To all of Communist and Chin Peng sympathizers, I would like to share with you some knowledge that I gained from my Cold War and Communism studies for 4 years, up till university level. I believe that there is some confusion about Communism and Chin Peng among Malaysians. As Malaysians growing up, we have been taught in our KBSM History subject that the Communists and Chin Peng himself were evil. This is a story not properly told.

Our (Malaysian) version of history is very much skewed from a narrow, local perspective. This subject should be taught from a global perspective, as the Cold War, which was the origins of Chin Peng, was an international event. However, I do not blame KBSM for this, because it is impossible to tell the whole story about the Cold War, as it is extremely complicated and long. In order to determine whether or not Chin Peng and Communists are evil one has to learn the history of the Cold War, which has a 4-decade time frame. In fact, it is the longest War of our century that started way back in 1948, to 1990. I’ll make it brief here.

I studied about the Cold War during A-Levels, up till my university years in The London School of Economics and Political Science. The study of Communism is banned in Malaysia. To formally study about Communism, one has to make an application to the Special Branch. Thus I consider myself lucky to be able to have pursued this subject in great depth at the LSE. Hence, I feel obligated to share what I know with Malaysians, in conjunction with Chin Peng’s passing.

To those who barely know about the Cold War, it is was a period when the USA and Soviet Union (Russia) had an ideological battle. The USA championed the Capitalism ideology, a brainchild of Adam Smith. The Soviet Union, was expanding the Communism ideology by Karl Marx. Capitalism is an ideology that advocates free, competitive market, with no, (or more realistically, limited) government intervention in the economy. Communism on the other hand believed that government intervention in the economy is necessary to provide everyone with equal amount of resources. Each has its pros and cons. However, here I would like to emphasize on the degree of government intervention, as this was the key point of conflict between the two ideologies.

Because Communism believes in full government intervention, it is perceived by the USA as being no different from a dictatorship. In contrast, the Communists saw capitalism as a business ideology that encourages profit-making at the expense of others. Because Westerners were driven to make profit, they became imperialists, always seeking new resources to the extent of colonizing other nations in the name of business. Both are not wrong. The 19th century was an era of colonization, spearheaded by the British Empire and the Soviets had a reason to fear imperialism. On the other hand, the 20th century began with the rise of fascist regimes like the Nazis, where Hitler exercised full government control over economic affairs. As the leader of the democratic world, the USA had a reason to feel threatened by dictatorships. Long story short, both the USA and the Soviet Union embarked on a mission to spread their ideologies across the globe during the Cold War.

Up till the late 1980s, the world was pretty much divided into two; the Western and the Eastern block, each led by the USA and the Soviet Union respectively. The USA’s allies were Western Europe, including Great Britain. The Soviet Union influence spread across much of the Eastern Europe. You may be wondering which block Malaysia belonged to. Although we are located on the eastern side, we were under the influence of the USA, via Great Britain. In fact all other British colonies used the capitalist system.

During the Cold War period, Communism expanded into China in 1950s. After China, it crept into South East Asia. This was where the likes of Chin Peng and Ho Chi Minh came in.

Ho Chi Minh was the leader of the Vietcong, the communist rebels in Vietnam Meanwhile, Chin Peng headed Bintang Tiga also known as Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM), the communist rebellion in Malaya. Although Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam War was in the 1960s, and Chin Peng’s insurgency was in the 1950s, there was a lot of resemblance between the two leaders. Both had a similar aim, to pursue independence. Both also wanted to enforce the communist ideology onto their country’s administrative system once their struggles succeeded. Of course the two of them had different methods of achieving the aim, due to difference in political circumstances they faced in their respective nations. This is where one ended up being hailed as a national hero, when the other was labeled a terrorist, and later exiled.

Ho Chi Minh led North Vietnam against the USA-dominated South Vietnam. The USA launched an all out war against the north. They killed many North Vietnamese along the way. The USA used Agent Orange (a chemical weapon) that caused birth defects that runs through generations, the effects of which persist till today. To put it simply, it was overkill by the USA onto the Vietnamese. As such, a massive retaliation by the Vietcong was understandable. Much like Chin Peng, Ho Chi Minh retaliated and killed many Pro-USA south Vietnamese, as how Chin Peng killed many of our own Pro-British Malayan forces. The British however, did not use Agent Orange in Malaya, nor did they commit brutal murder and burn our villages like what they did in Vietnam.

Chin Peng somehow maintained the inhumane methods used during the struggle against the Japanese invaders (because the Japanese were cruel to China). While the killings of our police forces aligned to the British were debatable, slaughter, mass murder of innocent civilians, village burnings, and assassination attempts on top officials were not.

The period of 1940s-1960s was a time of peaceful decolonization. It was a time where the imperialists, namely France, Spain and Great Britain were letting their colonies go, through peaceful handing over to the local leaders. As the leader of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman embraced this transition and brought about our independence through peaceful means. We were not in an all out war like the Vietnam War that required aggressive action on the side of a rebel group. The communist insurgency lasted until 1960s, even after 31st August 1957. Yet, violence from the Bintang Tiga continued. Chin Peng led Bintang Tiga that terrorized, slaughter, caused fear and despair among not just Malays, but Chinese and Indians that supported Parti Perikatan. They did all that in the name of independence, something we were already getting in a peaceful way from the British. In fact other colonies of the British were getting independence the same way. There was no justification for aggression, much less, brutality. Some would dismiss the casualties as collateral damage of war, but it is not the case if we burn villages, slaughter, and commit mass murder on those who do not support our cause.

The reason as to why he continued to wage war against the British and Malaya was to institute Communism, under the direction of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wanted to make Malaya their satellite state, like Eastern Europe. Chin Peng wanted independence from the British, only to have Malaya colonized by Soviet influence. Which was why they continued to fight. Nevertheless, I would like to make it clear that fighting for communism without external influence (the way China did, independent of Soviet Union) was not the problem, but violence was. In fact, during ‘Pertemuan di Baling’ between Tunku and Chin Peng, the former did not agree to legalize Parti Komunis Malaya because of its brutal methods and it would have been morally wrong to acquit the murderers. In other words, if Tunku legalize PKM, it would have meant that Chin Peng and his rebels get to free themselves from murder charges. Of course Chin Peng would not accept an unconditional surrender either, which was why the meeting failed to reach a consensus.

As an economics and history student, I do not believe the communist ideology could work (this is yet another debate), but I do not consider the ideology evil, as indoctrinated onto us by Western propaganda. However this does not mean I am pro-dictatorship. The system could work if mixed with capitalism, which China has been quite effective in doing. What I would consider as pure evil, is brutality and murder of the innocent. No matter what the intentions were, even if it was to fight for an ideology, violence is not the answer. Our civilized society should reject it, exactly the way we rejected the violence committed by Osama bin Laden, who believed he fought for Islam.

Of course during the time of the communist insurgency, Malaya was not spared from the Western propaganda that demonized Communism. Which is why today, this indoctrination remains fresh especially in the minds many Malaysians. The word ‘komunis’ is somewhat taboo in this country. However, I believe that the communist ideology itself should be subjected to an open economic and political debate on its viability as a system for a country. The term ‘komunis’ that is used in Malaysia actually refers to ‘Bintang Tiga’, a group of violent rebels headed by Chin Peng that championed the communist ideology. Unfortunately, due to the confusion of this term, we have some Malaysians advocating for Chin Peng using his ideological struggle as a basis for their sympathy. We hear some people saying that Chin Peng was not wrong to pursue Communism and lauded him for fighting the Japanese and British in the name of independence. Pursuing an ideology and struggling for independence are not wrong. Violence is wrong and that was the method used by Bintang Tiga. It is also wrong to free our country from one colonizer only to surrender the sovereignty to another. Remember, we were in a Cold War period when Soviet Russia was expanding their influence in the eastern side. Chin Peng’s call for independence was not genuine. Some may argue that Tunku’s version of independence was not genuine because in the end, we enforced capitalism under British advice. Again we have to look it from a global perspective to appreciate that the independence British gave us in 1957, freed ourselves from their effective control. The Soviet Union satellite states in Eastern Europe, were not free because the authoritative and interventionist nature of the communism system. In other words, had Malaysia been under Chin Peng, we would find the Soviet Union controlling our state affairs they way they did for the Eastern Europe and USSR states.

