32

He Can Bloody Well Apologise

(He should apologise) ‘Abiding Times’, theSun, 29 May 2009

AN immensely rare thing happened this week: I read a statement of government policy, and I was so jubilantly in agreement that I rose from my seat, much to my cat’s discomfort.

It was the upholding of the ban on Chin Peng from returning to Malaysia, and while it is not a nice thing to deny someone their last wishes, in this case to pay respects at his father’s grave and to spend his last days here, it is under these circumstances entirely the right thing.

My generation is often, with good reason, accused of not understanding the implications of history. It is not just an ignorance of the facts, but also an ignorance of the strong emotions that continue to be felt. While the government reminds us about 13 May on a regular basis, the much wider impact of the Malayan Communist Party’s campaign of terror is relegated. Yet the proposal to allow Chin Peng’s return has triggered a flood of angry responses from letters from descendants of victims and servicemen. One particularly moving letter asks: ‘Chin Peng, where is my father’s grave?’. My generation has no right to ignore their pain.

“By invoking censorship we go down the same path of authoritarianism that communism would have led to.”

First, let’s deal with this idea that the communists helped us in the struggle against the Japanese. It is undeniable: their key role in the Malayan People Anti-Japanese Army is well documented and it should be recognised. It is the MCP’s actions after World War II that is to be condemned, beginning with accounts of reprisals and executions after the end of the war.

And after Merdeka, when they could have contributed to the newly fledged nation, instead of laying down arms, what did they do? They continued their campaign of violence, shifting resources from development to defence: why? Let’s consider the proposition that it was justified because they saw the new nation as a neo-imperialist project. Had the MCP succeeded it is likely that we would have become a puppet of China, given the patronage it received from the CCP. This was no longer a fight against British imperialism: it was an attempt to establish a new imperialism. (Sukarno’s labelling of Malaysia as a ‘neo-colonialist’ plot was much the same: an attempt to enlarge an authoritarian polity invoking the language of anti-imperialism.) The other likely alternative is that we would have become an isolationist People’s Democratic Republic of Malaya, joining the ranks of North Korea and South Yemen—those glorious havens of freedom.

There is a revisionist claim that the demonisation of communism emerges from an ultra-Malay stance which seeks to associate communism with ethnic Chinese disloyalty. Both insult those Chinese Malayans who fought the terror—in fact, most of those who were awarded the Seri Pahlawan Gagah Perkasa (our highest military medal which outranks Tuns and the highest royal awards) for gallantry against the communists were not Malay—but it also ignores the killings between CCP and Kuomintang supporters in Malaya.

Back to Chin Peng. It has been disputed that he may or may not have been personally involved in killings and giving specific orders, and that he should be excused for this. This is malarkey: there was a clear chain of command, and if he really disapproved of such tactics we would have heard about it. There are also those who argue that just because we seem to have forgotten about other atrocities, we should forget about communist terrorism too: we have excellent relations with Japan, for instance. The difference is that here is a man who was personally involved. It is one thing for individuals to apologise on behalf of institutions—like Kevin Rudd apologising for the treatment of aborigines, or the Pope apologising for sexual abuse committed by priests—but it is another for a living individual to show some meaningful remorse.

Here is a man who led an organisation adopting an ideology posing every conceivable threat to our awesome democratic system fused together from ancient and modern institutions; to individual property rights; to free markets; to the very formation of our federation spanning the South China Sea; and if you got in the way, ultimately the freedom to live. And yes, here is a man whose leadership allowed a bomb to be laid upon a railway track in a murder attempt on my great-grandfather.

Having said all that, some of the government’s policies regarding the communist period are lamentable. The continued banning of movies like The Last Communist and books challenging the government’s narrative of the Emergency serves no purpose. Instead, it casts unnecessary aspersions. By invoking censorship we go down the same path of authoritarianism that communism would have led to: it is time to lift the bans, free the teaching of history and let Malaysians see for themselves the evidence of communist terror and this man’s involvement.