No, it was not motivated by race. Around 9% of Singaporean citizen are Singaporean Indian and 58% of those are Tamil (I attended two weddings in the last 3 years where one of the couple was Tamil) - the same as the non-Singaporeans involved in the riot. There have already been two Singaporean Indian presidents (Devan Nair and S. R. Nathan, the latter the longest-serving in Singaporean history).
It's hard to find a parallel with any Western country, because no Western country has as free an immigration policy for low income workers as Singapore does (the US has a large illegal immigrant population to meet demand, but the dynamics of that are very different) - around 12% of residents are on Work Permits (i.e. construction workers or domestic help) [1].
The Straits Time did not publish the event as a race-motivated riot because it wasn't - it was more about a bunch of drunk angry people burning a few cars - and that it wasn't was immediately obvious to the readers of the Straits Time (which include many non-Singaporeans; not to mention the ST has had its own feuds with the Singaporean government).
>No, it was not motivated by race.
You mentioned in your previous comment that it was a "customary" reaction to the accident. I'm no expert on the culture, but I'd assume that public drinking is a great deal more socially acceptable in South India.
Singapore is lucky enough to be close to a tremendous supply of inexpensive human capital - even more so than the US/Mexico. Their immigration policy allows low-paying marine/construction jobs to be filled quickly, but workers' rights are essentially nonexistent.
Those 12% of foreign workers are almost all guaranteed to be earning enough to support themselves and their families back home - and that's without the benefit of a minimum wage or membership in an effective union. This sort of public policy may attract foreign investment, but it's unfair to the workers that have made Sg rich and it's unlike anything seen in the rest of the developed world.
>not to mention the ST has had its own feuds with the Singaporean government
Are you referring to the long-standing tradition of the PAP suing print journalists for libel?
I was browsing the front page of their site after I looked up coverage of the riots. The biggest story currently is about a marine trade union leader and MP resigning in disgrace after embezzling funds. Nowhere in the story does it mention his involvement in the PAP. There's a reason they have the worst press freedom rating of developed countries.
It's hard to find a parallel with any Western country, because no Western country has as free an immigration policy for low income workers as Singapore does (the US has a large illegal immigrant population to meet demand, but the dynamics of that are very different) - around 12% of residents are on Work Permits (i.e. construction workers or domestic help) [1].
The Straits Time did not publish the event as a race-motivated riot because it wasn't - it was more about a bunch of drunk angry people burning a few cars - and that it wasn't was immediately obvious to the readers of the Straits Time (which include many non-Singaporeans; not to mention the ST has had its own feuds with the Singaporean government).
[1] http://population.sg/resources/population-composition/