Time to leave the CPM era behind; Chin Peng, CPM no longer Enemy No. 1

The death of Chin Peng has created a buzz about the relevance of the Red spectre in Malaysia, especially among Malaysian Gen Yers. 

IT has been an educational week for finance manager Rita Wong* as she tried to find the answers for her 10-year-old son’s questions.

“He’s always curious and this week it has been all about Chin Peng,” Wong relates. “‘Who is he, mum; why can’t he come home; why do we have to be scared of his ashes?’”

Wong, a 40-something working mother, says she has had to recall her history lessons in school but even then “most of the answers he is asking for are hard to give as I don’t really understand it myself.”

Chin Peng, the Malayan-born guerilla who led a fierce Communist insurgency against the British in the peninsula after World War Two, and later against the government after independence, died early last week after living in exile in Thailand for more than two decades. He had fought alongside the British during the Japanese military occupation, but had started a fight to establish an independent Communist state here in 1948.

Thousands were reportedly killed during the insurgency, tagged by the British administration as the Malayan Emergency, that lasted until 1960.

Hence, even in death, his name still evokes much bitterness in Malaysia, as seen during the week in the media and social media network.

“I can never forgive him because the Communists killed my grandfathers and uncles,” says a marketing manager in his 30s.

But for over 80% of the Malaysian population aged below 55 (some 25,610,000 Malaysians) who would have been in their diapers or not born when the Emergency ended, Chin Peng remains a distant grandfather story or, at the most, an answer to an examination question.

With his death, many are saying it’s time to also put the CPM ghost to rest, as can be seen in the comments in cyber space.

“Does Chin Peng’s death really matter?” writes secondary school student Tianqian Tong. “I thought he had died for years actually...”

Like many young people, Tong does not see Chin Peng and communism as a security threat any more.

“Chin Peng and the CPM are in the past, not in the present, neither will they be in the future. We are now free and independent,” notes Tong.

“Anyway, history is a lesson for the future – every single thing will be remembered. It will be good for us to learn that ‘In the practice of tolerance, one’s enemy is the best teacher’.”

A number of the comments in cyber space are also quite light-hearted and related to a topic that’s very popular among Gen Yers these days.

“His ashes could spread around the country and invade the body of every Malaysian. This could be worse than an alien invasion ...” says one in a long line of zombie jokes about the “Chin Peng ashes – to return or not to return” debate.

A budding entrepreneur who only wants to be known as Amin admits that he finds the issue a tad confusing. “We all now want to ‘make friends’ with communist China and break into their market,” he observes.

Chin Peng and the CPM have not been a valid bogeyman for a long time, local theatre director and lecturer Mark Teh says.

“Bogeymen are ghosts or phantoms. The reason we have them is to create an irrational fear in people,” he opines.

For many young people, the Emergency and communists are lumped together with the Japanese Occupation and fight for indepen­dence under the topic of “War in History”, Teh points out.

“Many do not know the difference. But it is not completely their fault that they are confused. It’s because the history books present it in a sketchy manner. It is presented in a linear way that does not add up sometimes and discussions are not encouraged.”

This may have led to a thirst for information on communism among some, but not to the point where they want to stage a revolution, he adds.

“They are intrigued by it because of the gaps in history but I don’t think they are interested in the ideology or to embrace communism.”

Teh, who used to teach Culture and Society in Malaysia, had organised an “Emergency Festival” with a loose collective of young artists in 2008 to mark the 60th anniversary of the insurgency.

It was an attempt to re-examine the documents, images and narratives of the Malaysian Emergency from the younger generation’s perspective, he explains.

“We saw many students participate because they wanted to create alternative spaces for themselves and answer the questions they have about this part of Malaysian history.”

Teh feels this is the underlying issue in the debate on Chin Peng and the CPM’s role in the struggle for independence.

“The argument is contemporary because it is really about people fighting for their own version of Malaysia now – and they are reclaiming a past, whether it includes the CPM, Chin Peng or a past that excludes their contribution or labels them only as terrorist,” he says.

Writer Zedeck Siew, in his 20s, agrees, saying that any interest in communism among the young is mainly due to the suppression of communism’s place in history.

“In the classroom, we had the impression of the communist as an evil, grimacing Chinese fellow creeping through the jungle, killing cops and citizens. People have realised that this is not a complete picture.

“Those who want to learn about the CPM and Chin Peng are merely trying to find out more about the country’s past,” he reasons.

Crucially, interest does not equal participation, he stresses. “Frankly, I just can’t see my peers leaving their iPad, artisanal cupcakes and comfortable suburban warrens to join a people’s Armed Struggle and subsist on rations.”

Women rights activist Smita E concurs, saying that young people now seem to be largely anti-ideological. “I base this statement on my observation that people don’t read enough and don’t have time to read big books and think big thoughts.”

What is true, however, is that young people are starved for local histories, she adds. “It’s about alternative histories, not communism per se.”

Postgraduate student Ahmad Z also feels ideology rarely survives these days. “The grand narrative is history, though I believe young people see communism as a symbolic representation of change.

“If there is a resurgence in interest, it is a romantic interest of communism in Malaysia but not in the sense that people are trying to revive it and to suddenly pick up arms,” he says.

Putting the academic input into the issue, Boon Kia Meng believes that for many young people, the communist armed struggle belongs in the annals of history now.

“As Chin Peng mentioned in his memoirs, he was a man of his time and circumstances, where the world, in the immediate aftermath of the Japanese occupation, was overtaken by nationalist and anti-colonial movements and liberation struggles,” explains the academic.

“The armed resistance of the CPM was conditioned by those wars and the realistic options before them, in the context of British detention of firstly the Malay anti-colonial Left (a thousand were detained before the Emergency) and the crackdown on labour unions and political groups. The Emergency in 1948 was the culmination of British desire to secure their economic and geopolitical interests in the region.

“The CPM, rightly or wrongly, decided on armed struggle in the face of such challenges.”

Today, conditions are very different, says Boon. “A measure of formal democratic institutions has prevailed, and capitalism is triumphant globally, including in so-called communist China. As such, the bogeyman of communist terror in Malaysia is no longer a plausible claim.”

In fact, he highlights, most left-wing political movements today are democratic grassroots movements or parties.

“Just look at the elected governments of Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador, or even the growing popularity of the Greek radical left, Syriza (a likely winner in the next Greek elections) and the Occupy Wall Street movement. They are all non-violent, popular struggles.”

Ironically, even Chin Peng had noted the change of the times. Writing in his 2003 memoir My Side of History, he said: “A revolution based on violence has no application in modern Malaysia or Singapore... The youths who have known only stable governments and live in an independent age of affluence will find the choices I made as a teenager deeply puzzling... I was young in a different age that demanded very different approaches.”

He also stated that one of his final wishes was to “exchange views with young Malaysians nowadays to understand how history is shaped, exchanging ideas about how things move the world.”

Open dialogue and ­reconciliation

For many young people, an open dialogue on Chin Peng and communism is something they hope will happen now.

Student Nik Zurin Nik Rashid says it might be difficult for them to feel the victims’ experience but it will not hamper them from empathising.

“To ask the current generation that live in ignorance of such an experience is like asking a Malaysian what it feels like to be at Auschwitz: they can’t answer, and neither should they,” says the 19-year-old who is currently an undergraduate in a university in Texas.

The fact is that in the modern context, any way you look at it, the CPM is no longer around, she says.

“The CPM is no longer the enemy for the simple fact that it does not, for all intents and purposes, exist as a cohesive force that mobilises the masses since it signed the armistice with our government in 1989. By that alone, they are no longer the “Number One Enemy” as much as the Russian Federation is no longer a de facto enemy to Nato or the US since the Soviet Union collapsed.”

Nevertheless, she does not believe the CPM deserves any form of pardon.

“If Hitler is still unforgiven for his crimes, then I don’t see why Chin Peng needs to be forgiven for his Red Terror campaigns during the Emergency.

“To many, Chin Peng and his Commies will not be forgiven, and that is understandable.”

Alternative musician A. Nair feels that an open dialogue will help reconcile our nation with its painful past.

“If we try to be politically correct all the time, we will not get any idea across. If the older generation gets upset about us not caring or being insensitive about what they went through, it is something we need to learn to understand.

“But they also need to understand that it is not relevant to us now. We are moving towards a developed society, so we need to be more open and less sensitive.”

- Stories Contributed by HARIATI AZIZAN  sunday@thestar.com.my/Asia News Network

CPM: No longer Enemy No.1 

No going back: For many young people, the communist armed struggle belongs in the annals of history now. — Filepic 

The Star’s teen and youth pullout Stuff@school readers have their say on Facebook. Some comments had to be edited.

Tan Kar Can, 20, Brickfields Asia College

Compared with communist countries like China, the term communism is not even feared by most people in the world in this era. Chin Peng’s death has caused many people to have negative opinions about whether communism still exists in the country or not.

Communism has already been eradicated in our country and we should not fear communism any more. Instead, why not focus on eliminating corruption and gangsters which recently became the fear of the nation?

Shelbie Diana, 18, St Joseph Private Secondary School

Frankly speaking, I do not think that the party is a threat to our nation building right now. Media and national portrayal of the party wasn’t in the Sejarah syllabus. The young are simply taught communism is a game of violence and it stops at that.

The CPM that Chin Peng spearheaded was once a symbol that the nation demonised and derided but if learned methodically, this party’s downfall could be a lesson for the future.

Chin Peng died as a man in exile, wildly reviled in his lifetime. I believe he has paid the price for his political rebellion against the nation. The crime sure is heinous, but the stone that the builder refused will always be the head cornerstone. One has to clearly know he did contribute to free Tanah Melayu from the Japanese back then. We were taught to forgive.

Arivaran Ravichantar, 20, cadet pilot

Basically, the CPM fought for independence for our country and their motive was to set a Communist country. They would have succeeded if the British hadn’t given us our first election to make way for independence.

Their methods may have not been the best and may have hurt a lot of people, but nobody can deny that the CPM played a role in chasing out the Japanese in a short period of time. They may be also an indirect reason for the British to give us independence.

Na Yi Lun, 19, SMK Dato’ Penggawa Barat

Unlike some countries like North Korea, we do not have to worry about communism in our country. The CPM was established to drive out invaders from our land. During WWII, that was the Japanese. If not for their efforts, independence for our country would probably be delayed or we may still be under British rule till today.

In war, it is difficult to differentiate the enemy and the innocent. Humans are prone to mistakes, and in war, people make many mistakes.

Xina Ter, 17, SMK Sungai Ara

In my opinion, the CPM shouldn’t be considered No.1 enemy now. The party has long been inactive. I think the most dangerous thing to us now is racism and corruption. I think if we are united, regardless of race, we will be able to achieve almost anything. But when we are divided, even though we have the best leader in the universe, we will still be unable to achieve much.

Seet Rui Xi, 17, SMK Canossa Convent

The CPM is no longer a threat to our country. Are they the people gunning down innocent civilians in broad daylight? No. Are they causing discord, division and disharmony in society? No. Are they putting our independence at stake? No.

People who do not have the best interests of Malaysia at heart and people who do not consider national harmony a priority, people who are consumed with fulfilling their selfish agendas without considering how they will affect Malaysia’s future, and people who politicise every single thing possible are bigger threats to Malaysia.

Chin Peng’s wake a low-key affair

 

 Gen Kitti (right) and Gen Pisarn paying their last respects to Chin Peng at Wat That Thong temple in Bangkok.

BANGKOK: It was a calm and low-key affair as the body of the late Chin Peng was brought into a prayer hall at Bangkok’s Wat That Thong temple.

Some 30 people, mainly comrades of his outlawed Communist Party of Malaya and relatives, were present to pay their last respects at his wake yesterday.

Chin Peng’s two children, believed to be in their 60s, were said to be absent from the ceremony but a white and yellow wreath bearing their names stood next to the casket.

The note on the wreath, written in Chinese, reads: “In loving memory (of) our dear father. Your children.”

Also present were several DAP members, who said they came here on their own accord.

Klang MP Charles Santiago said he came for a meeting with non-governmental organisations and dropped by at the temple after his business ended.

He was seen kneeling and holding a joss stick at a floral dais inside the air-conditioned hall, where the sealed casket bearing Chin Peng’s remains was placed.

Santiago was accompanied by Selangor DAP committee member S. Ramakrishnan, a former senator, and Aliran exco member Sarajun Hoda.

Prior to their arrival, Kuala Selangor district council member Kwi Ai Mei was spotted paying her respects to Chin Peng.

Others who came to pay their last respects were former Thai military commanders Gen Pisarn Wattanawongkiri and Gen Datuk Kitti Ratanachaya.

Taking a prominent place among the many wreaths for the late communist leader was one bearing the symbol of Princess Chulabhorn, the youngest daughter of Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

More well-wishers joined the funeral service in the evening, which was carried out according to Buddhist rites.

Chin Peng is scheduled to be cremated here on Monday evening.

- Contributed by LEE YEN MUN  yenmun@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

Chin Peng, a hero or zero? 

Chin Peng's remains couldn't be interred in his Sitiawan hometown to be cremated in Bangkok instead 

Mental Exercises For Battling "It Won't Work" Syndrome

Every company has ideas that come up (sometimes frequently).  And, based on the stage of the startup and the degree to which the idea is unconventional, there are always good, rational reasons why the given idea can't possibly work.  There are also bad, irrational reasons too.  The problem is, it's hard to tell the difference.

Here are some of common reasons why something won't work:

1. We've debated this several times before and have decided it wouldn't work.
2. We've tried this before, it didn't work.
3. Doesn't really fit our sales model.
4. It's not appropriate for our industry.
5. It might work for tiny/small/large/huge companies, but we sell to tiny/small/large/huge companies, and it won't work for them.
6. Our investors/board would never agree to it.
7. It might work, but we can't afford the risk that it won't.  (Note: When someone says “it might work…but…” they're almost always thinking: It won't work)
8. Our team/plan/pitch-deck is not really setup for that.
9. We could try it, but it's a distraction.  (Note: This often means “I've already decided it's not going to work, but I can tell I need to convince you we shouldn't try it…”)

There are many, many more reasons why any given idea won't work, but the above are a sufficient sample for this article. Oh, and by the way, I have at various points in time made all of these very same arguments myself (“I have met the enemy” and all that)

2 Mental Exercises To Try

Now, here are a couple of mental exercises to try when you or you or your team is stuck.

Exercise #1: What if I told you that it's working really, really well for XYZ Company?  How do you think they made it work?

The idea here is to assume the idea is good and has worked for a company very similar to yours.  Then, ask yourself (or your team):  Now that we know it worked for them, what do we think they did to make it work?

What this does is mentally nudge you to think about how to work through whatever the obvious limitations to the idea already are.

Example: I know that nobody in our industry uses a freemium model because the infrastructure/support costs are just too high.  But, we just learned that XYZ Company is launching a free version.  What do we think they did to make it work?

Exercise #2: What if we had the proverbial gun held to our heads and we had to do [x]?

The idea here is to assume/accept that the decision to implement the idea has already been made — presumably by some higher authority.  Now, assuming that, what would you do to make the best of it?

Example: Our major investors just told us that before they can agree to funding our next round, we need to build an inside sales team.  They think inside sales teams are the bomb.  We can't afford not to listen to them — what do we do to make the best of the situation?  If we had to build an inside sales team, how would we go about doing it?

Note:  In neither case am I suggesting that you mislead your team (or yourself, in case you're like me and have conversations with yourself late at night).  These are meant to be mental exercises, just to help drive discussion and analysis.  Though I'll confess, there is a small part of me that wonders what would happen if one did make the hypothetical seem real (at least for a short period of time).

What do you think?  Any mental tricks or tactics you've used (or thought of using) to help break-through conventional thinking?

Posted by Dharmesh Shah

Chin Peng's remains couldn't be interred in his Sitiawan hometown to be cremated in Bangkok instead

The Wat That Thong temple where Chin Peng will be cremated in Bangkok.

PETALING JAYA: The late Chin Peng will be cremated according to Buddhist rites at Bangkok’s Wat That Thong temple next week.

Paul Chin, an aide of the former secretary-general of the outlawed Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), said the body would be brought to the temple for a wake on Friday and the final rites conducted on Monday morning. The cremation will follow in the evening.

The communist leader died at a hospital in Bangkok on Monday morning. He was 89.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said Chin Peng’s remains would not be allowed back into the country.

Paul Chin said Chin Peng’s one-time right-hand man Abdullah CD is expected to be among former party members and leaders who will attend the funeral.

Meanwhile, Opposition leaders continued to appeal to the Govern­ment to allow Chin Peng’s remains to be brought back to his hometown in Sitiawan, Perak.

PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said: “Let bygones be bygones.

“It is clear the rakyat generally rejects the communist ideology. However, the late Chin Peng chose the path of peace in the end after failing to reach an agreement at the Baling Talks in 1955.”

He added that the CPM chief entered a peace treaty with the Government in 1989.

DAP national chairman Karpal Singh said the Government should honour the 1989 Haadyai Accord, which was one of the treaties signed by Malaysia with the CPM and Thai authorities.

Seputeh MP Teresa Kok called on the Government to reconsider its decision.

PAS central committee member Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad said Chin Peng’s ashes should be allowed to be brought back into the country in the name of justice.

“I recall they (CPM) agreed to lay down their weapons and, as far as I am concerned, that is a ceasefire.”

- The Star/Asia News Network

Sitiawan folk whisper about Chin Peng's death

SITIAWAN: Folk in Chin Peng’s (pic) hometown only whisper about the passing of this divisive figure, and dare not make their opinions known publicly.

A number of people declined to talk when The Star approached them for their thoughts on the late Communist Party of Malaya secretary-general, though the general feeling is that the people in this town felt that the body of Chin Peng, or Ong Boon Hua, 89, should be interred here.

“This is where he was born, grew up and studied,” said a 52-year-old salesman, who wished to remain anonymous.

“For what he has done, it was done because he loved the country.”
The salesman said the bloodshed that occurred during the Emergency era was unavoidable, and it was unfortunate that murders were part and parcel of strife.

“The people are scared to talk about the return of Chin Peng’s body, but they felt that the Government should honour the agreement that was signed in Haadyai then,” said the salesman, who added that it was fact that Chin Peng was born here.

“His younger brother’s grave is here, along with that of his parents and grandfather. He also studied and grew up here.”

At the Kong Hock Kong Lumut Pundut burial ground where Chin Peng’s family members were buried, its caretaker, known as Tay, said Chin Peng’s brother and relatives would come and pay their respects every Qing Ming (All Souls Day).

“I’ve seen them a couple of times, but never talked to them,” said the 40-year-old Tay.

Opposite the shophouse along Jalan Raja Omar, where Chin Peng grew up, a coffeeshop owner, known as Foo, 69, said Chin Peng’s family often came to his shop for drinks whenever they came to pay their respects.

“Even back in the 40s, his late parents would also come here for coffee.

“But I don’t remember seeing Chin Peng,” he said, adding that he was a young child then.

He added that Chin Peng’s family sold bicycles at the shophouse.

According to Foo, Chin Peng was a former student of SMJK Nan Hwa here.

“His name is inscribed in a special school magazine dated 1948,” said Foo.

Meanwhile, Perak police chief Senior Deputy Comm Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani said police were monitoring the situation closely to prevent any untoward incidents.

- Contributed by IVAN LOH The Star/Asia News Network

Related post:
Chin Peng, a hero or zero?

Chin Peng, a hero or zero?

Ironically on the 50th anniversary of Malaysia Day, Chin Peng the exiled former communist leader has died in Bangkok.

Chin Peng, flanked by C.D. Abdullah and Tan Sri Rahim Noor, during the signing of the Peace Accord in Haadyai in 1989.

Chin Peng’s legacy after his death in a Bangkok hospital remains a hot dispute in Malaysia today.

GOVERNMENT ministers, including Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamid, were quick to denounce Chin Peng as a criminal, while DAP leader Lim Kit Siang and website bloggers have come out to acknowledge the role and struggle of the clandestine Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), which Chin Peng led against British rule, saying it hastened the achievement of Malaya’s national independence in 1957.

Even before his death, while the Government had banned films on the CPM and his return to Malaysia from exile, his role had been grudgingly accepted by even those who once fiercely opposed him.

Since 1989, public controversy has swirled over the party’s role and its real contribution to the achievement of Malaya’s independence in 1957. Some people have argued that while the party’s struggle for independence was valid up to 1957, its continuation thereafter against the popularly elected governments of Malaya and Singapore has been difρcult to justify.

Nevertheless, first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman in his memoirs, Lest We Forget (1983), acknowledged the communists’ role in the struggle for independence: “Just as Indonesia was ρghting a bloody battle, so were the communists of Malaya, who, too, fought for independence.”

Chin Peng’s application to return to Malaysia to launch his memoirs in September 2003 was rejected by the Home Ministry. He finally lost his appeal against this ban in the Federal Court in 2009.

PAS leaders, including Mat Sabu, and its party organ Harakah have recognised the role played by the CPM’s Malay leaders, Rashid Maidin and C.D. Abdullah, in the CPM’s armed struggle in achieving Malaya’s independence. Even former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor has echoed this recognition.

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who played a crucial role in initiating the negotiations to end the CPM’s armed struggle, half-heartedly recognised the role of Rashid Maidin and other Malay communists in Malaya’s independence up to 1957, in a foreword he wrote in a book on the CPM.

Ong Boon Hua, alias Chin Peng, was the CPM’s secretary-general for 42 years. Until his memoirs, Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, was published in 2003, much of his life and leadership of the party remained shrouded in secrecy and he is best known for his wartime (1942–45) exploits as a guerilla leader.

At the end of World War II, Chin Peng’s heroic role as an anti-Japanese resistance leader was highlighted in Spencer Chapman’s account, The Jungle Is Neutral (1952), in which he is portrayed as the key link between the resistance movement in Malaya and the British armed forces based in Kandy, Sri Lanka.

Post-war Malayan newspapers called him “Britain’s most trusted man”. For his wartime services he was awarded two military medals and an Order of the British Empire (OBE), which was revoked when the CPM took up arms against British rule in June 1948.

Born in Kampong Koh, in Sitiawan, Perak, on Oct 21, 1924, Chin Peng became a communist at 15. He adopted the alias “Chin Peng” because all secret cell members were required to conceal their true identities from the police.

In the interwar period it took great intellectual and moral courage to join the banned CPM as once its members’ identities became known, the British police hunted them down.

Chin Peng found the communist ideology attractive as it stood for social justice, the elimination of poverty, a new classless world order and the end of imperialism.

His father from Fujian province, emigrated to Singapore where he met and married Chin Peng’s mother. They moved to Sitiawan where they ran a bicycle business.

The second of 11 children, Chin Peng studied at the Hua Chiao (Overseas Chinese) Primary School in Sitiawan, and later brieςy attended a secondary school, the Anglo-Chinese Continuation School.

While there, the police discovered his communist activities and he disappeared underground to evade arrest.

Within the movement, he worked ρrst in 1940 as a probationary member, in charge of members in the Sitiawan district, then transferred to Ipoh to do propaganda work, and was subsequently appointed the party’s state secretary in 1942, the year he married a party comrade, Lee Khoon Wah, who was from Penang. They had three children.

In 1941, during the Japanese occupation, the British administration, accepted the CPM’s offer of volunteers to ρght the Japanese behind enemy lines.

 

Wanted man: The bounty on Chin Peng's head is equivalent to millions of ringgit today.

In Perak, Chin Peng was responsible for establishing communication and supplies lines between the urban areas and the guerrilla forces in the jungle camps. He was the liaison ofρcer between the British special operations group, Force 136, and top party ofρcials in the Blantan highlands in 1943 and 1945, to discuss the airdrop of money and arms to the guerilla groups.

At the end of the war, in recognition of his wartime services, Chin Peng was awarded a military medal in Singapore and later in London he received a second medal.

In 1947, the party’s central committee purged its secretary-general, Lai Tek, after Chin Peng and another committee member, Yeung Kuo, exposed him as a British agent.

Chin Peng was elected to replace him and the party began to adopt a “militant” line against the British administration.

After British intelligence uncovered information that the party was planning an insurrection, the colonial government decided to seize the psychological advantage by declaring an emergency in Malaya in June 1948.

This was in the wake of widespread labour unrest, including the murder of white planters on rubber estates, which it blamed on the CPM.

The British put up a reward of 250,000 Straits dollars on Chin Peng’s head. This offer was given wide publicity in the local and foreign press.

The Malayan Emergency lasted from 1948 to 1960, in the midst of which, Malaya secured independence on Aug 31, 1957.

In December 1955, Chin Peng and two CPM leaders, Rashid Maidin and Chen Tien, attended “peace talks” in Baling, Kedah, with Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was then Malaya’s chief minister, David Marshall, Singapore’s chief minister, and Tun Tan Cheng Lock, the MCA leader.

At the Baling talks, Chin Peng rejected the offer of amnesty when he failed to secure legal recognition for the CPM, and refused to accept the condition that the police screen his guerillas when they laid down their arms.

However, he made the surprising offer that the party would cease hostilities and lay down its arms if the Tunku secured the powers of internal security and defence in his talks on Malaya’s independence with the British Government in London.

It strengthened the Tunku’s bargaining position in the talks, which allowed him to win Malaya’s independence.

“Tunku capitalised on my pledge and gained considerably by this,” claims Chin Peng in his memoirs. In 1960, the Tunku’s Alliance government ended the Malayan Emergency. An ailing Chin Peng left for Beijing to recuperate and reorganise the party’s struggle.

He remained in Beijing for 29 years and did not return until 1989 to bring the CPM’s armed struggle to a close after negotiating a peace agreement with the Malaysian and the Thai Governments in Haadyai.

Chin Peng, in his book, described himself as a nationalist and freedom ρghter.

He took responsibility for the thousands of lives lost and sacriρced in the cause of the communist struggle. “This was inevitable,” he said, in an interview with me in Canberra in 1998. “It was a war for national independence.

- Contributed by Cheah Boon Kheng

> Cheah Boon Kheng was Professor of History at Universiti Sains Malaysia until his retirement in 1994. He was a visiting fellow in Singapore, Canberra and at USM. He is the author of several books, including The Masked Comrades (1979) and Red Star Over Malaya (1983). 

Related post:
Tracing the origins of the formation of Malaysia Sept 16 

Related Articles:
Chin Pengs last wish to go unfulfilled 
Chin Pengs ashes should be allowed home says Kit Siang 
Chua He was a key figure who undermined national security 
Expolice chief forgives him  
Zainuddin: I stayed and ate at same hotel Chin Peng was in
I read of Chin Peng, heard of him, met him and now have a 'piece of him', says newsman 

Tracing the origins of the formation of Malaysia Sept 16

Historic moment:Sabah's first Governor Tun Mustapha Datu Harun taking his oath of office on Sept 16, 1963

The idea of Malaysia came to fruition in 1963 as a culmination of the combined forces of decolonisation and expanding South-East Asian nationalisms.

THE famous announcement on May 27, 1961 by Tunku Abdul Rahman, then the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, calling for forging closer political and economic cooperation between Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak, is generally taken as the starting point for the formation of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963. The roots of the Malaysia scheme, however, go further back in time and were embedded in British plans hatched in 1942 for the decolonisation of South-East Asia in the post-Second World War period.

In fact, such an idea was first suggested in 1893 by Lord Brassey, director of the British North Borneo Company, who proposed the amalgamation of all British possessions in South-East Asia into “one large colony”. Brassey’s proposal, however, did not find favour with the British Government.

The outbreak of the Second World War and the subsequent capture of all British colonial possessions in South-East Asia by the Japanese changed everything. The British felt humiliated and partly laid the blame for their defeat on the disunited nature of their territorial possessions in South-East Asia which made it difficult to organise a coordinated defence.

In 1942, the Colonial Office led by its Eastern Department headed by G. Edward Gent began to lay plans for a more coordinated post-war policy in South-East Asia. This policy was founded on two principles: preparing dependent territories for the goal of self-rule, and integrating smaller units into larger political blocs.

The justification given for the second objective was administrative efficiency, economic development, political stability and defence viability. Anchoring their policy on these two principles, the Colonial Office laid plans for a “Grand Design” in South-East Asia after the Second World War. This called for the creation of a “union”, a “federation”; a “confederation” or a “dominion” of all British territories in the Malayan-Borneo region.

This large union or federation was to include the Malay states, Straits Settlements, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. This “Grand Design”, which may be appropriately named the “Colonial Malaysia Scheme”, was to be achieved gradually and in stages beginning with political integration in two separate blocs, that is, between Malaya and Singapore on the one hand, and between the Borneo territories on the other.

Confirming this line of action, J. D. Higham of the Colonial Office minuted on Jan 20, 1953 as follows: “Our original idea was that Malaya and Singapore would form one bloc and Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei, another, and that the two blocs might then merge into some sort of confederation.”

From 1946 to 1949, and even later, the British Government wished to push ahead with the process of integration within the two blocs, but political, strategic and economic exigencies and contingencies on the ground, such as the importance of maintaining Singapore as a naval base, the desire to push the Malayan Union proposals in Malaya, managing the Anti-Cession movement in Sarawak, and the wide gap in the political, economic and social development between the Malayan and Borneo territories, hindered all attempts to bring about any union within these blocs.

Seeing that integration in two separate blocs was not working, the British Government revived the “Grand Design” or the “Colonial Malaysia Scheme” idea in 1949.

Towards this end, the British Government created the post of the British Commissioner-General for South-East Asia to act as a coordinating body in the region. The man chosen for the job was Malcolm MacDonald.

Although he tried very hard, MacDonald achieved little success from 1949 to 1951, however. In 1951, he began to introduce new innovations, the most important being the setting up of branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) in the British territories in the Malayan-Borneo region.

By this move, MacDonald was able to foster much regional solidarity and goodwill among the local leaders through the mechanism of CPA meetings. In light of strong support especially from non-officials for a wider regional integration, MacDonald began to push vigorously for the realisation of the “Grand Design” or a British Dominion of South-East Asia in 1952.

Independence and expansion 

But the Commissioner-General’s exuberance was short-lived. By the early months of 1953, support for the Grand Design or Colonial Malaysia began to dissipate mainly as a result of uncompromising attitudes of British colonial officials in Malaya and Singapore. Ongoing animosity between top British administrators of these two states forced the Colonial Office to abandon the idea of forming an overall British Dominion of South-East Asia in favour of the pre-1951 formula of encouraging the formation of separate political blocs.

While the Colonial Office concentrated its efforts in improving relations between Malaya and Singapore, a strong initiative commenced in the Borneo region in 1953 to promote greater administrative coordination between North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei with a view of their “ultimate federation”.

Political developments in Malaya also began to take fundamental decision-making out of the hands of the colonial masters. The formation of the Alliance Party comprising Umno, MCA and MIC in 1954 and its resounding victory in the 1955 elections to the Federal Council effectively placed Malayan leaders in charge of their destiny.

Under the dynamic leadership of Tunku, Umno and the Alliance, Malaya thus began to move towards independence at a pace far ahead of the British “time-table”. In this context, the views of Tunku and Umno concerning the Malaya-Singapore merger and the wider Colonial Malaysia Scheme became decisive.

Although there grew a strong body of opinion in Singapore in 1954 and 1955 advocating merger with the Federation of Malaya, Tunku and Umno strongly opposed such a union. They feared being outnumbered by the addition of over a million Chinese; that the Malays would lose political dominance; and that Malaya’s security would be seriously threatened. The British, taking stock of the situation, could not countenance merger in the face of Umno’s rejection.

As far as the Colonial Malaysia Scheme was concerned, Tunku in fact lent support to the idea in 1955 and 1956, but the format was to be “Greater Malaya”, which was to be established in the future after Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo had achieved independence.

In 1956, Tunku was more concerned in winning independence for Malaya in a hurry and did not want any scheme of merger or territorial expansion to derail this supreme objective.

“At this stage,” he declared in 1956, “it is wise to be prudent like Kamal Ataturk who resolutely opposed territorial expansion in favour of improving Turkey itself first. Thus, when Malaya achieved independence in 1957 ahead of the colonial “time-table” and ahead of Singapore, the British Grand Design was rendered untenable and therefore remained unfulfilled.

But the idea of Malaysia remained alive both in the minds of the British and Tunku, and finally came to fruition in 1963 as a culmination of the combined forces of decolonisation and expanding South-East Asian nationalisms.

Tunku’s Malaysia
       
After achieving independence for Malaya in 1957, Tunku Abdul Rahman again broached the subject of forming Malaysia on May 27, 1961. His motivation were, however, slightly different than those of the British. One was to help complete the unfinished British Grand Design of decolonisation, which had been derailed as a result of Malaya’s unexpected independence. When this Grand Design had to be aborted in 1957, Britain began to face an intractable dilemma of finding a workable solution for decolonising the rest of her colonial possessions in the region.

The British found it unfeasible to grant independence separately to Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei as they were too small or too weak politically, economically and in security terms to survive alone. They were also extremely vulnerable to the forces of expanding communism, a situation the British colonial masters wished to avoid for the preservation of their own interests in the region.

In Borneo, the British tried to find a workable solution by fostering the formation of a North Borneo Federation from 1957 to 1960. This attempt failed miserably due to the opposition of the Sultan of Brunei, the rise of Party Rakyat Brunei which wanted to establish Negara Kalimantan Utara linked to Indonesia, and the rising tide of communism in Sarawak spearheaded by the Sarawak Communist Clandestine Organisation.

The Singapore problem became even more alarming with the stark possibility of a communist takeover of the government in 1961.

In these dire circumstances, the British began to look to Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was quite ready to do the job for them but had another motive as well for the creation of Malaysia. This second orientation was the desire for territorial expansion, an impulse very much consistent with the phenomenon of expanding nationalisms at the time especially in insular South-East Asia.

Paradoxically, the rise of nationalism in the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and the Federation of Malaya also produced a desire among the leaders of these countries for territorial expansion in the region for various reasons.

In the Philippines, the main architect of this nationalist expansion was Diosdado Macapagal who, since the country’s independence in 1946, began to advocate the extension of Philippine jurisdiction on all former Spanish possessions including the Turtle Islands and North Borneo.

Sukarno in Indonesia, wanting to resurrect the Majapahit Empire, laid claim to all former Dutch colonies in the region, including West New Guinea (West Irian) which was not handed over by the Dutch to the Indonesian Republic in 1949. Indonesia also had designs over British Borneo, over which it was casting “covetous eyes” as early as 1953.

Tunku’s Malaysia Scheme also smacked of expansionist aims. He basically wanted North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei as part of Greater Malaya and was willing to bring in Singapore only if the British Borneo territories were brought in first. In Brunei, Party Rakyat Brunei led by A. M. Azahari was seriously advocating the revival of the former Brunei Empire in the form of Negara Kalimantan Utara from 1956 to 1962.

These expanding nationalisms overlapped in the territorial milieu and produced a period of intense conflict. The concepts of Greater Malaya, Greater Brunei, Greater Indonesia and Greater Philippines were totally irreconcilable and were bound to produce political turmoil in the region.

There was in fact also strong opposition initially from the peoples of British Borneo against Tunku’s Greater Malaya. A great deal of diplomacy and safeguards were necessary to gain their support, and even then Brunei stayed out.

Sabah and Sarawak indeed claim they did not join Malaysia, but formed Malaysia as equal partners with Malaya and Singapore.

Contributed by By Prof Dr D.S. Ranjit Singh
> The writer is Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (ranjit@uum.edu.my

Malaysia needs to produce more houses to achieve 20/20 by 2020

KL to rank 20th Most Competitive and 20th Most Livable City by 2020

AS I walked the streets in Melbourne, people are either taking pleasure in their daily activities or catching up with their friends. More importantly, they are enjoying an abundance of economic and lifestyle opportunities, supported by their affordable housing prices and convenient transportation. It comes as no surprise that the city has been ranked as the world most livable city by The Economist for years.

Melbourne tops the list as the most livable location, according to a survey of 140 cities conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

For Malaysians, the good news is, Kuala Lumpur ranked second in South-East Asia after Singapore on the same list, while the challenging part is we were at No. 77 in the world ranking, according to the survey last year.

In terms of competitiveness, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has ranked Malaysia as the 24th most competitive nation among 148 countries in its Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014. Under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), the Government aspires to elevate Kuala Lumpur to be the top 20 most economically dynamic cities and top 20 most livable cities by 2020.

To realise these goals, we need to gear up our efforts in building both the hard and soft infrastructure of the country. And if we are to be a truly developed nation, one of the most critical criteria is to have more homes, as the nation’s housing needs must first be addressed to ensure quality living.

Let’s take a look at how developed nations house their people. Take Australia as an example, where four of its cities, i.e. Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and Perth, ranked in the top 10 most livable cities as measured by the Global Liveability Survey in 2012. Australia has a population of around 22 million living in 9.1 million homes, according to its census in 2011, which means their average person per household is 2.5.

Another developed nation in Europe, United Kingdom, has a population of 62.7 million people and number of homes is approximately 25 million, which also works out to have an average of 2.5 persons per household.

In Malaysia, while our population is about 28 million, we only have about 4.6 million homes, according to National Property Information Centre. This is equal to 6.08 persons per household. For us to catch up with Australia and United Kingdom which have an average of 2.5 persons in a household, we would require a total of 11.3 million homes in our country, which is a 250% increase from what we have currently!

However, at our current housing production of about 100,000 homes a year, it would take us 67 years to catch up with the benchmark displayed by these developed nations, assuming there is no additional increase in population.

The statistic above paints a picture of the fundamental required for a developed nation. As a developing nation, the Government and the relevant private sectors need to find ways to grow the number of homes in Malaysia. We are in need of more housing especially when the Government aims to move our country towards developed nation, and to grow the population of Greater KL from 6 million people to 10 million by the year 2020, which would put further pressure on the housing market in urban areas.

Currently, production has not been able to keep up with demand and this has pushed up housing prices. Having ample supply is the only long-term sustainable way to keep housing affordable. The Government needs to streamline the delivery system to increase the number of homes built every year, instead of stifling the supply which also include the cooling off measures which may eventually lead to higher prices due to inadequate supply.

Imagine if we are having 11.6 million houses today instead of 4.6 million, our house prices would be more affordable due to ample supply. The bottom line is we need more houses, especially affordable houses. It will help in the long run if the authorities can find ways to encourage housing supply, and this include putting off cooling measures on the property industry which only work in the short run as shared in my last article “Cooling Off Measures Choke Supply”.

More production of houses will make prices more affordable. And, if the Government can further support the housing needs with infrastructure including having a good public transportation system, the aspirations of making Kuala Lumpur the top 20 most livable and most competitive cities in the world can become a reality by 2020.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT BY ALAN HONG KOK MAU
FIABCI Asia Pacific chairman DATUK ALAN TONG has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was FIABCI World president in 2005/06 and was named Property Man of The Year 2010. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties.

Related posts:
 Rising tides of currencies globally cause inflation, money worthless!

Is having a car still a symbol of freedom?

Make the right money moves: investing in a property is still best

Prevent ATM thieves and cyber crimes on the rise

Banks to arm machines with ink bombs to stain stolen notes

PETALING JAYA: Thieves who rob automated teller machines will be left with worthless pieces of paper if a Bank Negara proposal is put into place. Dye bombs are to be placed in the ATMs and if anyone tampers with the machines, the “bomb” goes off, leaving the notes stained in red and easily recognisable as stolen money.

Bank Negara, in its guidelines on Dye-Stained Banknotes dated Aug 26, is calling on both banks and Cash in Transit Companies to consider using the currency protection device (CPD) to deter ATM theft.

Local security company Extro Code Sdn Bhd demonstrated yesterday a CPD or dye pack which is already available in the market.

Its technical director Mohd Zaki Sulaiman said that once installed, the dye pack would be triggered when someone tries to break into the ATM.

“The device is like a smoke bomb which releases the ink onto the stacks of banknotes in the ATM,” he said.

Mohd Zaki said there’s no actual explosion but there is some heat when the CPD is triggered.“The actual triggering mechanism is a trade secret,” he added.

He said the ink called Disperse Red 9 was not harmful. He said the ink was imported but the actual CPD was developed and produced locally.

Mohd Zaki declined to reveal the cost of each dye pack and the installation cost. “Who pays for the device will depend on Bank Negara and the banks,” he said.

He said there are four ATM providers in the country but installing the dye-packs in the different machines should not be a problem.

The Bank Negara guidelines state that the CPD would emit a bright coloured dye by smoke, liquid or any other agent to stain the currency in the event ATMs are broken into.

This will enable authorities and the public to easily identify the defaced stolen currency and render them unfit for use.

The guidelines also sets out conditions under which these banknotes will be replaced. Among them:

• > The ink has to be indelible by water, fuel, gas, bleach and detergent.
• > It must be traceable to the ATM, to assist police investigations.
• > It must stain at least 10% of each bank note.
• > It can be detected and rejected by banknotes authentication machines used by banks such as Cash 

Deposit Machines. >It must be non-hazardous and non-toxic.

If banks retrieved the dye-stained currency, they can submit the banknotes to the central bank for assessment.
Tellers will also be trained to detect these banknotes.

The public and retailers will be advised not to accept dye-stained banknotes as they are likely to be stolen.

These measure, Bank Negara believes, will reduce ATM robberies.

In the United States, banks have dye bombs in vaults and any unauthorised person who tries to remove any money will trigger the bomb, leaving all the money – and the robber – stained in ink.

- Contributed by NEVILLE SPYKERMAN  neville@thestar.com.my

Related stories:
9000 machines nationwide to have CPD
Cops welcome currency protection device proposal

Cyber crimes on the rise - millions of ringgit being lost annually to scams

 

Public awareness: (From left) Ambank deputy managing director Datuk Mohamed Azmi Mahmood, Khalid and AmIslamic Bank Berhad CEO Datuk Mahdi Morad at the launch of the Scam Alert campaign in Bukit Aman 

KUALA LUMPUR: Fraud and cyber crimes in the country have risen unchecked due to the lack of public awareness, while victims are hesitant to report the crime, the police said.

Millions of ringgit have been lost annually to crimes like sms scams and parcel scams, which have mostly gone unnoticed in the public eye.

In a bid to stop such crimes, the police has launched an awareness initiative on the various types of scams in the country.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the initiative, under the National Blue Ocean Strategy, comprised cooperation with the Association of Banks in Malaysia (ABM) and the Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia (AIBIM).

The public would be informed and educated on the different types of fraud and cyber crime scams being used by today’s criminals.

“We are posting a list of the various methods and modus operandi used in these scams at our official police website at www.rmp.gov.my.

“This will be linked to the websites of all banks in the country so that anyone can easily access the information which will be regularly updated,” he said after launching the initiative at Bukit Aman yesterday.

Khalid said RM98.6mil in losses was recorded last year in cases involving cyber crimes, including Internet banking fraud as well as sms and parcel scams.

“So far this year, such losses have reached RM80.7mil, which shows that such cases and losses are increasing,” he said.

He added that losses to sms scams had jumped from RM5.8mil last year to RM39.2mil so far this year.

- The Star/Asia News Network