Malaysia’s Day: Death of the Psychopathic God (Part 2)

20130925-001101.jpg

I blame the skewed understanding of history among Malaysians, as well as attempts to rewrite history, on the Malaysian education system. The best way to get the nation together is to say that Malaya was colonised. The only times Malaya was wholly colonised was between 1942 and 1945, then again in 1946 until 1948. The Portuguese colonised Malacca, so did the Dutch. The rest of the Malay Peninsula were divided into various sovereign states.

Let me give you a brief history lesson on the MALAY peninsula:

The British came here for want of economic materials, and as a result of the various treaties with the respective states’ Sultan and Raja, the various states in Malaya became protectorates, administered by British Residents who were employed by the various Sultans and Rajas. Save for the Strait Settlements, the rest of the Malay Peninsula were never British colonies. Initially, the states of Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan all had their own Resident, but decided to have a common Resident as mentioned in Clause 4 of the Treaty of the Federation, 1895:

The above named Rulers agree to accept a British officer, to be styled the Resident General as the agent and representative of the British government under the government of the Straits Settlement. They undertake to provide him with a suitable accommodation with such salary as determined by Her Majesty’s government and to follow his advice in all matters of administration other than those touching the Mohammadan religion. The appointment of the Resident General will not affect the obligations of the Rulers towards the British Resident now existing or hereafter to be appointed to offices in the above mentioned protected states.

In return for the access to economic gains, Britain promised the states protection against threats. The protectorate over the Malay states does not amount to colonisation and sovereignty but prevents occupation or conquest of the protectorate by other nations (as evident during the Japanese invasion of Malaya). This differs from a colony in that the protectorates do not form an integral part of the territories of Great Britain.

As mentioned, the Malay states were made up of nine sovereign states, headed by the Sultan/Raja, and advised by a British adviser, with Negeri Sembilan, Selangor, Pahang and Perak forming the Federated Malay States, while the rest were termed as the Unfederated Malay States with individual treaties with the British. Malacca, Penang and Singapore became part of the colonies as part of the Straits Settlement. Three legal cases became the test for the independent-nature of the sovereign states, namely the Mighell vs Sultan of Johore (1894), Duff Development Co. Ltd vs Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan & Anor (1924), and the Pahang Consolidated Co. Ltd vs State of Pahang (1931-32).

Therefore, on 31st August, 1957, the independence we gained was from feudalism, and not colonialism as we were brought up to believe in. On that day, the Sultans and Rajas were removed of their British advisers who administered their state on their behalf, and were now advised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (Chief Minister and Executive Councillors on state level). The constitution of rulership was continued but modified to include parliamentary democracy.

Since the independence we gained on 31st August, 1957 was from feudalism (the governing of the nation by a government elected by the people as opposed to British-appointed advisers), when did the nationalist movement for this independence actually began? It was upon the formation of the Malayan Union of 1946, an idea conceived during the Second World War and first presented to the British War Cabinet in May 1944 which required the Malay rulers to concede ALL powers to the British Crown, another indicator of the independent nature of the Malay states before the Japanese occupation. That started the ball rolling for the independence we now have.

Characters such as Burhanuddin Helmi, Ibrahim Yaacob, Hassan Manan, Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestamam, Shamsiah Fakeh all fought for an independent Malaya under Javanese rule under the banner of Melayu Raya. You can read more on this in my posting The Road to Merdeka: Persekutuan Tanah China dated 6th September 2013. There you can read more about the characters mentioned, and also how that movement is linked to Chin Peng’s attempt to turn Peninsular Malaysia/Malaya into a communist state aligned with China.

The question whether Chin Peng was a contributor to the independence does not arise at all; he only assumed command of the Communist Party of Malaya when his predecessor, Loi Tak a.k.a Loi Tek a.k.a Lai Teck absconded with the movement’s funds in 1947. Why would the staunchly anti-communist British regard the Communist Party of Malaya as brothers-in-arms fighting the Japanese? Loi Tak, the Secretary-General of the CPM was a spy for the French colonial authorities in Vietnam to penetrate the Vietnamese freedom fighters and communists. You can read more in British Intrigue & The CPM: Some Characters.

And the remark made by Mariam Mokhtar that without the CPM, the Japanese in Malaya would not have been defeated is a feeble and shallow attempt to rewrite history. On 13th August 1945, Sukarno and Drs Hatta met up with Burhanuddin Helmi and Ibrahim Yaakob in Taiping to discuss the independence of Malaya under Javanese rule. In attendance was Major General Hirokichi Umezu of the Imperial Japanese Army. Ibrahim Yaakob was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Japanese Volunteer Army (Giyuugun). That effectively says that from that date, until the formal surrender of the Japanese military on 2nd September 1945, the Imperial Japanese Army remained undefeated.

Chin Peng fought against a collectively independent Malaya in 1948, a Malaya that was not colonised. Therefore, what was he fighting for? Was he planning to drive out the British advisers and become advisers in turn to the Malay rulers? According to Prof Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, the ratio of Chinese to Malays in communist-front organisations was 15:1, and as high as 50:1 in the CPM itself (The Star, Red Star Over Malaya, Sunda, 29th November, 2009). Do we honestly think they had the support of the whole population of Malaya? Whose interests would have been protected or preserved had they gotten their way then? Therefore the label “Chinese communists” as mentioned by Mariam Mokhtar is an apt description.

Mariam Mokhtar should also get her facts right (Chin Peng Has The Last Laugh, Malaysiakini, 23rd September 2013). Because of the ratio above, the Emergency was in essence a battle between the Malays who were trying to preserve their identity and religion, and the non-Malays who were against the CPM, against the Chinese-majority CPM that was bent on setting up a satellite communists state here. Mariam mentioned that atrocities were not just committed by Chin. Peng, but by both sides because “Malaya was on a war footing”. Since when was Malaya on a war footing? Who committed the first atrocity in 1948? Why was he fighting against an independent Malaya? And why did he not stop after the Tunku had announced our independence in 1956?

Chin Peng betrayed the people of Malaya. At the Baling talks, he promised the Tunku that the CPM would lay down their arms immediately if the British agreed to transfer power over internal security and defence into the hands of the Tunku’s Umno-MCA-MIC Alliance Government. Did he do it? No. He continued to kill Malayans/Malaysians for a further 34 years after the talks.

Chin Peng may be gone. And on every 16th September, Malaysia Day would be more meaningful – the day the man who butchered 10,000 of the people he had wanted to liberate, finally kicked the bucket on foreign soil.

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

In the final instalment, I will cover non-Malaysian Chin Peng’s request to be allowed to visit Sitiawan.

Malaysia: Fatigue At 50

Photo by Patrick Coston
Photo by Patrick Coston

As Malaysia approaches its 50th year, I cannot help but think that while being in its infancy this nation is ageing far too fast and is fast being tired of itself. The cohesiveness of its people in the run up to the events on the 31st August, 1957 and 16th September, 1963 is fast coming undone. Many a times have I written on how far more cohesive we were immediately after the 13th May, 1969 tragedy than we are now, despite claims of how far more mature we are in the political sense. That may be true, but we behave like immature kids behaving like we are politically mature.

Elements once found destructive, such as Communism, is now being looked up to. A few days ago, left-leaning students were audience in a forum that had a former member of the all-but-defunct Communist Party of Indonesia, and students were seen wearing t-shirts glorifying Tan Malaka, a Marxist who once lived in Indonesia. To add insult to injury, Karpal Singh has also been reported as supporting the move to allow former leader of the Communist Party of Malaya, Chin Peng, to return to Malaysia. Of course, humanitarians would argue that there is nothing wrong with allowing an octogenarian back to the land he was born in, and liberals would think the same. I hope these same people would also condemn Israel for still hunting former Nazis and tell the people of Cambodia they should forgive the Khmer Rouge.

