Talk:Malayan Emergency

Untitled

relevenc to kashmir insurgency

fixed a minor spelling/grammatical error (begun became began), otherwise, excellent article with clear implications for today.-- spm

Second Malaysian Emergency

Should it be noted here, or a new article started? – Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk)

There's a second emergency? Or is that referring to the spate of communist uprisings after the fall of South Vietnam?

There is a second insurgency, circa 1969 - 1980. Compared to the first insurgency, the second is harsher. Though the areas affected is much lesser compared to the first emergency. The Government of Malaysia also had to contend with a number of different rebel groups, altogether 4 including the PKKU in East Malaysia. The four includes two splinter groups from the original MCP. I don't have much details on the whole insurgency, however.

Where is the info on this second Emergency? I'm assuming PKKU is Parti Komunis Kalimantan Utara, but there's scant info on the internets on them. Here's a white paper on the conflict[1] —Han ^talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

SEATO

The article says "Australia was willing to send troops to help a SEATO ally" but according to SEATO Malaya/Malaysia was never a member. Could this be referring to the fact that the UK was also a SEATO member? Wouldn't there be a more relevant treaty between the Aussies and Brits then, seeing as SEATO was never a major factor in Southeast Asian geopolitics? Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally fixed this - ten years later! Snori (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge Briggs Plan into this article

A Google search on "Briggs Plan" only gets 569 hits. The separate article adds little further information. And, by the way, there's also another article on Harold Briggs for his own notability. --Mereda 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. Malayan Emergency deals with macro level of the conflict while Briggs Plan takes on the micro. On Google, in Malay, it's "rancangan briggs" [2] and that offer another 1000+ result. Briggs is an historical important move by the Brit in Malaya. If the number of Google result is the basis of merge, than Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket (which has around 1000 results) should be merged with Eastern Front (World War II). Problem with Google that it doesn't have much mention about obscure subject. It might be a systemic bias given that the plan has more mention in one language but not English. Pardon my grammar, I'm having a minor headache. __earth ^(Talk) 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Accuracy. The current article is weak, however suitable the Briggs Plan might be as good micro subject in principle. There are very few points in it that aren't in the Malayan Emergency article; and, where there are, it's partly inaccurate. It says, wrongly, that the Briggs Plan was (just) a resettlement plan. A more accurate description would mention its strategy and other specific elements, like the joint civil-military-police work [3][4]. So, even as a stub, the article needs a bit of remedial work if it isn't to be merged. --Mereda 10:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• For the same reasons as __earth, I think merging wouldn't be a good idea. The Briggs Plan is very much a seperate concept from the Emergency. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this article not being merged, as the user above states, they are very much seperate. -- Imperator Honorius 14:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this article not being merged. Briggs Plan is basically a military & political long term strategy and wills, with no expectation of speedy and decisive results. The success of this Plan against guerilla warfare is unparallel since, although it has been emulated in various forms in other countries. The Briggs Plan show an effective and credible mission analysis at it best, as one cannot prevail over what one does not understand. The discussion on the planning, tactic, implementation, and success need to be laid out in clear and detail if one want to know what make it so successful in Malaysia, but not in others countries. Yosri 10:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Merge. The Briggs plan is a big enough subject to warrant its own article, and I thinl we should leave the article to grow, even if it is not presently extremely good. Chroma liberator

• Strongly disagree. A page having few views should not be grounds for removing it. This is an encyclopedia, not a youtube channel. --BulgeUwU (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Communist support & reason for the war to break

I don't quite agree on the matter on why the war broke. The reason given in the wiki said that the minority Chinese felt oppressed. The better way to state it out should be non-Malayan Chinese. Malayan Chinese (or second or third generation Chinese) are closer to the British government and were not much involved with the communist. In fact, a large portion of urban Chinese are against the communists and they supported the war against the CTs by joining the local Home Guards and police forces. This was less highlighted as the British had wanted to pull all the Malay support, which in a way is counterproductive in the long term.

The Emergency was actually a result of an attempted take-over of Malaya by Communist China. An attempt at invasion by infiltration.

Malaya at the time was a British colony (although moving towards independence) and the majority of ethnic Malays had no problem with the British rule however in the preceding years up to World War II large numbers of both Indian and Chinese had settled in Malaya, either to set up small businesses, or to gain employment in the work that was available, and it was some of these latter ones who had moved there for the work who supported the attempted take-over. So the ones who supported the Chinese side were not in fact Malays at all, but were immigrants, and were not even Malayan citizens or British subjects. Thus it was not even their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

A nice, long, detailed article. It has an infobox, a good number (and good organization) of sections, and a beautiful navbox at the bottom. I think it could be beneficial to merge this with Briggs Plan, and in any case, I don't think that an article merits higher than B-class if it still has these sorts of tags at the top. But the infobox is nicely detailed as well, and as near as I can tell, the vast majority of the core information essential to the subject is included here. LordAmeth 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

article name

Malayan Emergency is British-sided and POV. Name should be changed in accordance to guidelines. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the official name. __earth ^(Talk) 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

given by who? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

historians? I've had the luxury of experiencing Malaysian and American education system. In both systems, the event is known as Malayan Emergency. It's already an established name. Try encyclopedia britannica. Or any other major encyclopedia. Further, search on Google produces significant number of result [5]. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." . So, this page name is already in line with Wikipedian guideline. Else, the name Glorious Revolution needs to be changed too because it's biased. But we're not in the art of rewriting history. We're only recording it. __earth ^(Talk) 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally. Whilst I am British-educated, I've never heard it called anything but the 'Malayan/Malay emergency.' I also fail to see how this is 'British-sided' - whilst 'emergency' is a somewhat silly term for a 12 year war, it happened in Malaya and was an emergency. Doubtless Maoist history books would call it 'The Great Patriotic Struggle of the Oppressed Malay Proletariat against the Filthy Imperialist Dogs,' or some such, but that's clearly ludicrous. Psidogretro 11:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There were two sides in the war. One side called it the "Emergency". The other side called it something else. I've seen the term used by the MCP; I don't remember it exactly, but its something like "Malayan Liberation War". To uncritically use one side's term is to give the article a non-neutral point of view. The British designation is undoubtedly confusing, and misleading -- perhaps intentionally so. The MCP designation is probably somewhat slanted also, but, I would say, considerably less so than the British one. A state of "Emergency" is usually connected with something like bad weather , a flood, . . . . This one lasted 12 years. Two large armies, well armed, centrally organised, were going at each other. That is a war, not an emergency. "Glorious Revolution" has been established alot longer than "Malayan Emergency". Perhaps it has seniority rights that can be reasonably withheld from "Malayan Emergency". Also, "Glorious Revolution" is obviously biased. Bias is bad, but the obviousness makes it less harmful. "Malayan Emergency" is biased, but more sneakily so; someone with no prior knowledge can not tell that this is a partisan term when they encounter it. It also confuses the distinction between the legal measure, the state of emergency, and the conflict. I think there is a good case to be made for changing the article name. Chroma liberator

