Article

Communist involvement in Malayan labour strikes: 1936 (The communist challenge in the Malayan labour scene, Sept. 1936–Mar. 1937

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Communist involvement in Malayan labour strikes: 1936 (The communist challenge in the Malayan labour scene, Sept. 1936–Mar. 1937

Yeo Kim Wah’s 1976 article in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society revisits the first large-scale wave of strikes in Malayan mines, rubber estates, and factories between September 1936 and March 1937, arguing against the prevailing scholarly consensus (Parmer, Stenson) that communists played little part in the unrest. Drawing on newly declassified police Special Branch files, Chinese Protectorate reports, and colonial correspondence, Yeo demonstrates that the Malayan Communist Party’s vocational united front policy, adopted at its September 1936 Muar conference, was actively and successfully implemented in Selangor and Negri Sembilan, culminating in the March 1937 estate and colliery strikes that briefly created a communist imperium in imperio at Batu Arang.

Summary

The article situates the 1936–37 strikes within a long structural transformation of Chinese labour in Malaya. The collapse of the triad-controlled indenture system, the 1933 Aliens Ordinance (which capped Chinese immigration and thereby raised workers’ bargaining power), and the spread of Chinese vernacular education collectively produced a more mobile, class-conscious, and economically empowered Chinese labour force by the mid-1930s. When commodity prices recovered after 1934—rubber reaching one shilling per pound in 1936–37, a 250 per cent increase—employers failed to pass on the gains, and the contract system continued to extract rents through overpriced goods, falsified accounts, and multiple layers of sub-contracting. This created the economic conditions for mass industrial action.

Yeo’s central analytical contribution is tracing how the MCP exploited these conditions through a deliberate organisational strategy. After the September 1936 Muar conference resolved to build “Red” and “Grey” unions on a factory, mine, and plantation basis, the party split its Central Committee into a Southern (Singapore) and Northern (Kuala Lumpur) body. The Northern Central, led by Chiu Tong and Chan Han, established the Coal Workers’ Union at Batu Arang, the Pineapple Cutters’ Benevolent Association at Klang, and the Rubber Workers’ Union at Kajang between October 1936 and March 1937. Yeo shows that while the initial strikes in November 1936 (mining) and December 1936 (urban factories) were largely spontaneous, communist agents progressively seized direction of the movement. By March 1937, the Kajang Strike Committee and the Batu Arang Strike Committee operated as coordinated organs of the MCP, with demands drafted centrally by the Northern Central’s chairman, Lee, and tactics (propaganda corps, militant corps, surrounding tactics, isolation of workers from government mediators) following explicit party guidelines.

The article also examines the internal dynamics of the colonial response. A sharp split emerged between the police (led by Deputy Commissioner Dickinson), who pressed for immediate armed suppression once communist involvement was confirmed in late March, and the Governor-High Commissioner Shenton Thomas and the Chinese Protectorate, who favoured negotiated settlement. The government’s decision to act came only after the police presented evidence of communist direction on March 21–23. The subsequent two-pronged offensive—military-police raids on the Batu Arang and Kajang strike committees combined with a settlement framework—ended the unrest by early April. Yeo then traces the legislative aftermath: the 1938 Industrial Disputes Bill (which Whitehall rejected as having “no parallel in the entire British Empire”), the modified 1940 Industrial Courts Bill and Trade Unions Bill (gazetted but never implemented before the Japanese invasion), and the wartime Emergency Regulations that effectively achieved the 1938 bill’s objectives through executive action.

Key Findings

  • The MCP Northern Central, established in Kuala Lumpur in December 1936 under Chiu Tong, directed the March 1937 strikes through the Kajang Strike Committee (estates) and the Coal Workers’ Union (Batu Arang), with demands drafted centrally by the Northern Central’s chairman, Lee (pp. 54–55).
  • By March 22, 1937, between 10,000 and 20,000 estate workers across Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Malacca, and Johore were on strike; the Batu Arang colliery strike involved nearly all 5,000 workers and threatened the coal supply to railways (450 tons/day), the Bangsar Power Station (200 tons), the Perak River Hydro-Electric Company (500 tons), and tin dredges (700 tons) (pp. 51–53).
  • The police-military raid on the Malayan Collieries at 3:30 a.m. on March 26, 1937, deployed 200 policemen with two companies of the Malay Regiment on standby; nine shots were fired, killing one agitator and wounding two, and 116 persons were detained (p. 68).
  • The Ulu Langat settlement of March 31, 1937, conceded a daily wage of 80 cents (against a demand of 100), free medical treatment, maternity benefits, and clean kongsi houses—extending Labour Code welfare provisions to Chinese tappers for the first time (p. 69).
  • Of 47 identified strike leaders, 46 were Chinese (20 Hainanese, 18 Hakka, 3 Cantonese, 3 Hokien, 1 Teochew) and 1 Indian; 28 were MCP members, 8 GLU affiliates, and 18 belonged to the Red Labour Union; most were under 30 and China-born (p. 56).
  • The 1938 Industrial Disputes Bill, which vested the Governor with unlimited power to declare any industry “essential” and impose binding arbitration, was rejected by the Colonial Office and Ministry of Labour; the modified 1940 Industrial Courts Bill and Trade Unions Bill were gazetted but never implemented before the Japanese invasion of December 1941 (pp. 74–79).

Conclusion

Yeo concludes that the 1936–37 strikes inaugurated a new era of industrial relations in Malaya by demonstrating both the power of organised Chinese labour and the depth of communist penetration into the working class. The strikes failed to produce structural reform of the employment system, and employers’ authoritarian, paternalistic attitude toward labour persisted unchanged. The colonial government’s legislative response—designed primarily to isolate communist agitators from the labour force rather than to address workers’ grievances—was either rejected by Whitehall or rendered moot by wartime exigencies, leaving the fundamental tensions unresolved until the Japanese invasion.

Context

  • Primary archival collections: Straits Settlements Police Special Branch files (CO 273 series), Selangor Secretariat Files, Negri Sembilan Secretariat Files, Monthly Review of Chinese Affairs, and the Blythe Report (1938).
  • Historiographical contribution: Directly challenges the conclusions of J.N. Parmer (1962, 1964) and M.R. Stenson (1970), who, working from sources available before the release of police documents, had minimised communist involvement. Yeo’s use of Special Branch intelligence, banishment enquiry records, and internal MCP correspondence (translated from Chinese) provides the evidential basis for a revised assessment of the MCP’s organisational capacity and strategic effectiveness in the pre-war period.

References