It is important to emphasise that Tunku's ‘promise' (statement of intent) of further peace talks after Baling prompted Chin Peng to make the unprecedented offer to 'lay down arms'. Indeed this offer so surprised Tunku himself that he requested the former during the talks to repeat it.

On this basis therefore, Tunku's subsequent personal abrupt 'undiplomatic' rejection of the offer soon after the London Talks, and indeed his moving on, instead to promulgate the ISA mainly directed against the MCP, may be contended as being not only a ‘betrayal', but even more importantly, a constitutional 'abuse of power' by a newly elected democratic government.

But the moot question is to ascertain the extent to which Tunku's 'betrayal' can be seen in the context of his being ‘forced' to do this by the British, as a demanding, defining, and sufficient condition for making the granting of independence possible.

This is obviously not the place to attempt a full-scale investigation of this pivotal question that likely has never been attempted before. But in seeking linkages, perhaps consideration might be given to highlighting some of the main dimensions involved including comparative perspectives.

In this connection, it needs to be pointed out at the onset, that in fact the British never did, nor ever intended, to involve Chin Peng or indeed the MCP in any discussions or negotiations whatsoever for political independence.

Accordingly, therefore it can be understood, as Chin Peng himself firmly and repeatedly points out in his book that the British were determined and went all out to ensure that the Baling Peace Talks for independence should end in failure.

The defining contention that effectively disrupted the talks was the demand that the MCP surrender which, according to Chin Peng, "had been at Britain's instigation"

But in fact the evidence projecting failure is even more overwhelmingly incriminating where the "British Military Intelligence" had sanctioned plans to kill Chin Peng after the talks failed, so that there would never be any possibility of similar talks being ever initiated subsequently.

Chin Peng's comment on this treachery is almost statesmanlike. "Actually we didn't know but we expected it would happen. We decided to take another route, a short cut"

But betrayals of a similar nature by Britain are not uncommon in comparative situations in the Empire. In British Guyana for instance the Constitution soon after the independence elections in 1964, was abrogated by Britain so that the political party, with the highest vote count was thrown out of office to facilitate the assumption of power by a political party more ‘acceptable" to Britain.

Then again there is an almost opposite ‘betrayal' case of the people of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) when the then colonial government declared Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). The British Government condoned this illegal act and instead of abrogating the constitution, and declaring Emergency direct rule, merely promulgated certain bureaucratic "sanctions" that proved ineffective.

For the UK government to send in British troops in battle fatigues would be tantamount to asking the "White Man" to enter Black Rhodesia singing the popular imperial hymn (with changed words) "Onwards Christian Soldiers: Kill your Kith and Kin"!

Finally, online respondents, like many others, have demanded evidence for the "shocking" British military plans to kill Chin Peng and I shall be grateful for the opportunity to do this in the following reference:

The " Finest Hour: Malaysian-MCP Peace Accord in Perspective" : Collin Abraham: SIRD Publications, Chapter 7.2006.

There is also a recent publication that submits relevant excellent documentation on British Policy on the political alienation of the Chinese that I would like to share with readers:

" The Origins and Evolution of Ethnocracy in Malaysia ": Geoffrey Wade. Asian Research Institute Working Paper No.112 (April 2009).