The UK title for the war was because of insurance purposes - it had been deemed that the costs of insurance for a "Malayan War" were too prohibitive, so war was never admitted. But this is the name of the war as given by one of the participants - the victor - and the MCP were certainly not noted for unbiased POV. docboat 08:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And what would you propose for what is euphemistically called The Troubles? The length of usage doesn't hold here, but the popular usage does. Jooler 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Malayan Spot of Bother? docboat 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). We are not in the business of rewriting history. __earth ^(Talk) 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Every time one edits a history article on Wikipedia, one is rewriting history (which after all, was written by the victors to suit themselves to begin with!). I suggest Malayan War as a reasonable compromise.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll move the page. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The conflict was named the 'Malayan Emergency' because due to the acts of the infiltrators the legal government declared a formal 'State of Emergency' which gave them certain legal powers over-and-above those that they had during normal governance.

Thus as there was no declared war, nor even a recognised sovereign state to fight against, the term 'emergency' was used thereafter as legally-speaking it wasn't a 'war'.

BTW, at the time (1982) while it was ongoing the Falklands War was referred-to by the UK as the 'Falklands Conflict' for just this reason, there being no declaration of war.

For a legal government, i.e., one that follows its own country's laws, the terms 'state of emergency', 'conflict', 'war', etc., have certain and different precise legal meanings, with certain prescribed responses enshrined (and allowable) in law, thus it is important for them to define the situation accurately.

So the term 'Malayan Emergency' is used because that is simply what it was, and Malaya was never in a State of War at the time as there was no sovereign state with-which to be legally at-war with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.98 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

" ... The rubber plantations and tin-mining industries had pushed for the use of the term "emergency" since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a "war".[9] " - not even close. Lloyd's would have paid out on policies no matter whether it was a declared state of war or not as the acts by the CT's were classed as criminal acts and therefore came under normal 'crime' categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This should be in the cold war reference section

This was a war won by the Brits against the communists and was another victory in the cold war should at least be noted in the article. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Strangely it's never been treated as part of the cold war ( although obviously it's linked ) : perhaps because neither US, USSR or China were involved, and Brits tend to treat it as 'post colonial tidy up'. 145.253.108.22 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This was never part of the cold war. The reasons for the war were entirely a matter of local politics and the struggle of communists for control of the country, not as part of a larger war against capitalism. In fact, it was a terrorist organisation trying to usurp power against the wishes of the majority of the population using murder and intimidation as tools. Much as you see in Nepal now, or Jolo or any one of a number of places in the world today. Not cold war - merely terrorism in the place of politics. docboat 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Cold War reference still resides in the infobox. Have we come to some kind of consensus that the Malayan Emergency is unrelated to the Cold War effort? —Han ^talk) 05:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is part of cold war. It is obvious, British are fighting the communist party to protect their own interest. Even Malayan gain independent, the insurgent can be stopped by given voting rights to communist party, but the independent country refuse, and let the fight continue. The political move to remove the communists than embrace it are obvious cold war product.

--Tan S.L. (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the 'Communist Terrorists' were in fact Chinese nationals who had no business being in Malaya, but were actually trying to take the country over, hence the effort to expel them. The number of ethnic Malays, i.e., the people who actually lived there, and whose country it was, supporting them was very small, which is why they lost, as they lacked popular support.

And when earlier the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941 the vast majority of Malays didn't support them against the British either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.249 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia today reference

I added a failed verification template to the Malaysia Today reference under Legacy. This way, if someone can find a better source the sentence can be left as is, or merely edited. —Han ^talk) 07:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The anti-communists referred to the MNLA as "communist terrorists", which was often abbreviated to "terrs", "Charlie Tango" or "CTs".

The anti-communists referred to the MNLA as "communist terrorists", which was often abbreviated to "terrs", "Charlie Tango" or "CTs".

I removed this sentence at the tail end of Origins because it didn't have a source and it isn't relevant to how the Malayan Emergency began. Perhaps in a later section that describes exactly who were anti-communist at the time (this sentence was the only reference to anti-communists in the entire article) and the tension between anti-communists and MNLA. —Han ^talk) 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We do not refer to the communist forces as "Communist Terrorists" or "CTs" on wikipedia for the same reason we do not refer to the Germans as "Huns" and "Jerrys" on the WWII page. This is an encyclopedia and the language has to be kept distant and unbiased. These were terms used by people in this time period to describe the people they were fighting against, they aren't acceptable terms to use when writing histories about these conflicts. BulgeUwU (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing organisations

Any dispute to removing all reference to left-wing organisations, leftist parties and so forth? The only other organisation mentioned is Min Yuen, of which very little is known. I suggest until there's more notable and verifiable information about left-wing orgs, we leave all references to them out of the article. —ReSearch ReSource (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense but I suggest you go to the library to know more about Min Yuen. It was a active participant in the conflict. __earth ^(Talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi earth, I left the original message. I'm saying we can add more information when it is available or when I have time to get to the library. If the only thing we know about the organisation is that it equipped the MCP, it is more likely to confuse rather than clarify the topic. —Han ^talk) 11:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New leader paragraph

The Malayan Emergency refers to a guerrilla war for independence fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA) from 1948 to 1960; some have gone as far as to characterise it as a civil war. Despite the communists' defeat in 1960, MCP leader Chin Peng would renew the insurgency in 1967, which would last till 1989, and become known as the Communist Insurgency War.

Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it Anti-British National Liberation War. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term "emergency" since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyds insurers if it had been termed a "war".

The resulting state of emergency is still in effect as of October 2008.

In an effort to make the lead more compelling (MOSBETTER#Provide_context_for_the_reader), I've rewritten it as above. Please let me know what you think. I try to address the name of the Emergency as well as its long-reaching effects. I edited for clarity too or eliminated what I felt would confuse a new reader on the subject. The original lead makes no mention to the causes of the war and so, I've added it. —Han ^talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I should probably add that I worked the first paragraph of the Guerrilla War section into this new lead. I felt information was repeated. —Han ^talk) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Chinese terrorists

It should be clearly stated that the Malayan Emergency was fought between on one side the British-Malay (with some Australians) and against the CHINESE terrorists as they were called at that time. These Chinese were backed up by China and they main communication language was Chinese. It needs to be clearly stated as one of the goals of those terrorists was to take over Malaya and impose chinese rule. George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.26.213 (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the CT's were not solely Chinese Malayans but included Malay & Indian Malayans also.

