The Malayan Communist Party as Recorded in the Comintern Files

shoemakers’ strike (which even featured bomb-throwing) from February to April.
This phase of violence was followed by a Chinese nationalist anti-Japan phase.
(Yong noted without elaboration that the NPC paid the full price for this
experimentation: the NPC was reorganized after admitted that the policy was
wrong.) 20
With regard to Fu Tai-keng of (21), Hanrahan noted that following the persuasion of Tan Malaka,
Chief Comintern representative for all Southeast Asia of early 1926, the CCP sent a special
representative, reportedly named Fu Ta-ching [Fu Tai-keng] to Malaya. 21
In the footnote, Hanrahan wrote that this information was based on page 335 of Chijin [Chihiro]
Tsutsui’s Nampo gunsei-ron. 22 In reality, p.335 of Tsutsui’s book is the last page of his postscript
cum his book itself. No reference was made to the MCP, the NCP or even Malaya. Instead, on page
146 and 147, Tsutui argued that communist movement in Malai 23 began when Fu Da-jing ( 符 大 经 .
Meaning Fu Ta-ching), who had fled from Guangdong in 1925, organized the NCP. In that year, as
a result of a failed riot in Guangdong, many CCP members sneaked into Singapore with Fu as their
supreme leader. On that occasion, the CCP decided to establish cells in this region and dispatched a
French Communist Party member, Lefranc [alias Ducroux], to cooperate with Fu. In 1931, Fu and
Lefranc were arrested by British authorities. 24
Tsutsui depended on the information provided by the Japanese Military Police (JMP. Kempei-tai).
If the JMP had seized secret documents left behind by the British SB, it could have grasped the
precise relations among Fu, Lefranc, the CCP and the Comintern. Tsutsui’s inaccurate argument in
this part shows the JMP obtained this information from other sources, probably from interrogation
of arrested MCP members including Lai Teck.
Another point is, Chinese characters of Fu Da-jing (Fu Tai-keng) were also not accurate. According
to Yong, his name is 傅 大 慶 (Fu Da-qing in Mandarin). In this regard, the informant seems either
not to have provided an accurate information or not to have known the accurate characters.
24