In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

Jia Tolentino

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Short Cuts: Harry Goes Rogue

Jonathan Parry

A Plan and a ManNeal Ascherson
Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Massacre in Malaya: Exposing Britain’s My Lai 
by Christopher Hale.
History Press, 432 pp., £25, October 2013, 978 0 7524 8701 4
Show More
Show More

The first thing​ to know about this big book is that it’s not really about the ‘massacre in Malaya’, the crime the media sometimes call ‘Britain’s My Lai’. Only a few pages deal in detail with the Batang Kali killings in December 1948, when a Scots Guards platoon executed 24 perfectly harmless Chinese plantation workers. Instead, Christopher Hale – a journalist with long experience reporting from Germany and South-East Asia – has put together a massive history of the British presence on the Malay peninsula. He tries to explain the outbreak of the jungle guerrilla war which began in 1948 (‘the Emergency’), to look at the politics behind that war and to identify the dire, lasting effects of the Emergency on independent Malaysia. That’s not to say that Hale has simply pasted ‘Massacre’ on the cover to help the book sell. This is a pungently hostile history of British colonial strategy and tactics in the region, and he obviously feels that Batang Kali is somehow representative of that history. Hale sees behind that crime a sequence of ignorance, short-sighted callousness and anti-Chinese ethnic prejudice which he believes distorted British colonial policy in Malaya.

In the narrow sense, Batang Kali was not representative at all. As a conscript soldier in that war, which certainly led to some atrocities and many cruelties, I can say that the massacre remains unique and mysterious. It was so entirely deliberate. The soldiers went to the village and stayed overnight, and in the morning separated the men from their families and shot them all dead. Which officer ordered this insane act, and why, remains unclear. No other British unit did anything comparable in the 12 dirty years of jungle war that followed. All the same, Hale isn’t wrong to see in Batang Kali some obscene reflections of older failures. The British authorities and the Colonial Office knew that a stable ‘Malayan’ nation could not be created and brought towards self-government while the enormous Chinese immigrant population was excluded from citizenship – treated as if it did not exist. And yet they themselves shared much of the anti-Chinese prejudice.

The British entered South-East Asia in the wake of the Portuguese and the Dutch in the 18th century. They found a vaguely defined Malay world, reaching culturally from the Thai border down the peninsula and across the immense archipelago that is now Indonesia, divided into a multitude of Muslim ‘sultanates’. After establishing coastal colonies at Penang and Singapore, the British moved slowly into the interior of the peninsula, deftly exploiting local disputes to establish ‘Residents’ at the courts of the Malay sultans.

In the mid-19th century, the British began to exploit the enormous alluvial deposits of tin, and by 1900 rubber estates (the Hevea variety brought from Brazil) were spreading across the lowlands. This new and fabulously profitable plantation and mining economy required armies of unskilled and docile labour, imported from southern China, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and India. (The local Malay peasantry was thought to be too independent, mentally and economically, for the discipline of plantation work.) The immigrants were supposed to go home when their labour was no longer required. But as usually happens – see apartheid South Africa, West Germany in the 1960s – they eluded their contractors and settled. The labour pump leaked. Within a few decades. Malaya had developed a huge immigrant proletariat.

By 1945, the Chinese formed almost half the population, a mass with no rights and almost no sense of being Malayan. The British recognised the dangers of this absurd situation. But they were in the country only by virtue of old treaties with the sultans, and the Malays – rulers, politicians and people alike – refused to contemplate sharing statehood or national identity with these detested aliens. As for the European planters and miners, their opinions were often primitive even by colonial standards. One mine-owner wrote that ‘the Malay is an idler, the Chinaman is a thief and the Indian is a drunkard. Yet each, in his special class of work, is both cheap and efficient when properly supervised.’

Hale claims that the British deliberately encouraged racial separation and mistrust in colonial Malaya. It suited them, he argues, to ‘reinforce communal divisions’. That seems a bit too schematic. It is true that, for a long time, fear of the Chinese minority inhibited Malay dreams of independence; the British, accordingly, could be tolerated as unpleasant but necessary protectors of Malay privilege. But the British also saw – or came to see – that Chinese/Malay hostility kept their colonial policy in a trap.