<blockquote="'The Malayan Emergency & Indonesian Confrontation: The Commonwealth's Wars 1948-1966'By Robert Jackson"> The smallest MRLA formation at this time was No 10 Regiment with 300 men, and this suffered paticularly severely. Formed in Pahang from left-wing Malays and a sprinkling of Indians, it had been decimated by September 1949 and was later reformed as a predominantly Chinese unit.

Also as well as British, Australian and Malayans (all varieties) the security forces also included New Zelanders (The New Zeland Squadron of the Special Air Service and The New Zeland Regiment and various RNZAF squadrons) and also unless you count these as lumpt in with the term British then they also included Nepalese (British Army Gurkha's) various African races (The King's African Riflest) and Rhodesians (The Rhodesia Squadron of the Special Air Service and The Northern Rhodesia Regiment) and Fijan's (The Fiji Infantry Regiment). Same source as the quote I've given as it includes an list of battalions and squadrons that were involved at some point or other.

I also seem to remember reading in the book that China pulled thier supports for the CT's at some point but I cannot find the exact spot in the book at the moment. But can find an part where it says they were not impressed with them;

<blockquote="Same Source"> In October 1951, Chin Peng, the Secretary-General of the MCP, presided over a meetiing of the Politburo to work out future policy. The meeting was attended by an unspecified number of officers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army who had infiltrated into Malaya, possbile by sea from Hainan Island. They brought with them thier own experiences of discipline, training and, more importantly, tactics and strategy. By all accounts they were not impressed by the MCP and did not stay long in Malaya.

(Po (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Strongly Disagree Do not use terms such as "Chinese Terrorist" or "CTs" on the Malayan Emergency wikipedia page. These were pejoratives used by people who took part in the war to demonise their enemies, it is not suitable language to be using in an encyclopaedia. You would not call the Germans "Jerrys" on the WWI page and you would not call the Japanese "Japs" or "Tojos" on the WWII page. It is unacceptable to use pejorative terminology such as this in a wikipedia page. --BulgeUwU (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

350 million tonnes of leaflets

No way is this figure correct. If a standard letter weighs 10g that would be 35 trillion leaflets in 12 years, or 3 trillion a year, enough for 1000 each year (3 a day) for every person on the planet then living. Only 7 million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam. 122.167.96.217 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like an obvious mistake and should have said 350 million leaflets and not 350 "tons". BulgeUwU (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Malayan emergency doesn't have an ending date!

After reading some article, it seems that Malaysia, as a "modern" country, neglect to declare the end of emergency. There is no official declaration of ending date from Malaysia Parliament. Thus, this allow Malaysia government continue to abusive law such as Internal Security Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.164.209 (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons with Vietnam

There is another differnce between Vietnam and Malaya. The British dealt with an internal problem on their own turf. There was no need to control any "allies", they fought with there own administration.--109.91.74.243 (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

War crimes allegations

As it stands, the short paragraph on the claims of war crimes committed by British troops reads as overly dismissive of the claims. The linked Batang Kali massacre page suggests that there were/are serious questions to be answered, but that the passage of time, along with the election of a Tory government at a crucial time in the investigation, ensured that no charges were ever bought. The text in this paragraph should be amended to better reflect the seriousness of these claims, and their unresolved nature, rather than give the last word to the British Government. --Carl weathers bicep (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whereas the MNLA started it all by just going in and murdering a bunch of defenceless white planters and their families.

There are a mass of entirely unsupported allegations on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.76.253 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

It has been suggested (on the Communist terrorism talk page) that the Malayan emergency be represented as a manifestation of "Communist terrorism", and the insurgents be labeled exclusively as terrorists. In my opinion, it would be useful if the users working on this article, who seem to be much more knowledgeable than I do, expressed their opinion on this account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not refer to the communist forces as "Communist Terrorists" or "CTs" on this wikipedia page for the same reason we do not refer to the Germans as "Huns" and "Jerrys" on the WWII page. This is an encyclopedia and the language has to be kept distant and unbiased. These were terms used by people in this time period to describe the people they were fighting against, they aren't acceptable terms to use when writing histories about these conflicts. BulgeUwU (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Batang Kali

On 5 Septemner 2102 campaigners calling for an official investigation into the alleged massacre, at Batang Kali, of 24 Malaysian rubber plantation workers by British troops more than 60 years ago lost a High Court fight. "Relatives described the alleged killings as a "a blot on British colonisation and decolonisation" and said there was enough evidence to justify an independent inquiry. They asked judges to overturn the Government's refusal to hold a formal investigation." [6]. Shouldn't this be added? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Batang Kali massacre was mentioned under the Legacy section. STSC (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What does "Malayan" mean?

Does it mean people living in Malaysia, or does it mean ethnic Malays? Given that to a significant extent the Emergency was a racial war of Chinese vs ethnic Malays, the distinction is important. I would suggest that the word never be used, and instead either "ethnic Malays" or "general population" be used. Tuntable (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A racial war? You better be able to prove this before amending the article. - Bob K | Talk 02:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It refers to the name of the country, the Federation of Malaya, where the war was fought. And the fact that different ethnic groups aligned on different sides in the war does not mean it was a racial conflict. TFD (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It is similar to the difference between the UK, Britain, England and English.

Malay = An ethnic group which make up half the population of the Malay Peninsula.

Malay Peninsula = The geographic area south of Thailand where the "Malayan Emergency" took place.

Malaysia = The government which exists today and was founded in 1963, when former British colonies on the Malay Peninsula and the neighbouring island of Borneo came together to form one new government.

I hope this helps :) BulgeUwU (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits in Comparisons with Vietnam section

I've removed or edited some problematic recent edits to this section but I think we need further discussion. There's already a tag re. possible original research, so let's not make it worse. It's all very well for an editor to cite material on British tactics in Malaya that appear similar to those used by the US in Vietnam, but unless the source used explicitly makes a comparison between the two conflicts, it looks like cherry-picking references to support an editor's opinion. I've also noted in the summary of my recent edit straight cutting and pasting from sources, references that don't in fact support statements in the article, missing citations, and emotive/opinionated language. I might add that creating subsections of "Differences" and "Similarities" seems a bit unencyclopedic to me and prone to listcruft, but let's see what others think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

While this comparison was often made in the older literature on the Vietnam War (often with smarmy British authors and the occasional Australian using the victory in Malaya as a stick to beat the US with), I don't think that it's taken seriously by historians or military theorists any more: it's generally recognised that the two wars were wildly different, and that the US forces in Vietnam actually did attempt to employ the tactics which had worked in Malaya, without much success. The notion that the Australian Task Force was more effective than US units due to it using Malaya-style tactics was also largely disproven in the Australian official history. I'd suggest chopping this or at least trimming it to a paragraph as it's basically outdated historiography. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll support substantial trimming of this section. It is unnecessarily long and verbose, and includes too much information irrelevant to the main topic of the article. (As an example, the sentence "Many tactics employed by the British in Malaya were similar to the ones the US used during the Vietnam War." should be the other way around; the American tactics in the later Vietnam War were similar to those used in the earlier Malayan conflict. Specific informaton on the use of defoliants and the incidents at Tanjong Malim and Batang Kali should be moved into the main body of the article. Vague generalisations on the nature of jungle patrols should be removed entirely. HLGallon (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The comparisons are usually made because both the Malayan Emergency and the Vietnam War were both primarily jungle wars fought against insurgents coming in from outside of the country's borders.

