• Kampung Jenderam Hulu (1870-an)
• Kampung Jenderam Hulu: 1940-an

SAMBUNGAN DARI: Kampung Jenderam Hulu: 1940-an.

“Rain in the past three days has caused the flooding of three trunk roads in Selangor and the lower areas of Sentul. Some rivers have overflowed their banks and many houses have been under water. Flood waters in most areas are now subsiding. The road between Rawang and Kuala Selangor was flooded to a depth of two feet between the 34th and the 36th mile at noon today. Flooding is also reported at the main road between Kajang and Jenderam and between Tanjong Karang and Kuala Selangor.” (The Straits Times, 14 October 1949, Page 6: |"Heavy Floods In Selangor").

Arkib Negara 1957/0298522W, 07/12/1949: |"APPLICATION FROM CHE HALIMAH BINTI HAJI ABDULLAH, MALAY SCHOOL TEACHER, SUNGEI JENDERAM, FOR PERMISSION TO PURCHASE ONE ACRES OF PADI LAND IN THE MUKIM OF KAJANG".

(Arkib Negara 1957/0299458W, 01/08/1950: |"PETITION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DEPENDANTS OF DETAINEES OF KAMPONG SUNGEI JENDERAM, MUKIM OF KAJANG").

“Jenderam, so the official communique tells us, is today “a deserted, soulless place”. Its eight square miles have been denuded of population. Jenderam, with its empty and deserted buildings which once housed 1,500 people, has been “scrubbed from the map”. When the kampong was being rubbed out, there were, says the official communique, “tears from some of the women”. But assures the statement, they were “crocodile tears which did not soften the heart of the authorities.”

For the authorities, the destruction of Jenderam was a military necessity. The kampong was one of the main centres of Communist propaganda. There have been some fifty major bandit-inspired incidents in this area and a large number of bandit camps have been discovered in the vicinity.

Militarily, therefore, Jenderam had to be wiped out. The authorities had to remove an obstacle from the path to victory. Once we accept the premise that military necessity should be the overriding consideration then there can be no argument about Jenderam. The grim logic of military necessity must lead to Jenderam and other Jenderams before this war is over.

The end justifies the means. And having made this profound confession we can turn over and get a good night's rest. But before we can do this we must drug our conscience and put into cold storage our sense of right and wrong.

Once we do this, however, the end becomes meaningless. We begin to uphold the very evils against which we have taken up arms.

In Jenderam we have undoubtedly acted against principles which are cardinal to the democratic way of life.

For the moral assumption behind Jenderam is that it is right to punish the innocent as well as the guilty. This is a long way from the proud and, until now, legitimate boast that our law would rather that 10 guilty men should go free than one innocent man should suffer.

Jenderam is merely the logical outcome of the objectionable principle of collective punishment which we have accepted today. There may be people who may not be in a mood to attempt to resolve this contradiction between our traditional conceptions of justice and military necessity. Collective punishment, they will say, is not a fit subject for moral discourse at the present time. Such a discussion will only serve to confuse the issue and play into the hands ot the Communists.

But if it is to “confuse” the issue and “to play into the hands of Communism” by calling attention to the fact that we ourselves are being false to the principles which it is our intention to defend, then we are living in strange times indeed. If we are afraid to have flung at our face the sacred principles which we claim to worship, then is it because our conscience is disturbed?

We don't say that is at all easy to reconcile military necessity with our sense of justice. Sometimes it may be necessary to sacrifice justice to meet desperate situation. But that must be done only when it is genuinely impossible to do otherwise.

Colletive punishment which even Sir Henry Gurney admitted as involving “the objectionable principle of punishment of the innocent” is being resorted to far more readily and frequently than we had expected. Collective punishment has been applied in Pusing, in Sungkok and Jenderam within the last two months: At the moment of writing the village of Sungei Udang is under the threat of being declared a “bad” village.

It is, of course, silly to compare Jenderam to Lidice and Guernica. The villagers of Jenderam have not been subjected to physical violence. But what we did kill in Jenderam was our sense of justice. It is reported that villagers living near to Jenderam are leaving their homes to seek shelter in neighbouring towns. There may be guilty ones among them but there are also innocent people who are fleeing because they have begun to fear us.

We have waxed indignant whenever the Fascists and the Communists have applied the principle of collective punishment, the punishment of the innocent, in areas which are hostile to them.

