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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s exactly my point – the industry is striving, even though Isarn is in economic terms not anymore “poor”. And the industry is not just restricted anymore to real world red light districts, but has many facets that are internet chat room based, both for local Thais and foreigners. There it is not just women (and men) from the northeast, but from many regions and sectors of Thai society.
I also believe that the marginalization of Isarn-Lao people is somewhat on the way out. Economic improvements and political power (since 2001 every single election was won because of the rural Isarn vote) contributed to what i would sometimes see as growing Isarn pride.
Both the perceived glamour aspect, and consumerism play a larger role there. But it isn’t only that, there is more. I think we will have to look also in historical/cultural/religious areas, and how society deals with sexuality. This can be quite contradictory at times – such as the discrepancy of official social norms vs. every day life.
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.
It is a unique Malaysian situation, where robbing the Nation is a “right”
It is not unique , however, for Western Govts to turn a blind eye, because the current Malaysian Govt is seen as “West” friendly.
As I explained to my friend who asked why the Western Govt and Press never question Najib on his “moderate, no corruption etc” speeches. It is just geopolitics.. nothing more, nothing less
My claim: Chinese can easily figure out how a “Bamar” thinks!
This is a truism that the West need to emulate, for the Myanmar Citizenry’s sake.
However this statement:
“Burmese society have a strong sense of hierarchy (suck up to the people above you and bully the people beneath you!) and is based on medieval notions of patronage and appanage.”
You made @ 1.1.1 at best describe your unsympathetic attitude towards a 50 million
citizenry and at the worst dignified the useless careless policy of the west that induce more suffering.
Erdogan is a poor example of Islamic moderation. He is an Islamic extremist. The late Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid) of Indonesia
would have been a better choice as an example
of moderation. Unfortunately, Gus Dur was
a poor leader and technocrat, and despite his calls for moderation in Indonesia, the Islamic parties in Indonesia became more influential under his leadership. Even under the ‘secular’ Megawati, she aligned her PDI party with Islamic parties to gain more seats in the Indonesian Parliament. Whether it’s the pseudo-secular UMNO, the pseudo-secular Indonesian President Yudhoyono, or the overtly Islamic Erdogan of Turkey, predominately Muslim nations are unable to
co-exist with secularism on a governmental
level, and arguably on a societal level.
Dr. Musa misrepresents Erdogan entirely
and never mentions the reversal of all of
Ataturk’s secular reforms in Turkey. There
is no renaissance of Islamic moderation
globally.
Plan B 1.1.1.1.1(what’s that supposed to mean?)
“It does take a Bamar to know how another Bamar think”
That’s a good one, full of ethnocentric nationalism!
Of course, Than Shwe is still the “Numero Uno”. I can tell coz I saw pictures of this girl “Moe Set Wine” (Ms. Sky Circle), who will be competing for Burma in the upcoming Miss Universe contest, “taken on a ride” by Than Shwe’s favourite grandson “Phoe La Pyae” (Mr. Full Moon) in his fancy yellow sports car (I don’t know the makes of such things, since I am descended from poor wretched Burmese peasants).
This all reminds me of how princelings and their children like Guagua Bo from China behaves.
My claim: Chinese can easily figure out how a “Bamar” thinks!
NOTE: While Assad of Syria is nominally ‘secular’ as some might note (he has clamped down on the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria and Assad’s Alawite beliefs are rejected by Sunnis as non-Islamic), Erdogan’s earlier support for Assad is not an example of ‘moderation’ given the massive killing Assad has committed against Syrian civilians, which ostensibly is against Islam. Finally, Erdogan is good friends with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei (a vitriolic extremist if there ever was on), Ahmadinejad and new Iranian President Rouhani, all extremists to the core. Mahathir is also good friends with
these extremists-that about says it all.
Erdogan and his cohorts are Islamic as much as PAS. There is no possibility whatsoever of political Islam and secularism living side-by-side. Turkey is an example not of Islamic moderation but of increasing intolerance towards secular Turks. Dr. Musa fails to mention the clampdown on the largely secular Turkish military by Erdogan on false disloyalty charges that the Turkish press
has called bogus charges; he fails to mention Erdogan’s almost complete reversal of
the secular policies of Ataturk; he fails to mention Erdogan’s reintroduction of the veil and hijab in Turkish public institutions (mirroring what has happened in Malaysia over the past 20 years); he fails to mention Erdogan’s earlier writing and poetry which is Islamic to the core; he fails to mention Erdogan’s vitriolic anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
Dr. Musa statement that Erdogan has left Islam to the individual in Turkey is wrong. By reintroducing Islamic Laws, by encouraging head-coverings in Turkish public institutions, and by aligning himself (at least initially) with Assad of Syria and
strongly supporting Islamic causes in the UN, Erdogan has demonstrated that secularism and
Islamic leadership are incompatible. Whether
with Niz Aziz and PAS in Malaysia, or with Erdogan in Turkey, Dr. Musa, in my opinion, presents a false image of the role Islam plays in Muslim societies. Finally, for Dr. Musa to quote Ghannouchi is hardly a vote for Islamic moderation. Ghannouchi himself is no secularist. His writing is strongly Islamic
and he supports the introduction of Islamic
Law not just in North Africa but throughout the Islamic World; Ghannouchi is no ‘Secular
Muslim’ however you look at it. You cannot support Islamic Law and secularism concurrently. No way.
Dr. Musa again is wrong that the AKP accommodated itself with the secular Turkish
constitutional framework; AKP ran it into the
ground with Islamic Laws. I don’t think Dr. Musa is very familiar with Turkish history
and contemporary politics. Many secular
and moderately Islamic Turks have emigrated
to Europe and Australia because of Erdogan’s policies. Apparently, Dr. Musa agrees with
those policies which is his right, but he should not misrepresent them. There is no moderation in the Turkish Government just as Pak Lah’s Islam Hadari in Malaysia was all words and no substance; Islamic moderation doesn’t exist in the Islamic world with an Islamic party in control and, arguably, UMNO itself has (and continues) to promote, or at least allow, increasing Islamisation in Malaysia.
Trevor Wilson should be commended for reminding anyone interested in the progress of present quagmire, that present ongoing so called “democratization of Myanmar”, is actually the West some what acquiescing to SG Than Shwe 7th step plus,toward democracy.
As such making SG Than Shwe the ultitmate mover and shaker through his surrogate President Thein Sein.
7th step ‘plus’?
Plus because the future after the 7th step even has yet to be spelled out, is well known to Historians like Than Myint-U and Michael Aung Thwin et al and the like of themselves.
It does take a Bamar to know how another Bamar think. A reminder that SG Than Shwe has never been so “Bamar” in every respect.
So far the US is wise to reluctantly reengage at the slightest sign of “democracy”.
If “Democracy” is not defined for Myanmar in a very basic, succinct, way, than the West must be prepared to accept SG Than Shwe definition.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chin Peng and cleavages in Malaysian society
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.
Chin Peng and cleavages in Malaysian society
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.
Chin Peng, an obituary
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
Chin Peng, an obituary
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
Chin Peng, an obituary
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
Chin Peng and cleavages in Malaysian society
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.
Chin Peng and cleavages in Malaysian society
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.
Chin Peng, an obituary
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
Myanmar could learn from Germany
Thanks for the informative round up Mr. Marston. How likely is it that a mixed member election system will actually be established?
Chin Peng, an obituary
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.
Chin Peng, an obituary
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.
Kareoke and opportunity?
That’s exactly my point – the industry is striving, even though Isarn is in economic terms not anymore “poor”. And the industry is not just restricted anymore to real world red light districts, but has many facets that are internet chat room based, both for local Thais and foreigners. There it is not just women (and men) from the northeast, but from many regions and sectors of Thai society.
I also believe that the marginalization of Isarn-Lao people is somewhat on the way out. Economic improvements and political power (since 2001 every single election was won because of the rural Isarn vote) contributed to what i would sometimes see as growing Isarn pride.
Both the perceived glamour aspect, and consumerism play a larger role there. But it isn’t only that, there is more. I think we will have to look also in historical/cultural/religious areas, and how society deals with sexuality. This can be quite contradictory at times – such as the discrepancy of official social norms vs. every day life.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions.
Chin Peng, an obituary
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.
Extremism in the name of Islam and Malaysian Muslims
It is a unique Malaysian situation, where robbing the Nation is a “right”
It is not unique , however, for Western Govts to turn a blind eye, because the current Malaysian Govt is seen as “West” friendly.
As I explained to my friend who asked why the Western Govt and Press never question Najib on his “moderate, no corruption etc” speeches. It is just geopolitics.. nothing more, nothing less
Adjusting to Myanmar’s reform mood
My claim: Chinese can easily figure out how a “Bamar” thinks!
This is a truism that the West need to emulate, for the Myanmar Citizenry’s sake.
However this statement:
“Burmese society have a strong sense of hierarchy (suck up to the people above you and bully the people beneath you!) and is based on medieval notions of patronage and appanage.”
You made @ 1.1.1 at best describe your unsympathetic attitude towards a 50 million
citizenry and at the worst dignified the useless careless policy of the west that induce more suffering.
Hardly a qualification to call other names.
A new paradigm of Muslim politics
Erdogan is a poor example of Islamic moderation. He is an Islamic extremist. The late Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid) of Indonesia
would have been a better choice as an example
of moderation. Unfortunately, Gus Dur was
a poor leader and technocrat, and despite his calls for moderation in Indonesia, the Islamic parties in Indonesia became more influential under his leadership. Even under the ‘secular’ Megawati, she aligned her PDI party with Islamic parties to gain more seats in the Indonesian Parliament. Whether it’s the pseudo-secular UMNO, the pseudo-secular Indonesian President Yudhoyono, or the overtly Islamic Erdogan of Turkey, predominately Muslim nations are unable to
co-exist with secularism on a governmental
level, and arguably on a societal level.
Dr. Musa misrepresents Erdogan entirely
and never mentions the reversal of all of
Ataturk’s secular reforms in Turkey. There
is no renaissance of Islamic moderation
globally.
Adjusting to Myanmar’s reform mood
Plan B 1.1.1.1.1(what’s that supposed to mean?)
“It does take a Bamar to know how another Bamar think”
That’s a good one, full of ethnocentric nationalism!
Of course, Than Shwe is still the “Numero Uno”. I can tell coz I saw pictures of this girl “Moe Set Wine” (Ms. Sky Circle), who will be competing for Burma in the upcoming Miss Universe contest, “taken on a ride” by Than Shwe’s favourite grandson “Phoe La Pyae” (Mr. Full Moon) in his fancy yellow sports car (I don’t know the makes of such things, since I am descended from poor wretched Burmese peasants).
This all reminds me of how princelings and their children like Guagua Bo from China behaves.
My claim: Chinese can easily figure out how a “Bamar” thinks!
A new paradigm of Muslim politics
NOTE: While Assad of Syria is nominally ‘secular’ as some might note (he has clamped down on the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria and Assad’s Alawite beliefs are rejected by Sunnis as non-Islamic), Erdogan’s earlier support for Assad is not an example of ‘moderation’ given the massive killing Assad has committed against Syrian civilians, which ostensibly is against Islam. Finally, Erdogan is good friends with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei (a vitriolic extremist if there ever was on), Ahmadinejad and new Iranian President Rouhani, all extremists to the core. Mahathir is also good friends with
these extremists-that about says it all.
A new paradigm of Muslim politics
Erdogan and his cohorts are Islamic as much as PAS. There is no possibility whatsoever of political Islam and secularism living side-by-side. Turkey is an example not of Islamic moderation but of increasing intolerance towards secular Turks. Dr. Musa fails to mention the clampdown on the largely secular Turkish military by Erdogan on false disloyalty charges that the Turkish press
has called bogus charges; he fails to mention Erdogan’s almost complete reversal of
the secular policies of Ataturk; he fails to mention Erdogan’s reintroduction of the veil and hijab in Turkish public institutions (mirroring what has happened in Malaysia over the past 20 years); he fails to mention Erdogan’s earlier writing and poetry which is Islamic to the core; he fails to mention Erdogan’s vitriolic anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
Dr. Musa statement that Erdogan has left Islam to the individual in Turkey is wrong. By reintroducing Islamic Laws, by encouraging head-coverings in Turkish public institutions, and by aligning himself (at least initially) with Assad of Syria and
strongly supporting Islamic causes in the UN, Erdogan has demonstrated that secularism and
Islamic leadership are incompatible. Whether
with Niz Aziz and PAS in Malaysia, or with Erdogan in Turkey, Dr. Musa, in my opinion, presents a false image of the role Islam plays in Muslim societies. Finally, for Dr. Musa to quote Ghannouchi is hardly a vote for Islamic moderation. Ghannouchi himself is no secularist. His writing is strongly Islamic
and he supports the introduction of Islamic
Law not just in North Africa but throughout the Islamic World; Ghannouchi is no ‘Secular
Muslim’ however you look at it. You cannot support Islamic Law and secularism concurrently. No way.
Dr. Musa again is wrong that the AKP accommodated itself with the secular Turkish
constitutional framework; AKP ran it into the
ground with Islamic Laws. I don’t think Dr. Musa is very familiar with Turkish history
and contemporary politics. Many secular
and moderately Islamic Turks have emigrated
to Europe and Australia because of Erdogan’s policies. Apparently, Dr. Musa agrees with
those policies which is his right, but he should not misrepresent them. There is no moderation in the Turkish Government just as Pak Lah’s Islam Hadari in Malaysia was all words and no substance; Islamic moderation doesn’t exist in the Islamic world with an Islamic party in control and, arguably, UMNO itself has (and continues) to promote, or at least allow, increasing Islamisation in Malaysia.
Adjusting to Myanmar’s reform mood
Trevor Wilson should be commended for reminding anyone interested in the progress of present quagmire, that present ongoing so called “democratization of Myanmar”, is actually the West some what acquiescing to SG Than Shwe 7th step plus,toward democracy.
As such making SG Than Shwe the ultitmate mover and shaker through his surrogate President Thein Sein.
7th step ‘plus’?
Plus because the future after the 7th step even has yet to be spelled out, is well known to Historians like Than Myint-U and Michael Aung Thwin et al and the like of themselves.
It does take a Bamar to know how another Bamar think. A reminder that SG Than Shwe has never been so “Bamar” in every respect.
So far the US is wise to reluctantly reengage at the slightest sign of “democracy”.
If “Democracy” is not defined for Myanmar in a very basic, succinct, way, than the West must be prepared to accept SG Than Shwe definition.