Some accuse the government of contradicting themselves for having bilateral relations with Communist China but at the same time, demonizing Chin Peng, a communist leader. The Malaysian government, although inheriting the capitalism system from the British, did not hate the Communist ideology the way USA did, which was why Tun Razak established bilateral relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1974. At this juncture, the PRC, which is a Communist nation, isolated themselves from PKM by issuing a statement of no-support for PKM’s brutality in Malaysia. Communism is an ideology that was painted as evil by the Western world during the Cold War as a psychological war tactic. To me, Communism is not evil. Communism is a system that is in conflict with the USA’s. But it is not to be confused with PKM, which was a group of people that was hoping to use the end to justify the means. One needs to know about the Cold War in order to make a clear distinction between the Communist ideology and Bintang Tiga. Islam is not evil, as an ideology, but Al-Qaeda is evil. More than 2,000 innocent civilians died on 9/11. 10,000 Malaysians perished as a result of the communist insurgency. Millions of Malaysians lived in fear of communist brutality. Yes, Chin Peng fought the Japanese and deserve credit for that. The Taliban also freed Afghanistan from Russia in 1989. Nevertheless, the deeds of the past could not vindicate the acts of terrorism they committed later on.

To sum up, there has been some confusion between Communism and the role of Chin Peng. The notion that our KBSM Sejarah has not given us a clear picture about the history of Chin Peng, is to some extent true. It has been unable to give a global perspective to a topic that can only be understood appropriately from nothing less than a global perspective. Which is why I can understand why certain people have doubts about what has been taught to us about Chin Peng by KBSM Sejarah. But despite its lack of depth, it brought about what I consider to be an accurate message: Chin Peng was not a hero. Fortunately, KBSM Sejarah does not demonize the Communist ideology. It merely revealed the cruelty of Chin Peng and Bintang Tiga. As a matter of fact, KBSM Ekonomi Asas properly explains the Communist ideology from an economic standpoint. Hence KBSM’s effort, given its limited ability to cover such a broad topic should be commended.

So, when asked whether or not Chin Peng was a hero, I would say he was not. Academically, I do not have a problem with the Communist ideology, but I do have a problem with the atrocities of Bintang Tiga a.k.a Parti Komunis Malaya. Should his ashes be allowed to be buried in Malaysia? No, because the tomb will be hailed by certain quarters. Indeed, the ashes could not resurrect and threaten our lives. However, the death of Chin Peng revealed to the nation who Chin Peng supporters have been all these years. He should be buried at sea away from anybody’s reach. It would be deemed offensive to Malaysians, even more so to the families of the brutally killed victims, should his remains be brought into the country and hailed like a hero.

LSE, Major in Accounting and Finance, Minor in Cold War History. Former Director of Strategies UKEC.

25 replies on “Communism Is Not Evil, But Chin Peng Is No Hero”

  1. I thought communist dont believe any god, so what's up with this cin peng burial, ashes issue? Enlightenment please.

  2. the author completely ignored the fact that during the Darurat, the whole negative propaganda that was made against Communist was actually a strategy also to outlaw all the other leftist movements in Malaysia that were asking for full independence and even submitting their own, and much better version of the Constitution (google a documentary on this called Sepuluh Hari sebelum Merdeka). Thats why you see all the top leftist Islamists , and leftists Malays join the fight with PKM, because the crackdown is on them as well….but the British used the evil communist agenda to shape Malaysians' public perception. until now, names like mukhtaruddin lasso, ahmad boestamam, muhammad haji salleh, shamsiah fakeh, mat indera, burhanuddin helmy is almost completely forgotten by the malays.

  3. I agree with c57k. My father was a soldier who earned medal awarded by the queen for fighting with the PKM under the British, but he told us (with some degree of regret) that actually, the PKM are heroes for this nation but were treated unfairly by the British. I believe that's the reason the brutality continues. To me, Chin Peng's situation was some sort like a group of 'Expandables' in Rambo movie (they gave their lives & their families' lives for their country, they were brutally killed too, but end up being betrayed by their country). Whether they're heroes or not, lies at the point when they were willing to surrender but not being recognized by the government. If the government recognized them then they're heroes in the eyes of the government. Do they ever blame the people for not supporting or betraying them after what they've done and sacrificed for the people? They didn't blame the people. Unfairness is already too much for them. Don't add any more. May he rest in peace.

  4. Azeem, you have a lot, lot more to learn!!!!
    Suggestion: look at some pics of British brutalities done to our people!!! (Not including those done to the other colonized people, past and present).
    Just one e.g.- A Brit officer holding up by the hair of chopped heads of 2 locals in then Malaya, smiling proudly!!!
    It's in chin peng's book – take a look!!!! ( see if u can stomach that).
    Chin peng was not perfect- who is??? He was a survivor who had helped our country in the way he knew how given the
    Circumstances of his time. (May he rest in peace.)
    Like someone said, if he was not a chin, he would be a hero!!
    Open yr eyes, yr ears and yr mind when you go through life… And always remember that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!!!

  5. To my mind, the Cold War is a narrative initiated by the Americans to buy time so that they could consolidate their position as the leader of the so-called Free World. The tension between the American-led democracies (which one, Greek or Swiss – and based on the theory of Adam Smith) and Soviet-led communism propounded by a theorist called Karl Marx could have been addressed at the peace talks.

    There was never any need to allow it to spill over to the entire world, causing so much sufferings and deaths.

    The fall of the Soviet Union in 1990 meant that the Cold War – if ever there was one – was over. So why this fixated inability on our part as a "great nation founded on the principles of liberty and egaliatarianism" to be maganinimous in our victory over the communists in Malaysia? Why?

    1. Thats a very simplistic reasoning if I might say. The Cold War was a complicated matter. It was a combination of geopolitics, mistrust, betrayal, etc etc. However I should add that Communism is still a dirty word in the USA and the word along with socialist is often used to try and undermine people. For e.g, Obama is regularly branded a Communist by his opponents.

  6. it is a joke that communism is a threat to the world peace.

  7. Chin Ping would no doubt be hailed a hero is he wasn't a Chinese, plus coming from this imperious home minister it should not be a surprise at all. After all, he must shows to the Umno members who are going to attend he GM shortly. Which all aspiring Umno leaders did were to use the Chinese as the punching bags to be recognised and accepted and as Umno leaders. They all use the Chinese as the punching bags on their way up their political carrier because they all know MCA, one of their partners in BN, will not and cannot do anything about it. Thus displaying approval of what these Umno leaders were and are saying, yet these MCA leaders want to know what the Chinese have forsaken them in the recent GE !
    More importantly these Umno morons know the Chinese is only the minority in the country and Umno can continue to run the country without the Chinese. As such why are MCA and the other partners of BN still remain in BN ? They all should leave the partnership and let Umno, if they can, remain as tenants of Putrajaya !

    1. Chin Peng is being hailed as a hero by the Chinese such as MCA and DAP! What are you talking about.
      Of course the Malays wont hail him as a hero because they were fighting against him and Rashid Maidin. No Rashid Maidin is not a hero to the Malays either.

      1. you seem to forgot the mat indera debacle few years ago…mat indera, rashid maidin, shamsiah fakeh is not considered hero by majority malays here..

  8. What drivel, all Communist regimes have used violence and oppression to achieve their goals. It is the very nature of Marxist-Leninism. Communism cannot tolerate dissent as such dissent contradicts the utopia that Communist regimes are meant to create. All Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings, use of secret police, censorship, one-party rule, collectivization, cult of personality, internal bloodletting and struggling against the class enemy. The worse Communist regimes have engaged in what we would call "ethnic cleansing" as a means to dilute opposition to the Party's rule. Mr Azeem, you are no doubt well-read but if you have read the literature, you must know that every Communist regime has been accompanied by oppression and violence. For example there is a new book called "Tragedy of Liberation" which chronicles the violence of Mao's Communists prior to the madness of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. You rightly mention Ho Chi Minh as a anti-imperialist hero, but at the same time you have to remember that the collectivization that his Party implemented in North Vietnam killed thousands. Indeed our history syllabus in Malaysia does not harp on enough on the crimes of Communism and instead focuses on relatively small fry communists like Chin Peng and the PKM. Communism is not evil per se, but there are many aspects of Communist regimes that are/were. This is something that cannot be denied by any moral person .