For whatever reasons too did the police not act previously on criminal elements. The removal of the ISA and the Emergency Ordinance rendered the police virtually helpless in its fight against crime, let alone be able to maintain peace and order and breathe at the same time. Kudos to the good teamwork of the present Inspector-General of Police and the new Minister of Home Affairs. We have not seen this kind of teamwork since the days of Tun Dr Ismail – Tun Salleh, and Tun Ghazali Shafie – Tun Haniff days.

I have read comments from politicians from both sides of the political fence who are against giving the police emergency powers and say that the police should learn from their British counterparts on how to police the law without having firearms. Britain, for those who did not study geography, is an island, unlike Malaysia that has land borders with neighbours. A simple ferry or train ride from the European continent requires passengers and luggages to be scanned. My former college mate who is now a Chief Inspector in the Thames Valley Police lamented how he sometimes wish he was given a gun, especially in the wake of the two incidents where two women constables were gunned down by armed criminals. Imagine our police fighting crime with porous borders.

The introduction of the proposed Criminal Prevention Act should hopefully allow the police to conduct interdiction strikes on hardcore crime gangs. This Act will allow the police to hold criminal elements for up to 70 days pending trial. I have not seen the draft in full but I am sure it will uphold the rights of those who want peace.

Was there political interference in the police’s operations before the new Minister and Inspector-General came into office? I would leave that to the former Inspector-Generals to answer. But I know a gangster was awarded one of the highest Federal titles. How his name had made it through police vetting definitely puzzles me.

I know for sure there are politicians from both sides of the political fence whom have been seen with criminal elements, and photographs of these politicians meeting with criminals exist. These are prominent politicians and I know the police has full knowledge of this. Whether their presence with the criminals is for political or for personal reasons, only they and the police can answer this.

Former IGP Tun Haniff Omar once remarked that the BERSIH rally had communist elements involved. I would not be at all surprised if there are members of the CPM whom have made it into political parties, as they did before 13th May, 1969. Today, we have former police Director of CID Tan Sri Zaman Khan saying that an ex-convict who was a triad chief is also holding a lower office in a political party in Penang (NST, Nation page 25, 5th September 2013).

I particularly like Ben Tan’s article “Youth gangs today lack ‘basic values’.” (NST, Comments page 18, 5th September 2013). Ben, NST’s Johor bureau chief wrote:

GANGSTER’S LIFE: The members just crave money and power.

Ironically, the same can be said of the young politicians mentioned above, and of most politicians too. I certainly hope the Home Minister will give all the support the police needs in making this nation a safer place to live in.

At 50, Malaysia is already more divisive than it should be. Political fanatics are to be blamed. With the underworld and subversive elements making a breakthrough, it will not be long before our children begin to face the mistakes we have all made. Criminals, subversive elements, politicians with links to the underworld should never be allowed to represent the people of Malaysia, and I urge the Malaysian people to reject them and reject those who protect them. If we don’t, we won’t see Malaysia living past 100.

Screwing History

20120910-010742.jpg

“Patriotism is the scoundrel’s last refuge,” was a statement made on the evening of 7th April 1775 by the Tory-supporting poet, Samuel Johnson. Johnson’s statement was not referring to patriotism at all. He was in face criticising the false-patriotism of John Stuart, the 3rd Earl of Bute, and his supporters. This is the statement I would like to direct to Kua Kia Soong for his attempt at screwing up the nation’s history.

PUTERA-AMCJA

In January of 1947, Lai Tek or Loi Tek or Loi Tak, the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) before Chin Peng, backed and finance the establishment of the multiracial Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) which adopted a CPM programme, and the Malay Nationalist Party (PKMM) to form part of the CPM’s United Front to oppose the British – Malay Rulers – UMNO consultations to replace the Malayan Union and call for immediate representative government based on a Republic Model. The United Front was under the banner of the Pan Malaya Council for Joint Action (PMCJA).