Once London governments accepted that self-government and ultimate independence were inevitable, it became crucial to make certain that the new state – especially one as formidably rich in export produce as Malaya – remained stable and friendly. Hale, on decolonisation: ‘The point was to somehow ensure that the way the empire was wound up served the interests of the departing power. The new owners of Britain’s overseas properties had to be the right sort of people.’ But nothing could be ensured in Malaya unless the two main communities found a way to live together.

The pieces of this deadlocked chess game were scattered by the Japanese conquest and occupation of Malaya and the rest of South-East Asia in 1942. The arrogant white colonialists, the ‘master race’, were seen to be utterly humiliated. Malay nationalists disliked the invaders, but often accepted invitations to collaborate, taking seriously hints that the power which had chased out their colonial masters would soon offer them independence. Nothing of the kind materialised. Instead, in 1943, the Japanese ceded Malaya’s four northern provinces to Thailand, temporarily leaving the peninsula with a non-Malay majority. But when it became obvious that Japan was going to lose the war, the Malay politicians were too weak and too divided to do what Aung San and Ne Win did in Burma: change sides, and launch armed resistance against the Japanese.

The British, preparing to return, simply regarded these Malay nationalists as traitors to the Crown. But their approach to the Chinese community was different. Driven more by identification with China’s long struggle against Japan than by any Malayan patriotism, let alone by loyalty to King George VI, young Chinese militants went into the jungle to fight the Japanese. The core of this resistance was the Malayan Communist Party, overwhelmingly Chinese in membership. Before the war, the MCP had been the main target of Special Branch surveillance. But now the British recognised that it was forming the only effective armed resistance to the Japanese occupation, and the Special Operations Executive (SOE) organised support for the guerrillas. Weapons and equipment were air-dropped to them, and they were joined by a group of young, intrepid British officers. This was the legendary Force 136, most of whose members had experience of prewar Malaya and knew how to survive in the mountainous rainforest that still covered most of the country. The resistance was strenuous and brave, and produced some good books after the war (Spencer Chapman’s The Jungle Is Neutral was the best, used as a jungle warfare manual for British forces during the Emergency). But in military terms it achieved little. There were several reasons for this failure. One of them was a man called Lai Tek or Lai Te, born Pham Van Dac, who must rank among the most terrifying and lethal shape-shifters in the history of conspiracy.

Lai Tek (to settle for one of his 38 aliases) seems to have been born near Saigon, to a Vietnamese father and a Chinese mother. As a young left-wing activist, he was arrested by the French Sûreté in 1925 and apparently ‘turned’ as an informer. Ho Chi Minh, ignorant of this, knew and trusted him, and supported him when in 1935 he moved to Singapore and began to rise through the ranks of the Malayan Communist Party, claiming to be a secret agent of the Comintern – ‘the Asian Lenin’. He helped to organise a dramatic Soviet at a striking coalmine in 1937. This was no surprise to the colonial Special Branch for the simple reason that he was already working for them as a double agent, probably passed on to them by the French in Saigon. A little later, ‘Mr Wright’ (his Special Branch codename) became the secretary-general of the MCP. Soon after that triumph for British intelligence, the police arrested several of his rivals in the party and deported them to China, where the Kuomintang regime almost certainly shot them.

His British minders fled as the Japanese arrived in 1942. Lai Tek was arrested, but fluently offered the new masters his services. And, once again, they were invaluable. As MCP leader and head of the jungle resistance, he was soon in touch with Force 136 and even managed to contact his old Special Branch paymasters in Ceylon. The communist senior cadres and the rank and file continued to idolise him. Meanwhile the Japanese security police, somehow dreadfully well informed, were able to arrest the entire MCP leadership in Singapore, Johor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca and Selangor. In 1942, Lai Tek was unable to reach a clandestine meeting of the MCP central committee because ‘his car broke down’. The meeting was raided and 29 delegates killed. And still nobody suspected.

