Saturday, September 21, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Thursday, August 1, 2013
--Sultan of Brunei - History and Coronation--
~
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassanal_Bolkiah
~
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sultans_of_Brunei
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
--Global Tiger Day 2013--
29 July 2013, Kuala Lumpur: As we celebrate Global Tiger Day and await imminent news from Nepal’s recently completed national tiger survey, WWF calls on governments of tiger range countries to commit to a series of global wild tiger counts. Three comprehensive counts, in 2016, 2020 and 2022, is the minimum required to track progress towards the goal of doubling wild tiger numbers by 2022, known as TX2. Thorough and repeat counts are the only definitive way the world will know the success or failure of TX2.
2016 is the mid-point between the St. Petersburg Declaration where the 13 tiger range countries committed to TX2 and the 2022 end-point for bringing wild tiger numbers up to 6000. Governments of the 13 tiger range countries endorsed the St. Petersburg Declaration and committed to the TX2 goal at the high-level Tiger Summit, hosted by the Russian Government and The World Bank in 2010.
“Tiger range countries have set an ambitious goal in TX2 and WWF is committed alongside them to make it a reality,” said Mike Baltzer, Leader of WWF’s Tigers Alive Initiative. “To know global tiger population numbers will be to know where we are with TX2 and will help understand what else we need to do together to put tigers in a safe place by 2022.”
~
~https://www.facebook.com/wwfmy
~
~http://www.wwf.org.my/media_and_information/updates__former_newsroom_main_/?uNewsID=16280
Sunday, July 28, 2013
--Live Webcast: Interactive Session with His Holiness the Dalai Lama & Rev. Dada J.P. Vaswani--
There will be a live webcast of an interactive session with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Rev. Dada J.P. Vaswani, hosted by Aamir Khan on Sunday July 28th at 9:30am to 11:30am Indian Standard Time (IST) from the Sadhu Vaswani Mission in Pune as part of Rev. Dada J.P. Vaswani's 95th birthday celebrations.
~ http://dalailama.com/live-english
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
--Second Larut War--
According to Parkinson in his book British Intervention in Malaya 1867-1877 the "Hysan or Tokong" leader in Penang was "Chan Keng Kwi", with "Lew Ah Sam" as leader in Larut.
16 June 1865
In a gambling house in Klian Pauh, a quarrel between a Fui Chew Hakka and a Chung Shan Hakka. In Perak the Fui Chew Hakka were members of the Ghee Hin society and likewise the Chung Shan Hakka there were members of the Hai San Society.The disturbance esclated when 1,000 armed Chung Shan Hakka men turned up and attacked the Fui Chew taking 14 Fui Chew men prisoner.
The Malay Clerk (Kerani) and police did not interfere. Loh Chong and Lim Seng, both Hockiens from Penang who were merchants trading in Larut attempted to find a peaceful settlement. They went to the village and approached Chong Chong the head of the Fui Chew Hakka, asking him to restrain his men till a peaceful settlement could be achieved.
Chong Chong agreed and asked Loh Chong to get Lau Sam, head of the Chung Shan Hakka at Larut, to apply to the Raja for 200 Malays to keep the peace. The two merchants approached Lau Sam at Klian Pauh who, having agreed to this course of action, requested the Jemadar (the ranking police officer) at the Balai (police station) to send a Malay guard to keep the peace till negotiations could be effected.
Judge and Magistrate Abdul Jabbar shortly arrived at the Balai with 200 armed Malays. About 20 to 30 of these were then sent to Klian Bahru with Abdul Jabbar's proclamation that no Fui Chew be allowed to leave and that no one be allowed to take them any provisions. In the afternoon some Hockien men went to negotiate a settlement to the quarrel. They arrived back at about 9pm with news that a settlement was agreed and that an agreement would be drawn up at 8am the following day.
