By Dr Lim Teck Ghee
Every once in a while the government-controlled or government-associated media engages in a public lynching of individuals that dare to challenge the Umno-scripted truth about the political system, religion, the monarchy or just about any subject which may be seen as threatening to Umno’s political and ideological dominance.
The latest case involves Mohamad Sabu and the reason for his lynching relates to a speech he made in Tasek Gelugor on Aug 21 in which the PAS deputy president touched on the Bukit Kepong incident of Feb 23, 1950.
In that incident, armed members of the Malayan Communist Party attacked and killed 25 police personnel and some of their family members. In his speech reported by Utusan Malaysia, Mat Sabu allegedly glorified the MCP by claiming that they were the real heroes for fighting against the British and for leading the country’s struggle for independence.
Following the Utusan report, the New Straits Times had four articles including an entire page by its group managing editor Zainul Arifin attacking Mohamad Sabu for allegedly “rewriting history for political gain” (NST, Aug 28).
This has since been followed by Utusan’s Sunday edition Mingguan Malaysia devoting extraordinary coverage (spreading over six pages) to the excoriation of Mat Sabu.
Mat Sabu even featured in the Prime Minister’s Aidilfitri-cum-Merdeka anniversary speech where Najib Abdul Razak sanctimoniously lambasted anyone that dared to discredit the sacrifices of the country’s forefathers and security forces in the path to independence.
Missing from the historical narrative
At the end of his article, the NST’s chief Zainul – who surely must be aware that most people in our country know fully that not only history but also media editorials and pieces such as his have been written for political gain – makes the plea for history “to be debated by historians, and not politicians”.
Whilst he makes the valid point that “a relooking at history is important …. [and that] some say it is biased and a tool of political dominance”, Zainul will know too that those looking for a debate or relook will not find it in the pages of his newspaper.
So what is the verdict of professional historians on the communist insurgency and its contribution to the movement for independence from which a real debate and the historical truth can have its starting point?
There is not enough space in this piece to reproduce the various analysis but readers interested in the MCP and its role in the struggle for independence may want to consult the following:
C.C. Chin and Karl Hack, Dialogues with Chin Peng: New Light on the Malayan Communist Party
Anthony Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948-1960
Richard Clutterbuck, The long long war: the emergency in Malaya 1948-1960
Richard Stubbs, Hearts and minds in guerrilla warfare: the Malayan emergency, 1948-1960
Especially useful is the latest scholarly assessment of the MCP’s role and place in Malayan history which is found in the journal ‘Kajian Malaysia’ (Journal of Malaysian Studies), Vol. 27, No. 1 & 2, 2009. It is available online at http://web.usm.my/km/vol27(1&2)2009.html
In the volume, Richard Mason has an article ‘Revisiting 1948 Insurgencies and the Cold War in Southeast Asia’ that provides an overview on the almost simultaneous revolt against colonial regimes in Malaya, Indonesia and Indochina. Also three writers, C.C. Chin, Leon Comber and Abdul Rahman Hj. Ismail, provide new insights into the MCP and the tumultuous events and nationalist stirrings of the period.
What is noticeable about the NST media coverage is not only the way the paper has ignored the real scholars that have undertaken the studies of the MCP but also its reliance on the preferred modus operandi to trot out what appear to be court academicians in the guise of Malaysian academic firepower to provide intellectual justification for their public lynching exercise.
One such academician, Prof. Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim – who is prominently featured in the NST and other government controlled media – should know better.
Mat Sabu’s intellectual honesty
Prof. Khoo’s field of specialization is not the Malayan Communist Party or Chin Peng or recent Malayan political history.
Although his PhD was on the topic ‘The Beginnings of Political Extremism in Malaya 1915-1935’, it does not cover the period of the 1940s and 1950s when the struggle for independence took place in earnest and during which time the MCP underwent various metamorphosis and change in ideological direction in its objective to free Malaya from the colonial yoke of the British.
Prof. Khoo could have waited for clarification or explanation from Mat Sabu, and for any justification the latter may have provided for his views. That would have been the correct academic etiquette.
Or if Prof. Khoo was in haste, he could at least have relied on scholars that have done more authoritative work on the MCP and through their studies provided an academic and more truthful historical context and explanation for the Bukit Kepong incident and the communist fighters.
Instead he was reported to have stated that “Mohamad should not lie to the people when the rakyat today was easily led astray and misinformed” (NST, p.10). Not only has he dismissed Mat Sabu’s account without checking with the victim of the public lynching but he has diverted the issue away from Mat Sabu’s focus on who were Malaya’s freedom fighters to the international origins and orientation of the Malayan Communist Party in the 1920s and 30s!
Readers can view Mat Sabu’s talk at this link
http://www.ukm.my/knam/data/Peristiwa_Bukit_Kepong.pdf
Prof. Khoo is no academic innocent or virgin when it comes to press coverage. He must know that the NST has its knives out for Mat Sabu and other opposition or civil society leaders that stand in the way of UMNO’s agenda. He must know or at least he should know that there would be no fair trial and that the pursuit of academic facts and intellectual truth is the furthest away from being a concern or priority of the NST.
Mat Sabu is feared by Umno and its mouthpieces, the NST and Utusan for good reason. He is PAS’s thinking, progressive and committed face – not simply a face but someone who possesses not only the intellectual honesty to raise uncomfortable questions about how our history is being written but also is prepared to take a contrary position to defend his take on historical truth.