At the end of the war, when his MCP comrades hoped for a ‘Malayan revolution’, a broad alliance with the ‘Malay masses’ and the defeated Japanese who still retained their weapons, Lai Tek suddenly changed tack. He ordered the party and its army to support the Allies instead of resisting the reimposition of colonial rule. His deputy, the young Chin Peng, was staggered. But it was not until 1947 that doubts crystallised and Lai Tek’s multiplicity – rather than mere duplicity – was exposed. Condemned to death, he fled, and was strangled by a Thai Communist hit squad in Bangkok later that year.

How much​ did the British know? John Davis, the Force 136 man who was closest to Chin Peng, Lai Tek’s successor as MCP leader, had been in the prewar Special Branch. He knew the secret of Mr Wright, but did not tell his comrade. Anyway, the end of the war brought a new situation. In Indochina and Indonesia, ‘national liberation’ wars were raging against the French and the Dutch, while the British – hoping for a peaceful process towards self-government – made plans for a Malayan Union in which the non-Malay communities would be given civil rights, including the vote. But this idea brought Malay xenophobia to a boil of long-delayed but at last coherent nationalism. The present Malaysian state and its dominant party really date from that refusal to accept the Chinese, above all, as equal partners. Today, the dominant Barisan Nasional and its predecessor the Alliance, formed in 1952, represent a deal in which the Malayan Chinese and Indian Associations were admitted to a discreet share of power in return for accepting Malay cultural and political supremacy.

The British were forced to retreat from their plans for a union in the face of furious opposition from the Malay sultans, and to accept instead a design for the federation that dropped the notion of non-Malay citizenship. Hale, tracking this struggle in detail, comments acidly that ‘the colonial power now embraced the most reactionary and chauvinist defenders of Malay rights – and it was this united front that would wage war on communism and forge the political identity of an independent Malaysia.’ By accepting the federation scheme and abandoning Chinese emancipation, the British had put themselves in a position in which they could only stabilise the new Malaya by suppressing Chinese dissent. They rapidly abandoned their wartime allies, although a group of Chin Peng’s guerrillas marched in the London victory parade with red stars glittering on their caps. In the aftermath of war, the British Military Administration that took charge of Malaya targeted the MCP as the main threat to stability and struck fiercely at all ‘communist activities’. The MCP, adroitly misled by the Special Branch via Lai Tek, had missed its chances (slim at best) of building a common anti-colonial front. Now the party prepared for armed struggle on its own.

As Chin Peng himself admits in his fascinating memoir, My Side of History (2003), the outbreak of fighting took his party by surprise. On 16 June 1948, a gang of over-excited young comrades murdered three British rubber planters near Sungai Siput, in the state of Perak. While the European miners and plantation managers roared for martial law, the governor declared a state of emergency almost as soon as he heard the news. Chin Peng was now leading the MCP, and a police raiding party missed capturing him by minutes. He hopped over a wall and ran for it with no idea of what had happened. The MCP was banned. Its young men and women headed for the jungle and retrieved their weapons from concealed arms dumps. The Malayan Emergency had begun.

‘The Emergency would be a war of skirmish and attrition,’ Hale writes. ‘It would be won by starvation and the cultivation of disloyalty. There would be no climactic confrontation: no jungle Waterloo. Victory was a continuously receding mirage.’ That is very much the way I remember it. The version later sold to envious Americans prosecuting the Vietnam War – recited as an impeccable British demonstration of how to suppress a communist insurgency – did not really fit my own experience. For one thing, a few thousand poorly armed guerrillas were able to resist a British and Commonwealth force ten times as large, equipped with heavy weapons and a powerful airforce, for 12 years (and the remnants of the Malayan People’s Liberation Army did not surrender in 1960 but retreated across the Thai border to live in exile). Second, the Malayan example was not relevant to the Americans in Vietnam, who faced not only the most expert and battle-hardened army in Asia but a fairly homogeneous population inclined to accept communism’s claim to be fighting for national independence.

