PLUG-IN PROFIT SITE | Risk Free Application Form

Let me ask you a question... Are you trying to start an online business...? If so, let me know if this sounds like you: You want to make money online, but you keep getting caught up in all of the technical stuff that goes along with starting an online business... HTML, CSS, FTP, PHP and a dozen other things you have to have to know to get a website online and making you money... right? Or, do you FINALLY feel like you've got things figured out, and as you are about to move forward on your dreams... You get ANOTHER email... from ANOTHER guru... telling you about the NEW shiny object of the day... And your plans... that you felt SO confident about just minutes earlier... fall to the ground as you reluctantly turn your back on your "plan" and start moving towards the next new thing...

Tengku Razaleigh*: Understanding History of Malaysia is vital

*Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is the former finance minister of Malaysia. He delivered this speech at The Malaysian Branch of The Royal Asiatic Society Lecture in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at the Royal Selangor Club Annexe in Bukit Kiara, Kuala Lumpur.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

It is my singular honour to have been invited to such an august gathering as this. I am privileged to have this opportunity to talk about the birth of Malaysia. Allow me, therefore, to record my gratitude and appreciation to our host, the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, for the invitation in the first instance.

The timing is apt, coming as it does eight days after the 50th anniversary of her founding. It is also relevant given that Malaysia is facing unprecedented political and economic challenges. These challenges are formidable and, if left unsolved, could cause damage to the economy and political integrity of Malaysia.

The legitimacy of the formation of Malaysia is based on the fact that at the time of her formation, Malaya was the only country that was independent and had a democratic constitution, with institutions supporting such a constitution, within this region.

Her economic foundation justifiably gave Malayans, at that time, a vision that we would one day be the shining example in South East Asia. It was with this perspective that Malaya, under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, took the initiative in helping to maintain stability in the region. This was at a time when British colonialism was forced by international opinion and in particular by Asia, to retreat as the colonial power without leaving a vacuum.

Malaysia was born, therefore, out of a historical necessity at that time. It bears reminding that this country still remains a stable political force in the region. The success or failure of Malaysia will not only affect Malaysia, but the entire Asean region. Therefore, a historical understanding of the birth of Malaysia is very important. Just as important is the legitimacy of Malaysia to the citizens of the country as well as to Sabah and Sarawak as part of Malaysia which is a political necessity to maintain the stability of the region.

Much has been written about the formation of Malaysia and, by and large, the writings have been consistent. But it is sad to note that there is a general ignorance of her founding among the younger Malaysians. The importance of remembering our past should never be made light; for it is the past that puts us where we are today. It is a pity that this ignorance exists; but in itself, it is harmless. However, the danger lies in the possibility of it being exploited for particular ends.

It is fair to say that an average middle-aged Sabah or Sarawak Malaysian does not seem to know about her formation, as is the average middle-aged peninsular Malaysian. But one thing is clear. There is resentment at and dissatisfaction with Sabah and Sarawak being treated as and equated to just another state of Malaysia. To be sure, there are other issues; but the two being equated to any of the 11 peninsular states is perhaps the most contentious. It had been simmering since the 1980s but it never surfaced, not as a formal articulation anyway. It is, nevertheless, a political wart that has the potential to come to a boil.

The advent of social media such as the Blog and Facebook has altered the scene. With such media reaching every nook and corner of the country, everyone is now acutely conscious of the angst of Sabah and Sarawak Malaysians over the issue. The anguish is magnified whenever 16th September comes around. We are then flooded with grouses of unfulfilled promises to Sabah and Sarawak relating to the formation of Malaysia. These grievances come from almost all sectors of our society, either in writings or speeches or other suchlike mode. People of religion would present their thoughts with a bias towards religious issues, and people of trade, from an economic perspective. Other issues that are often aired include education, human rights and politics.

It bears noting that this discontentment and whatever dissatisfaction expressed do not go beyond the superficial. The sad part is that not many would care to sieve through the events and development leading to the birth of Malaysia. It is my intent, this evening, to attempt this. But before that it might serve us well to note a few of these grouses.

Let me paraphrase the feeling of a particular Sabah academic. He pointed out that Sabahans and Sarawakians agreed to be part of Malaysia on the understanding that the interests of the states were safeguarded. These interests were enshrined in the 20/18-point Agreements, the London Agreements and the Inter-Governmental Reports. He pointed out further that the safeguards were not honoured and taken away at the whim and fancy of the Federal Government, and added in no uncertain terms that Sabah and Sarawak are equal partners to the Federation of Malaya in Malaysia and not two of her 13 states. A group of east Malaysian politicians and social activists went so far as to describe the transgressions as a looting of their riches.

A complaint from Sarawak took on a more symbolic strain. The formation of Malaysia was compared to a marriage with a prenuptial agreement, that is, the 18-point Agreement. The complainant described how the wife, Sarawak, was hurt by the lack of attention from the husband, Kuala Lumpur, but continued to be the dutiful and responsible wife.

In the recent past, a Sabah politician bluntly remarked that Sabah belongs to Sabahans and not to Malaysia as the Malaysia Agreement has yet to be implemented. He agitated for the review of its implementation while at the same time addressing the unhappiness of Sabahans and Sarawakians. He argued that Sabah has lost most of the 20 points after decisions affecting the state were made by Kuala Lumpur. Worse, he accused that Sabah was treated like a colony instead of an equal partner in Malaysia. A Sabah Bishop, speaking on Malaysia Day 2012, questioned whether the agreement to uphold freedom and other native rights and customs is being kept. He tellingly pointed out that it was the understanding and the compromise displayed during the negotiation that convinced the then North Borneo and Sarawak to jointly form Malaysia with the Federation of Malaya and Singapore.

An activist with the moniker anak jati Sabah (a genuine Sabahan), in venting his frustration, plainly and boldly pointed out that peninsular Malaysians have been wrong in referring to Sabah as having joined Malaysia. He argued that Malaysia had not always been in existence; that Sabah, together with Sarawak, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya had formed Malaysia. He contended that the 20-point Agreement and the Batu Sumpah — a monument of honour, as it were, that was erected in Keningau as a reminder of Sabah's support for Malaysia and the 20-point Agreement - were not honoured and had been discarded by Kuala Lumpur. His bitterness could be discerned from the following observation that has been attributed to him; that is, "the Batu Sumpah and the 20-point Agreement have been slowly and steadily violated and rubbished by Kuala Lumpur."

An equally strong sentiment had been echoed by a Sarawak professional who, in reflecting about Malaysia, had made it known that it is justifiable for Sarawak to opt out of Malaysia because of the perceived poor treatment of her by Kuala Lumpur through what he felt was the violation of the 18-point Agreement. However, he conceded that there are advantages of being in Malaysia.

These, then, are a sampling of the issues underpinning the listless and uneasy relationship between Sabah and Sarawak, and Kuala Lumpur. If we were to use the earlier Sarawak wife and Malayan husband analogy, it is not unbecoming to describe it as a relationship between strange bedfellows. These issues are critical when they viewed against the backdrop of the territorial realpolitik that is particular to Malaysia. They need to be redressed and the onus is greatest on those with the most political influence. Only in this way could the legacy of a vibrant and economically progressive Malaysia taking her rightful and dignified place on the world stage be meaningful to our children and grandchildren.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would suggest that we begin the process of reparation by looking at the gestation leading to the formation of Malaysia. I would suggest further that we approach this with an open mind, without any preconception. Let us analyse these grouses impartially. Let us not jump to any conclusion by saying that a point is no longer relevant or appropriate or significant. Let us view the issues in perspective and address them accordingly. And let us begin at the beginning.

In a speech on September 16, 1961, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the founding father of Malaysia, spoke of the decision to form the confederation. He pointed out that the formation was made with "much care and thought." There was "mutual consent" by "debate and discussion" and "inquiries and elections held over two and a half years".  Tunku was proud that Malaysia was created "through friendly arguments and friendly compromise". He believed that the cooperation and concord that prevailed were driven by the desire to share a common destiny. Tunku and the other leaders must be cherished for Malaysia's successful formation. We also owe it to them to make good on the compromises as we realise the common destiny that the Tunku spoke of.

Earlier in May 1961, at the Delphi Hotel in Singapore, Tunku had mooted the idea of bringing together Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. His proposal was seen as a move to counter the communist influence in the region, to balance the racial composition and to expedite the economic development and independence of Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. The suggestion was well received as it had struck a chord with the British decolonisation attitude of the day. There was, however, concern over the possibility of opposition by the local leaders of the three Borneo territories. This was confirmed when the Sarawak United People's Party, Partai Rakyat Brunei and the United National Kadazan Organisation formed a United Front to denounce the proposal as "totally unacceptable". Subsequently, the Sarawak National Party supported this position.

Opposition to the idea of a Malaysia was also strong from the people of the North Borneo interior.

To overcome this opposition, Tunku visited Sarawak and North Borneo in July and August 1961 to win over the sceptics. Fact finding visits by the Borneo leaders to Malaya eventually convinced them that Malaysia was a good idea. In addition, Sarawak leaders were sent to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference taking place in Singapore during the period. This afforded them the opportunity to discuss the concept further with their Malayan and Singapore counterparts.

A consensus was eventually established and this led to the formation of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC). It explained the concept further to the people of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei and discussed issues relating to the formation of Malaysia. The MSCC prepared a memorandum that underscored the need to gauge and ascertain the opinion of the general population of North Borneo and Sarawak on the Malaysia concept.

The Cobbold Commission on the Formation of Malaysia

In early 1962, this was submitted to the Cobbold Commission that had been set up to determine whether the people of North Borneo supported the formation of Malaysia. Later that year, the Commission submitted its report to the Malayan and British governments. Among other things, the report recorded that 80% of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak supported the formation of Malaysia.

However, the Cobbold Commission reported that large sections of the population, especially in the interior, had no real appreciation of the Malaysia concept. But it recorded that about one third of the population favoured the idea strongly and wanted Malaysia to be formed as early as possible. This third was not too concerned about the terms and conditions. Another third asked for conditions and safeguards that varied in nature and extent, but was, in the main, favourable to the concept. The remaining third was divided into those who insisted upon independence before Malaysia and those who preferred to remain under the British.

The Commission also expressed the following caution which is taken verbatim from its report: "It is a necessary condition that from the outset Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a 'take-over' of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not be generally acceptable and successful."

The safeguard demanded as a precondition to the formation of Malaysia was looked into by an Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) set up upon the recommendation of the Cobbold Commission. At its first meeting in Jesselton on 30th August 1962, the IGC considered a memorandum calling for, among other things, the two territories having control over education and health for 10 years before reverting to the federal government. The memorandum was, with some modification, included into the Malaysia Act, the Federal Constitution and the relevant state constitutions. These safeguards have now come to be known as the 20-point Agreement for Sabah and the 18-point Agreement for Sarawak.

For the sake of clarity, I should spell out, in passing, the 20-point safeguards for Sabah. They are points relating to:

1. Religion
2. The national language and the use of English
3. The constitution to be a completely new document
4. Head of Federation
5. Name of Federation
6. Control over immigration by the state
7. Right of secession
8. Borneonisation
9. Position of British officers
10. Citizenship
11. Tariffs and finance
12. Special position of indigenous races
13. State Government
14. Transitional period
15. Education
16. Constitutional safeguards
17. Representation in the Federal Parliament
18. Name of Head of State
19. Name of State and
20. Land, forest and local government, etc.

The last two points regarding the name of the state and land, forest and local government, etc. are not in the safeguards for Sarawak.

