My life in verse and prose.
This is a good review of the new Apple iOS7. Proof, if any was needed, that we are truly entering an Age of Design, where refinements in aesthetics become a key differentiator in saturated and competitive markets such as smartphones. Expect this to cascade into many other unrelated industries where design sensibilities become the main distinguishing point for products and services…
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.)
This is interesting: rather than spending on educational/social programmes intended to compensate for poor parenting, maybe the real solution is to teach mothers and fathers to be better parents? At the same time, policy measures to eradicate inequality should be made top priority for all governments everywhere; this, more than anything else, can help to alleviate social inequality and reduce the problems of crime and poverty which are the hallmarks of great inequalities.
This is a good reminder of the timeless benefits of walking. Reminds me of all those scenes in The West Wing 😀
Assalamu Alaikum,
Have you read verse 131 of chapter 20. طه in the Holy Quran?
وَلا تَمُدَّنَّ عَينَيكَ إِلىٰ ما مَتَّعنا بِهِ أَزوٰجًا مِنهُم زَهرَةَ الحَيوٰةِ الدُّنيا لِنَفتِنَهُم فيهِ ۚ وَرِزقُ رَبِّكَ خَيرٌ وَأَبقىٰ
English-YusufAli translation
______________________________Nor strain thine eyes in longing for the things We have given for enjoyment to parties of them, the splendour of the life of this world, through which We test them: but the provision of thy Lord is better and more enduring.
———-
It’s very hard to remind ourselves of the bigger perspective of this World and the Hereafter, especially when the reality of this World permeates our every sight and senses.
But the splendour of this World is but a pale imitation of the Eternal – and we must always live in remembrance of Him, so that the Ultimate Reality is always in sight, God-Willing!
This is clever: leveraging the powering the Internet to provide a robust and distributed platform for one-on-one advisory/support services. It has the potential to shake up hundreds – nay, thousands! – of local services, and empower many professional to finally unburden themselves of the shackles of the 9-to-5, and offer their services directly to the world! Trust Google to once again introduce massively disruptive innovation…
This is interesting: the power of satire to elicit insight on issues of the day.
This is powerful: how to measure the impact of employability and employer satisfaction of graduates, vs the cost that graduates have to pay to educational institutions. A “bang-for-buck” measure that Malaysian policy makers should seriously consider.
This is a very interesting article on the much-discussed “Millenial” generation, and their attitudes to public service (or, probably more accurately, political participation through elective office.)
In many ways, it confirms what I read and hear about many young people, in Malaysia too. There is deep frustration with the way elective politics is played, and profound sense of betrayal as young people observe the nitpicking and petty mud-slinging that makes up the charade of national politics in the modern age.
Perhaps this is just a phase, perhaps a down-cycle in the history of Malaysian politics. But the deep sense of disappointment, accompanied by the boldness with which young Malaysians express their views through social media, suggests that politicians may never recover the public esteem which the rakyat has long imbued them with.
