Monday, August 29, 2011


Dato' Bahaman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dato' Bahaman (died 1930s in Terengganu) was a famous Malay warrior in Pahang, Malaysia during the period of British protectorate. His son was Mat Kilau and friend Tok Gajah.

jika dato' bahaman who fight british officers is hero of pahang, any many more such as anyone that killed, fought, kicked Birch, killed residence of british are heroes....


James Wheeler Woodford Birch, commonly known as J. W. W. Birch (3 April 1826 - 2 November 1875) was the first British Resident in Perak, Malaysia. He was appointed to the post on 4 November 1874 as the government adviser to the Sultan of Perak following the signing of the famous Pangkor Treaty on 20 January 1874, which established Perak as a British protectorate state.

Contents [hide]
1 Assassination
2 Memorial
3 Sources and references
4 See also

Birch was killed on 2 November 1875 by a local Malay chief, Dato Maharajalela and his assistant Seputum, who speared him to death while he was taking bath, nearby a river, in Pasir Salak, near today's Teluk Intan (Teluk Anson).

There is inconsistency as to the reason why Birch was assassinated. One view is that Birch's assassination was because he outlawed slavery in Perak. Dato Maharajalela, whose income depended on capturing and selling the indigenes of Perak or Orang Asli as slaves, was then incensed and plotted with some of the slave-traders to kill Birch by spearing him when he was taking his bath in the river.

The more popular view among rightwing Malay historians indicate that Birch was assassinated because of his disrespect to the local custom and tradition, and conflict with local Malay chiefs. This is because modern Malay historians generally refuse to accept that the Orang Asli were being traded as slaves in the pre-Colonial era.

Some accounts claimed that Birch was arrogant and disrespectful of local customs and the ruling Sultan of Perak, for example by refusing to remove his shoes when he entered the Palace.

To those historians, Dato' Maharajalela is generally celebrated as a folk hero, due to his substantial contribution and seen to be a symbol of the Malay resistance against Colonialism.
In the aftermath of the event, the administration shifted to Taiping. Sultan Abdullah was deposed and sent to exile in Seychelles. Dato Maharajalela and others involved in the incident were hanged.

Birch's grave is located near the site of British fort at Kampung Pasir Pulai, about 24 km from Pasir Salak. Roads in Kuala Lumpur and Taiping were thought to have been named after him (Birch Road), but this was for a different Birch; ironically, the same road was later renamed after Dato Maharajalela (Maharajalela Road; Malay: Jalan Maharajalela) after Malaysia's independence in 1957. Similarly Birch Road also appeared in several towns in Malaysia, they were Seremban, Penang and Ipoh, also found in Singapore.

with this perspectice, with this history view-points...then anyone that fight, kill british, including colonial polices still are heroes.

This is fact and are facts..........

this is what our history books are told that anyone that fight british officers, including british colonial policemen are still the heroes.!

if you deny this, then all heroes that killed birch, kill british officers are not heroes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the perspective and viewpoints must be same, not because it involved certain party, then the authority can simply change the viewpoints!!!!!!!

stop regards all as idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Singapore did not have to fight a war as such to gain its independence from the British. Yet this fact alone cannot explain the dearth of anti-colonial heroes in the country. Malaysia similarly gained independence largely through a process of constitutional negotiations with the British. However, there has been reassessment of aspects of the country’s history with the rise of Malay nationalist sentiments from the 1970s. Maharaja Lela (executed 1877), a key plotter in the killing of James WW Birch (1826-1875) the first Resident of Perak, had hitherto been cast as a villain: scheming, power-hungry and backward-looking, but was rehabilitated as a hero, with a road and key mass transit station named after him in Kuala Lumpur. Similarly, roads that were previously named after colonial officials took on the names of Malay leaders.

The importance of retaining Sir Stamford Raffles (1781-1826) as the founder of modern Singapore has been well expounded on by Singapore’s first generation of leaders. It was deemed imperative that investors had to be assured that the newly independent country would retain the capitalist economy which the British had built; Raffles also served as an ethnically ‘neutral’ founder who not one of Singapore’s ethnic groups could claim exclusive rights to. These reasons have not changed in the more than forty years since the country attained full sovereignty in 1965.

In recent years, Raffles has had to make some room for William Farquhar, (1770-1839),the first Resident of Singapore, who oversaw the building of the trading post in its early years. “Who really ‘founded’ Singapore?’ has emerged as a question posed to students in recent history text books. As part of critical historical thinking, students are to consider whether Raffles, Farquhar or John Crawfurd, who signed the 1824 treaty by which the island became a British colony was most deserving of the honour. There is no question however that it was a colonial official who ‘founded’ Singapore.