17 June 1865
At about midnight the Chung Shan took out their 14 Fui Chew prisoners, thrust sharpened bamboo into the necks of each, painted their flags with the blood and executed all but one of their prisoners who managed to escape to Klian Bahru. In the early morning of the 17th June 1865 about 300 to 400 armed Fui Chew Hakka from Klian Bahru arrived at Klian Pauh and attacked the Chung Shan. Once again those Chinese not a party to dispute i.e. the Hockiens attempted to affect peaceful settlement.19th June 1865
Loh Chong and his party negotiated with the Fui Chew and proposed that they pay a fine of $1,000 to the Chung Sang Hakka and while this was ultimately agreed it left a bitter taste in the mouths of the Fui Chew who had already lost many of their people in the fighting that took place. Loh Chong left at about noon that day but shortly after his departure another fight broke out between the two sides. Abdul Jabbar with 200 armed Malays and a large gun attempted to disperse the parties concerned and eventually opened fire.20 June 1865
The Fui Chews then retired to Klian Bahru. Under the direction of Ngah Lamat and Kulop Mat Ali, two groups then set out in pursuit of the Fui Chew Hakka, one party of Malays led by Penghulu Sunu and another group of Malays accompanying the Chung Shan Hakka. By noon 20 June 1865 the Fui Chew were utterly defeated.How It Ended
Their houses of the Fui Chew Hakka were destroyed completely. Their provisions seized. Their tin taken to the Balai and most of the ore taken to Chung Keng Quee's smelting house. So Ah Chiang, leader of the Ghee Hin was captured by Ngah Ibrahim at Teluk Kertang (Port Weld) and executed. The battle continued back and forth and spread to Province Wellesley and the island of Penang and other secret societies joined the fray. Both sides, exhausted, finally came to terms. An official inquiry took place and both the Hai San and Ghee Hin societies were fined $5,000 each for violating the peace of Penang and their leaders, banished.By around 1870 there were a combined total of about 40,000 Hakka and Cantonese mine workers in the Larut district and the mining areas between the two groups were near to each other. It is this proximity that might explain how the next battle began.
~
~
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Larut_War
--Larut War 1861 - 1874 - 2013.......................("太平" in Chinese, meaning "Everlasting Peace") ???--
First war (1861-1862)
The First Larut War began in July 1861 when arguments over control of watercourse to their mines escalated and led members of the Hai San Society to drive the members of the Ghee Hin society out of Klian Bahru (now known as Kamunting). The Governor of Straits Settlements, Colonel Cavenagh intervened and the Mentri of Larut, Ngah Ibrahim, was made to compensate the Ghee Hin with $17,447 on behalf of the Sultan of Perak.Second war (1865)
The Second Larut War took place in 1865 and was sparked off by a gambling quarrel in June of that year between members of the two opposing secret societies. The Hai San members took 14 Ghee Hin as prisoners, 13 of whom were killed. The 14th escaped to inform his clan and the Ghee Hin retaliated by attacking a Hai San village, razing it to the ground and killing 40 men in the process. The battle continued back and forth and spread to Province Wellesley and the island of Penang while other secret societies started to join the fray. Both sides were later exhausted and finally decided to come to terms. An official inquiry took place and both the Hai San and Ghee Hin societies were fined $5,000 each for violating the peace of Penang and their leaders, banished.By around 1870, there were a combined total of about 40,000 Hakka and Cantonese mine workers in the Larut district and the mining areas between the two groups were near to each other. It is this proximity that might explain how the next battle began.
Third war (1871-1874)
The Third Larut War was rumoured to have erupted in 1871 over a scandal - an extra-marital relationship involving the Ghee Hin leader and the wife of a nephew of the Hai San leader, Chung Keng Quee. Upon discovery, the adulterous couple was caught, tortured, put into a pig basket and thrown into a disused mining pond where they drowned. Avenging the death of their leader, Ghee Hin had 4,000 professional fighting men imported from mainland China via Penang attacked the Hai Sans and for the first time, the Hai Sans were driven out of Larut. About 10,000 Hai San men sought refuge in Penang. In months, Hai Sans supported by Ngah Ibrahim recovered their Matang and Larut mines. At this time, Raja Abdullah a claimant to the throne of Perak and an enemy of Ngah Ibrahim, took sides against the Hai Sans and Ngah Ibrahim and the wars between the Chinese miners transformed into civil war involving the Malay chiefs of Perak.Final war and the Pangkor Treaty
The Fourth Larut War occurred in 1873, merely a year after the previous battle. Weeks after Hai Sans regained Larut, Ghee Hin, supported by Raja Abdullah, counter-attacked with arms and men from Singapore and China. Ngah Ibrahim's properties in Matang were destroyed. Local Malay residents were also killed and their property, destroyed. Trouble spread to Krian, Pangkor and Dindings. The quarrelling Malay chiefs who had taken sides in the Larut Wars were now alarmed at the disorder created by the Chinese miners and secret societies. The Straits Settlement Penang Chinese seeing their investments destroyed in the Larut Wars sought intervention form British. Over 40,000 Chinese from the Go-Kuan and Si-Kuan were engaged in the fratricidal war involving the Perak royal family.The Perak sultanate, involved in a protracted succession struggle was unable to maintain order. Things were increasingly getting out of hand and chaos was proving bad for the Malays, Chinese and British. In her book "The Golden Chersonese and The Way Thither" (Published 1892 G.P. Putnam's Sons) Victorian traveller and adventuress Isabella Lucy Bird (1831–1904) describes how Raja Muda Abdullah as he then was turned to his friend in Singapore, Tan Kim Ching. Tan, together with an English merchant in Singapore drafted a letter to Governor Sir Andrew Clarke which Abdullah signed.
