Book Review: Narratives From Piyamit: Life Stories At The End Of The Revolution

By Dr. Azly Rahman

(A review of a work on the former members of the Malayan Communist Party, adapted from my Afterword to the book)  

The formation of the Malayan Peoples’ Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) stemming from this training also gave the CPM a political legitimacy that they would not have been able to earn if they were merely a rebel army. The many recruits in the MPAJA were not all leftists. Many were ordinary men and women who saw the MPAJA as a resistance army fighting to liberate Malaya. Therefore, the feature of the CPM shifted from Marxism to nationalism during the 3 years and 8 months of the Japanese Occupation. – Jason Ng and Murray Hunter, Narratives from Piyamit: Life Stories at the End of the Revolution (Chapter 1) 

It is an honor to be contributing this afterword for this highly valuable work, Narratives from Piyamit: Life Stories at the End of the Revolution, which attempts to excavate the psycho-social history of the Communist Party of Malaya. The value lies in the themes of narrative methodology, analysis, findings, and the phenomenological and anthropological framework the book rests on. It is a story of Malayan Communist idealists who took up arms for the Maoist-Leninist Marxist cause, lost the war, but won peace by realizing their own “commune” in their twilight years. A spiritual and anthropological end to a journey is well-documented in this fascinating brief study. Below are my views on the value of this important study. 

When I first read the manuscript, especially the rationale and purpose of the study and eventually, the interview transcripts, I thought that it was a good and fresh way of enlightening the topic and that the methodology is useful for students to explore narrative analysis techniques. I have written this Afterword with notes from the text for emphasis. The work is an excellent contribution to the field, not so much about it being about that historical period in Malaysian history, but on what it means to learn from the aftermath of the ideological struggle.  

Next, I thought about how today’s generation can learn from the complexities of the different struggles, both armed struggles and cognitive struggles, which happen concurrently as nation-states fight for freedom. Lastly, I questioned who has control over freedom. Narratives from Piyamit demonstrate how Marxist-Leninist ideology translates into “praxis”, i.e., warfare in an interesting transcultural flow of the movement of ideas. It alludes to how Marx’s writings (though not written in blood) were revolutionary enough to cause bloodshed across time and space in the post-Communist Manifesto era. Today’s Malaysia is saved and spared from that bloodshed en masse but the struggle for control continues: the Nationalists, the Socialists, the Liberals, and the Islamists fight against each other whilst the Global Capitalist and New Mandarins and Imperialists continue to control, selling their “opiate” in this new ‘Opium War’ we are seeing.  

Those were my thoughts as I began to read the manuscript even at the initial stages of its preparation, and when I ploughed through the interview transcripts—patiently and elegantly prepared by the scholars Murray Hunter and Jason Ng, I was certain that their contribution, when published would shine a new light for today’s scholars and students to still see the perennial value of the concept of dialectical and historical materialism central to Marxist thought; a theory which eventually contributed to this phase of the march of history. During this time, the socialists were called to a revolution, the eradication of the bourgeois state, and the establishment of the ideal Communist state as Marx and Engles envisioned.  

Indeed, Narratives from Piyamit: Life Stories at the End of the Revolution provides a valuable perspective on a pattern of history, its causes, and contextualization. In addition to the presentation of the narratives of the former members of the Communist Party of Malaya, I was also attracted to the anthropological slant of the findings: the story of artefacts and what the community still cherishes in remembrance of their struggle. Evident amongst these are preserved communist artefacts and mementoes of the struggle. In the five villages of Piyamit, the inhabitants have indeed developed a spiritual community, all sharing a powerful story of the struggle for a truth they held dear in their younger days, and the end, it is the cultural-ethnic-spiritual realm that they are coming back to claim or reclaim. It is a story of human spiritual evolution. I also thought of the idea that today’s younger generation, growing up post-New Economic Policy, did not get the chance to go through this period and learn the true meaning of grit, struggle, and hardship.  

The authors have taken a phenomenological-anthropological approach, combining the philosophy of lived experience with the study of a particular society in a specific time period, using in-depthinter viewing as an instrument, triangulated with the focus group, and drawing of the semiotics of the surroundings. These are captured as ‘bounded data’ with a backdrop of the historical march of ideas, in astoryline of history hitherto, as class struggle, the way Marx and Engels would put it. This approach gives the research a fresh perspective and ought to be replicated in other themes of analysis in this tradition and body of literature of Malaysian post-colonial history. It is heartening to read that these people’s stories have closure, in that they lived and survived through the experience, to tell their stories. 

