SIR,—I regret to note that Mr. Edinger is as slipshod
and inaccurate in writing of Malaya as he was in writing of Hong Kong. One gets the impression that the article in the Spectator of August 30 was wcitten in Singapore and that Mr. Edinger gained most of his information at second hand from Chinese journalists in that city. The views expressed have a strong Chinese bias, and although Mr. -Edinger says that Malay is an easy tongue to learn he does not appear to have made much effort to master it. If he had, his views might have been rather different.
The 'good composite word Tidapathy' is not and never has been a Malayan word. In over twenty-five years' residence I have never heard it used by any but Europeans.
'Merdeka' is a word imported from Indonesia and its meaning, according to the experts, is 'Freedom from slavery.' I have never heard it translated as 'Freewill.'
The Chief Minister is partly of Siamese ancestry and spells his name Abdul Rahman. To spell it Abd El Rahman is to attribute to him Arabic ancestry and to depart from the Romanised spelling used throughout the Federation and used by the Tungku himself.
These may be small points, but they indicate that Mr. Edinger is not really in touch with events in the Federation. This is further confirmed by the second paragraph of the article. To say that the China of Mao Tse-tung commands the inmost loyalty of the immigrant Chinese may be true, probably is true, of Singapore, but is certainly not true of the Federation where there is a distinct slant towards the Kuomin- tang and Chiang Kai-shek.
It is quite incorrect to say that British merchants and administrators blame the Chinese for coming to Malaya merely to make money and be gone. Such an attitude, if it existed, would merit Mr. Edinger's strictures. Most Chinese immigrants—there are not- able exceptions—are blamed, not for making money but for demanding the rights and refusing to accept the responsibilities of citizenship during their resi-
deuce in the country. If they had accepted these responsibilities the emergency would have been over in 1949 and Chin Peng (not Ching Peng) and his associates would now be only a memory.
Mr. Edinger, like many a reporter before him, is confusing Singapore with the Federation and his article may give Singapore's views on Malayan Independence. It certainly does not give those of the federation, and at a time like this when Malaya has achieved her independence in an atmosphere of friendship and goodwill much harm can be done by biased and inaccurate reporting in a paper of high standing.—Yours faithfully, 53 Worthing Road, Horsham, Sussex
W. G. SCOTT
Previous page
