Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T05:19:24.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chin Peng and the Struggle for Malaya*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2006

Extract

“Fifty years ago, the name of Chin Peng was feared almost as much as Osama bin Laden is today”. So wrote the Hong Kong-based journalist, Philip Bowring, in 2003. Fifty years ago the British empire, in the view of Field Marshal Montgomery, was locked in a struggle “between the East and West, between Communism and Democracy, between evil and Christianity”. It was a time when Chin Peng was Britain's enemy number one in Southeast Asia. A measure of his importance is the size of the reward offered in May 1952 for his capture: M$250,000 was equivalent to first prize in the Social Welfare Lottery and a huge sum compared with the wage rates of Malayan workers. Chin Peng is Malaya's Ho Chi Minh, but a Ho Chih Minh manqué. Like Ho Chi Minh, Chin Peng was a communist who, having played a key part in local resistance to the Japanese occupation, led the struggle against the post-war restoration of European colonialism. Yet, whereas Ho Chi Minh established the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Chin Peng was thwarted in his attempt to create a socialist state in Malaya. Consequently, while the one became a national hero, the other has been cast out from the land of his birth and until recently has been without a voice in its history. The publication of his memoirs in 2003, however, enables us to reappraise Chin Peng's part in the achievement of Malayan independence.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article is a version of a lecture delivered at the Royal Asiatic Society on 16 December 2005. In revising it for publication I have greatly benefited from the discussion that followed the lecture and also from subsequent communications with Dr Russell Jones.

References

* This article is a version of a lecture delivered at the Royal Asiatic Society on 16 December 2005. In revising it for publication I have greatly benefited from the discussion that followed the lecture and also from subsequent communications with Dr Russell Jones.