Theirs is a beautiful one with a community of cadres at the villages of Piyamit, living a spiritually reflective and even enriched life, as I sensed reading the cultural aspect of the analysis. The former soldiers are now content and do not look back in anger, or regret, though they “lost” the war. They lost a long, physically demanding battle but won a spiritual war, as a collective. In other words, many knew what they were fighting for and had their mind set on determining the meaningfulness of their struggle and are now able to articulate the experience in a philosophically profound way, with the least amount of regret. They lived through the experience and now wish to educate the world on what their brand of Malaysian nationalism means. They are a mirror of our existence as a nation. How then, must students and scholars today peruse these important research findings of a historical period of mega proportions, such as the struggle of the Communist insurgents to take over Malaya? One can continue to engage in endless debates on what is right and what is wrong in the phenomena, or on the shape of Malaysian society, had the so-called Beijing-backed armed insurgents won, or even the idea of whether it would have developed as magnificently as today’s China, or in the spirit of “egalitarian-secular-socialist-Confucianist” Singapore had Communist rule in Malaya become the reality and bear fruits of the revolution? These are interesting debates to entertain. However, my emphasis in this afterword is the pedagogical and phenomenological value of this book. 

On method and its value 

“To provide diversified perspectives on the interviews, a focus group consisting of three Mandarin-speaking working adults (two women and one man; between mid-30s to mid-40s) was conducted. The group’s reflections on the interviews conducted at Piyamit suggested that the interviewees had grievances about the social and political climate of 1970s Malaysia, yet suspected that the interviewees’ struggles were neither socially altruistic, nor was it egalitarian. Within some of the interview transcripts, the group saw a mix of private thoughts and feelings, rather than localised traumas, as primary drivers towards the cadres’ motivations.”  – Jason Ng and Murray Hunter (Chapter 19) 

The quote above by the scholars Jason Ng and Murray Hunter, in providing the rationale of this fascinating study sums up the value of it as an educational research guide and motivation for others to do ethnography employing the methodology of the phenomenological interview, central in many a study on human subjects to capture the essence of cognitive contents as respondents/subjects narrate their lived experience. Fields such as Nursing and Medical Sciences, Education, Sociology and Anthropology, Management, Modern History, Law, and Criminal Justice are among those that benefit from the findings from Narrative Analysis as an element of data triangulation. 

Themes drawn from the interview and elegantly discovered, captured to varying degrees the semiotics, psychological, and philosophical aspects of the study: ideology vs. a sense of purpose, idealism vs reality, grief vs satisfaction, joy vs frustration, and group vs individual. These are significant findings that summarize the elements of the experience of the former Malayan freedom fighters, as some historians may have called them. Readers can refer to the transcripts to explore the details of these experiences to get a more enriched insight into “what it means” to be part of this movement, a central question of phenomenological inquiry. These are also fascinating stories as a stand-alone memoir of each respondent. A memorable quote from this study which sums up the general/collective sense of purpose for the Communist insurgents read: 

“… The focus group found that the transcripts revealed uncanny similarities when interviewees were expressing their hopes and desires. Most had arrived at Betong to seek redress of their perceived racial inequality post-May 13. Nonetheless, all still sought equality and for all races to be treated fairly in Malaysia, even today. Despite having diverse origins, backgrounds, and convictions, the interviewees shared a common culture today that was tempered by time and their shared experiences in the jungles of Betong …” – Jason Ng and Murray Hunter (Chapter 19) 

Besides the themes drawn which diverge in multiple directions, adding to the spectrum of experiences among the respondents, this study’s value lies in the description of the semiotics of the village. Culture, as we know it, is a variegated system of meaning with its philosophical, psychological, and philosophical components. Cultural artefacts produced are manifestations of the expression of such meaningfulness of a group’s identity and core values. Material culture is an essential field of the study of culture and identity. I am glad to read the section on how the Piyamit community had installed elements of semiotics in remembrance of their struggle in the army. As the authors put it to best summarize the semiotic aspect of the villagers: 

