Adrianus Petrus Hertogh and Adeline Hertogh, Maria Huberdina Bertha Hertogh's Catholic parents, could never have imagined that circumstances during the Japanese Occupation in Java would catapult their daughter into political controversy during the post-war era of decolonisation. When the Japanese occupied Java and took the Dutch Adrianus as a prisoner of war, his wife — who had five other children to look after — allowed their family friend Che Aminah, who was a Muslim, to take care of Maria, who was nearly five years old at the time. Che Aminah later moved to Singapore with Maria. When the war was over, Adrianus began to claim back his daughter through the Singapore courts. The ensuing legal tussle was not only between the Hertoghs and Che Aminah, but also drew in Muslims and Christians, the British and Dutch governments, and political parties and social groups in England, the Netherlands and elsewhere. The tug-of-war over Maria culminated after the High Court of Singapore ordered Maria to be restored to her biological Christian parents whereas Maria had been brought up as a Muslim. It was worsened by the fact that Maria, who was by this time 13, was betrothed to a 21-year-old Malay Muslim. This was highly contested by the Dutch authorities. The court order and the manner in which Maria was taken away angered the Muslim community, resulting in an outbreak of riots in mid-December 1950 in Singapore during which 18 people were killed and 173 injured. The targets of the riots were Europeans and Eurasians.

The author of this book skilfully connects the riots, popularly known as the Maria Hertogh Controversy, with colonialism and the British failure to understand matters concerning the Muslims under their administration. The British had underestimated the religious force that was to bring together multiethnic Muslims even in absence of formal leaders, not only in Singapore, but also in peninsular Malaya, Indonesia, other parts of Southeast Asia, India and the Middle East. Hence the Controversy gained international coverage and responses. The failure of the British administration in Singapore to handle the situation effectively was heavily criticised by the home government, as well as by other political and social organisations and individuals in England and in the colonies. The Singapore police force was mainly blamed for its failure to stop the riots. However, it was argued that there was also a lack of coordination among the various administrative agencies and a lack of seriousness on the part of the Governor's office. Even the judiciary was perceived to be rather partial in their hurried judgement over the issue of adoption and marriages between people of different religious affiliations, especially when one party was Muslim. The whole situation was also clouded by tensions between the Dutch and the British over each other's handling of the case.

Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied further explains the steps taken by the British to re-establish peace after the riots against the backdrop of decolonisation and the maintenance of colonial power. He brilliantly connects the different players involved in the official web of actions, that, while aimed at finding solutions, were also a means of covering up weaknesses and failures. The British were also weary of activities by prominent ulama (Muslim leaders), and organisations such as the Jamiah. Sentiments were further tested by the arrests of several Muslim leaders who were accused of provoking the community against the British. The United Malays National Organization (UMNO), ulama en route to and from Mecca, and Muslim students returning from the Middle East were held suspect. The failure of the government to deal decisively with the rioters did not escape criticism from members of the Singapore Legislative Council, the local and British media, as well as local and British elites. A Commission of Enquiry was set up to understand the causes of the riots. Civilians and officers were interviewed, but the fairness of the proceedings was questioned by both the local and British media.

This book reveals how the selection of members of the Commission was politicised by officials in Singapore and the Colonial Office. It also appears that the Governor, who had exerted his influence in determining the list of persons to be interrogated, excluded himself on grounds of sovereign immunity. His list included friends and respected colleagues who were deemed to be suspects and scapegoats. The Governor's treatment of some officials was ‘a vivid example of how colonial officials could turn against even their closest subordinates when the need arose’ (p. 71). The final report of the enquiry into the riots, the Leach Report (headed by Sir Lionel Leach), was eventually published on 7 August 1951, after ‘having been modified in accordance with the politics and anxieties of the time’ (p. 77). Actions and censure were taken against those who were held responsible. The British administration both in Singapore and the Colonial Office resolved to reconcile various local and international parties, such as the Muslim and other communities in Singapore and Dutch politicians and administrators in the Netherlands. Several reforms were recommended for the police force, in education, and marriage as well as adoption policies.

The book is a pleasant read and the author has successfully utilised a large corpus of primary and secondary sources to show that the Maria Hertogh riots in Singapore and their aftermath mirror similar anticolonial incidents and colonial responses elsewhere.