Chin Peng, born Ong Boon Hua, 21 October 1924 to 16 September 2013
The passing of Chin Peng in Bangkok on 16 September 2013 brings to an end one of the longest of Asian political biographies. Chin Peng became the Secretary General and effective leader of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), the country’s oldest political party, in 1947 when he was only 22. He retained that position for the next 60 years, indeed until his death, even though the party became divided, moribund and irrelevant around him. Long after communism ceased to be a threat to Malaysia he was refused permission to return to the country of his birth (unless he publicly recanted all his views) and so he remained an exile.
The scars of that period have not healed. The role of communists in fighting first Japanese and later British for control of Malaya is scarcely recognised in Malaysian textbooks and public memory. Many Chinese and a few radical Malays remain unnecessarily alienated from the Malaysian establishment, and it from them, while an important but polarised chapter in Malaysia-China relations remains off the table, unable to be discussed by either side. Chin Peng himself spent much of his later life attempting to explain and defend what he called ‘My Side of History’. One hopes that his removal from the scene, after having his say, may make the integration of a very divided history a little easier.
Just why Chin Peng came to lead Malayan communism so early in his life has much to do with accidents of his family upbringing and schooling. Although essentially educated in the Chinese medium like the overwhelming majority of Malayan communist recruits, he had just enough English education at the beginning and end of this period to be comfortable, if a little hesitant, in English. His elder brother and his equally committed communist wife were English-educated. In the crisis that endangered the party in 1947, when its long-term Secretary General Lai Tek was discovered to have worked for both Japanese and British and was assassinated by the Party, Chin Peng was well placed politically to succeed, not least because his English enabled him to talk to other communities. Indeed the early years of his leadership marked a striking reorientation of the Party to being ‘Malayan’, and looking for non-Chinese recruits, rather than a branch of the Chinese party.
As a teenager he had already taken a leading part in the communist-supported Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), the most effective armed resistance to the Japanese in Malaya. With a half-dozen other communists in the resistance he was decorated by Mountbatten in 1946. But in May 1948, as the Federation of Malaya structure disappointed non-Malay hopes for a post-war democratic order, as the British increasingly cracked down on left-wing activists, and as both sides in what became the global Cold War hardened their international stance, Chin Peng led the communists back to the jungle in armed insurrection. The Malayan Emergency which followed was a long and ruinous guerilla struggle, involving troops from Britain, Australia and New Zealand as well as Malaya. Progress to independence was speeded to deprive the communists of their most powerful anti-colonial argument. Once the government that would carry the Federation of Malaya to independence was in place, led by the genial prince Tunku Abdul Rahman, a meeting was arranged at which the Tunku could try to persuade Chin Peng to give up the struggle since its nominal object of independence was achieved. Chin Peng proved clear and persuasive at the 1955 Baling talks in Kedah, but insisted that he could only bring his men out of the jungle to lay down their arms if they were allowed to enter the political process as a legal party. Under British advice the Tunku would not agree to this, or indeed to any significant concession to the communists once they surrendered. The talks failed, and all they had changed was to provide the Malayan/Malaysian public with an image of their “enemy”–a slim soft-spoken figure who vanished from sight as suddenly as he arrived.
Malaya duly became independent in 1957, to be followed in 1963 by a broader Malaysia involving also Chinese-majority Singapore and the multi-ethnic British Borneo territories. The fortunes of the MCP in the jungle gradually declined in face of an effective containment strategy, and an increasingly prosperous independent Malaya. The MCP withdrew its central operations base to the Thai border region in 1953, to ease the military pressure. At the end of 1960, with his force shrunk from over 7,000 to fewer than 2,000 men, Chin Peng left his jungle hideout for a mammoth journey to Beijing via Thailand, Laos and northern Vietnam. There he was an honoured guest of the Chinese government for almost 20 years, though still controlling the Party’s radio station in Hunan and by proxies the party on the Thai border. This was a troubled time, including the Cultural Revolution in China and its counterproductive extremism in relations with the rest of the world. Chin Peng survived, but the unity of his party did not. The internal purges in the party became severe in the late 1960s especially, with perhaps 200 executions of alleged spies and traitors. In 1970 two factions broke away from the Chin Peng mainstream, forming the Revolutionary Faction and the Marxist-Leninist Faction respectively. In 1983 they merged to form the Malaysian Communist Party, recognising the new politics of Malaysia as the older party would not. China’s growing warmth towards Malaysia after diplomatic relations were established in 1974 meant that the MCP no longer had real support from Beijing for its armed struggle. Reconciliation should have occurred then, but each of the three parties –Chin Peng and the Chinese and Malaysian governments–had their own reasons for preferring a frozen status quo to any public change of position. Only in December 1989 did the Thais broker a peace agreement between the Malaysian Government and the MCP, whereby the few hundred remaining communists laid down their arms and settled as cultivators in southern Thailand. Chin Peng was no longer an asset to China, and lived thereafter primarily in Thailand.
Long-standing MCP habits of illegality and clandestinity were gradually overcome in the 1990s as governments lost their fear of communism, and Chin Peng himself sought to make his case. Some international journalists found their way to him through Thai military contacts, and articles began appearing from 1997. One of the enterprising journalists was Bangkok-based Australian Tony Paul. He finally managed to meet Chin Peng at the British Club in Bangkok in 1997, and encouraged his interest in writing his memoirs, in a place better served with libraries than his normal residence near Haadyai. On his behalf Tony Paul contacted David Chandler at Monash, and then Merle Ricklefs at ANU, who delegated the matter to me. As a result Chin Peng made his first visit to Australia and New Zealand (having nephews both in Sydney and Auckland), in the course of which I took him to lunch in Canberra on 3 February 1998. He was remarkably affable, charming and thoughtful, revealing nothing of the steely side that must have enabled him to survive the lurches in the Chinese and Soviet lines over his time in charge of Malayan communism. I invited him to return for a month as a visitor at ANU working on his memoirs, in return for which we would hope for a rather intense seminar working over the history of the MCP with some experts.