  9. If communist ideology was implemented as it was intended it would have been succesful but unfortunately power crazy dictators took over .The largest democracy in the world , India, has legal communist parties . In fact two of the states in India , Kerala and West Bengal, were ruled by communist parties for decades ! These two states have the highest literacy rate in the country !It was the Americans who were paranoid about communism, so much so there are no communist parties in the U.S , which has outlawed them ! Now back in Malaysia we only talk about CPM and it's armed wing . The political wing of the CPM was thriving very well in the cities and towns ! Guess who they were ? Newspaper editors from MSM, ministers and political secretaries of the PM ! Would you believe it ? Do your research !

  10. Chin Peng is dead and now part of the history of Malaysia.

    I can't hardly wait for Mahatir to be part of the history of Malaysia as well.


  11. This guy came from the London School of Economics?! I myself am a Politics and Economics graduate from a lesser university (by LSE standards), but such an essay will be red-marked to no end due to the infantile arguments displayed here. It reads like a matriculation student's work cheating with Wikipedia.

    1. My only problem is that Azeem adopts a straw man argument, like Commies believed in "Government support" while Capitalists believed in making profit which are very simplistic considering the "welfare states" of the West. Also in his judgment on "Communism is not evil", he cherry picks and only mentions the Vietnamese struggle against American Imperialism . A judgment on whether Communism was evil or not must also consider the suffering Communist regimes brought through their use of mass killings, man-made famines, secret police, labor camps, incompetent economic management etc which is to be balanced with the supposed benefits like free healthcare, full employment, free education. In my view, judging from the death toll and economic mismanagement caused not to mention oppression, Communist regimes must be defined as morally reprehensible governments. All Communist governments have acted with impunity when in government as in their view the Party is/was answerable to no one. And finally, Azeem seems to assume that Chin Peng was Moscow's puppet. I doubt this as the PKM was taking marching orders from the Chinese Communist Party and CP himself was an admirer of Mao. So if anything Malaysia under the PKm would have become a Maoist state, something which I'm glad didn't happen.

  12. As we discuss an issue in a forum which has mostly lawyers as the readers, it is important to highlight the obligation of parties in adhering to the terms of any contract signed by them. Are you suggesting that it is okay for any government to go against the treaties signed by it ?

  13. Not a commie sympathizer but some responses:

    One, I disagree on the point of our history syllabus. It wasn't that it had a limited ability to cover such broad issues satisfactorily, it just didn't bother to cover important modern history of WW1, WW2 and the world in general (it did so in 2 measly Form 5 chapters), preferring to spend the bulk of it on the Islamic Civilisation instead.

    Two, forgive me if the syllabus has changed (I am 21), but our textbooks came across to me as an obvious anti-CPM narrative. We may differ on how we should judge Chin Peng, but to call upon the syllabus's interpretation as the accurate depiction of him is not particularly discerning. Chin Peng was an anti-colonialist who wanted CPM to be given legitimate democratic party status, not an irrational trigger-happy moron. His idealogies and methods were opened for discussion; a discussion our syllabus never permitted. The fact that the 1989 Peace Accord, which is a big milestone wrt Malaysia and CPM, was not mentioned nor discussed extensively was also dishonest. All in all, I doubt our history books had much merits to begin with, even removed from this whole Chin Peng hulabaloo.

    Three, atrocities were committed against both sides. Such is a sad fact of war. We have come to terms with crimes committed by other countries in the past, what makes Chin Peng's crimes so different to warrant a denial of burial at his home? Chin Peng, at one point, harboured the same nationalist aspiration as our forefathers and fought against the japanese, then the British, before the Insurgency happened. You may argue that this does not make a hero out of him. But neither does it make an immediate case for his persisting exile.

    Four, I question Malaysian integrity if we purportedly signed a peace treaty with CPM under the auspice of the thai government, only to renege upon it later. Whether or not you think Chin Peng's ashes should be allowed to return, this was a grossly irresponsible action and a violation of international law.

    Five, communism isn't striving in this country. I am unsure what supporters you are speaking of, who would supposedly hail Chin Peng as a hero. And even if they do, to each their own. I highly doubt it would trigger a communist revolution. It also doesn't follow that allowing his ashes to return would mean that it would have to be a glorified celebration. This fuss is being blown out of proportion by parties who, like me, have never experienced the Insurgency themselves and can hardly speak of the 'pain' the homecoming of Chin Peng's dead body would cause.

    Six, forgiveness is a good thing. Countries move on and progress like that. If you disagree, then it shows little faith in our countrymen. If you still disagree, then we should consider opening up old wounds vis-a-vis the japanese and the british. But that is silly. There is no second chance in the future for the government to evaluate its decision here. The man is dead.

