The ability to access long-forgotten archives may be one of the privileges of historians. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent opening of state archives in Moscow have brought an opportunity to reflect on some historical episodes that, on one occasion during the tense period of the Cold War, were an important matter to all.
Fujio Hara's study is a valuable contribution to our references in that direction. Hara's study is based on Communist International (Comintern) documents from 1928 to 1942 (with additions from the Shanghai Municipal Police Files (SMPF)), which detail the birth and development of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). The study covers the chronological relation between the MCP and the Comintern in 1930 (chapter 3), 1931 (chapter 4), 1932–1934 (chapter 5), 1935-1939 (chapter 6), and lastly, 1940–1942 (chapter 7). Hara reminds us that no documents were available for either 1938 or 1941, as letters between the MCP and the Comintern might have been intercepted by an intelligence agency. Thus, there is a need to check with the SMPF and its addition into the book.
Hara's study complements Efimova's studies (Reference Efimova2009, Reference Efimova2011) on the influence of the Comintern and the USSR in Southeast Asia. The Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), once the biggest Communist party outside of the USSR and China, had benefited from its direct relations with the USSR. The PKI's dual-track relation with China had also influenced the formation and development of the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) under Jose Maria Sison. Meanwhile, the MCP had a different trajectory as it was formed under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1927 as one of its overseas sections, thus becoming the Nanyang Provisional Committee (NPC). Hara's study confirms this fact. Hara's study shows that the Comintern had instructed the NPC to form a “Unity Party” that was inclusive to various Malayan nationals, including Malays and Indians, and not only to overseas Chinese nationals. Unfortunately, as the Comintern files show, the NPC failed to understand this instruction. This failure might have influenced its development, especially with regard to its organising activities designed to reach other groups in the society.
Hara's study highlights “the existence of an important relationship” between the NPC and the Comintern (p. 28). This fact is not noted in many previous studies of the NPC as it was assumed that the Comintern had minimal, if not insignificant, influences on the strategies (and reorganization) of the NCP prior to the founding of the MCP in 1930. Interestingly, Ho Chi Minh played an important role as a representative of the Comintern in the 1930 Congress that formed the MCP, as well as in directing the strategies of the MCP.
Hara's study also underlines the crucial roles of Hiraire Noulens and Joseph Ducroux (alias Serge Lefranc) in the early relations between the MCP and the Comitern, until their arrests in 1931. Noulens was the head of the clandestine Comintern office in Shanghai, and also assigned Ducroux to Singapore. Ducroux was arrested by the Special Branch on 1 June 1931, 34 days after his arrival in the port-city. His arrest was followed by the arrests of both Ho Chi Minh (under the name of Sung Man Ch'o) in Hong Kong and Noulens in Shanghai by the Shanghai Municipal Police over a period of two weeks, and caused a setback in the relations between the MCP and the Comintern.
Hara notes that, later, “in around 1934 their connections were to some extent restored and nine representatives [of the MCP] were successfully despatched to Shanghai” (p. 137). This does not mean that the direct connection between the MCP and the Comintern was established in the same way as it was in 1931. In fact, Hara's study confirms that the Comintern did not send letters to the MCP (or any of its contact operatives) after 1936. The MCP did not receive any subsidy or instruction from the Comintern. As such, the MCP was drawn closer to the CCP, especially on its anti-Japanese National Salvation Movement (due to the Sino-Japanese war in 1937). As timely as it was, this official stance had succeeded in expanding its influence among the overseas Chinese in Malaya. Its membership more than doubled and, as Hara rightly notes, these developments might be “attributed to the MCP's own efforts, not to the Comintern instruction” (p. 144).
The MCP and the Comintern's relationship was not as smooth as it might generally be described in history textbooks. Hara's study shows how the Comintern always reviewed and criticized the MCP's strategies. These criticisms resulted from some observable reasons, although not always correctly so. On the other hand, with limited resources, the MCP was oftentimes forced to prioritize certain activities over instructions from the Comintern, and to adapt to the changing political landscape of the day to maintain its organizational relevance to the masses.
Hara's study on the MCP and the Comintern's relationship once again calls our attention to the importance of (foreign) archives in shedding light onto some of the recurrent questions of the past. Language barriers, for example, might have slowed the progress of Hara's study, but his scholarly dedication excels. Language training and untiring dedication, indeed, form the basis of any major work in reading some of the more important chapters of Southeast Asian history. While Derrida (Reference Derrida and Prenowitz1995), based on the Western experiences, reminds us of the very meaning of the archives for the (re)construction of our memory, the issues of the archives in Southeast Asia may be more intriguing. Quite often, archives are treated like family amulets. They may suddenly (dis)appear in times of inter-elite political conflicts, are (re)produced when society consolidates its cultural resources, and are enshrined as sacred artefacts when the nation undergoes soul-searching moments. Archives do have a special meaning in understanding our historical belonging. Hara's study not only confirms the historical facts of certain important episodes in time, but also reminds us of the pertinent need for a young generation of scholars to continue studying the archives for the region's more inclusive history that extends beyond official nationalism.