However, the PMCJA sounded too pro-non-Malays and Burhanuddin Helmi, co-founder of the PKMM, was forced by other left-wing Malay leaders to take the party out. He did so, and formed the Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (PUTERA) as a new vehicle to carry out left-wing Malay demand for a pro-Indonesia republic-type representative government, free of the Malay rulers’ influence. (read more about the PKMM/MNP, KMM et al here)

The CPM saw their mistake that had deprived their United Front of the illusion of Malay support, reformed the PMCJA into the All Malayan Council for Joint Action (AMCJA), wooed the PKMM’s PUTERA to rejoin a PUTERA-AMCJA coalition jointly chaired by each organisation’s President, namely Burhanuddin Helmi and Tan Cheng Lock.

Just to remind us all, it was a time when the non-Malays who formed the majority of the population of Malaya, were either immigrants or British subjects even though some were born in Malaya. Therefore, Malayan citizenship was being sought by the Malayan Democratic Union.

PUTERA-AMCJA then drafted a People’s Constitution (Perlembagaan Ra’ayat) in anticipation of, and to counter the Federation of Malaya Agreement being put together by the British, the Malay Rulers, and UMNO. The Federation Agreement was expected to restrict non-Malay citizenship to assuage right-wing and majority Malay fear of being swamped by the non-Malays who already outnumbered them. At Page 199 of his memoir, Chin Peng wrote:

“The AMCJA was not exactly a communist front but…it was firmly under our influence. It was never in Cheng Lock’s mind to become a CPM stooge. But that is what exactly happened.”

Later, the British were to dismiss the PUTERA-AMCJA pretentions of representing the people because the PKMM was confined to a small group of radical left-wing Malays, while the bulk of the Malays supported UMNO. Even the Ulamas were in UMNO until 1956 when they splintered out to form the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party (PAS).

As for the Chinese, they were divided. On this basis they convinced Cheng Lock to leave the AMCJA and talk to UMNO for citizenship and other related matters.

THE TUNKU WAS OUSTED AS PM…???

Tunku was NOT ousted by Razak. UMNO Youth and many of the younger UMNO leaders blamed the Tunku for not doing enough for the Malays, and giving too much face to the Chinese. They wanted Tunku to step down and make way for Razak.

Tun Razak, Tun Dr Ismail, Khir Johari (who is NOT the biological father of Zairil Khir Johari contrary to skewed popular belief) and the UMNO old guards, would have none of that and wanted Tunku to be given his own time to decide. Tunku saw the writing on the wall and said he would step down as soon as his nephew is installed as the Yang DiPertuan Agong (Sultan Abdul Halim, also the present Yang DiPertuan Agong) as it would not be right for an uncle to sembah his own nephew.

The Inspector-General of Police, Tun Salleh, was not the kind of man to lend himself to Tunku’s ouster. The Chief of Armed Forces Staff, General Tengku Osman Jiwa, was the IGP’s close friend and also was the Tunku’s nephew.

DID THE HOME MINISTER PURPOSELY ALLOW A FUNERAL PROCESSION AFTER THE POLICE HAD DENIED ITS PERMIT?

(read more about the Home Ministry over-riding the police’s decision to deny a funeral procession permit)

It was not certain why was the permit for the funeral procession of the Labour Party member denied by the police. It was either because of the pro-communists wanted it held on Elections eve, or because the organisers wanted an extended route, or whether because they did not want to be policed by the ‘red helmets’ (FRU).

An appeal was made to the concurrent Home Affairs Minister, Tun Razak who, like Tunku and the other ministers, was back in his constituency, Pekan. His concern was that no cause should be given to anybody to disturb the elections. So, he approved the permit as per the application.

But without the FRU to police, the procession really went to town. With 10,000 people in the procession, coupled with its shouted and hand-carried slogans crying blood debt will be paid with blood, it set the tone for the behaviour of the two opposition processions post-elections on the 11th and 12th of May.

As for the reported Tunku Tapes, I have not heard them, nor do I know when in the duration of Tunku’s life, were the recordings made. It could have been made in his twilight years, out of spite, much like Kua Kia Soong’s writings.