As for differences, I agree, they are not comparable, one was successful, fought by mostly conscripts using hard-learned lessons gained in the jungle campaigns in Burma and India, the other, also fought by conscripts, was not. The first is often used as a model in military colleges for how to successfully fight such a war. The second is not.

The other important difference was that the former had the support of most of the local 'native' population who had also supported the legal government against the Japanese occupation ten years earlier. The latter did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.180 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Unclear result

The infobox says the result was "unclear". How is that the case? Why is the qualifier there? StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

this report is not accurate

what brought the emergency to an end was OPERATION SINGAPORE I served in Malaya in the SOUTH WALES BORDERERS 1955 1958 WE HAD CONSIDEABLE effect did not lose a man & general Templer was the one responsible for operation SINGAPORE G.M.Davies2602:304:CDEE:6EF0:FC97:9F3D:FEB7:98E7 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, if you would like to see something changed, please be more specific. For instance, which sentences specifically need to be changed and what would you like them to say? Equally, please provide references for your assertion. These should be from books (including page numbers), journal articles, websites and or (to a lesser extent) newspapers. Personal experience is not, however, acceptable per site policies against original research. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malayan Emergency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111215084009/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_905_2004-12-23.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_905_2004-12-23.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Malayan Emergency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226023950/http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/2002_Symposium/2002Papers_files/peoples.htm to http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/2002_Symposium/2002Papers_files/peoples.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604031429/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F12%2F16%2Fnation%2F16341437&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F12%2F16%2Fnation%2F16341437&sec=nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928083748/http://fesrassociation.com/archives/toc.htm to http://fesrassociation.com/archives/toc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712043107/http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/malaya/malayamain.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/malaya/malayamain.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060620092600/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/malaya/index.html to http://britains-smallwars.com/malaya/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malayan Emergency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gwnmining.com/tinmining.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911061212/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/historic/hist_c3_pt1.pdf to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/historic/hist_c3_pt1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Running Dogs

I was stationed in Singapore shortly after the Malayan Emergency. The description used by the communists to describe those Malays sympathetic to the British was "Running Dogs". The whole emergency was known locally as "The war of the Running Dogs"AT Kunene 123 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Running Dogs" was a standard Chinese insult much used at the time, and is rather illustrative of the fact that most of the people attempting to take-over Malaya were in fact Chinese.

... although presumably these were not the same sort of Chinese who regularly tried to illegally cross the border in to Hong Kong from mainland China either on foot or by boat, thus, in the absence of any form of democracy in China, voting as it were, 'with their feet', a process that was to be repeated several decades later by first, the Vietnamese, then by the Cambodians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"Voting with your feet" was an expression coined by Lenin. Hence anyone who uses the term is obviously a Marxist-Leninist.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, never having read anything by Lenin, whereas you, it would appear, are familiar enough with his works to recognise an alleged quote.

British victory?

Considering it resulted in the independence of Malaya, it's hard to see it as a British/Commonwealth victory as described currently. Obviously, with the exile of the communist leader, it's not necessarily their victory either. Munci (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Did the Emergency result in the independence of Malaya? I don't think so. Political power went to the Malay community (led by Tunku Abdul Rahman), while the Communist Party drew most of its support from the Chinese community. The Emergency was declared by the British in response to an incident. The CP was banned. The CP responded by launching a revolt. By Chin Peng's own account, this was a failure. They captured no territory, only killed Gurney by a fluke, and failed to achieve mass support. This was not primarily an independence struggle, and continued after independence had been granted. With regard to the "exile" of Chin Peng, I think this is a triviality and a distortion, and shouldn't be in the infobox, so I will remove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, i would therefore be a failure for the Communist Party, but not necessarily a victory for the British either. Munci (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Because Malaysia became independent. Munci (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The British fought to defeat the communist forces and they succeeded. The MNLA fought to establish socialism and they failed. Therefore the British forces won the war because they were the ones to achieve their reasons for fighting. Yes the war may have acted as a catalyst for Malayan independence, but independence was inconsequential to the British so long as their economic interests in the country were preserved. BulgeUwU (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A 1967 British Army documentary presented by Brian Horrocks on the Malayan Emergency, Parts 1 & 2 here: [7], Parts 3 & 4 here: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.25 (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem - broken citations in the "supported by" section.

I was not aware of any proof that any foreign country ever supported the MNLA during the Malayan Emergency, so I checked all of the citations for evidence.

All three of the citations claiming China supported the MNLA during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) actually reference the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation (1963-1966).

Two of the three citations for North Vietnam cite entire books and have not included the page numbers, making these citaitons useless. The third citation actually says the opposite and claims that North Vietnam and MNLA relations never developed past friendly talks.

Of the two Soviet Union citations, one does not have a page number and the other sends the user to the index of a book, neither of which contain any evidence the Soviet Union funded or trained the MNLA.

Because of these problems I have removed all these countries from the "supported by" section of the infobox. I also believe that both sides should include the support by various Orang Asli villages and the Commonwealth forces section should mention their deployment of Dyak headhunters from Borneo.

Because this is a big change I want to hear what the other users have to say about this.

BulgeUwU (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove Noel Barber's "The War of the Running Dogs" from the Further Reading section

I recently read the first few chapters of Noel Barber's book "The War of the Running Dogs" and it quickly became apparent that this novel is not a reliable source of information on the Malayan Emergency. There are almost zero citations in the book, the author writes about events he never witnessed as though he was there and writes as if he knew the exact thoughts of people he never met. Many pages contain multiple quotations by figures in the history of the Malayan Emergency yet there are no citations for these quotes and I have failed to find the sources, almost as if the author filled in the blanks with his imagination. Worst of all the first chapter attempts to paint the period between WWII and the Emergency (1945-1948) as though it were a paradise. There is no mention of the 1,000s who died in racial conflicts, the economic depression, the killing of trade unionists, the police murders, the general strike, none of this is mentioned. Instead the author describes post-war Malaya as though it were a perfect utopia. The author also describes the Malayans in child-like terminology, as people who can earn "pocket money" by working for white European plantation bosses. At worst this is a very misguided and ahistorical view of Malaya, at worst it is a piece of pro-colonial propaganda. For these reasons I believe we should remove this book from the further reading section.