These safeguards were to be reviewed 10 years after the coming into being of Malaysia, that is, after 16th September, 1973. Tun Razak, who was the then Prime Minister, set up a committee in that year under the chairmanship of his Deputy, Tun Dr Ismail, to review the IGC agreements. However, the committee did not meet at all in that year because the Draft Bill of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) was being drawn up at the time. The prevailing wisdom then was that priority be given to the acceptance of the PDA by Sabah and Sarawak. Upon the coming into force of the PDA, I was asked by Tun Razak to get the Chief Ministers and Menteris Besar of the relevant states to enter into agreements in accordance with the requirements of the PDA. As it turned out, Sabah and Sarawak put up formidable stands in making known their positions.

In any event, Tun Dr Ismail passed away in August 1973 and this was followed by the demise of Tun Razak in January 1976, giving the review a tragic twist with it being left on the backburner. I should like to emphasise here that the review not taking place despite Tun Razak's intention reflects the good faith of the federal government in the relationship with Sabah and Sarawak. However, this was overtaken by the development of events during that period that I have just described. Perhaps the review could be considered afresh as Malaysia celebrates her golden anniversary.

President Sukarno

The story of Malaysia will be incomplete if I do not touch on the significant reactions by Indonesia and the Philippines to the idea of a Malaysia. Indonesia withdrew its initial support for the concept. The Philippines similarly objected to Malaysia's formation and announced its own claim on North Borneo.

This led to another round of public opinion assessment, this time by the United Nations. Its report was made public on September 13, 1963. The UN confirmed that the people of North Borneo and Sarawak had freely expressed their wish for the formation of Malaysia. They were fully aware that this would bring about a change in their status. The report also noted that this was "expressed through informed democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage". The Malaysia Agreement had been signed earlier on July 9, 1963 at the Marlborough House in London, with her birth marked for August 31, 1963. In the event, Malaysia was proclaimed on September 16, 1963 to accommodate the UN report which was completed two days earlier.

I have tried to paint a comprehensive picture of how Malaysia came into being. Sadly, it does not quite match what was agreed upon originally. One could come up with any number of explanations for this, but I would respectfully submit that we do not go down this route. Let us muster enough courage to recognise and admit that we have a problem. To do so is to begin the process of its resolution.

That there was poor availability of information surrounding the formation of Malaysia in the public domain is most unfortunate. This has, in part, led to the breeding of animosity between Malaysians on both sides of the South China Sea. To be sure, this unfriendliness was not by design. Neither was it borne out of malice or prejudice. Certainly there was no ill intent. The oft repeated error that Sabah and Sarawak are but two Malaysian states is a case in point. It is an error that has Sabahans and Sarawakians blowing hot and cold under their proverbial collar. We must now right this misconception. For a start, there is a dire need for factual accuracy in the information on how Malaysia came to be. And it would help greatly if we could ensure that this critical part of our history is clearly spelt out in our school curriculum.

It should be pointed out, for instance, that 31st August is of no particular significance to Sabah and Sarawak, its grand celebration notwithstanding. It is but the date of Malaya's independence and it should be celebrated for just that. On the other hand, September 16 — the Malaysia Day — has a greater significance and is certainly a more important date in the annals of Malaysia. It must, therefore, be allowed to take its place as a major celebration in our national calendar of events.

I should also point out that the 20-point and 18-point Agreements have been incorporated into the Federal Constitution. Whether this is taken to mean that the two agreements no longer exist as once propounded by certain quarters is a conjecture that borders on the sensitive, given the emotive nature of the subject. In any case, the Batu Sumpah of Keningau will stand in perpetuity as a monument to the spirit of the 20-point Agreement.

This begs the question, what next? Where do we go from here? They are best answered by those in the political driving seat. It is, therefore, incumbent upon those in power to kick start the process. We have to, no, we must prove the cynics are off the mark when they say that the act of Sabah and Sarawak jointly forming Malaysia is but a transfer of political power from Britain to Malaya. We must prove the caution by the Cobbold Commission wrong. We must do this and reinforce and strengthen the building blocks of a united, prosperous and harmonious Malaysia.

A Malaysia such as this could provide the cornerstone for the growth and stability of our beloved land. By extension, such a growth and stability could offer a rippling effect to benefit this region which faces many uncertainties. A united, prosperous and harmonious Malaysia will, most certainly, garner international respect and admiration. Given the political uncertainty close to the Sabah shore, a calm and collected Malaysia, confident of her position in the international scheme of things, could well play a critical role in helping to resolve the complex and multifarious problems besieging the region. As an example, Malaysia could provide the calming voice in the effort to overcome the overlapping claims by various countries in the Spratlays as a result of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty recognising a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Ladies and gentlemen, it bears repeating the reminder that tensions and stress points among a people tend to increase in times of economic difficulty. Given that there are still large areas in Sabah and Sarawak, particularly in the interior, classified as poor with the standard of living nowhere near that of urban enclaves, it is not surprising if the animosity towards this side of Malaysia is felt strongly. It does not help that the greater Kelang Valley is seen as, rightly or wrongly, enjoying the level of wealth far ahead of the two eastern territories. Such situations as the recent increase of the pump price of petroleum worsen the situation as providers of goods and services pass such increases to the consumers. This would heighten further the financial difficulty suffered by the poor of Sabah and Sarawak. Therefore, the government should seriously think of ways to overcome such hardships as this.

It is time that the government absorbed the continually increasing financial burden rather than allowing it to ultimately land on the shoulder of the people. If this is well handled, I am confident that we can begin to mitigate and work towards overcoming the negative perception towards Kuala Lumpur that seems to be playing in the collective minds of Sabahans and Sarawakians.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you and good afternoon.

THINKING BIG! ---> http://www.sociallever.com/?id=JEJelani

Only September 16 has historical significance,says Tengku Razaleigh

by Terence Netto @http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT: The Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (MBRAS) did well to bring two people who had some engagement with the creation of Malaysia in 1963 to shed perspectives on that event.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was a young economist and member of UMNO when Malaysia was formed. He was invited by MBRAS to deliver a lecture in Kuala Lumpur yesterday on the formation of Malaysia 50 years ago.

The MP for Gua Musang used the occasion to remind his listeners what UMNO has chosen to miss out on when the party neglected last week to place him among the contestants for its presidency.