    Lastly, you don't get to cherrypick the people you want to be born in your country. I am not religious, but I heard grace is a beautiful thing, both for the giver and the recipient.

    1. Chin Peng firstly is not Malaysian. He is Chinese and his war was fought on behalf of the Communist China. He lived in Beijing. His fight against Japan was the Chinese war against Japan nothing to do with the Malays.
      He was not alone. China was at war with Japan and all overseas Chinese contributed to their motherland.
      So victory is a sweet thing.
      Secondly as he is not a Malaysian we have nothing to do with him. In fact Beijing is sure to celebrate Chin Peng more as their loyal dog for killing the Malays and the police force.
      It was a war with China too for the Malays in practicality.
      The Malays were not just fighting Chin Peng but were fighting Communist China hegemony.
      You say who will glorify Chin Peng? Why the Chinese of course like you or the MCA who are capitalists but Chinese still Chinese ma..

  14. 'Should his ashes be allowed to be buried in Malaysia? No, because the tomb will be hailed by certain quarters. Indeed, the ashes could not resurrect and threaten our lives. '

    What a crappy understatement!

    U treat as if the citizen of the current M'sia is a bunch of morons, with herd mentality. Perhaps, on deeper thought, there is, indeed a big section of such inferiority-infested maniacs sitting at u know where. But then, dont u forget that there r large section of M'sians who COULD see through the wools.

    Arguing along yr line of thought with the simple fact of the current Germany keeping the Nazi concentration camps in tag for perpetual then is an affront to yr sense of justice?

    Because these camps will be hailed by certain quarters & indeed the many current Nazis supporters do so openly. Did that turn Germany into choas? Instaed, it makes the German MORE aware of their past deeds!

    So, 'the ashes could not resurrect and threaten our lives.' – u r living with the fear of yr own shadow!

    & bcoz of yr fear, & the procrastinating of events not appealing to yr sense, u despite them to the background & forbidden their real existence. No see, no evil! Just like so many current events in M'sia. What sort of intellectualism is this? See-no-evil-Tidak-apaism?

    BTW, the true role of Chin Peng in the Malaya saga is NOT just yr takes, there r others, who opine diagonally opposite views to yr understanding of the issues, too. In short a rigorous research should be carried out. But then in the like of yr kind of thinking, prevailing in that large herd of cripples, it could never happen in M'sia, for sure.

    'However, the death of Chin Peng revealed to the nation who Chin Peng supporters have been all these years. ' – is this a threat ?

    I for one wouldnt even use it as soil paper!

    ' It would be deemed offensive to Malaysians, even more so to the families of the brutally killed victims, should his remains be brought into the country and hailed like a hero.'

    Perhaps offensive to that herd of cripples. NOT all M'sians.

    For those families of the brutally killed victims, if it makes any sense to u & yr religion,DO think about collateral damage. The Bintang Tiga a.k.a Parti Komunis Malaya had many of his members/family members killed too, in the thousands. Were they any difference from u? Aint they human with blood & bones? They, like u, were fighting for an ideology. Or r u saying uwere fighting for nothing? What's yr religion says about this!!!!

    As far as working with the enemy, look no further than the Look East Policy!

    Perhaps, yr math is a little skewed, that during the Jap occupation, the Jap had treated the Melayu better than the Chin. So their atrocities in killing that smaller numbers of Melayu CAN be forgiven , purely bcoz the Chin had more body counts in this aspect.

    Yr LSE yrs failed u! But then, didnt Bush Jr also a graduate of Ivy league?

    I rest my case & no more from me. Grrrrrrrrr

  15. And what abt the agreement already signed to allow him back? Or should that be recorded in history as just a ploy by a deceitful Msian govt to trick him into surrendering?

    On what basis did u speculate that his tomb will be hailed by certain quarters? And so what if it wud be if that is a part of freedom of association?

    1. The grace period was one year. Its not open ended he can come as he please. So nothing deceitful about Msian govt. The deceit is on the Chinese guy ong boon hua or chin peng.

      1. According to lawyers who represented Chin Peng, they had obtained documents from the relevant ministry and submitted to the court that proved that he actually did submit his application within the stipulated time.

Comments are closed.