BulgeUwU (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Since it has been almost two months and nobody has responded, I have removed the book from the further reading section.

BulgeUwU (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

" ... this novel..." - it's a novel, not an autobiography.

BulgeUwU No, no, no, The War of the Running Dogs: How Malaya Defeated the Communist Guerillas 1948-60 by Noel Barber is noted as 'reading like a novel.', not that of an actual novel. The book should instead be reinstated. It is told through personal antidotes and experience, and provides a 'combination of historical narrative and a test-case of applied COIN theory'. It is a far cry from 'misguided' and it certainly does not produce an 'an ahistorical views of Malaya'. It is certainly fit-for-purpose, and an essential read for anyone looking to further understand the Malayan Emergency. EDJT840 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @BulgeUwU:. It is not a scholarly work, and not appropriate here. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

foliar❧ It is widely accepted as a scholarly work. Referred to as such by RAND, SWJ, WR, and by the NLW (who categorise it as such). Certainly relevant here, a key work as suggested by many of the sources referenced on the page itself. EDJT840 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

widely accepted - where? I see zero reviews in the relevant journals either contemporary with its publication or later. Happy to see evidence showing otherwise. You’ve also removed a name that is already in the lead by community consensus. MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDALTNAMES are clear that it should be in bold text in the first sentence, so please do not remove it again. The phrase "war of the running dogs" does not appear on even a single occasion in either the 2002 or 2015 reprint editions of the work that you cite for it. The title of the work, btw, is "British Counterinsurgency", not "running dog war"; use the chapter= parameter to indicate a specific chapter within a work. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Noel Barber does not belong on the wiki It has been almost a year since I suggested removing this book from the wiki and my stance has only solidified. The author writes about people he has never met and magically describes exactly what they are thinking in their heads, one page contains four quotes with zero citations, he is extremely selective when describing the background of the Emergency to make Malaya before the war look like a utopian paradise and to portray the anti-colonial rebels as mindless terrorists who go around killing poor innocent white Europeans for seemingly no reason other than just being evil. Even worse, not only does the author appear to have no qualifications in military studies, history, sociology or any other relative subject, but he spent his career working as a journalist for the infamous Daily Mail, a newspaper with such a terrible reputation for lies, slander, and racism (targetting Jews fleeing the holocaust, and Muslims after 9/11) that it forced wikipedia to enact the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources policy in 2017. Does spending your life working for such a sketchy newspaper sound like the actions of a reputable journalist? As I said before, the book is at best an extremely misguided view of the war, and at worst a piece of racist pro-colonial fiction designed to justify European colonialism as benevolent and anti-colonial/socialist guerrillas as cartoonishly evil. Do not mistake best-selling with high quality @EDJT840:. It may be very popular with both the public who are unfamiliar with the war and politicians/journalists who agree with its message, but again a book with no citations and an extremely selective attitude towards facts, is a poor substitute for the easily available work of modern historians such as Karl Hack, John Newsinger, and John D. Leary. BulgeUwU (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

BulgeUwU & foliar❧ Hello both, I’ll address your replies in order, but I’ll add this comment first to hopefully add some information relating to my background on this particular topic. I am currently writing my thesis on the application of airpower (offensive) during the Malayan Emergency, building upon my MA and BA dissertations on Intelligence during the Emergency. I’ll spare you the particulars, but by all means this topic is at the very heart of my studies and forms the basis of my past however-many-years of study.

Now, I am well aware of the title of the work, I’m unfamiliar with Wikipedia referencing (it’s a relatively new concept to me), my apologies. In regards to this claim of ‘zero reviews’ you are severely mistaken, I am fortunate enough to have access to both the National Library of Wales, and the library at Aberyswyth University in which I can reference several reviews, e.g. Dr Anthony L. Smith (Associate Fellow at Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore) in New Zealand International Review, 31 (1). The TLDR from this is that it is a good, relevant work – with a few issues, noted within. Furthermore, Maj. John Berger writes a review in ‘Small Wars Journal’ which further indicates it’s relevancy to the matter. From personal experience the likes of Dr Christopher Phillips, Dr Alistair Shepherd, and Dr Jan Ruzicka have all recommended the work during my years of study.

Barber’s work is referenced in ‘Intelligence and Design’ by Brian J. Tyler when discussing the Malayan Emergency as well as various other scholarly works.

You may well have suggested this edit almost a year ago, that is wholly irrelevant to the debate at hand. The author notes on the ‘Acknowledgments’ page the research undertaken to produce his work. Atop this, on p. 277 his lists a plethora of works consulted; almost all of which are widely respected works ranging from Brimmell, to Kennedy, and Thompson. I concur, his description of Malaya’s current situation is that of a heavily sympathetic tone in approach to the British Empire and fails to address political/social atmosphere following the conclusion of the second world war; however, in what it lacks here, it makes up throughout the work. I refer to the source(s) above. The work is a ‘product of its time’ per se far from a ‘racist pro-colonial fiction’, spare us all such nonsense. Also spare me your condescending comments ‘Do not mistake best-selling with high quality’ I haven’t come to the position I am by maintaining poor research and vetting standards.

Also, in regards to his ties to the Daily Mail, that shouldn’t be representative for all his works, especially not this. If it isn’t held against his work in academic circles, it shouldn’t be here.

I, however, agree with your final sentence in that there are more appropriate works – let’s not neglect Moran, Short, Mockaitis, Corum & Johnson, Nagl, Coats, Thomspon, and Hawkins. EDJT840 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Waving about your degrees doesn't change the fact that Noel Barber, a "journalist" from a newspaper that was literally so racist that it forced wikipedia to change its policies on sources, made up quotes from his imagination to put in the book he wrote to justify colonial attrocities. BulgeUwU (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't at all 'waving: about my degrees, it merely adds a necessary context and legitimacy. I don't recall any instance within of 'made up quotes' - please provide some to add to the discussion. EDJT840 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, in relation to the authors affiliation with the Daily Mail, I note 'Editors note that the Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically.'