A year later he was installed in the Coombs Building at ANU behind a door discreetly labeled Mr B.H. Ong. The ANU did not fund his visit, so he stayed with Mr C.C. Chin, omniscient chronicler of the MCP, who at that time was hoping to write an ANU PhD on the subject under my supervision. He charmed both his old antagonists and the students who gathered to hear him reminisce about “Why I became a communist”. On 22-23 February we organised a workshop under the auspices of the newly-formed Centre for the Study of the Chinese Southern Diaspora, where some 20 scholars grilled him about the key decisions and turning points of his long career. Everything would be on the table, he agreed, except the two most sensitive areas for him – the internal disputes of the party and its relations with the Chinese Party. Among those gathered for this remarkable occasion were not only the leading historians of the Malayan Emergency and the MCP –Cheah Boon Kheng, Yoji Akashi, Peter Edwards, Hara Fujio, Anthony Short, Richard Stubbs and Yong Chin Fatt–but several participants who had fought against him, notably Lt.General John Coates of the Australian Army, Leon Comber of the Special Branch, Malayan Police, and John Leary of the Malayan Scouts. The exchanges were cordial and fascinating. On the whole his memory was better that most of those in the room, and his thoughtfulness in reflecting on the issues was second to none.
At the end of a remarkable two days of exchanges, revelations, and critiques, Chin Peng made some interesting personal observations.
Since the beginning of the ‘90s I think and think it over whether I made mistakes or not, whether my belief in communism is wrong or not. …. At least I think my conviction to seek an equal society, that was what communism meant–to seek an equal and just society–I think that is not wrong. …And I think that human society will move on. It will take perhaps another millennium to achieve this fully, or to fundamentally achieve this.
Secondly, about the military defeat…
We were defeated in a sense, we did not realise our goal to set up a government dominated by communists. Or, in our terms, a people’s democracy. But we didn’t [experience] defeat in forcing the British to grant independence to Malaya. Without our struggle, I don’t think the British would grant independence to Malaya. Or it will be many years later…. I don’t think we were humiliated. At least I never surrender, and at least I feel proud, not for me, for our movement, for all those supporters. We can carry on a struggle, a military struggle for twelve years against a major power…This is the longest, the largest scale guerilla warfare in the British Empire, in the twentieth century. [1]
Chin Peng had shown that he was as adept at handling a group of expert academic antagonists as his own hardened guerrillas and the international forces ranged against him. Although the transcript of this exchange was eventually published, he also sought a more controlled version of his story, as related to Ian Ward and Norma Miraflow in My Side of History (Singapore: Media Masters, 2003). In October 2004 he was able to visit Singapore, to give a seminar and quietly meet the next most enduring regional politician, Lee Kuan Yew. That was also the last time I would see him. But despite several attempts he was never able to return to Malaysia.
[1] Dialogues with Chin Peng: New Light on the Malayan Communist Party, ed. C.C. Chin and Karl Hack (Singapore: NUS Press, 2004), pp.234-5.
Anthony Reid is Emeritus Professor and Visiting Fellow at the Department of Political & Social Change, School of International, Political & Strategic Studies at the Australian National University.
I think Tony Reid fails to comment on Chin Peng’s enormous ego and conceit. I believe that Peng was a ‘mini-Mao’ in the sense that he did not devolve authority and insisted on all decision making. The MCP lasted because of Chin Peng’s popularity with indigent Chinese mine workers but failed to attract any real Malay support which would have been essential for Peng’s goals to have had any chance of success.
Despite his outward charm, Chin Peng was no hero.
“Without our struggle, I don’t think the British would grant independence to Malaya..”
I don’t agree. The British were going to leave sooner or later, and not because of Chin Peng. The British saw that the Malay aristocracy was malleable and made great use of this. This led to eventual home rule under the Tunku.
Malaysia’s refusal to grant Chin Peng a visa to return can be argued from both sides.
Peter Cohen
0
0
I second your comment. Indeed Chin Peng himself from his youth was influenced by the legend of the Yenan Soviet and even wanted to go there. Also one cannot dismiss the fact that while in exile in China, CP and his men received ideological training from the Chinese Communist Party. CPM statements from the 60s onwards also reflect their loyalty to Mao Zedong Thought, so no doubt that CP was a “mini-Mao” and perhaps even fashioned himself as one.
0
0
I agree the British were just a tad better at leaving compared to the French. But the great Winston Churchill did not think the Burmese were ready for self rule when they had a millennium old history of that before the white man appeared on the scene with open arms to grab.
0
0
Tommy Thomas, a Malaysian constitutional expert and also Chin Peng’s lawyer in his unsuccessful bid to return to Malaysia, had this to say:
0
0
I’m sorry but Chin Peng’s lawyer is hardly an objective source or judge of Chin Peng’s character or contributions. He is also guilty of guessing what CP would have done if the PEace Talks were successful. Also people seem to forget that Yeong Kwo, deputy secretary General of the CPM stated, that any rapprochement with Tunku Rahman would be temporary as the ultimate goal of the CPM is to achieve power. If the 1968 Insurgency is anything to go by, we can conclude that the CPM never accepted democracy and had no interest in following it. Also statements by the CPM leadership dismissing parliamentary democracy and there aim of creating a “dictatorship of the proletariat” should show that they had no intention of ever accepting the democratic process. Also you forget that the Labour Party of Malaysia was basically an extension of the CPM and they themselves chose to boycott elections and ignore the democratic process. So what proof can you produce that the CPM would have joined the democratic process if given the chance.
