "May 13 incident", because that could mean anything.  How about we drop the May 13 completely and call it the "1969 Malaysian racial riots"?  Jpatokal 10:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is known as May 13 in Malaysia. The term May 13 has in fact become a proper noun which is widely used. Mention the phrase and in the Malaysian psyche there can be no name space collision. However mention 1969 and you may get a blank look... I am sure there are policies for namespace collision and the article can be moved but renaming it pre-emptively for a yet to happen eventuality is pre-mature at best.--Malbear 10:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "May 13, 1969 Racial Riots" has also been used in order to eliminate any ambiguity in local discussions and talks. This could be an option for the title of this article. I'm not sure if this term is in compliance with Wikipedia naming policy. Whatever the case, "May 13" or "13 May" are invariably written or spoken in any context (in Malaysia) when this topic is being referred to. --Saifol 02:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may mean everything in Malysia, but for the rest of the world, a more descriptive title that is connected to what happened or the place would be helpful: as in "May 13 Malaysian Racial Riots", or May 13 Racial Riots", or "May 13 Malaysian Riots". Or add the year, too. Can we reach a consensus? --Parkwells (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be renamed? 

message: i can see a lot of the effects of the 16 may incident on my life and my others friends that are not malays or bumiputera's. i really do not feel that is is right to give malays the upper hand in the government or any juristiction. even the 'perlembagaan'or constitution prohibits us of talking about 'racial sensitivity'. we can be arrested just for questioning the 'perlembagaan'! 
its not that i do not like malays, but it has been decades since then, and i think that some changes should be made. its not like the malays are as poor as they used to. walk around any city and you'll see many chinese and indians too, are still considered poor. yet the government still does not change the system and is still favouring the malays. i guess thats why the malays these days are said lazy, they depend too much on the government. thats why more chinese enters bussiness, because know they cant rely on the government. 
the government says the malays need to have at least 30% share in the economy or bussines, or something like that, but how can that happen when the government keeps giving away posts in the government to the malays? the malays will almost definitely become a government servant, and the chinese will be a bussinesman. i dont see how the govenrment cant see this! 
even in the education system, there is a lot of faulty favouring the malays. eventhough some chinese/indian students are better and cleverer than the malays, places in universites and sholarship will be given to the malays. i know of the students, top in their school, both chinese, not being able to get scholarhip, and yet the 3rd and 4th placed in that school with is bumiputera's got scholarship! now, those two chinese boys are living in australia and singapore. they said that they do not want to remember their schooling days, as it was a terrible injustice for them......... and the hardest thing in this is that this 'perlembagaan' or constitution is very hard to change. you'll need more than 2/3rd of the majority in the parliament and also the approval of the Yang Di-Pertuan himself! i cant see that happening anytime soon.
just to conclude, how can the government expect the non-bumiputera's to stay loyal to the government if the government does not be fair. it's just like pursecuting without thinking. a riot like 16 may will definitely reoccur if this system does not change. i can already imagine what will happen if i print this out and paste it all around my school and in the streets........ there is a very thin line peace seperating peace and conflict in malaysia in my mind. 
pls, if anyone wants to comment on this, pls post here. im waiting to hear from you. check this site out http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/May-13th-Incident 
a very good site.
                  "those who forget the past is condemned to repeat it'
The above site is just a rehash of wikipedia
That is why the smart Chinese boys are all at overseas, and why Malaysia is so screwed.
Clearly you do not understand the constitution & how malaysia is built in the 1st place. I do see the effect of the bumi rights effecting other races. Most of the riches people in malaysia is non-bumi's. Maybe if more non-bumi sign up as military & police personnel and most of other races have loyalty to the country then its time to consider deleting the status. Even now i do hear about other non-bumi taking about motherland and others. Your loyalty is not to malaysia thats why this status will never stopped. Ask yourself & look around you. What have you contribute to the nation? 
I dont see any effect on that u say smart chinese boys all overseas. At least we do have smart other race still in the country living happily & yet malaysia is not screwed.
I strongly agree with above statement. Let me tell you - I am neither malay, chinese nor indian. I just live and work in m'sia. If the same had happened in my country - I am sure similar laws would be introduced to protect the locals. I don't see any loyalty displayed by chinese. many don't even try to use local language (bahasa) and certainly they don't assimiliate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.48.29 (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will the policy favouring the malays ever be stopped? 