His ties to the Daily Mail do not describe him entirely, nor his non-journalistic work. Thankyou for ignoring the rest of my reply to your message. EDJT840 (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your claims do not add any legitimacy here on wikipedia. They come across as pretentious. It's true that some scholars have referred to Barber. If you are as experienced in higher education as you claim to be you should know that merely being referred to by academics does not miraculously convert a mediocre author and non-historian into a scholar. You refer to two reviews: one in the in-house journal of the think-tank the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (on the book's reprinting in 2004), and another in a publication called "Small wars journal". While the review in NZIR is not wholly dismissive, its general tenor is summed up by the conclusion of the first paragraph: "The War of the Running Dogs, first published in 1971, is a journalist's account of the Emergency, replete with the obligatory anecdotal features of individual administrators, plantation owners, policemen, special branch agents and communist leaders. It is, if nothing else, an absorbing account." With regards Barber's take on the pre-conflict conditions the reviewer agrees with the view of @BulgeUwU: "Barber pollyannishly maintains that 1948 Malaya 'was a contented paradise in which men of many skins and creeds lived in harmony'." The publishers of the magazine "Small wars journal", despite using the word "journal" in their title, appear to be operating either a vanity press or write-only publishing house rather than any kind of serious academic publication. Not only do they operate no system of peer-review for any type of article that they publish, but they apparently consider doing so beneath them. Unsurprisingly, it also does not appear to be indexed in any reputable service or repository. Odd that despite your "however-many-years" of experience you failed to notice this. I recommend taking the time to evaluate sources more carefully in any academic endeavours in the future, with which I wish you the best of luck. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of multiple photographs to the infobox

I have just finished adding multiple photos to the infobox. I believe the wiki could benefit from an infobox with a similar design philosophy to those seen on the WWII and Spanish Civil War pages. I would like to get people's feedback on whether they agree with this new adition to the page. BulgeUwU (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The first sentence includes "between pro-independence fighters of the Malayan National Liberation Army" "against the armed forces of the British Empire and Commonwealth". Firstly, encyclopaedic articles on wars typically start with when/where/whom before discussing the objectives of each side. It could be disputable, for example, whether the MNLA was motivated primarily by independence or establishing a communist state. Secondly, is it grammatically correct to have 'between' and 'against' both in the sentence?

Second Sentence

"The communist forces fought to gain independence for Malaya from the British Empire and to establish a socialist economy, and the Commonwealth forces fought to protect the profits of British corporations which were used to pay for Britain's post-war reforms and debt to the USA."

Surely this is misleading although partly true? Independence occured in 1957, but the insurgency continued. Would it be more accurate to say that the pro-Chinese forces intended to create a pro-Chinese or Communist state, independent from Britain, but once independence was gained, they continued to fight so that they could overthrow the Malaysian government with a Communist state?Artowalos (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Artowalos

Although the first half of this sentence fairly summarises the self-stated objectives of MNLA, the second half undermines the neutrality of this article. The Malayan, British and Commonwealth forces themselves would NOT have said they were fighting to protect private companies' profits, but to protect the majority of the fledging nation from communist insurgents.

Keep - I believe the original sentence perfectly summarises the intended goals of both sides. The British Empire colonised Malaya for its resources and the reason they fought so long to crush the pro-independence fighters of the MNLA was to extract as much of the country's wealth as possible. It's certainly more impartial and factual than your suggestion that the Empire had some vague and altruistic goal to "protect the majority of a fledging nation". BulgeUwU (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You may believe this, but equally, others believe that the motivations of the British was to prevent a Chinese takeover. As others have pointed out, the context of the Cold War is crucial, and should be mentioned in the first para. I have no problem with you posing both hypotheses. btw You might want to quote a wider range of sources, such as Jackson’s Malayan Emergency, or Van Tonder, Malayan Emergency, the second of which examines the underlying causes.Artowalos (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Artowalos

Don't Keep - The point is that only self-identified objectives of both sides should be stated in a conflict article's introductory paragraph, since it sets the tone for the whole article's neutrality. For example, saying that the MNLA were "fighting to destroy the Federation of Malaya and replace it with a Maoist dictatorship" may arguably be true and the reason why most Malayans sided with the commonwealth, but that sentence would obviously be non-neutral against the MNLA because that is not how they would describe themselves. Jehigh (Jehigh) 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That's entirely different because Britain's profit motives can be objectively proven and is almost universally accepted by modern historians, where as your example is speculation. BulgeUwU (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggest you read Van Tonder - doesn’t sound like speculation.

Can you give a reference for it being "universally accepted" ? at the moment the ref is only to John Newsinger.GraemeLeggett (talk)

John Newsinger is one of Britain's leading experts on British counterinsurgencies. BulgeUwU (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

in which book of his does he say that it's universally accepted by modern historians? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree that Britain was protecting it's own rubber and tin industries in Malaya from insurgents - but the broader strategic importance of Malaya in the Cold War was a factor too (Deery, “Malaya, 1948: Britain’s Asian Cold War?” 34). Also the Malayan forces and most of the civilian population (including most Chinese) would obviously not have opposed the MNLA forces for 12 years just to "protect the profits of British corporations". They preferred Britain's offer of scheduled independence but with multi-party democracy rather than Maoist Communism (John Newsinger, Counterrevolution The Malayan Example, 1994, 19–30) (Ong, Securing the Population from Insurgency and Subversion in the Second Emergency, 2010, 34-35). The current second sentence oversimplifies one of the two sides motives based on a single source, therefore it is not balanced. Jehigh (Jehigh) 02:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

" ... The British Empire colonised Malaya for its resources ... " what resources would they be then. The British first became involved in Malaya in 1786, pre-dating most of the industrial Revolution at a time when cheaper sources of tin where available elsewhere rather than shipping it all the way from the other side of the world, and when rubber had no commercial value it being of little practical use until Goodyear invented vulcanisation.

"They've bled us white, the bastards, they've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our father's fathers ... and what have they ever given us in return".

'The Aqueduct?'

Suggested update for better Neutrality and sources:

"The communist forces fought to gain Malayan independence from the British Empire and establish a socialist economy [1][2]. The Commonwealth forces fought to protect British owned industries from the insurgents and to facilitate eventual Malayan independence with a non-communist and multi-party political system [3][4].”

[1] Newsinger, John (2013). The Blood Never Dried: A People's History of the British Empire, 2nd edition. London: Bookmarks Publications. p. 217.

[2] Stockwell, A. J. "Chin Peng and the Struggle for Malaya." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 16, no. 3 (2006): 279-97.

[3] R. Popplewell, ‘‘‘Lacking Intelligence’’: Some Reflections on Recent Approaches to British Counterinsurgency, 1900–1960’, Intelligence and National Security 10/2 (April

(1995), 337.

[4] Ong, Securing the Population from Insurgency and Subversion in the Second Emergency, 2010, 34-35

That doesn't work because I can't find any evidence that the British wanted to facilitate independence during the start of the Malayan Emergency. BulgeUwU (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1948): "And whereas it is the desire of His Majesty and Their Highnesses that progress should be made towards eventual self-government and as soon as circumstances permit, legislation should be introduced for the election of members to the several legislatures to be established pursuant to this Agreement."

Monarch Details

As per articles like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aden_Emergency and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising it is not essential to list the current Head of States (Monarchs) during the Malayan Emergency.