But now that we are upholding the same principle can we, without being hypocritical, point a finger of scorn at them? Or are we to come forward and say bluntly that in fighting Communism we should not pay regard to what is right and wrong but that justice is that which helps us to achieve the end we have in view?

We point to Jenderam as a warning that unless we are careful we may finish this war believing that justice is what is convenient to us and that moral values are meaningless aphorisms for school children only. Let us not make the future safe for what the late George Orwell called “double-think.””

(Sumber: Singapore Standard, 1 March 1951, Page 6: "Ends And Means").

“Mr. Tom Cook, Colonial Under-Secretary, told the House of Commons yesterday that the detention of 1,600 inhabitants of Jenderam last month was exceptional. They were detained because Jenderam had been a hotbed of Communist activities, he said. Mr. Emrys Hughes (Labour) had asked for details of the detention. Mr. Cook replied: “The 1,600 inhabitants of Jenderam, consisting mostly of Indonesian Malays and Chinese, were detained under the Emergency Regulation 17-D, which provides for collective detention; they have been evacuated to a camp for screening after which those who can safely be released will be resettled. “The reason for this action was that Jenderam had long been a hotbed of Communist activities. It had been a centre for providing supplies and recruits for terrorist bands operating in South Selangor. No Information what-ever had been forthcoming from the inhabitants. 'The people are being well cared for and will receive compensation for goods they were unable to take with them. Those who are eventually resettled will, of course, receive Government assistance in the normal course. “This operation was carried out only after careful consideration and is exceptional, it emphasises by contrast the Government's constructive and progressive policy elsewhere in Malaya tn assisting all those who show willingness to co-operate in the restoration of law and order.' - Reuter” (The Singapore Free Press, 8 March 1951, Page 1: "Jenderam was an exception"; The Singapore Free Press, 8 March 1951, Page 1: "PERSIA KILLING WORRIES WEST").

“The UMNO Central Working Committee will send $1,000 cash, food and clothing to the Jenderam evacuees now in Kluang detention camp, UMNO headquarters announced yesterday. The Committee is appealing to UMNO members and the public to contribute to the “Jenderam Relief Fund.” UMNO branches have been instructed to start collecting clothing for the evacuees.” (The Straits Times, 15 March 1951, Page 1: "UMNO TO AID JENDERAM").

“Alleged thefts from Jenderam during the evacuation of 1,700 under the Emergency Regulations had a sequel at Kajang when Thillyampalam, a senior Indian hospital attendant with 24 years' service, was acquitted of stealing two bicycle tyres. The Magistrate, Inche Harun, said he felt that all the ambulance men were implicated. “I do not understand why the whole lot of them were not charged.” he added. Evidence was given that several articles were found in an ambulance which had gone to Jenderam to remove the sick and aged. After hearing five prosecution witnesses, the magistrate said that unless the four stretcher-bearers, two hospital attendants, and two policemen were all charged, he was not prepared to convict one man. All the men connected with the ambulance denied stealing the articles. Thillyampalam who was represented by Mr. Robert Chelliah was acquitted and discharged. The court was told that the ambulance made a number or trips from Jenderam to Kajang. Mr. Deval. A.S.P. and Police Lieut. Porthouse, said they saw Thillyampalam coming out of a shop in Jenderam carrying two bicycle tyres. Suspecting that he had stolen the tyres. they searched the ambulance and found two ducks and a basket full of household utensils.” (The Straits Times, 10 April 1951, Page 4: "Bench frees 1, says 8 guilty").

“Jenderam is the subject of eight questions Captain Hussein bin Onn will put to the Secretary for Defence when the Federal Legislative Council meets next week. Captain Hussein wants to know how many persons from Kampong Jenderam and the surrounding Kampongs, if any, were rounded up by the police, the reasons for the round-up, if all those rounded up are being detained in the Kluang camp. He will also ask how many have so far been screened; how many have been released, how many have been proved or suspected to have been engaged in Communist activity, what arrangements have been made to safeguard the properties of those rounded up, and finally, whether those released will be allowed to go back to Jenderam and the surrounding kampongs.” (Singapore Standard, 19 April 1951, Page 3: "Jenderam For Council").