0
0
Chin Peng remains a disputed figure in Malaysian history. The first half, where he fought against the Japanese is undisputed and for that he was recognized and rewarded. However his struggle against the British and subsequently against the independent Malayan government remains somewhat problematic. If given the chance, I would have liked to ask him one question, knowing that the MCP was not going to win the war, why continue an arm struggle until the late 1980’s? Would it have not been better to simply put down arms? The war was lost. His reply would have help me at least understand this man. Perhaps Peter Cohen is right, he is an egoistical person, or simply incredibly idealistic and naive.
0
0
[…] READ MORE HERE […]
0
0
There are some excellent documentaries on this subject on Youtube. The British were brutal in expelling the communists. Neither side comes out looking pretty.
0
0
If Chin Peng had come to power, Malaysia would have become a disaster. Anyway, like Ho Chi Minh, Chin Peng lacked any developmental vision for Malaysia. Yes, he was a fighter against the British yet, as an individual, egotistical and opportunistic (which sounds like some Malaysian leaders, past and present). His continued struggle into the 1980s was a reflection of his ego and his
desire to lead Malaysia, which thankfully he
never did.
“Having met Chin Peng, no doubt in his twilight years when he appeared as everyone’s favourite grandfather, I am convinced that had Tunku agreed to permit the MCP and Chin Peng to participate in Malaya’s general elections, the first one held in 1959, and had MCP been elected, and had Chin Peng come to power, he would have voluntarily relinquished power if MCP had subsequently been defeated in the polls…”
Thomas naturally has a bias having been Chin Peng’s lawyer and confidant. I could not disagree more with these comments and I do not believe Chin Peng would have come to power; neither the British nor the Tunku
would have allowed it and their assessment
of Chin Peng (the British that is) was
correct.
0
0
I disagree with the Ho Chi Minh comparison. While HCM was a disaster economically for North Vietnam, he was genuinely loved by his people and in contrast to CP, actually did spearhead the liberation of his country from the colonialists. Also unlike HCM, Chin Peng never demonstrated military skills and ability needed to evict the colonialists. Added to that is that CP and the CPM were really only popular with a certain segment of the population, namely the Chinese working class.
0
0
Dominic,
Ho Chi Minh also had an oversized ego like Chin Peng. Yes, he was popular among his people because most Vietnamese, except the aristocracy, resented the French colonial presence in their country. However, there is still an analogy in that Ho Chi Minh was determined to install a Communist government led by himself at any cost. Ho Chi Minh also “cleansed” the Party (like Mao and like Chin Peng) of those he mistrusted. The resulting government in North Vietnam after liberation, and later Vietnam after unification,
was initially a disaster and 200,000-400,000 people were sent to “re-education” camps. It remains to be seen whether current reforms in Vietnam are sustainable. Vietnam has opened
economically in foreign join ventures and tourists, but like China, its foreign policy is still very much ‘Stalinist’..
I agree with your earlier comments about Chin
Peng and his lawyer. Comments that I made myself in my posting. You also correctly re-iterate what I said about Chin Peng appealing to a small subset of Malayan society-rural Chinese and the Chinese working class with no support among the Malays. The Malay Left was
intially pro-Japanese (meaning anti-British) but had no love for Chin Peng. Only later, after independence, did Gerakan and the SPM
try to fashion a multi-ethnic Left-leaning
vehicle for those who rejected UMNO and Chinese-based parties. The Socialists faded away over time and Gerakan became a business-oriented party for Chinese interests.
0
0
Dear Sir
I’m a Malaysian which is gratefully for yourself, related party and australian contribution in researching the MCP contribution to Malayan independence. it doesnt matter that current Malaysia ruling party have no morale courage to admit this historical fact but truth will prevail in the end. Thanks
0
0
Chin Peng is indisputable an International recognized fighter/leader during the Japanese occupation and also fighting the British. To many Malaysians Chin Peng is a Malaysian Hero fighting for the Malayan Independent as war recognize no race and age. If the veterans still feel sore than it’s too fcuking bad being played up by the moron politicians for their own political survival. Japanese soldiers killed, raped, robbed many Malaysian before they surrendered why do business with them and also Communist China?? Use-Brain?
0
0
Peter Cohen: Both Tunku and the Malaysian government have conceded that the insurrection against the British led by MCP did lead to early independence. I wonder how an outsider like you could make a flippant statement like that.
Kamal: After the Baling talk and the independence, Malayan forces heavily aided by the Commonwealth forces continued to hunt down the MCP guerrillas. The war continued and political repression of left movement continued resulting in the growth of the MCP forces. The WAR was still on. It would be na├пve to expect the CPM to walk out of the jungle by themselves. They would be humiliated, jailed or slaughtered. They did after the 1989 Hatyai Treaty; yet the Malaysian government did not completely fulfil the terms of the Treaty. They continue to harass and demonise ex-CPM members notably their leader Chin Peng.
0
0
“Both Tunku and the Malaysian government have conceded that the insurrection against the British led by MCP did lead to early independence..”
This is actually untrue. Neither the Tunku nor the British nor UMNO have conceded that the Emergency led to early independence. The British and Tunku regarded independence as
a more or less natural transition from a colonial outpost to a Commonwealth member
and later an independent unified Malaysia.
That is their predominant view, whether you
agree with it or not.
British and Australian academics with a certain bias have taken positions that the MCP insurrection led to independence. I
don’t share that view. Most British Officers
involved in fighting Chin Peng do not (or did
not) share that view.
“Outsider” ? I grew up in pre-independence Malaya and later Malaysia and I am married
to a Malaysian. Who are you to call me an
outsider ? You do not know me, so refrain
from personal ad hominem attacks.
The MCP and Chin Peng did enormous damage.
Of course, they weren’t going to “Just walk
out of the jungle…” Terrorists usually don’t. Chin Peng was fighting for China-inspired political reasons not to protect
and improve the lives of Malay indigents of
whom he cared little. Chin Peng was not
fighting for all of Malaya. He wanted to
rid the Japanese so he could come to power
and install a China-inspired Communist
government. It is a good thing that he
was prevented from doing so.
One does not have to be an UMNO supporter
(I am not) to defend the notion that Chin
Peng deserved to be “demonized” for all the
blood he caused. There is a tendency for some Malaysian to see things in black or white politically. If you are against Chin Peng and his insurrection, you must be an UMNO or Malay (or even Japanese) supporter and the obverse. This is an immature viewpoint in my estimation and is part of
Malaysia’s inability to rectify historical
wrongs, depending upon who defines what was
“wrong”…many older and conservative Malays, rightly or wrongly, regard the protests in the 60s as justified because they felt they were outside the economic infrastructure and
would not achieve economic mobility. Many Chinese (not all) are unsympathetic to that view because the riots caused a great deal
of harm and damage to the Malaysian Chinese community. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. The comments here
and frequently on Malaysiakini and similar
on-line journals confirm this. “But, we all
have a right to our view, just not the facts..” (ten points for anyone who can identify the source of this famous and accurate quote).
Of course the MCP fighters would have been jailed if they gave up, but the current record of the Malaysian government with respect to Islamic extremists suggests that
the MCP fighters would have been jailed and
then rehabilitated. UMNO (especially early UMNO) has its faults; massive slaughter is not one of them. Massive slaughter of, and committed by, the CPI and its members in Indonesia is a different history. Malaysia is not Indonesia, for the most part.
It is the MCP and Chin Peng that slaughtered the Malayan populace and you neglect to mention the infighting within the MCP which also led to torture of former MCP members by Chin Peng and his clique. Do not romanticize this man-he does not deserve it anymore than Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh or Fidel Castro.
Yes, the Japanese killed, maimed and
raped many innocent people in China, Korea
and Southeast Asia. Full stop. Nobody (except some Japanese war veterans) disputes this. Does that mean one has to magnify Chin Peng to heroic status because he fought the Japanese ? One can criticize both the Japanese war record and Chin Peng for somewhat different reasons. But both resulted in many innocent people being
killed.
For most Malaysians of today’s generation, they neither know or care who Chin Peng
was; I highly doubt most contemporary Malays
would regard Chin Peng as a hero, rightly or
wrongly. Again, ethnic politics rears its
head in Malaysia. Sympathy for Chin Peng
is higher among older Chinese who are sympathetic to Chin Peng’s ethnicity or may
even agree with his Mao-inspired political
views. Comfortable or not, political positions in Malaysia, contemporary or historical, are often ethnically-defined
and look to remain so for a long time.
P/S Technically Malaysian leaders did not
harrass Chin Peng since he was not allowed in
Malaysia. Despite attempts by the government to discourage OTHER countries from hosting Chin Peng, he gave many interviews, wrote articles and basked in the limelight of academic and journalistic naivete of his
true egotistical and self-serving nature.
0
0
Peter Cohen,
You are just as guilty of the things you posted about others who do not agree with you.
You stated “Neither the Tunku nor the British nor UMNO have conceded that the Emergency led to early independence. The British and Tunku regarded independence as
a more or less natural transition from a colonial outpost to a Commonwealth memberand later an independent unified Malaysia.” as if they are facts. These are at best pure speculations from highly opinionated people like you or “facts” as postulated by the British in the post war era.
It is a fact that granting independence to Malaya had taken away from CP and the MCP the main attractiveness to the people in Malaya – fighting British imperialism.
And to deny that this has not at least accelerated the granting of independence is a best naive. As a white man and benefiting from the colonialisation of Malaya,one could hardly view you as unbiased in your highly opinionated view.
I do not worship CP.It is not about honouring CP. It is about honouring the agreement signed with the Thais and Malaysian government.
0
0
Useful research on a pertinent part of South East Asian history
0
0
The Malaysian government, dominated by UMNO for decades, has been slowly revealed to be a hypocrite and untrustworthy party. The way the UMNO regime abusing its control on media to fool the populace of Malaysia has been well observed by the world over. In the case of settling with the MCP, it’s revealed in My Side’s Story that the Malaysian delegates had actually agreed to recognise the contribution of MCP to the independence struggle but demanded that this agreement to be made confidential in the truce. It just showed the consistent pattern of the UMNO regime, manipulating history and facts for different audiences, all for its own political convenience and interests.
0
0
365 days, what a good and beautiful day to die,even the element is on song for chin peng’s swansong to be immortalize on Malaysia day.despite all the hankering and bickering of it all,one most essential element is, why signed an agreement and renegue on it,and placing imposition along the way,and by the same vein, what were tun perkasa’s doin’during the jap’s occupation? Selling pisang goreng and what a blowback for project M at Lahad Datu. who in truth is the real traitor?
0
0
A tiresome, polarised argument has developed here, as to whether Chin Peng threw the British out of Malaya or not. The truth is that the British were on the way out because they were going broke. Chin Peng and his crowd made it more expensive for the British to stay, so they left earlier than they might have.
0
0
T.N. England,
The argument is not tiresome but critical
as to the role of Chin Peng. You also
reiterate my point (though you explain
it somewhat differently) that the British
were likely to leave anyway. It is true
they were going broke in Malaya and it is
also true as I said earlier that the Tunku
and the British had a pact and Chin Peng
was causing enormous damage to humans
and property. Yes, of course he made
it “expensive” to the British and to
Malayans. The British weren’t going to
stay; the British Commonwealth was too
expensive and cumbersome. It eventually,
for better or worse, dissolved through
independence and the creation of the new
Commonwealth. Communism and the CPM did
not cause to dissolve.
LMF,
Your comments are contradictory and, no,
I am not guilty-read my post please before
you engage in pedantry.
First of all, you have no idea if I am
‘White’ or not. You have no basis for
supposition. Therefore, you should not
subscribe to me views because you think
I am ‘White’…
Do you dispute that politics and culture
are ethnically-based in Malaysia ? If you
do, then you are ignoring reality. It
was true under the British and, as we
can see by some of the comments here
and contemporary electoral politics of today, as true now as 50 years ago.
“It is a fact that granting independence to Malaya had taken away from CP and the MCP the main attractiveness to the people in Malaya – fighting British imperialism…”
Was it Chin Peng that granted independence
to people of Malaya ? Hardly. So, your point
contradicts your (apparent) dislike of
views of some White men. The British granted
independence for reasons stated here and
in innumerable sources. “Attractiveness” ?
To whom ? The Malays ? It is not opinion
that Chin Peng’s support base was working
class and rural Chinese and not Malays.
It is fact supported by historical evidence.
Many Malays fought the British, but not
under Chin Peng’s guidance. The number of
Malay Communists were few and far between
and wanted a Malay-led government not dominated by Mao and China, Chin Peng’s
source of influence and ideology.
Initially, some Malay intellectuals supported the Japanese who falsely promised independence (the Japanese wanted Malaya as part of their ‘Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere’). The Malay aristocracy supported the British or were passive on-lookers. The vast
majority of poor and uneducated Malays certainly weren’t happy the British were
in Malaya but were hardly attracted to Chin
Peng, and most never heard of him except when
the Emergency began. This has been documented many times by both British and (non-White) Malaysians who lived through that period. By the way, some ‘White’ academics
are sympathetic to Chin Peng’s cause and
are highly critical of the British. It seems (based on your words) that you think
every White man is a colonialist.
“You are just as guilty of the things you posted about others who do not agree with you..”
Please read my post again where I say everyone has a right to their opinions,
even ones I disagree with. But facts are
facts. Ching Peng did not grant independence
to the Malayans; he was an impediment because
he wanted to establish a Communist government, ideally with himself at the head. Do you dispute this ? If you think this would have been a good thing, then that is your opinion and I don’t share it. This is a venue for expressing facts and opinions, but not for personal attacks on others.
“These are at best pure speculations from highly opinionated people like you or “facts” as postulated by the British in the post war era…..As a white man and benefiting from the colonialisation of Malaya,one could hardly view you as unbiased in your highly opinionated view…”
I repeat: You know neither that I am White
nor that “I benefited from colonisation of Malaya..”
Since you do not know me, you have no basis
for stating whether I benefited or not.
And, anyway, this is not the proper venue to discuss the personal lives of those who post commentary.
Since I do not make judgements about the
people writing here, I am not being inconsistent. I have made judgements and
offered facts; in particular, I have offered facts and opinions regarding Chin Peng’s actions in Malaya and the threat he represented to Malaya ideologically and physically. You are free to dispute my opinion; but, you are not free to discard facts or classify and disparage me.
0
0
Peter Cohen,
I take my hat off to you for your persistant twisting of words to justify your highly opinionated views.
You twisted my post- Quote: “Was it Chin Peng that granted independence to people of Malaya ? Hardly”
Peter Cohen, can you please clarify and quote clearly from any posts anyone (other than you)make that ridiculous statement that others who do not share your opinion had posted Chin Peng granted independence to the people of Malaya!
Indeed I was wrong that Peter Cohen is white. Not withstanding Peter Cohen may not be white, there is no denying that you Peter Cohen just like most the Chinese or Indians are migrants brought or allowed into Malaya by the Colonial power and therefore benefited from colonialism.
Thomas as a lawyer had much opportunity to know CP as a person. Most people will find Thomas’ opinion more readily acceptable than the highly opinionated views you posted. Especially when you twisted the posts of those differring from yours to include insinuations and plain untruth (CP granting independence to Malaya.
Well done Peter Cohen, you will always have your last say.
0
0
LMF,
Your comments are offensive to me, Chinese-Malaysians and Indian-Malaysians, many of whom did NOT benefit from colonialism.
I have not twisted any quotes, neither yours
or anyone else’s. You seem to like to argue
for it’s own sake. I maintain my views
about Chin Peng and I quoted your statements accurately. You are bigoted against
the Chinese and Indian community as evinced by your comments. There are still many poor Indians in Malaysia who hardly benefited from colonialism or UMNO. Your comment about the British bringing in Chinese and Indians is accurate, but so what ? Most Malays are mixed and are not indigenous to Malaysia anyway-only the Orang Asli are truly native, so your point is moot. Most Malaysians are not indigenous to Malaysia. The British also imported Malays into South Africa, by the way.
Again, you do not know if I am White or not
because you never asked; you made racial
assumptions without evidence.
You are angry and bigoted; this can be seen
in your words. This continuing discussion with is now closed because you are unable to converse accurately and without disparaging attacks against others.
0
0
A wonderful contribution from Prof Reid. His observation regarding Chin Peng’s “striking reorientation” of his party toward a focus on Malaya and the sort of society that it would become ought to give us all much to think about.
0
0
Michael,
I do not believe Chin Peng made any “striking
reorientation”….I think this is incorrect.
I think Chin Peng was adept at using the media and basking in the limelight of adulation by fellow ideologues and anti-colonial views (which, understandably, remains widespread). Opposing Chin Peng, as I have stated before, does not make one a colonialist or even an anachronism.
I do not believe Chin Peng later regretted his actions or rejected his ideological viewpoints as exemplified by his own insistent belief that he was fighting for all Malayans. I neither believe that he was fighting for all Malayans nor believe most Malayans at the time (certainly, most Malays and many wealthy Malaysian Chinese) believe that either. Few Malayans wanted a Communist victory and a Communist-led government taking over in the country. Dislike of the British AND Communism (again, ethnic politics played a major role here) was widespread within the Malay kampungs where conservative Islamic views and practices predominated,then and now.
0
0
Dr Cohen, few observers of Malaysia would agree with your emphasis on the continuity of “conservative Islamic views” in “the kampungs”. Asserting such continuity is probably not sound history. Further, it was Prof Reid and not I who first credited Chin Peng with the “striking reorientation”. So your real beef is with Prof Reid and his scholarship, not with me. All the same, my own modest understanding of the Chinese-educated left in Malaya/Malaysia leads me to think that Prof Reid is correct. And you, perhaps unwittingly, also lend Prof Reid support in acknowledging that Chin Peng had “an insistent belief that he was fighting for all Malayans”. For him to come to that belief, regardless of what you think or of what other Malayans/Malaysians might think, testifies to the reorientation of which Prof Reid wrote. In historical context, that reorientation had and still has, as my comment was meant to suggest, important implications. Do tell us more about the implications of the position that you have staked out in this discussion. It would be fascinating to know.
All the best, Mike M.
0
0
Michael,
Most Malaysians would agree with me that
conservative Islamic values continue in
the kampungs; in Kelantan, Terengganu,
Pahang, Perak and elsewhere. Not only is it
sound history it is contemporary demographic
reality. PAS is popular in rural Malaysia
among Malays, UMNO is not. UMNO is unpopular
among well-educated urban Malays who prefer
Anwar and other opposition groups, but even in KL there are Malays who are conservative, just fewer of them. If you think rural kampungs are not conservative then you need to visit more of them. Ibrahim Ali and Malay extremists are moderately popular in the kampungs; the Malay ‘nationalists’ (same as Islamic defenders) fill up meeting halls and Suraus with Malay supporters. Kampung dwellers are not secular and many want Islamic Laws or at least more Islamic standards implemented, especially in Kelantan and Terengganu. I was there recently and spoke with many Malays throughout Malaysia; non-conservative Malays are mostly to be found in KL and Penang and Ipoh and not in the kampungs. This was my direct observation
speaking with Malays directly in Bahasa. Arguably, even UMNO is making Malaysia more Islamic and conservative, whether one regards UMNO as secular or not (I call them pseudo-secular) which is an important debate for another time.
Secondly, I did not say you used the term
“striking reorientation” did I ? I did infer
that you concur with Prof Reid’s view of Chin Peng and your comments in reply above do corroborate that, don’t they ?
Thirdly, the use of the term “beef” implies
a personal disagreement, of which I have none
with Prof Reid. I have an ideological and historical disagreement. Again, since I disagree with him, and you seem to concur with him, perforce I must then disagree with
you, but not on a personal level.
Fourthly and finally, you misread my posting.
I OPPOSE the notion that Chin Peng was fighting for all Malayans. You misunderstood
my point. I was stating that Chin Peng’s
own belief that he was fighting for all Malayans was false, not believable. I am not
lending Prof Reid support on this point because apparently (it seems) Prof Reid took
Chin Peng’s belief in his own ‘anti-colonial struggle’ at face value. I do not. I think Chin Peng either deluded himself or was consciously being disingenuous (likely, the latter).
It does not testify to the reorientation of what Prof Reid wrote unless you agree with
both Prof Reid and Chin Peng. I guess you do
and I do not.
I have stated my implications rather directly
(meaning I really did not use implications).
Again, I believe Chin Peng was fighting for
himself to lead a Communist takeover of Malaya with a narrow constituency of Malayans
(working-class Chinese) as his support base.
I further stated that Chin Peng was strongly influenced by China and Maoist thought and ideology and not by the needs of the majority
of Malayans, whether Malay, Chinese or Indian
(and he certainly had little or no support
among the Malays at that time). I also assert
that Chin Peng did not reform later after the Emergency ended and that he was an egoist and
enjoyed meeting foreign leaders (e.g., LKY) because he felt it gave him credibility and adulation (in his own mind). Furthermore,
as I have stated in response to other writers here, removal of the Japanese and the British
does not exonerate Chin Peng and the damage he did to Malaya and that his role in the British leaving was minor; the British were
going to leave but they did not want a Communist leadership in their wake (as the
French and the Americans did not want one in Vietnam). The British forces in Malaya fought hard to prevent such an outcome, but they were going to leave-Malaya became too
difficult to manage, expensive and the British were expecting (hoping anyway) that the Malay aristocracy, which was sympathetic to them, would take over. The Commonwealth
was very large and difficult to manage
from the British standpoint.
Well, the Tunku was an Anglophile, studied in
UK, was anti-Communist and so on and so forth. It is interesting that many Malaysians
laud the Tunku but wanted a Sukarno-like leader in Malaysia. The Tunku was no revolutionary, whether one likes it or not.
Many academics don’t.
Peter
0
0
Hi Peter,
You’re new here, so I’ll cut you some slack. For reference, though, it’s not a good idea to clog up New Mandala threads with multiple, repetitive comments. I’d suggest you take a breath and wait for responses from others. We can all see that you are exercised by the issues of the day but unless you take a step back we’ll need to offer some editorial intervention.
Think of this as a rolling seminar — one that trundles from year-to-year, issue-to-issue, point-to-point. It works best if everyone gives the debate space to grow.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
0
0
Nich,
I understand your comments and your
reasons but I feel condescended towards by your words. This is supposed to be an open forum.