The letter expressed Abdullah's desire to place Perak under British protection, and "to have a man of sufficient abilities to show (him) a good system of government." On the 26th of September, 1872 Chung Keng Quee had already presented a petition, signed by himself and 44 other Chinese leaders, seeking British interference following the attack of 12,000 men of Chung Shan by 2,000 men of Sen Ning. (The Petition)
The need to restore law and order in Perak gave cause for a new British policy concerning intervention in the affairs of the Malay States which resulted in the Pangkor Treaty. In 1874, the Straits Settlements governor Sir Andrew Clarke convened a meeting on Pulau Pangkor, at which Sultan Abdullah was installed on the throne of Perak in preference to his rival, Sultan Ismail.
Documents were signed on 20 January 1874 aboard the ship The Pluto at Pangkor Island to settle the Chinese dispute, clear the Sultan succession dispute and pave the way for the acceptance of British Residency - Captain Speedy was appointed to administer Larut as assistant to the British Resident.
Chung Keng Quee and Chin Ah Yam, leaders of the Hai San and Ghee Hin, respectively, were ennobled by the British with the title of Chinese Kapitan and the town of Larut was renamed Taiping ("太平" in Chinese, meaning "everlasting peace") as a confirmation of the new state of truce.
Three days later, Chung Keng Quee was appointed a member of the Pacification Commission headed by Captain S. Dunlop and Messrs. Frank Swettenham and William A. Pickering - one of the objectives of the commission was to arrange an amicable settlement of the squabbles over the tin mines at Larut.
The Commissioners decided to allocate the mines in Klian Pauh (Taiping) to the Hai Sans and the mines in Klian Bharu (Kamunting) to the Ghee Hins.
~
~
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larut_War
~
~ http://sembangkuala.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/the-larut-war/
~
~http://www.sabrizain.org/malaya/perak.htm
Thursday, July 25, 2013
--We Will Not be Moved--
Phnom Penh is a city with big ideas. The Cambodian capital is being shaped as an assertive, bold centerpiece of national growth and modernization, and for that Phnom Penh needs elbow room and plenty of it. The Boeung Kak Lake is a ten minute drive from the city center and one of the thousands of neighborhoods around the country taken by the authorities for development.
In recent years almost half unwilling residents have been forcibly evicted, nationally. The authorities were so violent that some women had miscarriages. The evictees claim that the society is full of darkness and no justice. One elderly woman was being bundled into a police van. Four policemen came to drag her out, she tried to resist but they pushed her and they carried her by her arms and legs.
Two women from a brave band of 13 have come to symbolize the struggle against ramped evictions by a government favoring developers and cronies. A company owned by a ruling party senator is planning a $90 million development of Boeung Kak Lake. The BK13 refuse to go They have been to hell and back in a battle to save their homes. Much of their neighborhood may have been raised, the lake filled in, but there is still plenty of fight.
In the development of Boeung Kak Lake, many people lost their houses and their businesses. They once lived in a safety but now they have no security, no happiness and no future. More than 3,000 families were forced to move because of fear, so they feel they have failed in life. There are 794 families remaining and they’re not going anywhere.
The evictions bring back painful memories of Cambodia’s darkest days. People have been forced from home before, when the Khmer Rouge controlled the country. The current drama over land ownership has its origins in that period of Pol Pot’s rule. His Khmer Rouge killed millions of Cambodians and in pursuit of their Year Zero doctrine, they also eradicated the notion of private property, and land title was extinguished. It’s been a test to Cambodian leadership since, to restore a viable system of ownership.
~
~
~http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/we-will-not-be-moved/
--Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550--
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart wrote his
Symphony No. 40 in G minor, KV. 550, in 1788. It is sometimes referred
to as the "Great G minor symphony," to distinguish it from the "Little G
minor symphony," No. 25. The two are the only minor key symphonies
Mozart wrote. The 40th Symphony was completed on 25 July 1788. The
composition occupied an exceptionally productive period of just a few
weeks in 1788, during which time he also completed the 39th and 41st
symphonies (26 June and 10 August, respectively). The symphony is scored
(in its revised version) for flute, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 2
horns, and strings. Notably missing are trumpets and timpani.
The work is in four movements, in the usual arrangement (fast movement, slow movement, minuet, fast movement) for a classical-style symphony:
1. Molto allegro, 2/2
2. Andante, 6/8
3. Menuetto. Allegretto -- Trio, 3/4
4. Finale. Allegro assai, 2/2.
Every movement but the third is in sonata form; the minuet and trio are in the usual ternary form. This work has elicited varying interpretations from critics. Robert Schumann regarded it as possessing "Grecian lightness and grace". Donald Francis Tovey saw in it the character of opera buffa. Almost certainly, however, the most common perception today is that the symphony is tragic in tone and intensely emotional; for example, Charles Rosen (in The Classical Style) has called the symphony "a work of passion, violence, and grief."
Although interpretations differ, the symphony is unquestionably one of Mozart's most greatly admired works, and it is frequently performed and recorded. Ludwig van Beethoven knew the symphony well, copying out 29 measures from the score in one of his sketchbooks. It is thought that the opening theme of the last movement may have inspired Beethoven in composing the third movement of his Fifth Symphony.
----------------------------------------
FREE .mp3 and .wav files of all Mozart's music at: http://www.mozart-archiv.de/
FREE sheet music scores of any Mozart piece at: http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/start...
ALSO check out these cool sites: http://musopen.org/
and http://imslp.org/wiki/
----------------------------------------
NOTE: I do not know who the performers of this are, nor the place and date of recording!!! Any suggestions are welcome.
----------------------------------------
ENJOY!!!! :D
The work is in four movements, in the usual arrangement (fast movement, slow movement, minuet, fast movement) for a classical-style symphony:
1. Molto allegro, 2/2
2. Andante, 6/8
3. Menuetto. Allegretto -- Trio, 3/4
4. Finale. Allegro assai, 2/2.
Every movement but the third is in sonata form; the minuet and trio are in the usual ternary form. This work has elicited varying interpretations from critics. Robert Schumann regarded it as possessing "Grecian lightness and grace". Donald Francis Tovey saw in it the character of opera buffa. Almost certainly, however, the most common perception today is that the symphony is tragic in tone and intensely emotional; for example, Charles Rosen (in The Classical Style) has called the symphony "a work of passion, violence, and grief."
Although interpretations differ, the symphony is unquestionably one of Mozart's most greatly admired works, and it is frequently performed and recorded. Ludwig van Beethoven knew the symphony well, copying out 29 measures from the score in one of his sketchbooks. It is thought that the opening theme of the last movement may have inspired Beethoven in composing the third movement of his Fifth Symphony.
----------------------------------------
FREE .mp3 and .wav files of all Mozart's music at: http://www.mozart-archiv.de/
FREE sheet music scores of any Mozart piece at: http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/start...
ALSO check out these cool sites: http://musopen.org/
and http://imslp.org/wiki/
----------------------------------------
NOTE: I do not know who the performers of this are, nor the place and date of recording!!! Any suggestions are welcome.
----------------------------------------
ENJOY!!!! :D
-
Category
-
License
Standard YouTube License
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
--Machu Picchu--
TODAY IN HISTORY - Machu Picchu Discovered
On July 24, 1911, American archeologist Hiram Bingham gets his first look at Machu Picchu, an ancient Inca settlement in Peru that is now one of the world's top tourist destinations.
Tucked away in the rocky countryside northwest of Cuzco, Machu Picchu is believed to have been a summer retreat for Inca leaders, whose civilization was virtually wiped out by Spanish invaders in the 16th century. For hundreds of years afterwards, its existence was a secret known only to the peasants living in the region. That all changed in the summer of 1911, when Bingham arrived with a small team of explorers to search for the famous "lost" cities of the Incas.
Traveling on foot and by mule, Bingham and his team made their way from Cuzco into the Urubamba Valley, where a local farmer told them of some ruins located at the top of a nearby mountain. The farmer called the mountain Machu Picchu, which meant "Old Peak" in the native Quechua language. The next day--July 24--after a tough climb to the mountain's ridge in cold and drizzly weather, Bingham met a small group of peasants who showed him the rest of the way. Led by an 11-year-old boy, Bingham got his first glimpse of the intricate network of stone terraces marking the entrance to Machu Picchu.
The excited Bingham spread the word about his discovery in a best-selling book, sending hordes of eager tourists flocking to Peru to follow in his footsteps up the Inca trail. The site itself stretches an impressive five miles, with over 3,000 stone steps linking its many different levels. Today, more than 300,000 people tramp through Machu Picchu every year, braving crowds and landslides to see the sun set over the towering stone monuments of the "Sacred City" and marvel at the mysterious splendor of one of the world's most famous man-made wonders.
Source : History Channel
~
~
~ https://www.facebook.com/frensofbn
~
~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machu_Picchu
--Commonwealth of Nations (Common"Wealth"?)--
The Commonwealth dates back to the late 19th century with the decolonisation of the British Empire through increased self-governance of its territories. It was formally constituted by the London Declaration in 1949, which established the member states as "free and equal".
The symbol of this free association is Queen Elizabeth II who is the Head of the Commonwealth, a wholly symbolic position. Elizabeth II is also the head of state of 16 members of the Commonwealth, known as realms. The other members of the Commonwealth have their own heads of state: 32 members are republics and 5 members are monarchies.
Member states have no legal obligation one to another, instead they are united by language, history and culture, and their shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.[1] These values are enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter and promoted by the quadrennial Commonwealth Games.
