Part I: Here.
Part II: Prejudices over the ‘philosophical-man’ of the Malayan Emergency.
For the first two or three years after the war, the aircrafts used in Malaya were of wartime quality and many of the techniques reflected those that had been developed during 1944 and 1945. Moreover, while the rebellion was being contained, at least between 1949 and 1950 the outcome of the conflict had been far from concluded.
Malaya would become a testing ground for many types of aircraft, not least the helicopter, and much experience would be gained in the techniques of working closely with the Army and the civil authorities in counterinsurgency operations. Fanon, in explaining the colonial situation explains the relationship between the ‘settler’ and the ‘native’ as both regarding one another as each other’s absolute evil. The native is to the colonial master “…a corrosive element, disfiguring all that comes near him; he is deforming element, disfiguring all that has to do with beauty or morality; he is the depository of maleficent powers, the unconscious and irretrievable instrument of blind force”. As if suggesting a natural ‘feeble minded-ness’ of “the Chinese” in a December 1948 telegram to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, High Commissioner Gurney stated that the Chinese “…are as you know notoriously inclined to lean towards whichever side frightens them more and at the moment this seems to be the Government”. Perhaps such remarks can only be understood in the context of the inevitable need to discredit the natural capacity of one’s enemy in such a manner that it becomes helpful and consistent with a language of victory. Remarks from Tan Cheng Lock on Ancient Chinese Philosophy discussed in relations to the ongoing conflict in Malaya at the time, are certainly far from a feeble-minded feat.
To suggest the complete mindlessness of an entire racial group, let alone the mindlessness of any sort of soldier, combatant or participant of conflicts runs counterintuitive to humanity’s experience of war ever since Thucydides. Recently, London’s very own Andy Owen perhaps most known as the author of All Soldiers Run Away: Alano's War: the Story of a British Deserter (2017) has recounted for Aeon’s Psyche drawing on his various experiences in Northern Ireland during what he regards as “a quiet period in the province”, his 2004 tour to Iraq “as the Sunni insurgency was escalating….and the targeting of Shia communities and the first uses of the orange boilersuits mimicking those worn by Guantánamo Bay detainees”, and so on. Here he explains:
“Yet, for me, facing morally difficult decisions in a warzone made me realise the subjective values that had influenced my thinking. Acts that I saw as inherently right or wrong in the comfort of everyday life didn’t seem so black and white in this new context….A deeper knowledge of philosophy would have lessened the need to go through some of the experiences I did to learn what I learnt. It would have made me better at my job.”
Written in June 1949 and later published in Malaya by Freedom Press on 1 November 1949, the document titled “Present-day Situation and Duties” authored by the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) suggests contrary to Gurney’s views. What is presented here are clear remarks on the main objectives of the MCP which were to accumulate, expand and improve the main strength of the MCP until a base area can be established, and the nexus of objectives to be obtained by the pursuit of four subordinate pursuits against “British Imperialists”. Such is to be done to put crudely, in four ways, namely: (1) By expanding the guerrilla forces to form an army corps, (2) By creating long-term unrest and extensive destruction all over Malaya, (3) By tightening the discipline amongst members of the MCP, and finally (4) By consolidation and extension of the mass organisation in the rural areas in Malaya.
The dilemma we arrive at with typifying groups is as described by Smullyan. Any Malayan may in every case be proven wholly irrational. There has always been, at one time or another, a variety of stories about a country, or kingdom, in which certain inhabitants called ‘loyalists’ always tell the truth, and others called ‘bandits’ who always lie. Such was the story of British Malaya. It was a type of supposed enduring Peninsula of loyalists and bandits much like the other dominions of the British Empire. It was a Peninsula of loyalists and bandits involving the tripartite of the insurgent, counter-insurgent and the people who stood side by side in 1948.
It is assumed that every inhabitant of the land is either a loyalist or a bandit. The loyalist and the bandit are indistinguishable in their outward appearance, perhaps other than the colour of their skin. However, what complicates the situation is when some of the inhabitants, some among the loyalists and bandits, are considered totally irrational and thus completely deluded in their beliefs.
Thus, due to their irrationality all true propositions they believe to be false and all false propositions they believe to be true. The rest of the inhabitants are completely rational and know which propositions are true and which ones false. Thus, the inhabitants of such a situation are of four types: (1) Rational Loyalist; (2) Irrational Loyalist; (3) Rational Bandits; (4) Irrational Bandits.
And therefore, by logical implication, characteristically; (1) whatever a Rational Loyalist says is true. Loyalists are thought to never lie, and always tell the truth. They are Rational Loyalists thus all true propositions they believe to be true, and all false propositions they believe to be false; (2) whatever an Irrational Loyalist says is false because while Loyalists never lie, and always tell the truth, but to Irrational Loyalists all true propositions they believe to be false and all false propositions they believe to be true "because he really believes in what is contrary to the truth"; (3) whatever a Rational Bandit says is false; because Bandits always lie. A Rational Bandit knows the truth and then lies. And finally, (4) whatever an Irrational Bandit says is true because Bandits always lie. They regard a certain way then lies about that regard. Thus, an Irrational Bandit, because he does not believe in the truth, and then lies about what he believes, says true things.
Thus, given any statement X, and suppose a Malayan we call Mr. Tan inhabiting this Peninsula of Loyalist and Bandits believes that he believes X, does it follow that, that statement must be true? Suppose on the one hand that he, the Malayan is rational. All rational actors believe only in the 'true' truth because a rational actor knows which propositions are true and which ones false. For if, a rational actor believes the statement that ‘he believes X’, then the statement that he believes X must be true. Therefore, he in fact does believe X. And since he is rational, X must be true.
On the other hand, suppose Mr. Tan is wholly is irrational. Irrational actors are considered totally irrational and deluded in their beliefs as all true propositions they believe to be false and all false propositions they believe to be true. Thus, if an Irrational Malayan believes the statement that he believes X, then the statement that he believes X must be a false statement, because an Irrational Malayan believes only false propositions to be true. If the statement that he believes X is a false statement, which means that he does not believe in X. If he does not believe he believes X, in other words he does not believe in X, and also he is irrational, then X must be true because for irrational Malayans all true propositions they believe to be false and all false propositions they believe to be true. Similar to rational actors, irrational actors do not believe in statements they consider as false statements. If the statement that he believes X is false then the irrational actor will not believe in what he considers as false.
We thus can show that if a Malayan believes, that he believes X, then X must be true regardless of whether he is rational or irrational. Similarly, it can be shown that if he doesn't believe that he believes X, then X must be false. Thus, given any statement X, suppose a Malayan believes that he believes X, it follows that X must be true, regardless of the perceived rationality of the Mr. Tan.
Tun Tan Cheng Lock’s actual philosophical treatment in February 1949 does not appear to my sensibilities as irrational.
Part III: Ancient Chinese Philosophy, 5th February 1949
I would like to draw your thoughts back to the month of February, the month Tan Cheng Lock wrote his brief on Ancient Chinese Philosophy, and was elected President of the newly established Malayan Chinese political organisation named as the Malayan Chinese Association. What did the Tun have in mind at the time?
To be continued in Part III.
Part I: Here.
DR.MA
Comments