A Saner Look at Bukit Kepong: Mat Indera.

By: Hazidi Abdul Hamid

In my last blog, I wrote on the issue of the historical event at Bukit Kepong which has captured the ire and imagination of so many people in Malaysia of late. Resulting from a political speech by Mat Sabu, almost the entire nation has been dragged into the discourse: the kedai kopis are abuzz with discussion and even rage being vented over the attack on the Bulit Kepong Police Station. The most important outcome of the discussion is, in my opinion, a great historical confusion over our historical facts and narratives. I admit that I am ill equipped to discharge a definitive edict on the event but I am a voting citizen and as one I have a right to make up my own mind on the issue because it pertains to, ultimately, how I should vote in the coming General Election. While I can alnost hear the parants being sharpened, I can only say that you, my dear readers, need not agree with me. This is my examination. If you like the outcome, I invite you to adopt my conclusion. If not, then you too have a mind, so by all means come upo with your own justifications for your decision.

My research methodology lecturers once encouraged me to begin with the Cartesian method: at its simplest, it means to break down the issue or question into its components. The first component being the event itself.

What happened?

On a certain date around half a century ago, a police station in Bulit Kepong was attacked which resulted in the police station being burned to the ground and a number lives were lost. This is a fact accepted by all sides. Agreed?

Who were involve?

Those involved, centrally, were the policemen and their families and the attackers one of who was Mat Indera and the rest were members of the Communist party or guerillas (as some called them) – essentially they were armed individuals who were affiliated, in some way, to the Communnist party of Malaya. This is also a fact accepted by all sides. So, central to deciding on how to relate to the event therefore does not lie in the event itself, rather on the people involved.

On this matter, I have already elucidated on how I regard the policemen and their family members in the last blog. In short, I am compelled to honour them for being who they were and what they did. This leaves Mat Indera and the Communist affiliated group.

Who was Mat Indera?

According to the accounts that I have read in the media from both sides of the political divide and taking out their conflicting judgements on Mat Indera, I am left with the generally agreed notion that Mat Indera was,

1. A passionate young man.
2. Possibly a young man who wanted to see this land free of British influence / colonization – depending on the term you decide to use and which discourse you decide to follow.
3. A member of the communist band that attacked the Police Station.

As a young man, Mat Indera has been described affectionately by his relatives. This means that I have nothing to say about Mat Indera as a young man except that he was a member of a family that loved him. More importantly, because I did not know him, this line of inquiry is a dead end: I find no clue to help answer my question herre.

Secondly, he was a passionate young man who wanted to see his land free from British, to use the most politically neutral term possible, interference. More importantly, he took action on this desire. For this he needs to be applauded, metaphorically, because the objective that he was striving towards was to see an end to the imposition of a foreign will onto a land and people to which he belonged. This intent culminated in him, at the very least, contributing to the demise of a people whom, I have mentioned earlier, need to be honoured which is thus a complicated dilemma.

This however, is not a clean black and white situation: the enemy of my friend is not necessarily my enemy, a principle which we need to remember when we examine the evolution of our contact with Communism and Communists (individuals and nations) which I hope to write in my next piece.

Mat Indera's action evokes two questions: does the end justify his actions and does the end justify the way in which he took the actions. Put simpler, he chose to attack the Politce Station with an armed band of individuals who fought for the Communist cause and ideology. This forces me to examine, (a) the band of individuals and, (b) Communism in that specific temporal context.

From historical texts and records and from the stories / reports related to me by my relatives, friends of relatives and other acquaintances who were alive and conscious at the time, it is clear to me that the armed Communist bands were previously allies because they had their roots in the Malayan People Anti Japanese Army. After the surrender of the Japanese, those who supported the Communist cause persisted to fight because they wanted a Communist state and they were not willing to form a partnership. More importantly, for a period after the expulsion of the Japanese forces, these bands committed much atrocities which saw the killing and torture of many who either not cooperative or were accused of being in cohorts with the Japanese during the occupation. The, the reports say, “punished” without trial nor defence. They were reported to be responsible for the death and torture of Malayans of all ethnic groups but were particularly harsh on the Chinese. Thus, I find that their actions cannot be condoned and they cannot be regarded as freedom fighters, let alone heroes.

Thus there are two reasons why I cannot condone cooperating with these bands. On a human senses, they killed many of my fellow countrymen. They thus earn the justified label of being the enemy. Secondly, they fought for Communism in the current form at that time. This was the Communism that took its character from Maoism, the writings of Lenin (particularly The Communist Manifesto) and Marx's Das Kapital. In these writings, particularly Marx and Lenin, religion is rejected and villified. For this, I cannot condone any involvement with them.

I have heard some Pro-PR individuals say that the notion that the Communists were anti-religion is a myth and that people who follow religions are still numerous in former Communist states. These individuals have missed a few points. Visit these peoples, listen to them relating their histories, and their account of the events during and after the Communist rule. You will find that they and their religion were oppressed by the Communist state and the religion has survived because of the strength of the people's beliefs and their perseverence. They also relate how the religions of the land now strive without Communist rule or since the Communist states adopted a more open outlook. It seems that by bringing into the picture present contact we have with such countries like China, these supporters of the attackers are depending on the naivete of the audience by making them think that Communism is monolithic and has remained unchanged, thus if it is acceptable to be friends with them now, it must be acceptable to be friends with them back then: a false categorization serving a political agenda, nothing more. Simply read the Communist literature of the time and we will notice that the ideology changes from one writer to another, from time to time – this is however not the issue in question and is thus irrelevant to the issue in question. Surfices to say that the form of Communism at the time is unpalatable by my judgement.

What about Mat Indera then?

As a young man who wanted to see his country free from British control and influence, I applaud his passion. As a member of the band of Communist guerillas who attacked the Bukit Kepong station, I must reject regarding him as a freedom fighter. Therefore, I am compelled to reject taking him as a hero.