The Commonwealth covers more than 29,958,050 km2 (11,566,870 sq mi), almost a quarter of the world land area, and spans all the continents. With an estimated population of 2.245 billion, almost a third of the world population, the Commonwealth in 2012 produced a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of $9.767 trillion, representing 15% of the world GDP when measured in purchasing power parity (PPP). This represents the second largest nominal GDP and GDP PPP in the world.
Member states are seeking to establish a Commonwealth Union (CU) through the creation of a free trade area, visa-free travel area,[7] common foreign policy and representation at the United Nations and Group of 20. There is significant support in the United Kingdom for a CU as an alternative to its membership in the European Union.
~
~
~
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
--Yang Amat Berbahagia Tun Hussein Onn--
He was born in Johor Bahru, Johor, on 12 February 1922 to Dato Onn Jaafar and Datin Halimah Hussein, and is of 3/4 Malay and 1/4 Circassian ancestry.
He was granted the soubriquet "Bapa Perpaduan" (Father of Unity).
Tun Hussein is the son of Dato' Onn Jaafar, the founder of UMNO and a Malayan freedom fighter. His grandfather Dato Jaafar Haji Muhammad was the first Menteri Besar of Johore while his grandmother, Hanim Rogayah was from Scarcia, Turkey.
Tun Hussein was married to Tun Suhaila Mohamad Noah for 42 years; the daughter of Tan Sri Haji Mohamad Noah Omar, former Minister of Home Affairs and first Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat. He was the brother in law of Tun Abdul Razak, his predecessor as Prime Minister, who also married another Tan Sri Haji Mohamad Noah Omar's daughter, Tun Rahah Mohamad Noah.
Tun Hussein's son, Dato' Seri Hishammuddin Bin Tun Hussein, became the Home Minister of Malaysia on April 10, 2009. On the 17 September 2005, Hussein Onn's eldest daughter Datin Roquaiya Hanim, died at the age of 56 from breast cancer in Kuala Lumpur.
~
~
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Onn
--Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Abdul Rahman--
He remained as the Prime Minister after Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore joined the federation in 1963 to form Malaysia. He is widely known simply as "Tunku" or "The Tunku" (a princely title in Malaysia) and also called Bapa Kemerdekaan (Father of Independence) or Bapa Malaysia (Father of Malaysia),
~
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunku_Abdul_Rahman
--Yang Amat Berbahagia Tun Abdul Razak Hussein--
Tun Razak was the Prime Minister responsible in setting up Barisan Nasional, which is the ruling coalition of political parties that have held power in Malaysia till today, taking over from its predecessor, the Alliance. He is also renowned for launching the Malaysian New Economic Policy (MNEP).
Born in Pulau Keladi, Pekan, Pahang on March 11, 1922, Tun Razak is the first of two children to Dato' Hussein bin Mohd Taib and Hajah Teh Fatimah bt Daud. Of aristocratic descent, Abdul Razak studied at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar.
After joining the Malay Administrative Service in 1939, he was awarded a scholarship to study at Raffles College in Singapore in 1940. His studies at the college ceased with the onset of the Second World War. During the war he helped organize the Wataniah resistance movement in Pahang.
After World War II, Tun Razak left for Britain in 1947 to study law. In 1950 he received a law degree and qualified as barrister at Lincoln's Inn in London. During his student days in England, Tun Razak was a member of the British Labour Party and a prominent student leader of the Kesatuan Melayu Great Britain (Malay Association of Great Britain). He also formed the Malayan Forum, an organisation for Malayan students to discuss their country's political issues.
~
~
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Razak_Hussein
--Lieutenant Adnan bin Saidi--
Adnan bin Saidi, (1915 – 14 February 1942), was a Malayan soldier of the 1st Infantry Brigade which fought the Japanese in the Battle of Singapore. He is regarded by Malaysians and Singaporeans today as a hero for his actions on Bukit Chandu.
~
Adnan Bin Saidi was born at Sungai Ramal near Kajang, Selangor and was a Muslim of Minangkabau descent. He was the eldest child in his whole family. His younger siblings, Ahmad Saidi and Amarullah Saidi, were also soldiers. Ahmad was killed in action after his ship, HMS Pelanduk, was sunk by the Japanese on route to Australia. Amarullah survived the war and now resides in Kajang, Selangor.
Adnan was married to his wife Sophia Pakir, an Islamic religious teacher. She died in 1949. They had two sons and a daughter, who died soon after birth. Their sons, Mokhtar and Zainudin Adnan now live in the state's of Seremban and Johor respectively.