“At Piyamit, the symbols of the community include the tunnel, the museum, and the statues of cadres holding arms. These symbolise legacy. The statues of Buddhist and Chinese deities symbolises a sense of spirituality and ethnic identity. The shops, café, restaurants, durian trees, and meeting rooms symbolise commerce, a sense of purpose, and collectivism. The main arch at the entry to the complex can be seen as a symbol of pride. These artefacts and symbols are also representative of the traditions of patriarchism, filial piety, army name preservation, and precision time-keeping; all to fulfil a cause greater than themselves individually.”  – Jason Ng and Murray Hunter (Chapter 19) 

To recapitulate the discussion on salient themes and semiotics of this Narrative Analysis-driven study of the former members of the Communist Party of Malaya, it suffices to say that the researchers have opened up avenues for future researchers to explore similar themes in “looking back at difficult periods in history,” and to let reflections of participants’ experiences become yet another set of data to be used to craft yet another set of understanding, and yet another way of discerning truth, in all its manifestations and multi-dimensionalities. Indeed, there is a danger in one believing in “one single story”, especially in the study of History. 

Beyond methodology and data 

What then must we be exploring after reading this excellent scholarly work that uncovers a story dear to our hearts, of the Communist Insurgency, as we enter another epoch of advanced industrialization: the Age of Al (Artificial Intelligence) or Smart Machines, as many call it? What must we be learning about ideologies of the past that will continue to mutate, in the “butterfly effect of things” or from the perspective of Complexity or Chaos Theory? Herein lies my suggestion as a student of philosophy and the history of ideas; after almost 70 years of independence, we still cannot tell the difference between communism, Marxism, socialism, or anarchism, hence endangering and debasing the intellectual lives of our children, especially in the higher educational institutions.  

We are well versed in the foundations of crypto-corporate cybernetic-crony capitalism of the inner workings of the capital market, and how to get cheap labour and squeeze profits out of modern-day indentured serfs from countries impoverished by the policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We are good at talking about “global economics” and the “glocalization” of Wall Street and Silicon Valley industries, the so-called 4.0 industries, and now Artificial Intelligence, and Augmented Realities. What is profitable in the global market, we import into our local economies, and what we see profitable in our country, we force our farmers and laborers to produce for the global economies. We then complain about the evils of globalization without realizing that the big capitalists among us are the new globalists of our labor.  

At a time when we are exploring the possibilities of becoming a “flying-car nation” (whatever that means), venturing into the hype-laden applications of AI in society, and embarking upon high-impact, high-speed, high-touch national projects, we still have not explored the meaning of ideas we “fear”. We still equate communism only with armed struggle and brutality, just like some Western media conglomerates tend to equate Islam with terrorism, and many other concept/word associations that are not accurate and dangerously misleading. We need to explore and dive into its philosophical worldview and what its vision of a just society looks like. We need to explore the story behind the armed struggle to understand the ideology behind the movement. This study on the former members of the Communist Party of Malaya provides much needed memoirist data on what gave the spiritual strength of some Malayans who had their understanding and later principle-to-die-for justice and equality. We might denounce the atrocities of the communist insurgents/Malayan co-freedom fighters. However, we must also recognize the intellectual value and power of the Marxist critiques of society as a legitimate, systematic, liberating, humanizing, and practical (from Aristotelian ‘praxis’ or the translation of theory to practice) body of knowledge that has evolved into an organic discipline itself. This should be a valuable intellectual exercise for the younger generation of Malaysians, one I fear will be lost in the madness of the “information rich, easily manipulable” realities of this age of AI, where well-crafted fake information abounds.  

One must engage in a systematic study of Marxism to be well-equipped with the understanding of what “national development” means. Without this knowledge, we will forever colonize ourselves by

importing more members of the international advisory panel of any national project we blindly embark upon. 

Conclusion 

This study is a significant work of phenomenological-anthropological inquiry on a community of peace at Piyamit, Thailand whose members were once at war with British-controlled Malaya. Narrative analysis and the general analysis of the semiotics of the armed struggles of the Communist Party of Malaya were used to present the theme of the finding, culminating in an elegant picture of political struggle to the philosophical reflection of the members of this group that wanted to change society, forthe better. Jason Ng and Murray Hunter’s use of a mixed method of analysis in telling the story should be used by students and scholars of History. 

Originally published in Eurasia Review 13th October 2024

Subscribe Below: