Revolutionary leadership is a hard row to hoe. While respect and even occasionally adulation may be enjoyed among one’s own followers, it is vitriol and denigration which are the most common responses to any efforts made to forcibly change political regimes. And when revolutions are unsuccessful, the forces of the establishment will, almost without exception, vituperate those who led them. This is certainly the case with Chin Peng (the nom de guerre of Ong Boon Hwa), who led the Communist Party of Malaya (and then Malaysia) (CPM) as its Secretary General from 1947 until his death in a Bangkok hospital on 16 September 2013.
Establishment figures have been quick with their denunciations. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak noted that: “We will not allow him to be buried in Malaysia because of the black history he had created,” while Ibrahim Ali, head of the supremacist group Perkasa, clearly reflected the perceived danger of Chin Peng’s memory to the UMNO party-state when he averred “People like Chin Peng must be erased from history, from being known by people, especially the younger generation.” Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi advised that Putrajaya did not want his remains interred in the country as it could lead to a memorial dedicated to him.
But the reactions to his passing have certainly not been solely those of state vilification. PAS Sepang MP Mohamed Hanipa Maidin referred to Chin Peng as “an independence fighter,” while Kedah PAS leader Fadzil Baharom travelled to Bangkok to offer his condolences. MCA vice-president Gan Ping Sieu urged that Chin Peng’s ashes be allowed to be returned to Malaysia, while Thai former prime minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was key guest at the cremation. Retired Thai generals who attended his cremation lauded Chin Peng as “Malaysia’s version of Myanmar’s Aung San, Indonesia’s Soekarno and Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh.” Even the former Inspector-General of Police in Malaysia, Abdul Rahim Noor, who had negotiated with Chin Peng in 1989, noted that Malaysia would be a laughing stock if it did not allow Chin Peng’s ashes into the country.
The diversity of responses to Chin Peng’s death and assessments of how the man and his party should be remembered in Malaysian history have constituted a virtual online civil war, reflecting many of the social fissures and political cleavages within the country. While a whole spectrum of opinions has been expressed, two basic strands can be distilled — that Chin Peng was a traitor and terrorist who tried to destroy Malaysia and brought death to many, or that he was a freedom fighter who tried to liberate the country and achieve social justice within it.
The agendas of Chin Peng were indeed diverse over time and, before further assessing how relevant any of the present-day interpretations of the man are, it might be worth briefly examining what Chin Peng was seeking to achieve at various stages of his life. His earliest recorded political involvement occurred during his middle school years in his home state of Perak where, in 1937, he joined activities which were aimed at opposing the Japanese occupation of China and professed a wish to travel to China to fight against the Japanese forces there. At this time the CPM, which organised the anti-Japanese activities, was promoting a “Malayan People’s United Front of all nationalities,” in order to “realize a Malayan Democratic Republic.”
In 1940 Chin Peng joined the party and was placed in charge of the local underground newspaper Humanity News. While the party was local, its concerns as reflected in this journal were indeed international and the Fascism of both Europe and Asia were key aspects of concern. The subsequent key role of the CPM, through the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army, in opposing the Japanese in Malaya post-December 1941 and in assisting the British special forces in Malaya throughout WWII is well-known and needs no rehearsing here. Following the Japanese surrender in 1945, while being awarded an OBE by the British for wartime assistance, Chin Peng was also promoted to the CPM’s Central Military Committee and was tasked with implementing a policy of “open democratic struggle” involving “the unity of the three races” in pursuit of self-rule in Malaya.
In some ways, this is what the British were also intending with the implementation of the Malayan Union in 1946, which sought to create a peninsular Malayan polity rather than a Malay-dominated state. This provided for equal citizenship for all races of the peninsula and reduction of the powers of the feudal rulers. However, through subsequent opposition from the new-created UMNO, paternalism within the Colonial Office and growing British Cold War fears, between 1947 and 1948 the Malayan Union was completely reversed and replaced by the Federation of Malaya – an arrangement deliberated upon only with the sultans and UMNO — which provided for a special place for the Malays in the new state and a revived role for the sultans. As this new framework for Malay ethnocracy was being drawn up, Chin Peng assumed leadership of the CPM in 1947 following the flight of the British agent Lai Tek. It was quickly recognised that the new political arrangements being instituted by the British essentially precluded any possibility of the CPM gaining power through constitutional means.
Whether it was mainly this which led to the CPM under Chin Peng planning and launching a rebellion (aka revolutionary war) in mid-1948 is unclear, but the degree to which British failure to include Chinese and Indian aspirations in the 1948 Constitutional arrangements precipitated the rebellion or encouraged the assistance it was to receive from the Chinese and Indian communities and the Left from all communities remains a key issue for further research.
Over the 12 years of the Emergency (1948-60), Chin Peng led a revolutionary war against the British and then against independent Malaya. By 1951, it was clear that the CPM could not win a shooting war, and the Central Committee, including Chin Peng, moved from Pahang to southern Thailand. In 1955, as plans for Malayan independence were progressing, the Tunku made a public offer of amnesty to the CPM, which was met by a counter-offer from the party for talks. The subsequent talks in Baling between the Malayan authorities and the CPM, represented by Chin Peng, broke down primarily because the Tunku reneged on a previous undertaking that through surrender CPM members would be able to “enjoy a status that would enable them to fight for independence by constitutional means.” The failure of the talks and the recognition that there was little future in armed struggle saw Chin Peng push in 1957 for further political and ideological work among students across the peninsula, while most of the CPM guerilla fighters regrouped with him at Sadao in southern Thailand.
The CPM had long been aided at least ideologically by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and in 1960 Secretary-General Chin Peng travelled overland to China, meeting Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi en route. Beijing was already funding other armed revolutions in Southeast Asia and Deng Xiaoping urged Chin Peng to revive armed struggle in Malaya. Somewhat later, efforts were expended on opposing the “Malaysia plan” which the British had implemented to create the new country of Malaysia which would serve as an anti-communist bulwark in Southeast Asia.
While the second revolutionary war raged in Malaysia, from 1969 Chin Peng created and oversaw the Suara Revolusi Malaya (Voice of the Malayan Revolution), a radio station which broadcast from Hunan in China to Southeast Asia in Mandarin, Malay, Tamil and English. The broadcasts began in the year that riots in Malaysia following the federal election were used as a pretext to invoke martial law and install a National Operations Council, led by Tun Abdul Razak, which further entrenched racially discriminatory systems and practices. In response, the CPM broadcasts urged “people of all nationalities” to unite to overthrow the “semi-feudal Razak clique,” and highlighted the chauvinism and “racial suppression” by the Malaysian government, noting that “The CPM puts forward a programme for a new democratic revolution to ensure racial equality in all respects, oppose racial discrimination and strengthen national unity.” This claim, that the UMNO-led Malaysian government was intrinsically racist and therefore socially unjust continued to be a key claim of the CPM and validated their continued opposition to the Malaysian state. It also earned them considerable support among those who were the losers under the ethnocracy practiced by the UMNO party-state.
However, in 1981, with PRC support for Southeast Asian communist movements being withdrawn, Deng Xiaoping instructed Chin Peng to close down the CPM radio station. Within the following decade, a succession of talks between the CPM, and the Thai and Malaysian governments explored avenues for the cessation of all CPM functions. During these talks, conditions for the ceasefire set by Chin Peng included the right to form a political party to contest in federal elections in Malaysia, that the Internal Security Act be repealed, that the CPM’s struggle be recognised as a factor in Malayan independence, and that those CPM members desiring to return to Malaysia be allowed to do so. Only the last of these demands was eventually acceded to.
The peace documents were signed in Haadyai, Southern Thailand on 2 December 1989, and while Chin Peng pledged allegiance to the Malaysian ruler, both he and Abdullah Che Dat (Abdullah CD) urged Malaysians to unite in the cause of social justice. Most veterans of the Malay 10th regiment of the CPM were accepted back into Malaysia, as were Abdullah CD (CPM Chairman) and Rashid Maidin (CPM Central Committee member). However, new conditions involving statements of confession and surrender instituted by Malaysia obstructed the return on many of the Chinese fighters, including Chin Peng. Despite repeated requests, support from the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and a court challenge seeking permission to return, the Malaysian government kept Chin Peng out of the country until his death.
It is likely that this enforced exile gave Chin Peng even more cachet among some people as both a victim and–whether earned or not — as a fighter for both ethnic and social justice in Malaysia. In the period after the signing of the peace accord, Chin Peng certainly did set about trying to create his own history, researching in the British archives, participating in academic seminars on CPM history in Canberra and Singapore, and writing his autobiography “My Side of History.” A film about Chin Peng, “The Last Communist” (2006) by Amir Muhammad, is banned in Malaysia, while a plethora of publications by former CPM guerillas and underground operatives now bring attention to their authors and, albeit not always positively, to the leader of the party. Within these works, in usual Communist parlance, “the struggle” is depicted as an almost sacred duty, with those who died during the Emergency or subsequently being referred to as “martyrs” and “heroes.” There have also been a not insignificant number of statements by members of the Left in and beyond Malaysia claiming that the CPM forces were the real freedom fighters and assessments that Malayan independence in 1957 was brought about by the CPM.
Chin Peng’s death has brought together a range of opponents of UMNO and its policies, historical and contemporary. The voices of the Old Left, the New Left and the ordinary citizens who feel that they have been excluded from Malaysian society by ethnocratic policies and practices or by UMNO corruption and decadence have found common cause. Even the reputation of the CPM is being publicly rehabilitated by some. P. Ramasamy, deputy chief minister of Penang, has publicly proclaimed that: “Political, social and economic developments in post-war Malaysia would make no sense without any reference to the CPM. The formation of trade unions amongst urban and plantation workers was largely initiated by the CPM. The fight against plantation capital for the improvement of the lives of Tamil workforce was directly inspired by trade unions that came under the influence of the CPM.”
Malaysia’s Sedition Act provides that actions which “question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution” are seditious. Open interrogation of ethnic provisions and privilege in Malaysia is thus precluded. But indicating common cause or sympathy with a person who led a party whose rhetoric stressed the equality of all Malaysians and the unmet need for social justice allows the same sentiments to be expressed legally. This reveals why there is so much intensity, anger and angst on the two sides of the Chin Peng assessment debate. It is, in effect, a proxy debate on the future of Malaysia.
The excesses, violence, purges, and ideological straightjackets of the Communist Party of Malaysia do not necessarily endear it or its members to the New Left. But Chin Peng, perhaps more in death than in life, is being lauded and remembered not as Secretary General of the Communist Party of Malaysia, but as a symbol of opposition both to UMNO privilege and corruption and to the ethnocratic practices which continue to destroy the social fabric of Malaysia. And it is precisely on this basis that UMNO’s vitriolic opposition to Chin Peng, to the repatriation of his ashes, to memorials to him and to a positive historical assessment of the man is such an essential task in validating UMNO privilege and Perkasa’s raison d’etre.
The Left in Malaysia need symbols around which they can unite and Chin Peng has, through his death, provided such a symbol for this moment.
Geoff Wade researches historical and contemporary Asian Interactions. He developed the China-ASEAN and China-India Projects at the Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong and subseqently worked with the Southeast Asia-China Cluster of the Asia Research Institute, NUS before helping to establish the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre of ISEAS, Singapore. He is now Canberra-based.
As I have commented earlier, Chin Peng was
an egotistical proxy of China, with a narrow
Malayan constituency (working-class Chinese)
who disingenuously believed that he was liberating Malaya from the British. I agree
with Geoff Wade that Chin Peng has become
(and was before) a symbol for the Left, and
Left-minded, of anti-colonial struggle. I believe Chin Peng to be a poor symbol and
do not share the view of some, in academia
and outside academia, that Chin Peng’s contribution to Malayan independence was both
necessary and positive. There are many who
overstate or even neglect to comment on Chin Peng’s near absence of support among Malays
at the time of the struggle and the Emergency. Maidan and Baharom do not represent the vast majority of Malays in their view of Chin Peng and neither PAS
nor UMNO regards Chin Peng well (and, no, this does not mean one is incapable of opposing UMNO, PAS and Chin Peng all in the same breath as I happen to).
In the end, I believe Chin Peng was a disingenuous ideologue fighting for a Communist Government in Malaya, aided by
China and his own self-adulation. Not
a view shared by the generally Left-leaning
academic community or some old-time Leftists
in Malaysia, Australia, UK and elsewhere. But I believe my view of Chin Peng to be accurate and lacking in naivete, which I believe to be common among his supporters,
before and now.
0
0
P. Ramasamy, deputy chief minister of Penang, has publicly proclaimed that: “Political, social and economic developments in post-war Malaysia would make no sense without any reference to the CPM. The formation of trade unions amongst urban and plantation workers was largely initiated by the CPM. The fight against plantation capital for the improvement of the lives of Tamil workforce was directly inspired by trade unions that came under the influence of the CPM.”
This is nonsense……the lives of the Indian
community in Malaysia were untouched by Chin Peng and the CPM. The poor Indian plantation workers were not liberated by the CPM, UMNO
or anyone else, which is why they are still
poor. To the extent there is a voice for
this indigent community it is Indian NGOs
and vocal members of the Tamil community, but
I would not give credit to Chin Peng for any
Indian (valid as they are) complaints about
UMNO and lack of upward mobility in Malaysia.
Once again, the Left needs a hero.
“The excesses, violence, purges, and ideological straightjackets of the Communist Party of Malaysia do not necessarily endear it or its members to the Modern Left.”
On this point I disagree with Geoff Wade. The
Left frequently overlooks the violence, purges and ideological excesses of Communist
Parties and Communist countries. Academics and journalists, in particular, are willing to overlook the damage caused by Communism.
One need only look at the innumerable supporters of Mao and the PRC among Western
academics and journalists, many of whom traveled to China to support Mao’s cause.
Many on the Left defended the Cultural Revolution in China as necessary to purge
‘reactionary’ elements. I believe many on the Left view Chin Peng with the same glasses
as Mao was once viewed. I would welcome the names and commentaries of some new Left individuals who are critical of Chin Peng.
I believe them to be very few and far between.
0
0
What does Peter Cohen expect? The historic divide is alive and well. Local colours and circumstances differ. He himself is a living proof in coming up with the racial divide argument justifiable only to a point in order to belittle the CPM’s role in the anti-colonial struggle and it’s unfinished business in fighting for a fairer and just society in this part of the world that is a reflection of the struggle elsewhere.
0
0
If Chin Peng or CPM were dead wrong with their ideologies, many would not join and support them. It is easy to find and focus only on the bad merits of CPM struggle but the point made by Cohen is clearly biased.
During war time, many atrocities get committed. Some intentionally some unintentionally as the saying goes.. all is fair and love and war. I am not being racist but why malay CPM members were accepted back and the chinese not? Talking about killing, the British and the Japanese had no business being here colonizing us. They killed many more durign their rule. Being foreiners, I would say, the British supported by the australian army and the Japanese were the greater evil as compared to Chin Peng and CPM.
All coins have two sides. Nobody can deny tired of dying and their interest sabotaged by CPM, the British were forced to deliver independence through UMNO who assured them British interest in Malaysia will continued be looked after .. at least until Mahathir later became incensed with them.
It was the British that forced Tunku to renege on his promise to provide amnesty and allow them normal lives as citizens anywhere they wanted to live in Malaysia. Otherwise, Malaya would already have peace before merdeka… but there was another risk… the British would have renege on giving independence that too.. if CPM would have disbanded. We all know Britain wanted the rich resources in Malaysia to rebuild their own economy.
UMNO is rewriting history fearing their lack of contribution towards independence might become exposed. But I think like Chin peng .. all other Malay, Chinese and Indian population .. where ever they lived.. whatever their vocation..all contributed in their own ways to bring about the independence and progress todate. What we hear in the media today is purely politics.
Cohen superficial and shallow arguments makes me feel better that I went and paid my respect to Chin Peng and attended his wake in Bangkok.
0
0
And who says that working-class Chinese were a “narrow constituency” in the Malaya of sixty-five years ago, anyway? Dr Cohen needs to learn more history.
0
0
Michael,
I know history well. I need no lessons from you. Narrow does not mean invaluable, it means (as I have said many times) that Chin Peng’s base of support was not widespread among the Malay and Indian communities but was largely restricted to working-class Chinese. There were a few Malay members of CPM and on the Central Committee, but very few Malay supporters in Malaya. Working-class Chinese were a subset of all of Malayan citizenry. You infer a subjective judgement when I made none; I made a demographic and historical comment.
Please do not lecture me. I have lived in
Malaya and Malaysia for innumerable years
and know the country and history well.
0
0
CP is a terrorist and nothing more.
To say that he is a freedom fighter and has contributed in hastening the independence of Malaya is nonsense. If anyone has followed Jeremy Paxton documentary of the British Empire, one would realised that it was based on the premises of bluff. Merdeka may not be in August 31, 1957, it would still be before 1970. After 1980, does UK still has a significant colony?
There are always some who try to make it a political issue. One will immediately realise that these people usually do not have any substance. If they do have a mandate, why would they stoop so low to cheat for votes. It is like McCarthyism who used Communism to duped the US for a long time.
Australia sent in its troops during the Malaya Emergency with no string attach. For that, during our fledging years, we Malaysians will never forget.
As for those who idolised CP with their hearts and minds, you are Malaysia’s enemies. Although you have escaped Malaysia Security Instruments, you have just exposed your true face in broad daylight. The British was right in repatriating these people back to where they came from in the 1950s. So, Malaysia have every right to do the same.
CP motive was to serve himself. His team used to terrorise people to pay the monthly tithe. That was the main modus operandi. With the blood money, he acquired for himself huge properties and plantations.
I suspected that China kicked him out after Tun Razak attended the formalities. If China had kept him, she would have offended me deeply although my ancestors originate from there. She would also have created a great injustice to all those who have suffered under his bloody hands.
In this information age, people should move the era where no one can be cheated by those who conspire for their own ends any more.
0
0
“CP motive was to serve himself. His team used to terrorise people to pay the monthly tithe. That was the main modus operandi. With the blood money, he acquired for himself huge properties and plantations…”
Accurate and not widely acknowledged…
Anak Malaysia is correct in his analysis, reiterating what I have been saying. Full stop.
0
0
If the “British was right in repatriating these people back to where they came from in the 1950s” it follows also I guess that the Malayans were right in kicking the British out back to the little island they came from, and not wait another thirteen years for Merdeka.
In this information age no one has a monopoly on historical ‘facts’ or propaganda. Hurray for the Internet!
0
0
My goodness ! I didn’t know he had large properties and plantations. Where are they located ? In Malaysia or in Thailand ?
I sure hope you can produce the proof for your statements …
0
0
Ya,I too am interested in the details.
0
0
Seriously, are we given to believe he died filthy rich on a pile of “Moscow gold”? Get out of here!
The least Peter Cohen and others can do is provide some evidence instead of a sagely pronouncement that it’s true.
0
0
This idea that we should never have kicked out the British colonial rulers but instead developed under their benevolent and expert guidance till they felt the country was fit for self rule has also gained currency among some of the Burmese.
One can only imagine it’s the same kind of people who maintain that the generals have to be appeased and let them carry on with the reforms at their own pace, not rock the boat, no protests etc., we must be very patient so in the next 20 years it will bear fruit.
One can only say there’s a distinct yellow servile streak showing down what goes for a spine in them.
0
0
“Dr Cohen” has lived in Malaya/Malaysia a good portion of his life. He does not need a lecture, Michael. I know history well. Chin Peng and the CPM relied on working-class Chinese as their base of support with few Malays supporting them. This is fact. There
were a few Malays in the CPM and a few on the
Central Committee of CPM. The use of the term “narrow” refers to the fact that Chin Peng did not have a broad base of support throughout Malaya. I make no negative comment on the contribution working-class Chinese made to Malaya; I made a demographic and historical comment only. Please refrain
from personalizing this discussion. Thank you.
Peter
0
0
Nich was not wrong in saying “it’s not a good idea to clog up New Mandala threads with multiple, repetitive comments.” You don’t need a lecture but you do need impulse management.
0
0
sgnative,
I am afraid I have to agree with you. There
are some Malaysians that are able to take a non-personalized view of local politics and history, but they are not the majority. It is usually either you are pro or anti-UMNO, pro or anti-PR, pro or anti-PAS and so on and so forth.
I believe The level of maturity in Malaysian politics is very low indeed, which is why I don’t think Malaysia is prepared for full democracy, nor do I see anyone on the horizon
who has the capacity to lead the country ethically and responsibly (my opinion). I feel both the BN and the opposition (PR and DAP) lack sufficient credibility to claim the mantle of power in Malaysia. Clearly, many people are fed-up with UMNO, but does that
translate to an opposition-led Malaysian Government that can heal the divides that tear the nation apart ? I have my doubts….
0
0
Like the majority of people in the advanced liberal democracies have a “non-personalised view of local politics and history”? Do we sense a smidgen of a superiority complex here?
Granted the swinish multitude shows a stronger herd instinct in our part of the world (ASSK and the Burmese for instance), but are we forgetting the two world wars, the Cold War, and the unabated aggression in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’ (read local through regional to global resource grabbing and I suppose the majority are insightful enough to see through that)? The world would have been a better place had love thy neighbour and all the rest prevailed. The reality on the ground is very different.
0
0
“Please refrain from personalizing this discussion”
when anyone these days talks about malaysian policies, politics, history or social trends, malaysians cannot refrain from personalising their remarks against those they dont agree with. the opposition supporters especially carry with them this “you are with us or against us” totalitarian attitude. with such people, no meaningful discussion is possible. if you have to say something they dont agree, you have to be prepared for old mother-in-law type of quarrels.
0
0
[…] Geoff Wade has published a very good piece about the controversies that followed the recent death of Malayan communist leader Chin Peng. Wade makes a number of illuminating points. He argues, rightly I think, that the matter of Chin Peng reflects social fissures and political cleavages in modern Malaysian society. The torrent of vilification has been mixed with hagiography. Was Chin Peng a traitor or freedom fighter? Should he be erased from history – or regarded as Malaysia’s Aung Sang? Wade’s article goes a long way to revealing Chin Peng as a real historical agent, rather than spectral bogey man or nationalist hero. I was especially impressed by Wade’s analysis of how the Malayan communists reacted to the failure of the Malayan Union. This narrative is perhaps not as well known outside Southeast Asian departments of history as it should be… The Union plan had been hatched up in London not long after the fall of Singapore when much of Southeast Asia was occupied by the Japanese. Its authors were members of the ‘Malayan Planning Unit’. In some respects, the Union plan was a means to harmonize the different semi colonial entities of Southeast Asia – in short as a single colony. It is important to realize that ‘End of Empire’ also meant retrenchment. While the Indian nationalists would at last get their way, Malayan rubber and tin were too valuable as dollar earning commodities to give up… So the Union plan can be seen as a means to streamline a crucial colonial resource. The other ingredient of the Malayan Union that Wade highlights is that the British were hoping to engineer a ‘peninsula Malayan polity’ and eschew a Malay dominated one. (Remember that it was British colonial administrators who had created these divisions in their modern form in the first place.) This was naturally anathema to the new Malay nationalist movement that was spearheaded by UMNO – and to the Malay rulers. Although British indirect rule had long rested on the political exploitation of the Malay sultans by British advisers, the experience of the Japanese occupation had hardened colonial minds against the Malays. After all it was the Chinese dominated communist party that had inspired armed opposition to the Japanese. In the immediate post war period UMNO’s demand for ‘special rights for Malays’ looked impertinent. Wade points out that the Malayan Union was politically congruent with Malayan Communist Party’s policy of ‘open democratic struggle’ by ‘the unity of the three races’. When UMNO and the Malay Rulers brought the Union crashing down (to be replaced by a federal concept that reassured the rulers) Chin Peng and his comrades were almost as dismayed as the humiliated British colonial administrators… Wade makes this intriguing point: […]
0
0