He plunged into the miasma of contention that has in the last decade engulfed the issue of Sarawak’s and, especially, Sabah’s joining Malaysia and emerged with a constructive handle by which to steer matters to a resolution.

This was his proposal to restart a review process that was scheduled to be held in 1973, 10 years after Malaysia’s formation, but did not take place because the person who was to chair the task, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman (right), died in August that year.

Twenty-nine months later, Abdul Razak Hussein, the prime minister who had approved the review, also died. And with that the matter was consigned to a backburner.

(Tun) Hanif Omar, the former Inspector-General of Police, was a young officer who was tasked with assignments connected to Malaysia’s formation immediately prior and long after the seminal event took place.

Chairing yesterday’s lecture by dint of his chairpersonship of MBRAS, Hanif had shards of absorbing information to contribute but these did not cohere the way Razaleigh’s discourse did because, while Hanif’s bits and pieces did inform, they did not enlighten.

No doubt, Hanif’s (left) recall of interesting, even intriguing, minutiae would make for a plum pudding of a memoir on a career that spanned the early decades of Malaysia’s emergence to full-fledged nationhood.

But minus a frame, Hanif’s tidbits generated sparks but there was little illumination to be had. Tidbits can titillate but it is insight that enlightens and charts the way forward.

For that reason, Razaleigh’s paddling was more constructive for he chose to steer by a compass he took from Malaysia’s principal proponent, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Federation of Malaya’s first Prime Minister in 1957 and of the confab that emerged in 1963, with Singapore’s merger with the federation, joined together with Sarawak and Sabah, with Brunei choosing to stay out for nebulous reasons, on which Hanif had some quirky takes.

Broad and generous vision

The Tunku’s vision was broad and generous. He sought to allow Lee Kuan Yew to outflank formidable left wing forces through Singapore’s merger with Malaya and to counterbalance the thereby numerical superiority of the Chinese with the natives of Sarawak and Sabah who had vast tracts of territory but little know-how to develop it, besides having to face an incipient communist insurgency and Sukarno’s adventurism.

In Razaleigh’s recap of the consultations and negotiations that preceded the formation of Malaysia, the breadth and generosity of Tunku’s vision had the redemptive power to overcome the penumbras, crochets and quavers in the Malaysia agreements.

But recalcitrant realities are always baulking ideals, realities like the mortality of pivotal leaders - Ismail’s unexpected death in 1973 - before he could get down to the task of a review of the founding documents that presaged Malaysia’s formation, a review that could have taken cognisance of incubating discontents in Sabah and Sarawak.

Not for nothing did the Tunku, in the last years of his life (he died in December 1990) while staying in Penang, refer to Ismail as ‘that noble one” to visitors who tapped his recollections of past history the elder statesman had witnessed.

Razaleigh did not just steer by the vision the Tunku enunciated in 1961 when he first mooted the idea of Malaysia.

He had opinions of his own, the most telling of which was that Putrajaya should not pass off August 31 as Merdeka (Independence) day for Malaysians, Sabahans and Sarawakians included. The day is only significant for those on the Peninsula, not for the whole of Malaysia.

Razaleigh said only September 16 has historical significance for Malaysians because it was the day on which Malaysia was founded, an opinion that elicited Hanif’s faint demurral.

Clearly, for Razaleigh, the way out of the churning discontent in Sabah and Sarawak that he said posed “unprecedented political and economic challenges” to Malaysia required candid acceptance of the facts of our history that must be taught to the young if they are not to inherit the whirlwind.

A NEW TWIST ON 100 % COMMISSIONS

"A New Twist On 100% Commissions Called 'Accelerated Leverage' Is Launching Soon... Your Income Will Grow Like A Blazing Wildfire!" GRAB IT! HERE

100% COMMISSIONS ACCELERATED LEVERAGE

Shocking Twist in 100% Commissions http://www.PlsFunnel.com/33431480

On Chin Peng: Who is Lying?

THINK BIG - Try this --->http://www.sociallever.com/?id=JEJelani

by Aidila Razak and Tan Juin Wuu@http://www.malaysiakini.com

Contrary to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's claim, Chin Peng's former comrades and family members have insisted that the late Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leader had applied to return home following the 1989 Hatyai Peace Accord.

"The lawyers requested three documents from the Home Ministry when Chin Peng first filed the case (to return home) in the Penang High Court. The first was a list provided by CPM of those who have applied to go back (to Malaysia), the second a list of those rejected by the government and third, a list of those approved.

"Chin Peng's name was in the first document, proving he had applied," his ex-comrade Nan Jin told the media at the sidelines of the second day of Chin Peng's wake in Bangkok today.

Chin Peng's nephew, Lee Chung, added that a news article in 1991 also quoted then Inspector- General of Police Haniff Omar that his uncle had applied towards the end of the one-year stipulated application period.

He also pointed out that then Police Special Branch chief Zulkifli Abdul Rahman was quoted in the same year as claiming that Chin Peng's application was being processed.

"So what (Prime Minister) Najib Abdul Razak said is not the truth because logically, the 1991 statements show that an application was made," he said.

Najib said the remains of Chin Peng – or his real name Ong Boon Hua – would not be allowed on Malaysian soil as he did not apply within the one-year period after the Peace Accord and that the family can sue the government if it disagrees.

Chin Peng lost his case in 2008 when he could not produce identification documents to prove his citizenship to the Court of Appeal.

'We'll bring him home with dignity'

Meanwhile, Lee Chung's brother Lee Suvit said the family would "do their best" to fulfill his wish to have his remains returned to his hometown of Sitiawan, Perak.

"We will try to bring him back with dignity," said Suvit, whose sister cared for Chin Peng until he died of cancer on Sept 16.

The Thai national said that despite dying in exile, Chin Peng died "calm and happy", having spent his twilight years with family, writing and taking walks, "just like any other old man".

While the rest of the world may focus on Chin Peng's political role, for the family, it would be his jokes and kindness which would be missed the most.

Painting a picture of a much-loved patriarch, he said that Chin Peng would play his harmonica at family gatherings and his favourite tune was the song “Red Flag”.

Suvit said that even Chin Peng's absence in his children's life was an act of sacrifice to "protect them". Both children are Malaysians and shy away from the public eye to avoid possible reprisals.

Suvit said that his daughter, now only a year younger than Chin Peng when he became CPM secretary-general at 23, grew very close to him.

Yet, he said, Chin Peng's grandnieces and grandnephews, who were seen at the wake, do not know much about their granduncle's political significance.

Born and bred in modern Thailand, their lives are a far cry compared to Chin Peng's who joined the resistance at 15.

"Mine, too, is very different. He used to say 'times were tough in my days' and we'd brush him off.

"Maybe (his grandnephews and grandnieces) know some stories about him from us, but I think they just know that their granduncle is a good man, and whatever his struggle was, it was for a good cause," he said.

Suvit, who now owns a factory in Shanghai, said his own grandchildren would know even less about Chin Peng.  "There is no need to pass down stories about his struggle to the coming generations. They can read about his role in Malaysia's Independence and Southeast Asia in books. He is part of history," he said.

Najib wins UMNO Presidency Uncontested

• Ahmad Fadli KC & Lee Long Hui @www.malaysiakini.com
  
• 6:35PM Sep 21, 2013

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is finally out of the woods after he won the UMNO presidency uncontested despite initial concerns of an ouster attempt for leading BN to its worst showing in history.

His Deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, also won the party’s Deputy Presidency uncontested.

This was announced by executive secretary Abdul Rauf Yusof at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur shortly after the nomination process ended at 5pm.

Najib’s predecessor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, was pushed out of office after he led BN to an abysmal performance in 2008.

Though Najib’s 2013 general election performance for BN was worse than Abdullah’s, he was able to improve UMNO’s performance, with the party capturing 88 parliamentary seats, up nine from 2008.

Abdul Rauf announced a total of 261 nominations were accepted for the party election this time.

The nominations covered positions in the supreme council and three party wings, name youth, women and puteri. He said a total of six candidates are vying for the UMNO Vice-Presidency spots while five are going for UMNO Youth chief, three for UMNO Wanita chief and two for UMNO Puteri chief.

The other nominations were for positions as permanent chairperson and its deputy as well as exco members for all the stated wings.

Following the nomination, there will be a 72-hour cooling off period where candidates can decide to withdraw from the contest if they have second thoughts. The final candidates list will only be released after that, next Tuesday.

Chin Peng's Last Laugh On Malaysia Day (September 16)

 

During World War II, Chin Peng and the British Army (Force 136) joined forces in 1941, to fight the Japanese invaders. Chin Peng’s outfit was called the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) and after the war, he was decorated for his heroism with the Order of the British Empire (OBE) by His Majesty King George VI.

by Mariam Mokhtar @http://www.malaysiakini.com

The Malaysian government intended to deliver a humiliating blow and final insult to Chin Peng, the late former Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), by denying his dying wish.

Despite the sabre rattling by Premier Najib Abdul Razak and extremist groups like Perkasa, it is Chin Peng who has won the psychological battle and more importantly, is having the last laugh from beyond the grave, leaving Najib with egg on his face.

Najib may wish to diminish Chin Peng’s role in our history, perhaps even airbrush him out of the struggle for Independence, but the irony is that his death on September 16, will mean that the Malaysia Day celebrations, will now also commemorate Chin Peng’s memory.

Chin Peng has been praised for being a wily operator and the brains behind the guerrilla warfare of the Emergency (1948-1960). Even he could not have planned it better. His death on Malaysia Day was the ultimate accolade for a man who was denied his right to return to the country of his birth and denied a fair hearing in the Court of Appeal. What poetic justice!

The Malaysian government reneged on the terms of the three-way Peace Treaty which it signed with Thailand and the CPM leaders, in Hadyai in 1989. The PM at the time was (Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad (right).

In life, the government rejected Chin Peng’s application to live in Malaysia. In death, they refused to allow his remains be interred in his family burial plot near Lumut. This prolonged revenge-fuelled retribution by UMNO Baru will unwittingly give Chin Peng, the oxygen of publicity. If the young and uninformed did not know of Chin Peng, they do now.

When Najib ordered that government forces be placed on red alert at border checkpoints, people scoffed at his idea.

If two jet engines can be smuggled out of Malaysia, then it would be child’s play to smuggle an urn into the country. This is a pointless exercise especially as resources and manpower should be deployed to better use, to deter crime.

Fighting and living in the shadows were Chin Peng’s speciality. It would have been easy for him to sneak across the border, assume an alias, and live anywhere in the country, like the former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadic, the architect of the Srebrenica massacre who escaped arrest for 12 years, practising as a doctor in Belgrade. Chin Peng may have been the leader of a disbanded guerrilla army, but he was a man of honour.

The unprecedented furore and lack of compassion, to allow an old man his dying wish, is prompted by the upcoming UMNO-Baru elections. Najib will milk Chin Peng’s death for political mileage to show his ultra-Malay credentials.

Many people are probably unaware that the struggle for Malaya’s Independence was fought on several fronts.

When the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941, the Malays and Indians were given better treatment than the Chinese. Sino-Japanese relations had deteriorated after the Nanking Massacre (The Rape of Nanking) in 1937.

When the tide turned against the Japanese in 1943, the Japanese started to encourage Malay nationalism by arranging conferences, demonstrations, language courses and education. They even whipped up anti-Chinese sentiment by using paramilitary groups of, mainly, Malay men, to fight Chinese resistance groups.

Without the CPM ...

In the chaos immediately after the war, the MPAJA being the most organised and well-armed group within Malaya was given tacit approval by the British to restore law and order, at least until the British administrators returned in force.

The MPAJA used this opportunity to exact retribution on their old enemies and Japanese collaborators. As the Malays had been given preferential treatment by the Japanese during WWII, the MPAJA punished them severely.

The clashes were interpreted as racial conflict. The Malays retaliated by forming groups to fight what they saw as the “Chinese MPAJA/CPM”. Internecine clashes between these two groups, continue to this day and to increase the distrust between the Malays and Chinese, UMNO Baru will conveniently use the bogey, ”Chinese communists” or “May 13”, whenever it suits them.

After WWII, Chin Peng continued his armed struggle for Independence, but this time, he fought against the British because he wanted Malaya to be free from colonial rule. He renamed his outfit, the Malayan Races Liberation Army (MRLA). His ideology was to have an egalitarian society with the wealth redistributed among the people equitably through the labour movement under communism.

The civilian side of the MRLA was the Min Yuen (Masses Movement) which provided the guerrillas with food, information, and new recruits. Civilians who did not cooperate were tortured by the MRLA, whilst those caught cooperating, were imprisoned by the British.

The guerrillas would disrupt labour relations on the rubber estates and their sympathisers would demand military protection. The idea was to sabotage the economy but also to keep the British troops out of the jungle. The communists later changed this strategy when civilians began to blame the communists for their hardships.

Najib said that returning Chin Peng’s ashes would upset the Malays because the CPM had committed atrocities against them. Malaya was on a war footing. Atrocities were committed on both sides.

The Japanese killed several hundred thousand Malayans during the Japanese Occupation; the Batang Kali massacre was blamed on rogue elements in the British Army; and yet, the worse treatment has been reserved for Chin Peng, whose forces were responsible for 10,000 deaths.

No one is condoning Chin Peng’s guerrilla warfare but Malaysians must realise that without the CPM, the Japanese in Malaya would not have been defeated.

Without the Min Yuen, we would not have the current identity card system and Chinese squatters living on the jungle verges would not have been resettled into new villages, much to the irritation of Malay villagers who complained that these settlements had electricity and running water.

Without the CPM, we would not have had the Internal Security Act or a return to the authoritarian regime of Gen. Sir Gerald Templer, the High Commissioner who introduced local elections and village councils as his objective was the formation of a united Malayan nation. The Chinese were urbanised by the British to reduce the influence of the CPM.

UMNO Baru and the Malays are in their exalted position because of Chin Peng. Without the armed conflict of the CPM, the British would not have agreed to give Independence to Malaya, nor the privileges that the Malays now enjoy.

Tunku Abdul Rahman (left) acknowledged that Chin Peng’s challenge to him, at the Baling talks in 1955,  immediately led to Merdeka. Perhaps, it is fitting that divine intervention has made it possible for UMNO Baru to honour Chin Peng every year on September 16.

The British used the divide-and-rule strategy to conquer the locals, the Japanese in WWII deployed the same tactic. Today, UMNO-Baru continues this method of control.

Chin Peng may be gone but his legacy continues. Malaysians are still striving to establish a just and equal society.

Get your FREE website here --->http://www.pluginprofitsite.com/main-37067

Chin Peng's Farewell: A Letter to Comrades and Compatriots

Chin Peng’s Farewell: A Letter to Comrades and Compatriots

by dinobeano

September 21, 2013

MY COMMENT: My views on the status of the late Chin Peng are well known. I think his remains should be brought home and his wish to be interred with his parents should be granted. It is not being magnanimous but about honouring our treaty obligations. I therefore compliment the former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor for standing up for the rights of Chin Peng under the 1989 Hatyai Peace Agreement between the Malaysian Government and the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

Now that he is dead, his cremated remains should be brought home to be buried beside his parents. This is not about politics. It is the most honorable and decent thing to do. We must also learn to accept our history, and recognise that Chin Peng fought the Japanese and British imperialists, although we may not accept his ideology and methods. When our government signed that peace treaty, we accepted him and his comrades as non-combatants and partners in peace.

Yes, many lives were lost during the Emergency (1948-1960). Armed conflicts cost lives. The American lost 55,000 soldiers and the Vietnamese many times more.But once the Americans and the Vietnamese signed the Paris Peace agreement,  they began the process of rebuilding their relations and today both combatants are working together to advance common interests. Reconciliation is possible only if we can come to terms with our past and learn the lessons of our history.--Din Merican

Chin Peng's Farewell: A Letter to Comrades and Compatriots

September 21, 2013
Latest Update: September 21, 2013 05:12 pm

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

 My dear comrades, my dear compatriots,

 When you read this letter, I am no more in this world.It was my original intention to pass away quietly and let my relatives handle the funeral matters in private. However, the repercussions of erroneous media reports of me in critical condition during October 2011, had persuaded me that leaving behind such a letter is desirable.

 Ever since I joined the Communist Party of Malaya and eventually became its secretary-general, I have given both my spiritual and physical self in the service of the cause that my party represented, that is, to fight for a fairer and better society based on socialist ideals. Now with my passing away, it is time that my body be returned to my family.

 I draw immense comfort in the fact that my two children are willing to take care of me, a father who could not give them family love, warmth and protection ever since their birth. I could only return my love to them after I had relinquished my political and public duties, ironically only at a time when I have no more life left to give to them as a father.

 It was regrettable that I had to be introduced to them well advanced in their adulthood as a stranger. I have no right to ask them to understand, nor to forgive. They have no choice but to face this harsh reality. Like families of many martyrs and comrades, they too have to endure hardship and suffering not out of their own doing, but out of a consequence of our decision to challenge the cruel forces in the society which we sought to change.

 It is most unfortunate that I couldn't, after all, pay my last respects to my parents buried in hometown of Sitiawan (in Perak), nor could I set foot on the beloved motherland that my comrades and I had fought so hard for against the aggressors and colonialists.

 My comrades and I had dedicated our lives to a political cause that we believed in and had to pay whatever price there was as a result. Whatever consequences on ourselves, our family and the society, we would accept with serenity.

 In the final analysis, I wish to be remembered simply as a good man who could tell the world that he had dared to spend his entire life in pursuit of his own ideals to create a better world for his people.

It is irrelevant whether I succeeded or failed, at least I did what I did. Hopefully the path I had walked on would be followed and improved upon by the young after me. It is my conviction that the flames of social justice and humanity will never die. – September 21, 2013.

 * Chin Peng died at hospital in Bangkok on Malaysia Day, September 16, 2013 at the age of 89. This is his final letter to his comrades and compatriots published in his memorial booklet.

 * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

Chin Peng: A Left Wing Nationalist

Click here for more: http://JEJelani.hostthenprofit.com/everything_I_know/

Vol - XLVIII No. 38, September 21, 2013 | P Ramasamy

Chin Peng should be remembered in Malaysian history as an ardent freedom fighter whose party – despite its failures in succeeding in its guerilla warfare against the British and the Malaysian state – sowed the seeds for labour organisation and resistance. 

P. Ramasamy is Deputy Chief Minister of the State of Penang, Malaysia

 

The former Secretary General of the Malaysian Communist Party (MCP), Chin Peng alias Ong Boon Hua died at the age of 88 in a private hospital in Bangkok on September 16, the day Malaysians celebrated their national day. It was on this same day, the Minister Mentor of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, celebrated his 90th birthday.

According to his aide, Chin Peng will be cremated at Bangkok's Wat That Throng temple in a week's time. The news of Chin Peng’s death was carried in all the media in the country as well as abroad. Yet in Chin Peng’s own hometown of Sitiawan in the state of Perak, the people could only merely whisper about the passing away of this legend. Even though the MCP is gone, folks here are reluctant to talk openly about Chin Peng.

Like Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia, Malaya had its share of anti-imperialist/anti-colonial struggles in the 1940s and 1950s. In Vietnam it was led by the guerilla freedom fighter and communist Ho Chih Minh; in Indonesia it was led by (later President) Sukarno; and in Malaya it was under the leadership of Chin Peng. The MCP formed in the early 1930s first fought the Japanese and later the British. It is well known and acknowledged that without the contribution of the MCP, the British would have delayed the granting of political Independence in 1957.

Today in Malaysia, the mention of Chin Peng's name brings about mixed feelings. While his foes think that he was a traitor and a murderer responsible for so many deaths during the civil war, others regard him as a freedom fighter, a patriot and a nationalist.

Chin Peng’s -  who fought the Japanese, British and later the Malayan/Malaysian authorities -  last wish was to have his ashes buried near the graves of his parents. The Malaysian government turned down this request that came from the relatives who were there to attend the funeral. In fact, before his death, Chin Peng always harboured the desire to return to his hometown to pay his last respects to his deceased parents. His parents and his family members are buried at the Kong Hock Kong Lumut Pundut burial ground.

The caretaker when interviewed said that Chin Peng's brother and relatives would come and pay their respects every Qing Ming (All Souls Day).  But the government, apprehensive about reactions from rightist Malay organisations and former servicemen associations, refused his entry. Chin Peng even took the matter to court but he was unsuccessful because he could not produce evidence of his birth in Sitiawan. Even an international campaign that was launched to garner support for his return failed to materialise.

Chin Peng and the MCP

Chin Peng was born in 1924 in Sitiawan, Perak. His parents had a shop that sold bicycles and spare parts. He was educated in Chinese in Nan Hwa High School before continuing his education in English at Anglo-Chinese School. The MCP had an organsed presence even before Chin Peng joined the party. Under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), cells were established in Malaya to get the support of the overseas Chinese for the communist cause in China.

Before the invasion of the Japanese, the MCP supported the cause of the Chinese revolution and at the same time laid the grounds for the eventual communist takeover of Malaya. In doing so, the party carefully created and sustained networks especially among the urban poor, plantation and port workers. It was only a matter of time, before a considerable section of the urban working class came to be sympathetic towards the cause of the MCP and its affiliates.

Sitiawan, the birth place of Chin Peng, is not a very impressive town. In the early days, it was surrounded by rubber and coconut plantations and small-holdings. Later, rubber was replaced by oil-palm. Only with the establishment of a naval base in nearby Lumut port in the 1970s that there was urban development in Sitiawan. The interesting thing about the state of Perak  is that it had produced a number of prominent individuals who had played a role in the MCP and left-wing organizations.

Chin Peng and Comrades

Apart from Chin Peng, Rashid Mydin and CD Abdullah were prominent Malay MCP leaders from places such as Parit and Ipoh. During the Emergency, in Sungei Siput, another town in Perak, a Tamil by the name of Perumal organised plantation workers very often defying and challenging European planters. In the town of Slim River, R.G. Balan was the main labour organiser who later was promoted to be the vice-chairman of the MCP. One Panjang (tall) leader Muniandy who died some years back was a prominent MCP commander in the Sitiawan area.

I also come from a village called Kampung Baru, a few kilometers away from Sitiawan town. My father who migrated from South India had rubber and coconut small-holdings. Chin Peng's father was known to my father. In the mid-1950s, I was around six years old; he took me to Sitiawan town and purchased a small bicycle for my use from the bicycle shop owned by Chin Peng's family. This episode is still vivid in my memory!

It was the Japanese invasion that provided the opportunity for Chin Peng to rise in the hierarchy of the party. The British withdrawal from Malaya provided an opportunity for the MCP to enter into close collaboration with the former. The withdrawing British agreed to assist the MCP and its anti-Japanese front, the Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) during the course of the occupation. Apparently, the British also agreed to recognise the MCP as a legitimate political organization on the withdrawal of the Japanese from Malaya. Much later, after the failure of the Baling Peace Talks, Chin Peng criticised the British for not honouring their commitment to the party!

With the end of World War II and just before the British arrived to re-occupy Malaya, the MCP was not certain as to what exact strategy it should adopt towards the British. Lai Tek, the party's secretary general, later to be executed for being an agent of both the British and the Japanese, formulated a policy of limited agitation and cooperation with the British. This explains the reason why the British were able re-enter Malaya with relative ease and without resistance from the MCP. Some historians have lamented that just before the arrival of the British, the MCP was the most powerful organization in the country but it was not prepared to take power. Before the MCP could act against Lai Tek for his betrayal, he fled the country, first to Thailand and later to Hong Kong.

With the exit of Lai Tek, Chin Peng was elevated to the post of secretary general of the MCP. With his rise, the MCP abandoned its earlier strategy of limited agitation and cooperation and decided to adopt a more aggressive posture towards the British. With the support of his affiliates, the MCP decided that the time had come to evict the British from Malaya once and for all. Directives were given to his affiliates and trade unions to launch massive strikes and demonstrations against the British. With the assassination of three European planters in Perak, the British launched an all out attack against the MCP and its affiliates.

In 1948 the British declared an Emergency and brought in Australian, New Zealand and Gurkha troops  to engage the communists in a long and protracted struggle. After 12 years of armed struggle, the MCP, unable to put up an effective resistance withdrew its troops to southern Thailand.  Emergency rule was effectively ended in 1960. However, guerrilla struggle waged by the MCP was not totally over. In states like Perak and Pahang, the traditional strongholds of the MCP, occasional guerrilla warfare was undertaken. The Malaysian government introduced selective emergency measures to root out the remnants of communists even during the early 1980s.

The Decline of the MCP

The British counter-insurgency measures comprised of force, administrative procedures and psychological tactics considerably weakened the MCP. By the 1970s and 1980s, a number of international developments dented the relevance of the MCP. For instance nationalist rivalry in communist camps, the animosity between USSR and China, the tensions between China and Vietnam and the pragmatic thrust of Deng Hsiao Ping's economic policies led to the weakening of the ideological basis of the left. At the domestic level, one of the greatest weaknesses of the MCP was the lack of Malay/Muslim support. Furthermore, the party's close identification with the Chinese community and its outward orientation towards the Chinese Communist Party were factors that did not endear the party to the local population.

Given the impossibility of launching  a communist revolution in Malaysia under changed international circumstances, Chin Peng decided to end the armed struggle. On December 2, 1989, at the Haadyai Peace Talks in Southern Thailand with both the Thai and Malaysian governments, the party decided to lay down its arms and to disband its armed units. In return, both the governments agreed to provide financial assistance for their respective nationals for re-settlement in accordance with their laws and regulations.

The Malaysian government also promised that Chin Peng would be allowed to come into the country just like his comrades Rashid Mydin, CD Abdullah, Shamsiah Fakeh and many others. However, Chin Peng was in for a rude shock. Following the Haadyai Peace Accord, the Malaysian government broke its promise and refused to allow Chin Peng into the country.

Chin Peng has died. Although his role in Malaysian politics is a controversial one, it must be remembered that without the MCP, the British would not have quickened the pace of Malaysia securing Independence. In India, without the impact of the Indian National Army (INA) under Subhas Chandra Bose, it is unlikely that Independence would have been granted in 1947.

Political, social and economic developments in post-war Malaysia would make no sense without any reference to the MCP. The formation of trade unions amongst urban and plantation workers was largely initiated by the MCP. The fight against plantation capital for the improvement of the lives of Tamil workforce was directly inspired by trade unions that came under the influence of the MCP. It was the MCP which  promoted and respected Indian leaders. R.G. Balan of Perak became the vice-chairman of the MCP. It also gave recognition to Malay leaders. The famous Malay Regiment in Pahang operated was under the control of the MCP.

For the Indian community in Malaysia, especially those who had involved in trade unions activities both during the British colonial days and the post-independence period, the MCP had a clear positive impact. After the INA’s debacle at Imphal, many Indians returned and joined trade unions that were affiliated to the MCP. Since they could not liberate India from the British, joining the left-wing trade unions meant not only getting back at their oppressor--the British--but also improving their socio-economic lot. It was the tremendous sacrifice of the left-wing trade unions that emboldened Indians in the plantations and urban areas. Indians labourers especially Tamils described by the British capitalists as "meek" and "docile" were organised, trained and mobilised by the MCP affiliated unions to emerge as a force to assist the MCP in its war against the oppressors.

Chin Peng might not have succeeded in organising the communist revolution in Malaysia. Malaysians might not have convinced that communism was the real solution to the myriad problems of the society. But the fact remains that he was less a communist than a left-wing nationalist. In fact, those who joined the party were not inspired so much by the lofty ideals of Marxism-Leninism, but practical necessity to change the oppressive nature of the political and economic system. During his times, it was the British colonialism and its naked oppression of the masses that was something that that any decent human being could not tolerate. Tamil plantation workers joined the MCP led trade unions not for any abstract ideological reasons, but to end the exploitative nature of the merchant capitalism in plantations.

Many Malays joined left-wing nationalist organisations that came to be affiliated to the MCP not because of their love for communism, but for the sheer necessity to end the system that was oppressive and feudal in nature. Poor Chinese villagers and workers joined the movement for reasons of economic justice and for the simple reason that MCP was the only fighting force against the Japanese imperialists who massacred members of the Chinese community. For the Chinese, Malays and Indians who readily participated in the activities of the left, the MCP provided a vision for the future.

http://www.epw.in/web-exclusives/chin-peng-left-wing-nationalist.html

Note:

The Economic and Political Weekly, published from Mumbai, is an Indian institution which enjoys a global reputation for excellence in independent scholarship and critical inquiry.

 First published in 1949 as the Economic Weekly and since 1966 as the Economic and Political Weekly, EPW, as the journal is popularly known, occupies a special place in the intellectual history of independent India. For more than five decades EPW has remained a unique forum that week after week has brought together academics, researchers, policy makers, independent thinkers, members of non-governmental organisations and political activists for debates straddling economics, politics, sociology, culture, the environment and numerous other disciplines.

 EPW is also unique because it is the one forum where there is an exchange of ideas across the social science disciplines - political scientists debate with economists, sociologists read what political scientists have to say, historians study what economists have to say and so on.