It seemed to me then, and seems to me now, that the MPLA didn’t have a hope of winning the war. They started optimistically by trying to create ‘liberated areas’, as prescribed by Mao Zedong, but brief occupations of Batu Arang and Gua Musang ended in defeat. Within a couple of years, the war had slowed to a stalemate. The guerrillas remained in the jungle. They sallied out to murder informers or lay ambushes, but mostly to gather food and medicines from the open country round the forest fringe where hundreds of thousands of Chinese ‘squatters’ lived as illegal small farmers.

The security forces sent patrols into the jungle, where it could take a day of hacking, sweating and ant-swatting to travel four miles. But their main purpose became to deny the guerrillas access to supplies, by controlling the ‘debatable land’ where the squatters lived. The Briggs Plan, with brutal simplicity, eventually cleared the whole zone by uprooting some 500,000 Chinese squatters and dumping them in resettlement camps behind barbed wire and watchtowers.

It became an endurance contest. The MPLA slowly began to starve. They received no help whatever from China, even after Mao’s victory in 1949. Their only hope was that Britain would tire of the contest first. The communists had failed to make themselves the ‘party of independence’; even though they had learned to think in terms of a Malayan nation deserving liberation, their ferocity with ‘class enemies’ had alienated a good part of the Chinese community. So the initiative passed to the Malays. The Emergency was providential for Malay politicians such as Dato Onn bin Jaafar and Tunku Abdul Rahman (‘the Tunku’), who skilfully extorted concessions from the British by brandishing Cold War threats of communist expansion. As Ernest Bevin said when he was foreign secretary, ‘Our support of nationalism in South and South-East Asia provides the best possible counter to communist subversion and penetration.’ Merdeka – independence – was finally granted in 1957, well before the fighting ended.

‘Dear​ Lyttleton, Malaya. We must have a plan. Secondly, we must have a man. When we have a plan and a man, we shall succeed: not otherwise. Yours sincerely, Montgomery, Field-Marshal.’ It should be borne in mind that when Monty wrote that note to Oliver Lyttleton, Colonial Secretary, late in 1952, the British thought they might be losing the war. The governor, Sir Henry Gurney, had been ambushed and killed a few months before. Lyttleton visited Malaya soon afterwards; I remember watching a sergeant shoving his big, bald head down into a scout car so that the hatch lid could be slammed: no more Gurneys, please. Lyttleton thought the situation ‘appalling … I have never seen such a tangle as that presented by the government of Malaya.’

Then came the man, whose plan was someone else’s. General Gerald Templer is now supposed to have won the Emergency by clearing the squatters into resettlement camps. In fact this had been the idea of the self-effacing Sir Harold Briggs, who launched his scheme and then went home to die. Hale describes Templer as an intelligent bully. He disliked the Chinese, imposed unnecessary collective punishments, exploded at criticism (when the expert Victor Purcell suggested that he was acting dictatorially, Templer called him a ‘fat white pig’), quarrelled with the Tunku and announced that he could find ‘no desire for self-government in this country today in any community whatsoever’. But he hammered the conduct of the Emergency into a much tougher, harsher and more efficient machine. And here Christopher Hale puts forward the real argument underlying his book: ‘Under Templer, the Emergency war in Malaya became an instrument of state formation.’ That embryonic state acquired a ‘steely, authoritarian armour’ with totalitarian features. Hale refers to the spreading use of sinister euphemisms in Templer’s propaganda: resettlement camps became ‘New Villages’ while the MPLA were already labelled ‘CTs – communist terrorists’ or simply ‘bandits’. Templer’s first priority was to expand and invigorate the intelligence and propaganda services, sending the Special Branch and its surveillance apparatus into every area of dissent. ‘The panoptic security state that the colonial government built has never been dismantled.’

