I was shocked to read the article on Prof Firdaus Abdullah as implying that Chin Peng's version of history is not correct.

I thought that intellectuals are taught to understand other people's points of view and to be able to judge the truth for themselves. In the first place, if Chin Peng had agreed with what our Prof Firdaus implied, he would not have taken arms against the British. I wish to restate what happened.

Chin Peng was trying to liberate Malaya from British control, and the British very cleverly used the Malays and Gurkhas to fight them. By doing so, the British administration saved British lives and split the local communities, weakening them so that they can continue to rule. Chin Peng was left with a choice: to disarm so that he would not have to fight against his countrymen and let the British continue to rule or to carry on fighting.

If the Malayans were so patriotic, they should not have joined the army under British rule. To use a crude and unkind word, they could be considered traitors working for the enemy. But then, what is the definition of a traitor? It depends on which side is saying it! After all, they joined the British army because they would rather have British instead of communist rule. There are so many versions of the Emergency stories. Prof Firdaus is one.

The most important point in my mind is that we can show we are matured enough to look at the Emergency years with some level of objectivity and not take up our guns and knives again over something that happened many years ago.

Our minds must be developed enough to tell the difference between the past and the present. Do you read about the British complaining about the publication of this book? Many of their loved ones also died in the war. Indeed, I would also like to commend the government for its maturity in not banning Chin Peng's book.