We can’t help to see headlines in Malaysian mainstream and alternative medias discussing on the return on Chin Peng to Malaysia for the past few weeks. Basically, I can catogarized 5 groups of people in giving their response to this issue – politicians that opposed the return; politicians that agreed with the return; civilians that opposed the return; civilians that agreed the return and; retired and still in service armed forces along with their families who opposed the return. Of course there will be a group of Malaysians who do not know what to say and remained status quo.
Despite of all responses given, with all due respect, I have to say, the 4 earlier groups mentioned have their own “light” weightage, considering their rationale of arguments can be questioned. Why?
By some of the comments given in this world wide web, some regard politicians’ statement could be driven by political mileage, but I’m sure some are sincere.
As for civilians, especially the young ones, they do not know what has happened during the old days. And of course, considering with today’s technology, ideas and reasons brought up by civilians can be spread around, without real weightage of own experience gained during the struggle except the generations who experienced it first hand. Some also maybe driven by political influence.
These 4 groups may have their own arguments, which I consider each have their own side of story(ies) they believe in.
The last group of giving such response – retired and still in service armed forces along with their families who opposed the return. For this, I consider they have more weightage in giving out their opinion as they have their side of story, along with Chin Peng’s side of story.
After stuffing my mind on this issue, I have to say I am more interested in Chin Peng’s side of story, which I have few queries that I hope can be answered by those who agreed on the retun of Chin Peng.
(ODS Note: Before proceed, kindly take a deep breath, inhale, exhale, sit back and relax. Please read with rationality and logic intact. Thank you)
It is stated by summary made by socialistworld.net that:
“Chin Peng is also quite clearly a striking character with an extraordinary story of self-sacrifice to tell. He became the CPM’s leader at the ripe old age of 23. Between 4,000-5,000 CPM fighters lost their lives in the struggle against British imperialism, while some 200 members of the party were hanged by the British.”
However, how about the deaths of armed forces of Persekutuan Tanah Melayu’s army (who clearly are not British) and civilians, especially the villagers (who were clearly the innocent party in this rebel against the British)? Moreover, Malaysia gained independence on 31st August 1957, why must Chin Peng and PKM continue the war against Persekutuan Tanah Melayu?
The victims during the Emergency were the very local people of Malaya (except for the non locals, such as Henry Gurney as he is British. I can consider as the understood tagline was to remove British from Malaya). Why should they be part of killings by CPM? Due to these questions, I have no doubt on why the army along with their family opposed the return of Chin Peng.
I cannot help but to agree that there will be casualities during any war. However, the casualities should be limited to parties/sides directly involve in the war, not the civilians. That’s the reason why, any party/army/side who killed civilians in any war are being despised and criticized.
If the war was to serve the purpose of removing the British (the very same reason why Japanese being fought too), why should the local people also being killed? Can someone give a rationale answer to justify the killings?
Secondly, in the review stated this:
“Significantly, Chin Peng comments on the linking of the struggle of his party to events in China. He was to become a supporter of the Chinese in the later Sino-Soviet dispute – albeit in a restrained fashion – and participated in the Cultural Revolution, which he approaches in this book uncritically. In that sense, despite the honesty with which he deals with the process of the struggle, as well as the CPM’S and his mistakes, he nevertheless was ideologically imprisoned, and still is to some extent, in Stalinist perceptions, both politically and organisationally. Members of the CPM who travelled to China, either to seek refuge from British repression or in solidarity, were effectively restrained in China by the new Maoist regime.“
By this statement, leads me to another question – was his fights really for Malaya, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu or China?
If he is, can somebody explain the Bukit Kepong’s incident? If he is, why should Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Hashim and Tan Sri Khoo Chong Kong being killed? If he is, why should villagers being killed and burnt?
Now, let us move on the most famous reason of all – he should be able to return as he is too old and for paying final filial respects to his late father.
I could agree that he is old, but the weigh of his doings during those years that caused thousands killed, especially people of Malaya and Malaysia should be another point of view to think about. If the reason that he should be given, how about the respect to those who have been killed during the Emergency, especially to those who died in service and innocent villagers? How about the respect and feelings of the family whose their family members died caused by CPM during the Emergency? Should we not consider the feelings of thousands of those who lose their family members during the Emergency just to satisfy one man’s feelings?
Moreover, eventhough he is above 80 years old, but the statement made:
“I am still a socialist. I certainly still believe in the equitable distribution of wealth, though I see this could take eons to evolve… In the Malaysian context, I have definitely dropped the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the central concept for an administrative blueprint.”
which shows that the idea is still young at mind and heart. He maybe too old, but the words uttered can caused the so called “even communist giants China and Russia have transformed towards economy-based struggles and the extreme communist terrorism practised in the 50s is non-existent now” can be re-lived.
Afterall, we love to say “like the old saying”, which technically speaking, perhaps, one might use this old man’s words as part of “like the old saying”. Yes? No?
ODS Question: I could not help to ask this last question… Chin Peng’s supporters tend to say that he is too old and the idea is no longer practised (but still exist)..but how come TDM’s age and his ideas be regarded as “irrelevant” become an issue? Both are old and already past their prime time. I wonder..which one is more dangerous and can cause casualities? Which one has caused death in large number?
p/s: Kindly note that I don’t really agree with KMU’s postings on this. This idea imposed dangerous challenge and in my opinion do not consider the feelings of families who lost their family members caused by the Communist. It is like playing with fire that the writer may not be able to handle.
Please also read Pemuda Umno JB’s piece to get some events of Communist doings. Are those incidents justify as act to free this country from British?