Do you also monitor derogatory comments
as well ? Some were made towards me by
a contributor and I naturally responded.
You do not need to “cut me some slack”
because “I am new here”…but thanks.
PC
0
0
Thanks Peter,
This is a moderated forum: it has been for more than 7 years.
And my message was simply a friendly heads-up. Hope you enjoy your time here.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
0
0
Again, Dr Cohen, it is the conservative Islam of today that has little continuous history in Malaysia. In a little over our heads, are we?
0
0
It has very much a continuity in Malaysian history. Your expertise is supposedly
Thailand. I think you should refrain from
derogatory and inaccurate comments and focus
on Bangkok and not a place you did not grow up in. Your knowledge of Islam in pre-colonial Malaysia, not to mention, in the period when Islam arrived in Southeast Asia, is scant. This back-and-forth is over.
0
0
Thanks and not a moment too soon. Should I shut up too since I did not grow up in Malaysia? What’s the weather like up on that ivory tower?
0
0
Many thanks for your instructions, Dr Cohen. I will judge their usefulness in the context of all of your other recent postings on New Mandala.
0
0
My analysis of Chin Peng based on reading this article: Mr. CP was a small, soft spoken man who carried a “big stick” and most likely familiarized with the work of Sun Tzu, The Art of War. So…what other characteristics would enable Mr. CP to survive this long? A simple analysis but a likely scenario! Evidently, CP didn’t want to put “everything on the table” when writing about his life. He left out, in which many would consider, the most important aspects of his career as a communist leader-the internal dispute of the party and the relation with the Chinese Party. Given the nature of communist ideology and of man, I speculate that CP’s aims and China’s aims for the rest of Asia were dark.
I found Dr.Cohen’s writing in response to other commentators were credible and based on his observations and experiences. As a person who has lived in Malaysia since colonial time, surely he would have seen what had transpired in this part of the world. This is what gives him an edge over the other commentators.
0
0
I agree with your assessment that leaving out his relations with the CCP and the bloody internal party purges make an incomplete historical evaluation of CP. Specifically the relationship with the CCP, its possible that Chin Peng and the CPM really were proxies and receiving marching orders from the CCP which would dent the image that Chin Peng built for himself, that he was a freedom fighter. I personally believe CP was a puppet of the CCP or at least a dutiful follower of it, afterall most people here seem to forget that in the 1960s, CPM propaganda was complete with references to Mao Zedong Thought and condemnation of “Soviet revisionism”. Lets also not forget where CP stayed for a good 20 years.
0
0
I rather find this Cold War line that every CP in the world was a proxy of either the Soviet or Chinese CP and must be taking their marching orders from them very old hat and tiresome right wing propaganda.
Does it then follow that Batista, Pinochet, Syngman Rhee, Ngo Din Diem, Park Chung-hee, Marcos, Suharto etc. were all US puppets? Shouldn’t cnvergence in political and economic goals let alone ideological ones sufficient in themselves? Chin Peng was Chinese. Big deal.
0
0
Chin Peng was a proxy for China. The evidence
for this is overwhelming. It is not “right-wing” propaganda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/asia/chin-peng-malaysian-rebel-dies-at-88.html?_r=0
What is tiresome is the unceasing Leftist support for Communist bullies and terrorists
like Chin Peng, Mao, Castro, Kim Un, etc.
And, yes, the US did support Batista, Marcos,
Pinochet, Ngo Din Diem, Park Chung Hee, etc.
with monetary and political support. And one
can rightly debate the worthiness and cost
of that support. You deflect attention away
from Communist Part atrocities by pointing out right wing world leaders. “Two wrongs
don’t make a right..” Chin Peng committed
wrongs and so did Marcos and Pinochet (for example). Chin Peng, remains, however a terrorist and did nothing to help the Malayan
people.
0
0
What “overwhelming evidence”… in NY Times?!
Hardly likely to flee somewhere other than China whose support only to be expected.
War never was pretty and no one has a monopoly on indefensible atrocities, My Lai, agent orange, depleted uranium all included.
Mandela was a terrorist, so was Menachim Begin, but nothing succeeds like success, history being written by the victors.
0
0
As the Russians say: ‘Yours is a spy, ours is an intelligence officer’. Likewise, whether Chin Peng was a terrorist or a freedom fighter is a matter of perspective. We can argue until the cows come home.
0
0
Truth, we must allow, may still remain elusive. Also bear in mind that CPeng used ANU and other platforms in his post-1990 campaign to paint himself on the right side of history. His bottom-line seems to be that he was at least willing to fight for what he believed in. This is an admirable quality in itself but insufficient for his final project: one’s beliefs, even if not entirely self-centered and self-serving, may be misguided and bad for others.
I find Peter Cohen’s view generally plausible and persuasive. What I do not understand is his insistent denial of CPeng’s role in speeding up Malayan independence. The British returned to economically important Malaya after the war intending to delay its (inevitable) progress towards independence for as long
as possible. But the communist revolt forced the British to grant independence earlier (together with other measures including relaxing citizenship conditions) in order to contain support for the communists. This seems widely accepted and consistent with available evidence.
CPeng did not intend for the British to hand over the country to the Alliance. And for sure this was not what he was trying to speed up. But his actions did have these consequences, even if unintended and unanticipated by him. I wonder why Peter Cohen denies even this.
0
0
Lim,
I do not deny what you state at the end, if I understand you correctly. On the contrary, it was China and not the Alliance, that Chin Peng intended to hand Malaya over to. The connection between CPM and Mao was irrevocable; Chin Peng said so himself. Aside from #2 being a counter-counter spy, I never denied that Chin Peng had no intention to hand over Malaya to Malaysians; I said quite the opposite. His intentions were very much anticipated by him. Chin Peng was as much a proxy of the Chinese Communist Party as Sukarno would have been, had he not been deposed (and I am not defending necessarily the way Sukarno was deposed; but there were 2.5 million Communists in Indonesia, the third largest Communist Party in Asia, 1965 is a discussion that has already taken place on NM and will continue to in Indonesia).
Re-read my post. I am 90 % agreement with your last paragraph. The 10 % is that I think you are optimistic when you say the consequences were unanticipated, some are and some aren’t, but make no mistake, in his own mind, Chin Peng was a Communist (at that time), an opportunist (a good one at that), and loved China far, far more than Malaya, in the context of a Malay Malaya. He may have suggested otherwise in his last interview, but as I was living in Malaya, while the Emergency took place, and my father fought the Emergency, I speak with some experience. Am I biased ? YES. I am resolutely anti-Communist and I will always despise Chin Peng and the CPM. I have stated my reasons here and before.
0
0
We don’t have to like or respect Chin Peng for his political views. But we can honor his memory for his courage in fighting Japanese and English occupiers of Malaya. It’s a disgrace that Malaysian authorities won’t allow his ashes to be interred there.
0
0
Agree with you totally. The Malaysian authorities do not allow his ashes to be interred in Malaysia simply reveals how terrified they are of this man even when he is dead, and how unstable and lack of confidence the regime is. History is a distillation of Rumor. Respect him or not, no character assassination nor the manipulation and distortion of facts can deny Chin Peng’s place in the history of Malaya.
0
0
‘’Chin Peng proved clear and persuasive at the 1955 Baling talks in Kedah, but insisted that he could only bring his men out of the jungle to lay down their arms if they were allowed to enter the political process as a legal party. Under British advice the Tunku would not agree to this, or indeed to any significant concession to the communists once they surrendered.’’
The above statement strongly suggested the British’s (imposing?) advice to Tunku is a mockery to Westminster Democratic system which principally entails none-violent ‘’political process’’ which was what Chin Peng had insisted.
He and his men had fought alongside against the Japanese invasion and resisted its occupations of Malaya when the British had surrendered. Despite this and his unwavering patriotic attachment to his mother land, he was not given a chance to take part in the democratic system adopted.
He was prejudiced for his belief in communism for justice and equality for the people.
What if he had believed in democracy for the same values?
I think Chin Peng had been treated unfairly .
He was truly a patriotic son of Malaya.
His legacy belongs here. He should be recognized as a citizen of Malaysia that he was undeservingly denied.
0
0
Hi everyone,
By sheer coincidence, a friend of mine shared a news flash video clip of the talk on 28 and 29 December 1955 at Baling, Kedah 1955.
As we all know, most written reports, documentation of events including news archives are subjected to the writer’s or journalist’s perspective as well as the direction given for the job to be done.
Thought I should share this news footage with you so that we can have a glimpse of a particular time in history.
Here is the link to the Pathe news flash footage on the two days “peace talks” at Baling in December 1955: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGNxYtjAd7c
I found the discourse of this news footage quite consistent with the time of Malaya being a colony of the British empire.
What was interesting was that the “peace talk” was referred to as “amnesty” – which means an official pardon.
Yet the requests of Chin Peng to form a political party were turned down and so was the request for the Malaysian Communist members to enjoy the ability to return to their lives as Malayan subjects of the British Empire.
Personally, I think it is a really poor decision to deny the rights of one’s subject who are members of the Malayan Communist Party back into their own community. The reasons for my views are as follows:
1. Chin Peng actually helped the British by working with Colonel John Davies, referred to in Pathe’s news as the famous Force 136 Guerilla Leader during the Japanese Occupation.
My question is – why is it acceptable for Chin Peng to work with Colonel John Davies to carry out guerilla activities on the Japanese colonial master and yet described similar actions on the British Colonial master as an act of felony?
Why wasn’t Chin Peng’s guerilla warfare carried out for the British Colonial master recognised with a bravery award?
2. IF we want to have a civil society then, the only way to achieve this is to look back in history and learn from the past that violence and war are destructive forces that do not build civil society.
An excellent example of co-operation, kindness and fairness is the manner in which the the United Nations World Health Organisation has co-ordinated the response to Covid-19 and Covax, the development of the vaccine.
Any organisation, be it government or non-government should always uphold the values of civil society by NOT taking away the sense of Human Dignity, Fairness, Respect, Co-operation, and Kindness which are essential for building a kinder, integrated and respful community. These values are infact in the United Nations ” Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) proclaimed and endorse on the 10 December 1948. Incidentally, the UDHR contain a provision that ” as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppressio…”
3. Regardless of whether it’s a person, a nation, or a community, where we are today is linked to past events and decisions made back then.
We can disagree, debate, argue and we can have our own opinion. However, I think we can all agree that it is crucial to let the “FACTS” speak for themselves.
In order to uphold the doctrine of validity and veracity, it would be proper to analyse and listen to every word strictly within the context . The usual challenge each of us face is our human tendency to “colour” the facts through our own perceptions.
Thank you all for all your contributions which motivated me to do what Elie Wiesel has put forward to speak up : ” When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivites become irrelevent. Wherever men and women are persecuted becuse of their race, religion or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe”
Covid-19 has shown us that each of our actions affect others – we are connected. We can decide to:
1. nurture and grow the connections with respect, fairness, kindness and human dignity or
2. continue to use the power framework, be it financial, market or government to get what we want by disempowering the weaker party.
History has taught us that market economy without the check and balance of the rule of law does not work and neither has the communist and social frameworrk.
I hope we vote to adopt the values of civil society.
0
0