I suggest they remain absent. EDJT840 (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Can’t help but wonder why you added it back in. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Flags reduced in infobox - pull "cleanup" tag?

@Roger 8 Roger: Per your "cleanup" tag, I've cleaned up the excess flags in the infobox "Commanders and Leaders" section, by grouping & bullets. If this resolves your "cleanup" tag concerns, would you please remove the tags? Thank you. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. Someone has already removed it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Paragraphs far too long, ref cites not named.

Throughout this article, there are numerous gigantic paragraphs that are far too large for this kind of media. I've broken a few of them up, but far too many remain -- most notably in the "Comparisons with Vietnam" section, "Similiarities" subsection. I cannot break these up without studying the ref cites to see which ref cites go with which portions of the giant paragraph (and If you don't have time for that, I don't either).

Further, far too many of the ref cites have not been named, (just tagged as "<ref>" rather, than, say "<ref name="johnson_1958_chapter_3">", or "<ref name="war_in_malaya_1953_06_13_ny_times">", for instance). This makes it impractical to break paragraphs up, where the same citation is relevant to both parts of the paragraph, and must be duplicated.

Please, people, keep your paragraphs under a million words, and name your ref cites! Other people have to read and edit this stuff.

~ Penlite (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"The communists fought to win independence for Malaya from the British Empire and to establish a socialist economy, while the Commonwealth forces fought to combat communism and protect British economic and colonial interests"

This seems to be a pretty inaccurate summary given that independence was promised by the British fairly early in the campaign, no? FOARP (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It sounds perfectly accurate to me. Britain may have made half hearted promises of independence but only on their terms, which meant that Britain still held a monopoly over Malaya's natural resources, foreign policies, and media. Heck just look at the Baling Talks to see what a short leesh the British kept legal Malayan parties on. Independence isn't just about flags, anthems and leaders, it's also about self determination and the freedom to make choices without outside interferance. Besides none of this negates the fact that independence was the driving force behind many of the MNLA fighters. BulgeUwU (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a reasonable and neutral summary of the article body, and of the citations to Deery, Phillip (2007). "Malaya, 1948:…" and Newsinger, John (2013). I have not read the other. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Frankly Jehigh, GraemeLeggett, and the IP editor above already offered sources on this, and an alternative wording, that seem reasonable. The British/commonwealth position should not be described in the terms that the MNLA would have used. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This would seem an extraordinarily cynical view of British and Commonwealth operations in the Emergency: independence had already been promised, and it would be more balanced to include this as part of a wider Western policy of containment against Communism in newly-independent colonies as opposed to a simple colonial war of posession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.48.86 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Statements about Western [read:Anglo-American] intentions should be based on evidence, rather than any cynical or naive assumptions about the strategy underlying their actions. Scholarly examination of the evidence (the bulk, although perhaps not the most pertinent, of which has long been available under the thirty-year rule) largely supports the description used. If that is considered cynical, the cynics would be the foreign office policy planning staff, rather than WP editors merely reporting the available scholarship. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Any argument that Britain's counterinsurgency campaign was a part of a strategy to "contain communism" is nonsense, due solely to the fact that the MNLA never once accepted foreign aid from any party or government during the Malayan Emergency. Talking about the reasons for the war, one thing I do think we need to include more of is information about the corporate interests of Dunlop and other such European companies which looted much of Malaya's resources, and the work of the British military to protect these profits through counterinsurgency. BulgeUwU (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think people can understand what is driving the present slant of this page from the above statement. That independence had already been promised in 1948 is a very well-established fact and we should not simply be stating that it was not (or was not really) the case in the voice of Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Great: you can rest easy, as we're not doing so. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@BulgeUwU: Britain was indeed primarily motivated by its commercial interests, at least initially, but it was only one party of the Commonwealth forces. New Zealand and Australia joined because they saw nearby communist expansion as an existential threat [Edwards, 1987, The Australian commitment to the Malayan emergency, 1948–1950]. The Muslim Malays saw Maoism as a threat to their religion [Lim Yu Sing, 1998, The Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) – Can Lessons be drawn for Present Day Situations?]. Jehigh (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The UK gvt offered something they, for their own reasons, called independence. The other side in the war did not call what the British said they were "promising" independence, loaded as it was with myriad political and economic restrictions. There seems room to clarify what the independence the MNLA were fighting for consisted of, but not for disputing that it was a motivating factor in their going to war. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@FOARP: Even if the British Empire did promise their version of "independence" it would still be irrelevant because they spent the next 9 years shoving 100,000s of people into concentration camps to make sure it didn't happen. You need to learn to seperate the stated public goals of an Empire with their true goals, which in the case of the Malayan Emergency was to stop a revolution which threatened British corporate interests. BulgeUwU (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@BulgeUwU: This is an issue with the neutral point of view in this article - if it is important for the introduction to critically separate the "true" rather than stated motivation of the Commonwealth forces (which crucially included over 250,000 Malayans, not just British), then why not for the MNLA? They were deeply influenced by Maoism which was unconscionable for the Muslim majority [Ong, Voice of the Malayan Revolution, 2010].

Sockpuppet OR

These edits were made by a sockpuppet who regularly falsifies sources. Some of that was done on this page, as noted here. Per edit summary request, bringing here the request that these WP:OR additions and source falsification are reverted. (The additions also don't align with WP:LEAD, but that is a far less important issue.) CMD (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Of the sources removed in your edit, two are not supportive of the text that immediately precedes it: the conference paper by Christi Siver and the RAND study. I've removed both, and the tangential sentence citing RAND. Additional RS which further support the other text – already supported by the existing sources – have been added. Hope that closes the matter. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

With those two removed, that leaves Hack 2018 p203. This source was added along with the new text "to 500,000...depriving civilians of all their civil rights and violating the Geneva Conventions." I do not see how that is supported, with the page giving "more than 500,000", and saying nothing at all about civil rights and the Geneva convention. Further to this, in addition to adding good sources, it would be useful to remove the obviously fake ones, as well as those also added by the same author and equally unlikely to actually support the text. (For example, there is no way the British could violate the Geneva Conventions here, as the Geneva Conventions do not apply outside of times of war.) CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Remaining unsupported by sources or by the article body are the addition of Borneo, Singapore, and Southern Thailand to the location portion of the infobox, and the unexplained switch from European to British moves away from the Yao 2016 source which notes the gunman stated "We are only out for the Europeans and the running dogs". CMD (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The paper in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies gives a higher figure still. I've removed "civil rights" which is not relevant anyway. The Geneva Convention matter is discussed at great length by Siver (perhaps it was put in the wrong place); I've amended the text accordingly. In contrast to your claim, it is clear that a. the British military leaders' understanding was that their forces were subject to the Geneva Convention, and b. troops violated them. Are you really wanting to argue the point about locations? It's quite common knowledge the war involved the border regions; there's even a counterinsurgency book that refers to Borneo in the title. Singapore was part of Malaya. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the relevance of a higher figure in another source is, the point here is that the Hack source (as with all the others added) did not support their text. On the Geneva convention, whether or not the British included their principles into their rules of engagement doesn't change the fact that they could not have violated them. The Geneva convention is an international treaty between states relating to conduct during war. On location, again the change is unsupported by the text. Borneo gets a single mention, as the location of Iban recruits, (a book title covering the konfrontasi does not support relation to the Malayan emergency,) Singapore is mentioned only as a place troops operated out of, and Thailand is mentioned only as a place the MNLA retreated to at the end of the emergency. None of these merit equal billing in the lead infobox, especially not without some reliable sources which also give them such billing. CMD (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