In doing so, Mat Sabu puts to shame the academic hangers-on that are quick to bray when called upon by the government.
In Malaysia if you want a “balanced” view contributed by a non Malay to give it a multiracial favour, please ask Khoo Kay Kim or Lee Lam Thye. We have many whores wearing three piece suits.
Dis land has no shortage of no-soul academics eager 2 please in d hope of getting Tan Sri, Tun, n other awards fr UmnoB/BN
Kay Kim is smarter than you think. How do you think he got where he is today?
Just toe the line, be good to the gravy train drivers and your future is secure. Why take unnecessary risks? Forget your principles. Just play ball.
Sad to see academics become politicians stooge.
Any eggheads outside the scentific field should be viewed carefully as all their thoughts are just thoughts based on their line of thinking; nothing more. The better ones will make their thought more palatable though it will never be the whole truth. As for hisrorians, the ‘winners’ normally write their versions while the losers could only keep their secret diaries until their children or grand children decide to have a garage sales. When leaders have nothing to offer except half-truth, what can we except from those who are following in the line? As a result we have so many politicians wearing the Dr. title just to impress the rural and simple folks so that theu could attract a few more votes from “the diminishing” voters, at best the next GE. The communists have for all intent and purpose have vanished from earth planet, except in the imagination of the editors of Malaysian Mass media; Just ask those editor if they ever read thsoe books mentioned by Dr. Lim or if they ever undertsand them even if they had read them! OMG! Malaysia has indeed rolled down the slope of no return!
///Prof. Khoo’s field of specialization is not the Malayan Communist Party or Chin Peng or recent Malayan political history.
Although his PhD was on the topic ‘The Beginnings of Political Extremism in Malaya 1915-1935’, it does not cover the period of the 1940s and 1950s when the struggle for independence took place in earnest and during which time the MCP underwent various metamorphosis and change in ideological direction in its objective to free Malaya from the colonial yoke of the British. ///–LTG
The person who labelled Chinese school students as copycats thinks that to refer to scholarly work of real experts would amount to being a copycat, and so he had to be original in his undeerstanding of history, especially in ignoring impotant facts and issues.
There are few non-Malay prof. in local university, and people are curious as to what qualifications he possess to be appointed to that position. His comment about copycat gave an indication, and his involvement in areas which his only claim to expertise is his appointment confirms what we believe.
We should not let the phantom of communism be banished from the minds of Malaysians. We should use these castrated ideologues for our own advantage. The bogey-man must be there to frighten the wits out of the Rakyat, while we amass our wealth without having to work for it! As for the real, nearly extinct communist who threatens to treat all men and women as equals, who expects people to eat from the sweat of their brows, we need him as much as we need a viper under our pillows.
One can be a communist and a nationalist: Ho, Mao, Fidel. However, the smelly part of Communism is their recourse to cruelty, force and terrorism. In Malaysia, they were ungodly people in a godly nation. Happy extinction to these “heroes” of Malaysian nationalism.
The truth behind Sept 16, 2008—
According to wikileaks, “antara (lapan) hingga 14 ahli parlimen (daripada 25 MP Sabah tersebut) akan meninggalkan BN. Beliau menamakan (lima) dari Umno, (empat) dari Upko, sebagai tambahan kepada (dua) dari Sapp”
http://malaysiakini.com/news/174643
///The latest case involves Mohamad Sabu and the reason for his lynching relates to a speech he made in Tasek Gelugor on Aug 21 in which the PAS deputy president touched on the Bukit Kepong incident of Feb 23, 1950.
In that incident, armed members of the Malayan Communist Party attacked and killed 25 police personnel and some of their family members. In his speech reported by Utusan Malaysia, Mat Sabu allegedly glorified the MCP by claiming that they were the real heroes for fighting against the British and for leading the country’s struggle for independence.///–LTG
What happened was in 1950 when Malaya was the British colony. If Malayans were happy with the status quo, then they should have lived law obedient lives without ever thinking about having British leave the country. UMNO members exercising their rights as the residents of Malaya, fought for the British to leave might call themselves freedom fighters. The same rights were exercised by other residents, who organised themselves as the Communist party of Malaya to drive the British out of Malaya. They too can call themselves freedom fighters and it is certainly not wrong to refer to them as such, since Malayans then were not ‘free’, and they aspired for freedom to live in Independent Malaya. The fact that the Communist party did not get to form the government after the British left, and that they were declared illegal does not change the history that they were freedom fighters for the independence of Malaya. It is quite a different matter whether their actions contributed to the resolve of the British to grant Malaya independence earlier than they were happy to do so.
UMNO got the prize to form the government. UMNO does not own the government, and it is subject to a test at every general election to return to power. If UMNO believes in true democracy, it should allow the voters to decide whether they have done well for the nation to deserve a continuation of their services to the nation. It is not the duty of the current government to interpret history, much less to lead the people to believe in the distorted interpretation of history. It is unbecoming of a government to brainwash the people to feel obliged to vote for it based on ‘past performance’. A government which resorts to such tactic shows that it is bankrupt of idea, and worse it has to fight to remain in power so that its wrong doing could remain ‘official secret’.