It’s depressing to see how many Commonwealth countries have retained the repressive laws passed by panicky colonial governments as they began to lose control. Malaysia is no exception. ‘It is a startling fact,’ Hale writes, ‘that during 43 years of independence, there has been just one short spell of four years … when the country has not been subject to an Emergency.’ As a panel of Commonwealth judges and lawyers noted in 2000, ‘We suggest that the Malaysian malaise may be due in no small measure to the gradual acceptance of a state of emergency as the norm of government.’ A state of emergency means a battery of statutes muzzling the media and restricting the right of assembly and free debate, in a society which is still ethnically divided with the privileges of one community entrenched by the constitution. Hale concludes: ‘Here in a nutshell is the inheritance of the British wars in Malaya.’

Chin Peng died a few months ago, an exile in Thailand. Some years earlier, I had interviewed him in London. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and this smiling, reserved, curiously ‘British’ old man was doing exactly what so many communists of his generation were doing: asking himself ‘Where did we go wrong?’ He had reread Lenin to see if he had misunderstood his teaching, ignored some precept. But perhaps the world communist movement had overlooked something in the writings of Marx himself. He would visit more libraries, study more texts. A group of elderly left-wingers and scholars was waiting to take him to lunch at the Athenaeum Club.

It was hard to recognise the small, spare young man who had spent 15 years leading an army in the jungle. He, like me, must have listened to the gibbons whooping in the dawn, sniffed leaves for the scent of enemy tobacco and enemy shit, marked the foresight of his carbine with a phosphorescent twig as he lay in night ambush. Unlike me, he bore responsibility for starting an impossible conflict which cost thousands of lives and disfigured a nation’s future.

He maintained to the end that the insurrection was not hopeless, that Malaya between 1945 and 1948 was ‘ripe’ for revolution, that Britain was restoring colonialism with a violence that could only be met by force. And yet the Emergency did not have to happen. That’s the lesson of Hale’s long, baggy, digressive but endlessly interesting book (why on earth does it not have any maps?). If the British imperial imagination had seen beyond the treaties with the sultans, if it had recognised the Malayan Chinese as human beings with rights instead of a featureless migrant workforce, if in 1948 the British had used the Emergency powers and the ‘communist threat’ to force through and entrench a Malayan Union of all the communities, then this beautiful country could have reached a better sort of independence.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 36 No. 5 · 6 March 2014

Neal Ascherson doesn’t describe the overall situation in Malaya leading up to the Emergency (LRB, 20 February). In 1946 the colony’s rubber and tin industries brought the UK Treasury $118 million; the rest of the empire altogether yielded only a further $37 million. Without Malaya, the postwar British welfare state would have been unthinkable. Rubber was also key to the eventual defeat of the Malayan communists, who could not compete given the economic growth brought about by the huge spike in demand from the Korean War.

Ascherson wonders what might have happened if the British had ‘recognised the Malayan Chinese as human beings with rights instead of a featureless migrant workforce’. That’s a little naive. From the start of the Emergency in 1948 until Mao’s victory the following year, the authorities deported tens of thousands of Chinese to China. Immigration control has been a mainstay of imperial counterinsurgency up to the present ‘war on terror’. This deportation policy was one of the main reasons the Communist Party of Malaya never became a mass party.

Although the Emergency created a ‘steely, authoritarian’ state with ‘totalitarian features’, the man who drafted the legislation (which is still in place in Singapore and was only recently repealed in Malaysia) was a genial civil servant called Hugh Humphrey. When the communist leader Chin Peng came to London in 1998 for a BBC2 film we made together, The Undeclared War, both men attended a BBC cocktail reception. Humphrey said to Chin Peng with genuine admiration: ‘I must say, you fought a very good Emergency.’ Chin Peng smiled phlegmatically: ‘Yes, but you fought a better one.’

Immigration controls continued to keep Chin Peng at bay even after his death last September. Throughout the final decade of his life, he fought a legal battle for the right to return to Malaysia. Such was his potency as a symbol of Chinese political assertiveness that this request was repeatedly turned down. The Malaysian government then refused the burial of his ashes at his birthplace in Ipoh on the grounds that he was a ‘traitor’.

Robert Lemkin
Oxford

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.