The importance of retaining Sir Stamford Raffles (1781-1826) as the founder of modern Singapore has been well expounded on by Singapore’s first generation of leaders. It was deemed imperative that investors had to be assured that the newly independent country would retain the capitalist economy which the British had built; Raffles also served as an ethnically ‘neutral’ founder who not one of Singapore’s ethnic groups could claim exclusive rights to. These reasons have not changed in the more than forty years since the country attained full sovereignty in 1965.

In recent years, Raffles has had to make some room for William Farquhar, (1770-1839),the first Resident of Singapore, who oversaw the building of the trading post in its early years. “Who really ‘founded’ Singapore?’ has emerged as a question posed to students in recent history text books. As part of critical historical thinking, students are to consider whether Raffles, Farquhar or John Crawfurd, who signed the 1824 treaty by which the island became a British colony was most deserving of the honour. There is no question however that it was a colonial official who ‘founded’ Singapore.

When Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong suggested in 2006 that illustrious Singaporeans should have public places and streets named after them, a letter to the press supported this call, suggesting that the names of ‘lesser’ officials such as MacRitchie, Chief Engineer of Singapore (1883-1895), after whom the country’s oldest reservoir has been named since 1922, should make way—for ‘a monarch or governor’ (Straits Times 21 Dec 2006). Another reader promptly took issue with this, contending that MacRitchie was far from being a ‘lesser’ official, for CM Turnbull’s History of Singapore 1819-1988 calls him ‘one of the municipality’s most farseeing officials’, while Charles Buckley’s Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore cites a minute he wrote forecasting the water needs of Singapore in the 20th century (Straits Times 21 Dec 2006).

Playing hide and seek in the Singapore History Gallery

As early as 1999, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had proclaimed: “Our country needs national heroes. Some of the first-generation leaders who fought for our independence and built up Singapore can be conferred the stature of our ‘national heroes’. We shall do this at the appropriate time.” (Straits Times 5 Dec 1999). With the passing of leading members of the first generation government leaders E.W Barker (1920-2001), S Rajaratnam (1915-2006) and Lim Kim San (1916-2006) there have been moves to honour the cabinet ministers, who have come to be hailed as ‘The First Ten’.

However, Dr Lim Hock Siew, one of those who fought for Singapore’s independence, Barisan Socialis leader and veteran political detainee would argue that such delicacy in embracing national heroes was unnecessary. He had thundered unequivocally in the 1996 eulogy he delivered: ‘Lim Chin Siong is a hero. A national hero. A legend in the history of the struggle for independence. Not only to get the British out, but the capitalists out.’ (Singapore National Museum, Exhibit 82 VII).

This tribute to Lim opens the video clip on the life of Singapore’s most significant founding member of the People’s Action Party whose left faction was hitherto largely obliterated from mainstream Singapore history as a legitimate political force.

The clip was largely narrated by his friends. Its inclusion, one and a half years after the National Museum of Singapore reopened in December 2006 was reported in the press. The museum director explained that the video was ‘a result of feedback from visitors who wanted to know more about Mr Lim, …they felt the history of Singapore’s fight against British colonialism, which led to self-government, and later independence, should mention his contributions’ (Straits Times 9 July 2008).

However, it came to my attention in December 2008 that the video recording was not to be seen at its usual location in the large and bright penultimate exhibition room on the post-Separation period.
Without any fanfare, has been significantly reduced in length, and ‘looped’ with the video clip featuring an interview with Fong Swee Suan, former trade union leader, PAP founder member and comrade of Lim Chin Siong. Fong’s video has in turn been moved from the exhibition room on the 1950s to an easily overlooked wall in the smaller and easily by-passed room on trade unions.

The HeritageFest’s list of possible heroes is an expansive one. Yet it scrupulously excludes certain groups of individuals. The proffering of alternative nominees as national heroes that has been articulated by those who would find its list inadequate and unsatisfactory constitutes a challenge to mainstream understanding of desired values and goals, a hankering for a different Singapore. Lim Chin Siong’s prominent absence, then presence, and then not quite absence nor presence in the Singapore History Gallery of the National Museum of Singapore reflects precisely the state of play on what is allowed, but also what cannot be defensibly omitted in the politics of historical representation in the country today.


Birch Memorial Tower

Unveiled in 1909, the Birch Memorial is dedicated to the assassinated J.W.W Birch, the first British Resident of Perak. He was killed by Malay conspirators, or heroes depending on how you see it, in 1875. There used to be a bust, but has since been missing.

A square with a decorated tower, the memorial has a mother bell and four smaller bells, which used to strike the chimes of Big Ben. Perhaps this is why the Birch Tower is called the Ipoh Big Ben.

Article Source:


Honours List

Saturday May 5, 2007

Road renamed after anti-colonial

THE assassination of J.W.W Birch by local leader Dato Maharajalela is part of Malaya’s independence history is and is said to have sparked off the country’s struggle against colonial rule.

A courageous act as such led to Dato Maharajalela being remembered in history texts as the hero who fought against the imposing powers of the British and a road was subsequently named after him.

Jalan Maharajalela is a familiar name to most urban dwellers as the road runs through the busy heart of Kuala Lumpur.

However, what makes the road more interesting is that it was initially known as Birch Road in honour of J.W.W Birch.

Part of history: A file picture of Birch (seventh from left) during a visit to KL in 1875.
James William Woodford Birch was appointed as the first British Resident to Perak in October 1874. The appointment marked the influence the British had over Perak rulers, which was dictated in the Pangkor Treaty signed on January 20, 1874.
Birch was depicted in history texts as a snobbish foreigner who had no respect for local customs and traditions. One famous incident was that of Birch walking into a local’s house with his shoes on, something never done among the local community.

A bust part of the road: The old shops located along Jalan Maharajalela.
This resulted in many conflicts with local chiefs who were dissatisfied with his ways.
On November 2, 1875, Birch was killed while he was taking his bath in Pasir Salak by Dato Maharajalela and Sipuntum.

The British government was angered by the murder and ordered Dato Maharajalela and Siputum hanged.

Sultan Abdullah of Perak was then deposed and exiled to Seychelles.

The story of Dato Maharajalela and Birch lives on in the Pasir Salak Historical Complex that high lights the struggles of the local community against British powers.

Birch’s grave is located near a British fort in Kampung Pasir Pulai while Dato Maharajalela’s grave, which was previously located in Matang, has been washed away.

Landmark: The Federation of Chen Clan Associations Malaysia temple.
There is also a Jalan Maharajalela in Taiping and ironically, it was also previously known as Birch Road.
Jalan Maharajalela in Kuala Lumpur is a major road with heavy traffic daily and to help ease congestion problems, authorities have stopped the use of the Edinburgh roundabout by introducing alternative new routes.

The road has many significant landmarks including the Federation of Chen Clan Associations Malaysia temple, the Chinese Assembly Hall and the colourful Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka building.

There are also many old business premises and famous restaurants along the road.

Hidden from sight is the CafeCafe restaurant that serves authentic French fare.

Just off Jalan Maharajalela is Jalan Choo Cheng Kay, a small road that was named after a famous tin ore miner and businessman who gained fame and fortune in the 1930s.


Sultan Abdullah’s reply to the charges by the Colonial Office in Singapore, 1876
Posted on July 6, 2010
In response to the letter of demand sent by John Douglas, the Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements in Singapore, Sultan Abdullah Muhammad Shah II provided a number of rebuttals to the accusation made by the British Government regarding the assassination of JWW Birch. At this time, Sultan Abdullah had already been brought to Singapore[1].

This is a photograph taken c.1875 at Bandar Bahru of Sultan Abdullah Muhammad Shah II (centre, seated) and his people, including his chiefs which include Dato' Sagor (circled, standing behind Sultan Abdullah). JWW Birch is seen seated on Sultan Abdullah's left, with a young Raja Chulan on his lap. (Source: Google Images)

Sultan Abdullah’s letter dated 6 October 1876 reads as follows:

Singapore, 6 October 1876


We forward, for the information of His Excellency, the following answers to the charges preferred against us (in connection with the murder of Mr. Birch) in your letter of the 16th September 1876.