“Two young Indians, M. Nathan and Sambutram, who were arrested at the deserted village of Jenderam on April 3 with two sacks full of padi, mats and bowls and two frying pans, were at Kajang charged with being unable to account satisfactorily tor the possession of the goods, which were suspected of having been fradulently obtained. The case was postponed to April 17.” (The Straits Times, 12 April 1951, Page 8: "Jenderam: two charged").

“Two young Indian labourers. M. Naitham and Samutram, were yesterday convicted for fraudulently having two sacks of padi, pieces of matting, bowls and frying pans, and also for being in a prohibited area - Jenderam. Naitham was sentenced to two months' imprisonment on the first charge and fined $15 on the second charge. Samutram was bound over to be of good behaviour in $200.” (The Straits Times, 20 April 1951, Page 7: "THEY WERE IN JENDERAM").

“Bandits collected $4,000 a month from villagers in Jenderam and on the door of every house was chalked the amount to be paid every month. The Federal Legislative Council was told this today when the Secretary for Defence, Mr. D. C. Watherston, replied to Captain Hussein bin Onn on why the village in south Selangor was cleared. Before it was decided to make a whole sweep of Jenderam and clear the people away to a detention camp, more than 100 Malays had come to Kuala Lumpur, in small and large deputations on different dates, to plead with the C.P.O. Selangor to take action. Mr. Watherston said the whole of the Jenderam area, covering some 20 square miles, was now prohibited to the public, unless they obtained a permit trom the C.P.O. Those detainees from Jenderam who had been released could go to other selected areas in Selangor.” (The Straits Times, 26 April 1951, Page 1: "Paid Bandits $4000monthly").

“Before the round-up in Kampong Jenderam in February last took place, altogether over 100 Malays from Kampongs in South Selangor had come to Kuala Lumpur in large and small parties on different dates to beg the Chief Police Officer to take action against Jenderam. These Malays said that they were being bled white by the Jenderam people. This was revealed in the Federal Legislative Council today by the Secretary for Defence, Mr. D. C, Watherston, answering oral questions by Capt. Hussein bin Onn. Mr Watherston said that of the 1,807 people who were rounded up 12 Chinese, 83 Malays and 103 Indians, totalling 198, were exempted by the High Commissioner from the operation of the order made under the Emergency Regulations and were released either immediately or within a few days. He recounted the reasons for the round-up in Jenderam which, he said, was the bandits' supply and information centre for the whole of south Selangor. Bandit collections from Jenderam came to $4,000 month, he said. All those rounded up in Jenderam, except those released, are being detained in the Kluang Detention Camp, because there is no place for them in any of the camps in Selangor.

Of those sent to the Kluang Detention Camp, a total of 56, including 32 Malay children under 12 years, have been released up to April 21. All the inhabitants of the area were screened during the course of the round-up operations and since then more than 100 persons, all adult Malays or Indonesians, have been interrogated. The process was continuing, Mr. Watherston stated. Evidence has emerged from the interrogations that of those detained, 81 Indonesians and Malays and 36 Chinese were definitely implicated with the bandits. This did not mean that it would be possible to charge all these people in court. The ultimate number against whom there was evidence of complicity with the bandits was likely to be very much higher, said Mr. Watherston. All livestock and perishable goods belonging to the people who were rounded up in Kampong Jenderam, have been sold and the amounts realised will be paid to the original owners of the property. Moveable property, such as furniture, bicycles and wireless sets which it was impracticable for the owners to take to the detention camp has been moved to Kajang where it has been stored. With regard to immovable property, there are several houses ? ? ? ? ? approximately 20 square miles. No person is allowed in the area without a written authority from the C.P.O. and such protection as is within the power of the security forces is being given, said Mr. Watherston. In general, any person released from detention will not be permitted to return to the Jenderam area at least for the present. 'It is the intention that they should be made subject to orders under the Emergency Regulations prohibiting them from residing within the south Selangor Police Circle,” Mr. Watherston stated. He added that it was understood that the Selangor Government had selected areas in other parts of the State for the settlement of such persons as were released. They could either live at these places or go to live elsewhere at- approved addresses, he explained. Inche Mohd. Yusof asked whether Government was aware that it was “useless” to release the husband and detain the wife and vice versa. Mr. Watherston replied that Government considered each case carefully. To another question by Inche Yusof whether Government was aware that released husbands were lingering about the detention camp until their wives were released and vice versa, there was no answer.”