OK.... well it's supported now. Who is carrying out original research? The source states that they violated the Geneva Convention, whether you believe they could not have done so is not relevant here. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The source does not say that. Its conclusion is that "the British military...did not adequately socialize soldiers in the laws of war or their obligations to protect civilians". It includes them as one of a wider body of policy, such as "Geneva Conventions or the laws of war". It says the Scots Guard was involved in war crimes, but that is not the same as violating the Geneva Conventions, which is a subset of warcrimes. (The source does also not mention judicial justification or lack of.) The current phrasing is also a poor reflection of the source in question, which is centred around a discussion of why different units acted in different ways, whereas the article text suggests it is policy. CMD (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the book of which that paper forms a part, the author uses the introductory chapter to establish that while the principles predated the Geneva Conventions, it was those treaties that gave force to the obligation to protect (and not to kill) civilians. She also establishes that these applied in the case studies used, including the Malayan Emergency, and that the military leaders had acknowledged their application (and thus discrediting the myth to the contrary that you mention above). She further cites diplomatic correspondence with the UK's chief representative to Geneva.

The principles underlying the Geneva Conventions, particularly protection for civilians, pre-dated the creation of the legal treaties. While actors on both sides of World War II had abandoned principles of proportionality and protection of civilians, these principles had previously been upheld by states and even used as propaganda to prove the moral cause of states engaged in conflict. Certainly, the re-affirmation of these norms in the Geneva Conventions did not bring an end to all war crimes or threats to civilians. But, the treaties did provide a standard for evaluating military actions...No longer could states, leaders, or soldiers claim a right to attack civilians. [p.8]

The militaries I examine, the United States, Great Britain, and Canada, all function within major power democracies that have committed themselves to uphold the laws of war. Even in the cases of the Korean War and Malayan Emergency, which commenced very quickly after the completion of the Geneva Convention negotiations, U.S. and British civilian and military leaders stated their intention to uphold the norms underlying them. [p.20]

Having established that killing of civilians represents a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, the author then documents instances in which troops killed civilians, with the Malayan Emergency forming one of the five case studies.

In addition to limits imposed by the principle of minimum force, Britain also faced new obligations to protect civilians under the recently negotiated Geneva Conventions. While the treaty negotiations did not end until December 1948, the military was aware of the Conventions and making plans to comply. [p.61]

British efforts to educate soldiers about the Geneva Conventions either did not ever reach units deployed in Malaya or left no impression on them...All of these regiments went through the introductory jungle warfare course and received the same instruction about 'snap shooting' and differentiating between targets. Differences in training do not seem to explain why some units killed civilians while others did not. [p.73]

The massacre at Batang Kali, alongside civilian and military leader’s preference for a counterinsurgency strategy based on force, weakened British efforts to bring peace and stability to the former colony. Civilian killings and brutal treatment weakened Britain’s relationship with local authorities and the Malaysian people and fueled the counterinsurgency [p.82]

Cambial — foliar❧ 21:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the principles behind some of the Geneva Conventions existed before. The Geneva Conventions are just one aspect of the wider topic of war crimes. The intention, per your quote, is to "uphold the norms underlying them". That is different from a specific violation of the letter of the law, and none of those quotes say that there was this specific violation. Further, as I mentioned before, various incidents do not amount to a specific campaign as suggested by the text you are inserting into the lead of the article. CMD (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear where you're getting "specific violation of the letter of the law" from – it appears to be your own phrase, not relevant to the question at hand about the sentence in the lead. The source clearly supports the sentence, as demonstrated in the quotes above (there is no ambiguity in "Britain also faced new obligations to protect civilians under the recently negotiated Geneva Conventions." and "Civilian killings and brutal treatment weakened Britain’s relationship with local authorities". Your decision to completely ignore almost the entirety of those quotes, and focus on a five-word phrase to try to suggest otherwise, is not persuasive. As the reference to breach of the Geneva Conventions has been in the lead for well over a year, and your removal of it has been reverted by two other editors, the lack of consensus for your proposal indicates it should remain on the article at present. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not getting it because it is not in the source. We should not be coming to a conclusion the source is unwilling to state itself, and none of the sentences you quote come to the conclusion. Regarding this edit, can you please provide the relevant parts of Hack 2018 p203, Newsinger 2013 p218-219, and Newsinger 2015 p52 that "support the characterisation in this section. attribution of "Britain's my lai"? My lai certainly isn't mentioned on that page of the Hack source. CMD (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Those are two separate comments which is why they are separated by a full stop. The sources support the characterisation of the place where civilians were held as "internment camps" (though one uses the word "detention" - a fair synonym). The attribution was added because the passive "it is often referred to as" is a rather MOS:WEASEL way of phrasing. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

With regards talk page headings, we are discussing whether certain long-standing content constitutes original research. Assuming the truth of a disputed matter is not a neutral heading for such a discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If the sources are now being used to support that instead of what they were originally being used for that is good. The Hack source does support that, but as mentioned can you provide the quotes from the others? On the discussion header, the topic of this discussion that I opened as requested is the issue of OR and source fabrication made by an editor with history in such antics. This OR/source fabricatoin remained as you note in this article for a year. I fail to see how it is in dispute that it was OR/source fabrication, considering you removed much of it yourself or had to find new sources for it (I have not looked at these). Nor do I understand why it is in question that the cahnges were made by a sockpuppet, as they were. I would ask again the topic I raise not be misconstrued through a misleading header (only parts of the lead are pertinent, and the relevant source fabrication was not limited to the lead). With the removals and new sources, what remains of the dubious sock edits are: the three sources which have been repurpose for different content with the exact same pages, and the assertion the British attempted extrajudicial killings in violation of the geneva conventions, which has had a source shifted to it which does not state the same. For these two points, it would be good to get the quotes as mentioned, and to either rephrase the Geneva Convention text to match the source now being used for it, or to find a source which makes the same statement. CMD (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)