It was explicit British policy to deny Chinese basic civil and economic rights. They couldn't own land - so the poor amongst them squatted. They weren't afforded citizenship - so they lived under threat of deportation. They couldn't access the legal system - so they lived in the shadows.
Yes, the initial handling of the strikes was mismanaged by colonial authorities, but those said rights had not been established yet for immigrant workers, they weren't taken away. It was my impression the princely states (Johore, Kedah, Perak etc.) also had some autonomy or influence on internal affairs, but I don't know the degree. There was a political reaction to the MCP and fear of a domino effect by the British, but you are talking about the underlying causes for the insurrection. We were I thought talking about the British handling of it in 1950s, which was certainly above par.
And what the hell is 'tribal' schism supposed to mean?
any situation where perceived chauvinism or disparities causes two cultures to mix like oil and water. Like the 'white' tribe and 'black' tribe in apartheid S. Africa, or for that matter between the Zulu nation and ANC. Tribal is still a commonly used term for that societal behaviour. You have to admit the average Malay was not enchanted with the MCP or MNLA.
Yes, because people are going to take to the jungles for years living under threat of death because some dude made an inciteful speech about Maoism in the kampong.
That's oversimplifying it. Why are you rolling your eyes - are you saying something
like that has never happened before ?
They hadn't been enfranchished to begin with.
but they were afterwards, correct ?
There were multiple incidents in North Borneo. If you want to make accusations, please do so openly.
Primarily the Konfrontasi. It was another incident involving the British (and Commonwealth) taking some responsible action, which you seem to take exception too. If that hits close to home welcome to the party.
My accusation is against unbalanced opinions expressed here, that are in fashion, typified by "when in doubt, blame the British". I've heard some astonishing rubbish being spouted at the local University in the last 10 years that would really make your eyes roll. Any one of them would open up another thread and a bigger can of worms than this one. Mostly it has to do with the burden every ex-colonial power bears for the last hundred+ years, as judged by the present standards of intellectual elites. And as others have pointed out - it doesn't end there.
Which makes it impossible for any counter argument on the basis of the introduction of benefits such as hospitals, infrastructure, and industries. Of course there was a commercial incentive behind this, but what would you consider a more realistic alternative ?