You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Soon after this conference [before 29 April], Ch’en w<strong>as</strong> arrested. 12 Thus “secretary of LU” cannot<br />
be Ch’en Shao-chang who had earlier been arrested. Newly appo<strong>in</strong>ted MGLU secretary, Ts’ai<br />
T<strong>in</strong>g-wei, too, w<strong>as</strong> not arrested on that day. <strong>The</strong> rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sole possibility is Mah Tso-jen but his<br />
name w<strong>as</strong> not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> C.F. Yong’s list of <strong>the</strong> eight arrested persons, of whom six were<br />
identified. In Yong’s book, Ma’s name w<strong>as</strong> referred only once <strong>as</strong> NGLU secretary. 13 So Mah might<br />
be one of <strong>the</strong> two un-identified arrestees.<br />
Yong also referred to o<strong>the</strong>r communists, besides Lei and Wu, who were arrested <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> N<strong>as</strong>sim<br />
Road Incident, namely, Ong Juat-pho (ali<strong>as</strong> Lee Kwan-jun), Lee Chay-heng, Pang Ch<strong>in</strong>-chang<br />
(<strong>the</strong>se three persons were CC of <strong>the</strong> MCP) and Chen T’<strong>in</strong>g-seng. 14 (Of <strong>the</strong> 11 persons arrested, one<br />
[a woman] w<strong>as</strong> discharged and two were soon banished without trial). 15 Yong’s sources for those<br />
names were various newspaper reports from 30 April to 16 July 1930. <strong>The</strong> Straits Times’ report of<br />
9 June 1930 said that Wong [Ong] Juat Pho “appeared to be <strong>the</strong> most important among <strong>the</strong> lot” and<br />
“one of <strong>the</strong> most important and foremost men of <strong>the</strong> Provisional Committee of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Communist</strong><br />
<strong>Party</strong>”. 16<br />
<strong>The</strong> S<strong>in</strong>gapore Free Press of 9 June 1930 reported that:<br />
<strong>The</strong> fifth accused [mean<strong>in</strong>g Pang Ch<strong>in</strong> Chang] w<strong>as</strong> known to be a responsible<br />
officer of <strong>the</strong> CP which he jo<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> 1928. <strong>The</strong> sixth accused [mean<strong>in</strong>g Wong<br />
(sic) Juat Pho] w<strong>as</strong> also one of <strong>the</strong> chief men of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Party</strong>.… <strong>The</strong> eighth accused<br />
[mean<strong>in</strong>g Lei Kwang (sic) Juan] w<strong>as</strong> … at present head of <strong>the</strong> Labour Union<br />
organisation. 17<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to C. Y. Yong, Lei Kuang-juan acted for Ch’en Shao-chang <strong>as</strong> <strong>the</strong> head of <strong>the</strong> NGLU<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g 1929 when Ch’en attended <strong>the</strong> Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat conference <strong>in</strong><br />
Shanghai. 18 Here, <strong>the</strong> Special Branch had apparently obta<strong>in</strong>ed old <strong>in</strong>formation about Lei’s position<br />
and did not know his latest one. <strong>The</strong> SB appeared not to know who <strong>the</strong> CC members were. Anyway,<br />
this might mean <strong>the</strong> SB did not gr<strong>as</strong>p <strong>the</strong> concrete <strong>Party</strong> post of each person at that time.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r question emerges here. Though five CC members of <strong>the</strong> MCP (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g secretary Lei and<br />
propaganda head Wu) were arrested, why did <strong>the</strong> letter of 1 June state that “a member of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Party</strong><br />
CC” w<strong>as</strong> arrested? If <strong>the</strong> author of this letter m<strong>in</strong>ded <strong>the</strong> office bearers of <strong>the</strong> NPC, can <strong>the</strong> result be<br />
37