message: There are some good personal commentaries found in the internet by people who witnessed how the event unfold. 
Granted these personal comments can be biased towards the eyewitness point of view, however there are some facts that can be verified, or corrected when more eyewitness come forward to contribute to this wiki. For instance,
"The riots first broke out in the Kampong Bahru/Raja Laut/Chow Kit area..when the Malay mobs armed with parangs came out of Kampong Bahru and started attacking Chinese and Indian passers-by, burning cars and torching Chinese shophouses in the Raja Laut/Chow Kit areas...Chinese gangsters came out to defend the Chinese and Indians and fought with the Malays with sharpened lead pipes...then the Malay regiment came out and started shooting the Chinese with their guns...a lot of people died in the Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman area near the Odeon Cinema.
The casualties brought to the KLGH in stages showed that in the first stage, most of the casualties were Chinese suffering from parang wounds..this showed that that the Malays had attacked first and the Chinese were caught by surprise...The 2nd stage casualties were almost equal between Chinese and Malays with parang wounds (Chinese) and wounds inflicted by sharpened pipes (Malays). In the 3rd stage, all the casualties were Chinese many dying from gunshot wounds showed reflected the shooting spree of the Malay regiment....Many of the victims were Chinese and Indians shot by Malay soldiers for "breaking the curfew"..what actually happened was that when their houses were burnt by the malay rioters, these non-Malays had to run out and were shot by the soldiers for "breaking the curfew"...I remember hearing over Radio Malaysia during the height of the riots that "curfew breakers would be shot..."
The mass graves of Chinese at Sungei Buloh and other places with some of the bodies tarred to prevent racial identification was true as described by other bloggers above" 
- by Anonymous Thursday, February 03, 2005 10:47:46 PM
[taken from http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2005/02/is-polarisation-in-malaysia-dead-or.htm]
:Uh, I'm not sure if including a verbatim reproduction of that comment is legal here, as the original author has to release it under the GFDL. Anyway, according to WP:CITE, blog comments cannot be used as references because they lack verifiability. So, I guess that comment is verboten for use in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should eyewitnesses' accounts of what happened during that time be included ? 

message: In the second paragraph of Causes of the riot it is said: "1964 Race Riots in Singapore were a large contributing factor in the expulsion of the state from Malaysia". I do not understand (sorry) - what is an "expulsion of the state"? Deuar 10:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Singapore getting kicked out Malaysia.  IMHO the sentence is grammatically correct. Jpatokal 15:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I see ...  Very interesting. I've changed the text to make it understandable to someone (like me) not familiar with Malaysian history (although it was gramatically correct, indeed) :-). Deuar 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear expression 

message: Should school children learn about this in the Malaysian history lessons?
I just need to ask this, how much, if any are the school textbooks include this in their daily lesson. We are talking about to educate the nation of its past mistakes, thus should this be part of the lesson in school ? --dee.tee 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let the young ones learn this 

message: I have removed the sections of the article relating to this (including "Foreign Views", which clearly deals with the 1964 riot instead of May 13). The article doesn't explain at all how the two incidents were related by more than their racial nature, geographical proximity, and UMNO's involvement in both. These two disparate evetns are not tied together, making the article confusing for both the clueless and those who have read about both issues. The 1964 Singaporean riots should be mentioned, but there is no need to devote several paragraphs and two sections to chronicling the events there. If anything, one ought to mention the racial riots in Penang and elsewhere that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s (I would include them, but have lost the relevant sources); these would likely be more relevant than the Singaporean riots. As far as I can establish from the sources I have read, any connection between the 1964 and 1969 riots is tenuous, at best. Therefore, I have removed the two sections of the article relating to the 1964 riots. Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excising the Singaporean 1964 Riots 

message: Since this article is coming out tomorrow at the front page in the selected anniversary section, maybe it is wise to partially lock the page? I do not doubt that some anonymous editors will make unhelpful contribution to the article tomorrow. __earth (Talk) 09:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial lock? 

message: :Image:May 13 aftermath.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:May 13 aftermath.jpg

message: This entire article smells of what isn't said. For example, the lead states:
:These riots continued for a substantial period of time, leading the government to declare a state of national emergency and suspend Parliament until 1971.
How long were the riots? Riots caused parliament to be suspended for two years? And whom did "affirmative action" favor? The majority?
The article also needs a native English speaker to rewrite it.68.111.71.197 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Two hundred percent (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smells of What Isn't Said

message: An editor reverted work because of thinking it made POV worse.  My work included many grammatical corrections, punctuation corrections, and improvements to sentence structure - not just changes or additions to narrative. I also went back to original sources to see what material was being used to construct the article, and added more facts than were there.  For people who don't know the background on Malaysia, the article has gaps.  Per Wikipedia policy, please use this talk page to discuss objections or changes you would like to see rather than using reversion.--Parkwells (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, you edit contradicted some fact in the article. For instance, in the lead section, you wrote the event happened after the Malays attacked the Chinese. But in the Cause section, it read that the Chinese attacked the Malays first. Given that the latter was cited and the former was not, I decided to remove the contradiction. Besides, the previous wording was neutral enough by stating it was a racial riot. Other historical inaccuracy include the independence of Malaysia (which you stated as 1963). Malaysia did not become independent in 1963. Previous version which I've reverted to use an accurate term of formation. __earth (Talk) 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion without discussion

message: I know it'd be better if I'd signed in to edit this post, but the book by Tunku Abdul Rahman, May 13 : Before and After, figures as my main source. Should I put in a gist of what is said in there, along with extracts ? 60.49.70.249 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source text

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: This article was previously May 13 incident. Someone moved it to the current title (13 May incident) with the the rationale: to mirror the Malaysian article. English sources mainly uses the term May 13. Google 13 May incident and May 13 will come out. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 07:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back to May 13 incident 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:13 May Incident which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress