It must have been a prank of fate, that just as Malaysia was celebrating the 50th anniversary of its formation, two of its most historic nemeses stole the headlines. Not many Malaysians would have known that one of the towering figures of history who led the formation of Malaysia – Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew – would have celebrated his 90th birthday on that very same day, 16th September.
The other historical figure, communist leader Chin Peng, barged his way into Malaysian history too. After decades of fighting against the British colonial forces, and later, the independent Malayan government that inherited the administration of the country from the British, Chin Peng had gone into exile after the 1989 ceasefire. On 16th September, he passed away in Bangkok, after failing twice in appeals to return to Malaysia.
Of course, in Malaysia’s current charged political atmosphere, the issue of Chin Peng returning to Malaysia became yet another political flashpoint, hotly debated by both sides of the political divide.
Leading members of the DAP were quick to advocate for the remains of Chin Peng to be buried in Malaysia. They argue that Chin Peng was a nationalist who fought for independence of Malaya against the hated British colonials. They also argue that we should let bygones be bygones, and that it was time to forgive Chin Peng. Karpal Singh said: “once a person was dead his past was irrelevant.” Others pointed out that Chin Peng was even decorated by the British for his contributions in the fight against Japanese occupation. Even MCA jumped into the fray; one MCA leader argued that Chin Peng was a communist, yes, but not a terrorist.
Umno leaders, perhaps predictably in the run-up to party elections in October, quickly denounced any such plans to have Chin Peng be finally laid to rest in Malaysia. Home Minister Zahid Hamidi asserted that Chin Peng was a terrorist leader, and not an independence fighter as alleged. Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein called Chin Peng a “traitor who had undermined national sovereignty.”
Where is the truth in all this? The following are my own meditations on the issue, partly informed by recent readings of history, but certainly also coloured by my own recollections:
History is rarely black and white, as textbooks and apologists alike would want us to believe. Yes, Chin Peng fought against the Japanese. Yes, the British decorated him for his role in resisting the Japanese occupation. But Chin Peng didn’t stop there. He fought the British, when they came in and imposed a military administration in the wake of the Japanese currender. He fought the Malayan government, which by 1957 was a sovereign government when Tunku and his colleagues took over from the British. And yes, he fought against Malaysia too, when it was formed in 1963.
To call Chin Peng an “independence fighter” is too simplistic. Yes, he was fighting against the Japanese, but in order to impose a communist state in Malaya. Some argue that the Malayan government post-1957 was still a British construct. Perhaps, but by 1955, this was also a government that was duly elected by its people. And at no time in Malayan history, or even Malaysian history, could it be said that there was a plurality of Malaysians who wanted a communist state.
The fate of Malaysia would have been very different, if Chin Peng had won. Many of those who decry the Government’s stand against Chin Peng’s appeals to return to Malaysia, are those same people who consistently call out the Malaysian government for allegedly clamping down on freedoms, for limiting free speech and many other transgressions against liberal freedom.
But as we can see from the fate of Russia, China and other countries run by communists, they have very little interest in such niceties as free speech. Gulags, “struggle sessions” and other hallmarks of repression have entered the lexicon of politics by way of communist rule. It is doubtful that many of those who claim to speak for Chin Peng’s right to return to Malaysia, would have enjoyed much rights under a Chin Peng administration.
There is a racial undertone to the Chin Peng issue, which shows how far we still have to go as a nation. When I was growing up, parents would bid their children to shush by invoking Chin Peng, or Botak Chin. The former was especially effective, and for good reason. For those of my grandparents’ generation, the memories of “Bintang Tiga” filled them with dread and bitterness. Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper drew attention to the confrontations between Malay villagers and the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (the MPAJA, which was a fore-runner of the Malayan Communist Party) in the interregnum following the Japanese surrender in August 1945.
After Malaya’s declaration of independence, the communists continued to struggle against the government, which was by this time led by Umno and its partners in the Alliance. The police force, which was mostly Malay, bore the heaviest brunt of the communist insurgency. Many lost their lives in the struggle to defend the sovereignty of the newly independent nation, against the communists, the latter who certainly had a radically different vision for Malaya.
These are painful and bitter memories, which cannot be erased merely by platitudes or artful concealment of shared history. Only the unceasing tide of time and the passing of generations can possibly put enough distance between those memories and the coming future when we can truly dissect the issues with complete honesty and candour.
My own take is: let him rest in exile. He certainly had his own reasons for militating against his own country, and we can perhaps forgive him for having a different vision for Malaysia. But the bloodshed and terror of those years are hard to forgive, let alone forget. As much as we should respect his desire to want to return to his country of birth and lay down his burden after years of struggle, those who fought and died defending Malaysia against his militancy, and hence protecting our way of life today, must certainly lay greater claim to history’s favour.
(An edited version of this blog appeared as a Letter to the Editor in the 20th Sep 2013 edition of the NST, here.)