~
"My father did not talk a lot. He was a strict man and believed in discipline. He was always serious and fierce… yet had a good heart. There seemed to be a ‘light’ illuminating his face. - Mokhtar, Adnan's son"
~
~
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Bin_Saidi
Monday, July 22, 2013
--‘My Side of History’ by Chin Peng--
Peter Taaffe, cwi
This book is important from a number of points of view. The author was the leader of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), which he joined as a 15-year old schoolboy, and which played an important role in two guerrilla struggles - in the Second World War and in the post-war 12-year ‘Emergency’, in reality a war against British colonial rule in Malaya (now Malaysia). It therefore provides important insights into guerrilla war, in general, and in the struggle for national liberation in the colonial world. The book is also important because of the lessons of Malaya in the post-1945 struggle of imperialism, against what was then the colonial revolution in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The seemingly successful defeat of the CPM guerrillas in Malaya in the 1950s has been invoked, in the past and to some extent today still, as a ‘model’ of how counter-terrorist measures in the neo-colonial world can succeed. But former British Defence Secretary Denis Healey - once deputy leader of the Labour Party - commented on this in relation to the Vietnam War in the 1960s: "In fact the analogy with the Malayan emergency was misguided. In Malaya the communists belonged almost wholly to the Chinese minority; they were easily identifiable… The Viet Cong, on the other hand, were drawn from Vietnamese in the [Mekong] Delta; they had a long history of struggle against foreign domination, in which the Communist Party had played a leading role since the Japanese occupation in 1944."
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. A similar tale of repression has come to light recently in a very detailed account about the methods of ‘democratic’ British imperialism in the suppression of the Kikuyu uprising in Kenya. There, the British established huge concentration camps, employed torture and mutilation of Kenyans, and hanged more than 1,000 Kikuyu anti-colonial fighters.
World War Two
British imperialism in Malaya had, before the Japanese invasion in 1941, pursued a policy of jailing or banishing to China every suspected communist, ethnic Chinese "they could lay their hands on". A similar fate awaited those communists of Indian extraction who were summarily despatched to the ‘homeland’. Notwithstanding this, following Britain’s capitulation in 1941 - when the Japanese themselves, according to Chin Peng, were preparing to retreat - a war of national resistance was conducted with the CPM as its backbone. The British at first tried to find a counterweight to the CPM - because of the distrust of the social and class base of the party - but the attempt to find a sufficient number of Chinese who leant towards Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuo Min-Tang (KMT) failed to materialise. Once it was clear that the CPM was the only major force resisting Japanese occupation, the British threw in their lot, for the time being, with them.
The guerrillas initially were very weak but according to the author "could count on the particularly strong following the CPM enjoyed amongst Chinese villages throughout the coastal flatlands". This is a significant remark, indicating that, at this stage, the CPM drew most of its support from the ethnic Chinese. Although it was widened later to involve sections of the Malay and Indian population, this nevertheless indicates the Achilles heel of the CPM, which was to prove quite fatal in the struggle against the British - but more of that later.
Up to 1947, the leader of the CPM was an ethnic Vietnamese who, as Chin Peng comments, commanded "an essentially ethnic Chinese movement…Amazingly, it never became an issue in the day-to-day running of the party in those days."
This may have something to do with the fact that one of the central figures, as a Comintern [Stalinilst Communist International] representative, at the formation of the CPM in 1930, was Nguyen Ai Quoc, none other than Ho Chi Minh, who was destined to play a pivotal role in the Vietnamese revolution. However, Lai Te, the leader of the CPM from the late 1930s, was actually a ‘triple agent’; first of the British, then the Japanese during the Second World War, and then of the British, once more, in the aftermath of that war!
The author makes a significant remark in view of the essentially rural guerrilla struggle that was to be pursued later on, when referring to the early period of the CPM’s activity in the 1930s: "The party’s initial operations centred, naturally, on Singapore as there was a far greater concentration of union movements on the island than anywhere else on the Malayan peninsula."
The arrest and banishment of indigenous Malayans, albeit most of them were of Chinese origin, left a space for an immigrant from Vietnam, Lai Te, to emerge as a leader of the CPM in 1938. Membership of the CPM at this stage, the early 1940s, numbered just over 3,000.
At the same time as having a firm industrial base, the party had also begun to dig roots amongst the peasant population. This became useful once the offer of Lai Te to the British to help them in resistance against the Japanese occupation was taken up. The first detachments of the Malayan Peoples’ Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) were in action against the Japanese occupying forces from 1 January 1942. Within a few weeks of imposing military rule in Singapore, the Japanese had targeted the CPM leadership. A number of key figures were arrested, including Huang Chen, "the CPM’s top intellectual", who was eventually executed. This and other betrayals were quite clearly the work of the leader of the party itself, Lai Te, who quickly transferred his allegiances to the Japanese occupation force. This, however, was only discovered much later.
Circumstances during the war compelled the CPM to organise what was essentially a rural guerrilla struggle because industrial activity had collapsed throughout Malaya and Singapore due to the war and Japanese occupation. The CPM, therefore, set up jungle bases from which to harass and confront the Japanese, with incredible success, given the presence of a traitor in its ranks, moreover, one leading the party itself! This was not without cost to the CPM, as a number of its jungle bases were betrayed, obviously by Lai Te, to the Japanese, which led to the execution of many of its leaders. While the CPM developed its base amongst the rural population, at the same time, it did not neglect the working class: "In Sitiawan we had 40 to 50 members. Among the Kinta Valley mining workers we were soon baosting more than 500 members."
At this stage Chin Peng, already a ‘mature’ 19-year old, found himself appointed acting chief of the CPM in the Perak region of Malaya. In one area, the resistance troops operated from within a colony of a few hundred lepers. The Japanese feared going near the settlement and the police and troops happily gave the area a wide berth.
The collaboration of the Malayan national resistance forces, under the leadership of the CPM, with the British - from whom they received material support - worked successfully but it was always an arm’s length collaboration. In 1943, Lai Te suddenly began to sanction more military activity against the Japanese, obviously expecting them to be defeated by the British forces, which were massing for an attack on Malaya. At the same time, clearly expecting a future conflict with the British, the CPM had prepared an underground army which stashed away 5,000 weapons in jungle caches, many of them previously supplied by the British for the war against the Japanese.
But, rather than preparing for a serious struggle against the British, the programme outlined by the CPM, under the pressure of the traitor Lai Te, was one which mollified them. The CPM received arms and military training but, at the same time, it led the party to water down its programme, from a Democratic Republic of Malaya, which would involve independence from the British, to "self governance".
Imprisoned by ‘stages’ theory
Chin Peng and his comrades were imprisoned by the Stalinist theory of "stages"; first bourgeois democracy and independence and only later could the social issues, and particularly socialism, be posed. However, only by linking the struggle of Malayan workers and peasants for independence with the social issues - freedom, especially from imperialism, land, peace and bread - would the possibility of real national liberation be posed.
The Russian Revolution had demonstrated at the beginning of the twentieth century that in "backward countries" the struggle to carry through completely the bourgeois-democratic revolution is only possible by linking this to the changing of society, eliminating both landlordism and capitalism. Chin Peng seems to recognise this belatedly when he states that their main demand was for a "democratic government through elections from an electorate drawn from all the races". Chin Peng states: "I realised the programme amounted to nothing more than a vapid move to appease the incoming British… [It] made no mention of the goal of self-determination for the nation." Lai Te, the secretary-general, was against the militant struggle by the CPM. He preferred a "political posture" involving "co-operation with the British coupled with a concentrated effort on the organisation of labour and the infiltration of the unions". The latter point was correct tactically and was carried out to some extent. But it was not a question of posing either/or, military struggle or "the organisation of the working class". Both tactics should have been pursued in the struggle against the re-occupation of the British.
In fact, the possibility was there for a short period in 1945, following the capitulation of the Japanese and before the arrival of substantial British forces, for the CPM to mobilise the working class and the rural masses to take power and carry through a social revolution. However, to achieve this, the CPM would have had to cut across the ethnic divisions cultivated before the war by the British and carried on by the Japanese. It seems that the majority of the Malay population - particularly in the rural areas - tended to be conservative and swayed by the Malay princes and landlords. But the working class movement in the cities under the banner of the CPM - and including the setting up of democratic committees of action - could have split the Malay workers and peasants away from the Malay grandees. This would have involved a call for the peasants to take the land and drive out the landlords. In other words, the CPM would have had to put themselves at the head of an uprising of the working class in the cities, supplemented by a peasant uprising in the rural areas - uniting Chinese, Malays and Indians - on class lines, with the goal of an independent socialist Malaya, linked to similar struggles throughout the region.
Would such an uprising have succeeded? Of course, nothing is certain in a deep, revolutionary struggle but such a movement had every chance of success. The British had not arrived and were, in any case, stretched militarily. The whole of Asia was in ferment. One thing is certain: the course followed by the CPM, both then and later, led to a defeat. The British bided their time and prepared for a showdown with the CPM, profiting from the mistakes they made.
The weakness of the democratic structures of the CPM - a hallmark of those parties based upon Stalinism - is underlined by Chin Peng. The unquestioning acceptance of the authority of the leadership, facilitated betrayals like those carried out by Lai Te. Incredibly, the "liberation forces" of the CPM and the MPAJA were transformed by the British into a "three-star army", with Chin Peng appointed as a number two officer of what was in effect a force under the control of the British. Chin Peng comments: "Once again, nobody questioned the wisdom of our Secretary General’s views. He was the Comintern man and this aura had not left him despite the fact we knew the Comintern had been disbanded in 1943."
According to Chin Peng and contrary to popular understanding, fostered by British imperialism, the CPM was not in the pay at this stage of either the Russian or the Chinese ‘communists’. Its funds in the 1930s, during the battle against the Japanese and in the subsequent struggle against British imperialism were raised due to its own efforts and by its own resources. And yet, the "aura" of the Comintern and the methods of Stalinism compelled an unquestioning obedience, which in turn prepared the ground for betrayals and defeats.
One consequence of these developments was the feelers put out by some Japanese military commanders and troops to the CPM for a bloc of "Asians" against the colonial white invader. This was rejected by the CPM leaders despite the fact that the "revolutionary spirit within the party had never run so high. The greater majority of our guerrilla units had, for seven days, been preparing for continuing armed struggle that now would switch to target the returning colonial power." However, the stand of Lai Te and the CPM leadership could not prevent 400 individual Japanese joining the ranks of the guerrillas. This could have become the starting point for agitation amongst the Japanese forces throughout Asia, by a conscious, particularly working-class, force. Unfortunately, the CPM was still in the grip of Stalinist methods and approach. This led subsequently, through orders handed down by Lai Te, to the tragic execution of most of the Japanese who had joined the CPM’s guerrilla ranks.
Instead of this being the starting point for class solidarity across ethnic lines, the opposite took place. Even before this, the Japanese fomented clashes between Malay Muslims and local Chinese villagers. The CPM was drawn in to defend these villages from attacks by Malays, resulting in substantial deaths of Malays, not disguised by Chin Peng in his book. These events undoubtedly played into hands of the British, who subsequently fomented divisions between the different ethnic groups in Malaya. Chin Peng, however, stresses the attempts of the CPM to draw Malays into their ranks, which enjoyed some success even in the struggle against the Japanese, with the recruitment and training of some Malays.
However, because of the temporising of the CPM leadership, the British were able to begin to reconsolidate their rule with the establishment of a "temporary form of government" for the Malaya-Singapore region, to be known as the British Military Administration (BMA). Seeking to appease the CPM, some of its representatives were drawn onto the BMA, a just reward for not conducting a struggle against British re-occupation. The guerrillas’ intentions were to demobilise with 4,000 weapons handed over while more were secretly buried in jungle caches for future use.
British occupation, however, came together with economic blunders by the British administration. The Japanese occupation currency was declared valueless, which reduced the vast majority of the labouring population to paupers. Food supplies dwindled, prices soared, and the crime rate surged. An embittered population became increasingly hostile to the returning colonials and Malaya became a "cauldron of simmering discontent". The CPM, rather than using this to organise national resistance against the British, "moved to impose a moderating effect and respect for order by encouraging the formation of Peoples Committees". At the same time, clubs and unions and workers’ organisations, as well as those for women and young people, sprouted.
The actions of the British authorities provoked massive working-class opposition, with the first dock strike in Singapore, followed by wharf labourers coming out on strike. These strikes were for increased pay but also in protest against handling ships carrying arms for Dutch troops who were then fighting nationalist forces in the neighbouring Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). The BMA used Japanese prisoners of war and certain British military units as strike breakers. This upsurge in working class opposition resulted in the formation of the Singapore General Labour Union (SGLU) with a claimed strength of 200,000 members.
Women paraded through the streets demanding rice and a government subsidy of $20 to rescue families from destitution. The British authorities met this with force, shooting down demonstrators. Chin Peng comments: "For British troops to be called out to fire on white unarmed demonstrators demanding better living conditions in, say, Yorkshire or Cornwall, would , of course, have been unthinkable." Of course, British troops had shot down Welsh miners in 1911, under the orders of Churchill, whose government pursued a similar policy on a wider scale against Malayan workers then. Now, it was the ‘Labour’ government of Prime Minister Clement Attlee that was carryout the repression in Malaya.
It was in 1946, probably through the pressure exerted by the traitor Lai Te, when mass executions of Japanese prisoners of war were carried out by the CPM. Chin Peng states: "I was stunned by the callousness of Lai Te’s orders." He points out that some of the Japanese "joined our guerrillas and became fighters once again, only this time not for the emperor but for world communism." Lai Te was later ‘eliminated’ by the CPM in collaboration with the Vietnamese Communist Party, but not before he had absconded with $1 million of the CPM’s funds.
In the midst of all of this, Chin Peng received British accolades and awards. First came the Burma Star, then the 1939/45 Star, and, a little later, he was awarded an even higher accolade. When he arrived at his mother-in-law’s house one day, he was informed, "‘You have been given a very high British honour. The King has granted you an OBE’… ‘The King has given me what?’ I blurted, believing my brother was surely joking. I had no idea what an OBE - Order of the British Empire - might be."
But the attempt to placate the leaders of the CPM failed, as this holder of the OBE was not long after confronting the forces of the British Empire that had bestowed this honour on him in the first place.
READ MORE HERE
~
~http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/special-reports/54237-my-side-of-history-by-chin-peng
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