(Sumber: Singapore Standard, 26 April 1951, Page 3: "For Action Against Jenderam'—Watherston").

1951-08-30: RETURN OF DETAINESS FROM JENTERAM, SELANGOR. 2.VISIT TO DETAINES BY INDONESIAN CONSUL - GENERAL. https://ofa.arkib.gov.my/ofa/collection/asset/636525

“The debate on Jenderam continues in the columns of the Manchester Guardian with a letter this morning replying to Mr. Mellugh's statements rebutting last week's Guardian editorial criticising Jenderam action. 'The remarks about the Jenderam case by Mr. McHugh, the Director of Information, Federation of Malaya, are disturbing. He says that to compare the forced evacuation of the people of Jenderam with Nazi action at Lidice is non-sensical. 'It is true that nobody was killed by the police at Jenderam. But Mr. McHugh does not deny that the whole township was blotted out by British police; that the inhabitants - guilty and innocent - were carted off for over 100 miles; that their houses were destroyed and immovable goods sold. “Jenderam had only 1,500 inhabitants. But is it right to blot out even a small township because misdeeds have been committed there? Where do we stop? “If a town of 1,500 can be used in this way why not a great city? It is strange that no English newspaper except the Manchester Guardian has mentioned the affair.” The letter was signed by “Observer”.” (Singapore Standard, 28 February 1951, Page 3: "McHugh 's Remarks Disturb UK Man").

1951-02-28: 537. LESSON OF JENDERAM https://ofa.arkib.gov.my/ofa/collection/asset/1671519

“Of 1,725 Jenderam villagers detained when that whole south Selangor settlement was taken into custody, 101 have now been proved to have engaged in Communist activity. Seventy-two of them were Malays and 29 Chinese. A Selangor Government statement says that there is sufficient evidence to justify Court proceedings against four Malays.

The day that 952 Malays, 670 Chinese, and 103 Indians were moved from the village, 62 were released when found to be visitors or families of constables or special constables. Since then people released have included Government servants, relatives of police, and non-residents of Jenderam. Relatives of the 101 people link- ed with Communist activities number 315 Malays and 145 Chinese. Only about half of the people detained have been dealt with. There still another remains 461 Malays and 484 Chinese to be classified. Of those taken to detention camp, 565 were children under 12 years of age, and 97 were more than 60 years old.”

(Sumber: The Straits Times, 6 April 1951, Page 5: "101 FROM JENDERAM GUILTY").

1951-08-13: PROCEDURE FOR RELEASE OF JENDERAM DETAINEES https://ofa.arkib.gov.my/ofa/collection/asset/325988 ( 19570304081d02.pdf )

“Eighteen villages in the Federation have now been punished under Emergency Regulation 17D for collaboration with the Communist Bandits. Notable instances have been Pusing, in Perak, which was fined, and Jenderam. in Selangor, which was razed. In 1949, 16 places were punished involving almost 8,000 people. Early this year, the 1,500 people of Jenderam were punished. Tras is the 17th village to be moved.” (The Straits Times, 8 November 1951, Page 1: "18th village to get 17D penalty").

1952-08-24: CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FROM JENDRAM MALAY DETAINEES Description : THE UNAPPROVED CLAIM DATED 24TH AUGUST 1953 FROM HAJI TAHIR BIN HAMID WHO LOST HIS TITLES AND HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN JENDRAM OPERATION WHERE HE WAS BROUGHT TO KAJANG WITH HIS CHILDREN IN THE OPERATION, DID NOT HAVE TIME TO TAKE HIS PROPERTY AND HOUSE CHATTELS AND THUS, ASKING FOR A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. https://ofa.arkib.gov.my/ofa/group/asset/324468

1952-09-30: PROPERTIES AND BELONGINGS OF THE JENDRAM MALAY DETAINEES Description : THE ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THE BELONGINGS OF JENDERAM MALAY DETAINEES AND THE PLAN OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THEM DURING THEIR COMING RESETTLEMENT IN 1952. https://ofa.arkib.gov.my/ofa/group/asset/324467

1953-01-26: LEAFLET NO 1549 - ” TO PEOPLE OF BANTING , JENDERAM NEWS VILLAGE & SUNGEI BULOH ” https://ofa.arkib.gov.my/ofa/collection/asset/1673863