On Prof. Khoo Kay Kim’s Malaysiakini Interview

January 24, 2012

Dr Syed Husin Ali takes swipe at Prof Khoo Kay Kim

“Let us hope no academician will assume the role of mouthpiece to all the lies and distortions that the British colonialists started and unfortunately are being perpetrated by the present Malaysian government.”–Dr. Syed Husin Ali

“I agree with Dr. Syed Husin. It is time we hold our so-called academicians to account for their distorted version(s) of our nation’s history. As for Professor Khoo, I think he should respond to this article and in the interest of intelligent discourse, I will be happy to host his rejoinder on this blog. It is time for Prof Khoo to show that he has convictions and the intellectual fortitude and honesty to acknowledge his errors”.–Din Merican

by Syed Husin Ali

COMMENT: Frankly, I did not know whether to laugh in scorn or cry in pain when I read Professor Khoo Kay Kim’s interview published in Malaysiakini on January 21, 2012.

It was full of factual errors and distortions which I do not expect from a fellow professor who claims to uphold facts, truth and knowledge.This piece contains some additional information to what Terence Netto has written.

Among the mistakes are:

i) PKMM was the acronym for Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya not Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Merdeka, and it was formed on Oct 17, 1945.

ii) The word Partai is of course Indonesian, but it is false to conclude on that basis that PKMM was of Indonesian origin. Partai is Party in English and had PKMM used parti instead of partai, it certainly would not make it of English origin, would it?

iii) Ahmad Boestamam (right) was never a president of PKMM. The party was led first by Mukhtaruddin Lasso, who was succeeded by Dr Burhanuddin Helmy and later Ishak Haji Muhamad. Boestamam was head of its youth wing API (Angkatan Pemuda Insaf).

iv) Boestamam was not from Indonesia. He was born in Kg Behrang Ulu, Tanjung Malim, Perak. Although of Minangkabau descent was always a citizen of this country.

v) PKMM and Boestamam indeed “were anti-British and (wanted) to free Malaya from foreign rule” as admitted by Khoo. Surely, these are important elements in any independence struggle.

Is it logical for Khoo to disqualify the Malay left as independence fighters just because he speculates that “local autonomy may not have been exactly their outlook”?

vi) It must not be forgotten that Boestamam, Burhanuddin and Ishak, as representatives of PKMM, walked out of the Malay Congress held in Kelab Sultan Sulaiman, Kuala Lumpur, because their proposal to adopt “Merdeka” (Independence) as a slogan was rejected.

Is this not enough evidence that these leftist leaders and PKMM wanted independence, not just local autonomy?

vii) Marhaen is not “actually a Marxist term for the proletariat” as Khoo claims. It was the name of a poor peasant/farmer whom Sukarno once met when he was leading the Indonesian independence struggle.

Objective of uplifting the poor

Based on his name Sukarno created an ideology called “Marhaenism” which he used for the party he led, Partai Nasionalis Indonesia (PNI). Boestamam adopted Marhaenism as the ideology for Partai Rakyat Malaya (PRM), which he founded on  November 11, 1955, and led because it expressed the objective of uplifting the poor.

The constitution of PRM also stated that it wanted genuine independence, free from all remnants of colonialism, be it in the economic, political or social spheres.

viii) Boestamam, Burhanuddin and Ishak (aka Pak Sako, left), and of course PKMM, subscribed to the idea of the nation of intent called “Melayu Raya” and not “greater Indonesia” as the good professor claimed. They wanted Malaya and Indonesia to obtain independence together to establish Melayu Raya.

In connection with this, Burhanuddin met Sukarno in Taiping in 1945. This nation of intent caught on fast and was popular among a large section of the Malays.

Besides committing several errors in such a short interview, Khoo also indulged in speculations and half-truths, not befitting a true scholar. He implied that Boestamam, and the parties he was associated with were linked to the communist movement. This is an old allegation. He asserted, “the communist movement followed European Marxist model whose emphasis was on the working class, the proletariat or Marhaen expressed by Ahmad Boestamam.”

It is scandalous and irresponsible to imply that Boestamam, PKMM or PRM (which adopted Marhaenism) were communists.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Regarding the communists being regarded as independence fighters, Khoo disparaged the notion with the contemptuous term “kepala otak”.He contended that the communists wanted to create a world government. What about US imperialism and British colonialism? An honest academic should be balanced in his outlook.

Should be balanced in outlook

Let us assume, with the existence and power of Comintern and Cominform at one time, the good professor’s contention was right. But has their history shown him that communist Russia, China, Vietnam and so forth proved, in practice, what he claims as their universal objective?

In my opinion, in China and Vietnam, for example, there were clear nationalist elements in their communist struggles. China fought strongly against Japanese aggression and domination. As for Vietnam, it fought relentlessly against French colonialism and US imperialism in order to establish their liberty and independence.

There was no doubt that the countries and people were driven by intense nationalism. But of course, they chose the ultimate goal of setting up their own communist states.

Maybe Khoo could prove they tried or wanted to create a world government.

In Malaya, the communists have been condemned from colonialism to independence now. Leftist leaders like Boestamam, Burhanuddin and Ishak have been demonized as communists or pro-communists.

Some of the leaders of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) were part of the independence struggle through such nationalist party as PKMM, before being driven to the jungle.

The non-communist leftist and the communists have been blamed for the killings and carnage after World War II. Were the Kuomintang and British colonialists innocent? There are many documents in the British Record Office which show the efforts of leftist and even communist leaders to pacify many an ethnic and other conflicts.

I am sure Khoo is well aware of this. Let us hope no academician will assume the role of mouthpiece to all the lies and distortions that the British colonialists started and are unfortunately being  perpetrated by the present Malaysian government.

---

SYED HUSIN ALI is a senator and the former PKR deputy president. A former Universiti Malaya professor of sociology, he led left-leaning Parti Rakyat Malaysia before merging with Parti Keadilan Nasional. He earned his Phd. from the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE) .

Advertisement