In the month of July 1875, we were residing at Quallah Kintah; on or about the 18th July we left Quallah Kinta for Kotah-Stea in order to meet Mr. Birch and Captain Kim Chung[sic] to make arrangements for the collection of the revenue, and to settle the annual sums to be paid to the different chiefs. On our way to Kotah-Stea it was necessary for us to pass Durian Sebatang; we anchored at that place outside in the anchorage for one or two hours; as the tide was running strongly up the river, we did not land there; we attended no meeting of chiefs there, nor did we receive any chiefs on board our boat. Mr. Birch’s boat, the Quedah, on which we went to Kotah-Stea, was anchored there at the same time. We weighed anchor about an hour before sunset, and Mr Birch’s steamer followed and passed us. We arrived at Kotah-Stea on or about the 20th July, and remained there four or five days, from Kotah-Stea we went to Batta Rabbit, where neigher at Durian Sabatang or elsewhere delivered any papers to any chiefs, our authorising them to murder Mr. Birch; nor did we ever hold or attend any meeting at which his murder was discussed or resolved upon.
Since the date of the Treaty of Pancore we have never sent Nacodah Kekah (Ketek) or any one else to Penang to purchase muskets and ammunition, nor since that date have such been purchased with our knowledge or by our authority.
We never held at Batta Rabbit or elsewhere any meeting of Perak chiefs and others during the month of August 1875, to discuss plans for the murder of Mr. Birch. We had been informed during that month, o shortly before, that His Excellency the Governor intended visiting our country, and we consulted and prepared measures for his reception with our principal officers, the Datu Laksamana, the Datu Shahbandar, and the Raja Makotah. In the month of June 1875, one of our children was sick at Batta Rabbit, and on that occasion, according to our custom, Mein Berhantu took place.
We never at any time delivered to Maharajah Lela a written paper under our Chop authorising him to murder Mr. Birch, nor have we ever written to him any paper respecting Mr. Birch. Some papers with forged Chops of ours, have, as we believe His Excellency is aware, been found in Perak, three of which we delivered to Mr. Davidson; it came to our knowledge at some considerable time ago, one of our subjects, Hajee Mohammad Syed, procured a new chop to be made in Singapore, still in the possession of Hajee Mohammed Syed, for whose arrest a warrant was issued by Mr. Davidson; he, however, has managed to escape into the jungle.
We never, in the month of October 1875, or at any other time, convened a meeting of the chiefs and other people at Durian Sabatang, or at any other place at which it was resolved to murder Mr. Birch. Nor did we ever at any time supply arms and provisions to the Maharajah Lela, Datu Sagor, or Dyang Murraweh for the purpose of enabling them to kill Mr. Birch.
Mr. Birch was murdered without our knowledge and without our authorisation.
Shortly after Mr. Birch became our Resident at Perak, he had reason to be much annoyed with the Maharajah Lela. And from that time we ceased to have any friendly communication with the Maharajah Lela; and we deny that we at any time sent Along-Nor, or Wan Hussain, to inform him that though we could not assist him openly, we would assist him with arms and provisions.
We never sent any rice to Maharajah Lela, nor did we know that the Maharajah was preparing to attack the Residency.
We never removed a large number or any number of arms or ammunition from Batta Rabbit to Durian Sabatang for the purpose of assisting the Maharajah Lela in resisting the British officers and in attacking the British Residency. We received at Batta Rabbit the news of Mr. Birch’s murder on the night of that day it occured, from Captain Welner at Bandar Bahru. Next day, about 3 p.m., we left Batta Rabbit with about 30 followers; we stayed that night at Durian Sabatang, where we left our family; we arrived at Bandar Bahru the following night, and after staying there about a day returned to Durian Sabatang; some days after that we sent to Batta Rabbit for five muskets belonging to us, given to us by Mr. Birch, which we made use of to arm our watchmen.
On or about the month of March 1876, we were residing at Pulo Dya, we received information that the Datu Sagor was hiding in the neighbourhood, and we at once ordered the Shahbandar to take steps for his arrest; he was apprehended and detained by us on board the Shahbandar’s boat, and in his custody. On the following day we sent him up to Bandar Bahru in charge of the Shahbandar. We deny that we ever advised the Datu Sagor to hide in the jungle, or received and protected him.
His Excellency will, we doubt not, fully the recognise the difficulty we have in doing little more than giving in the answers. We submit to him our emphatic denial of the truth of the charges preferred against us, inasmuch as His Excellency not having furnished us with the evidence taken before the Commission of Enquiry in Perak, we are in entire ignorance was well of the names of our accusers as of the evidence on which the charges against us are founded. We would further remark, that the whole of our conduct and acts since the Treaty of Pancore, and since the appointment of Mr. Birch as Resident, with our full concurrence and indeed at our request, is most conclusive proof against our having been in any way concerned in the murder of Mr. Birch, an event which, taken in consideration of the concurrences in Perak in 1874 and 1875, it would have been the height of folly, we may say of madness on our part, to endeavour to bring about.
(signed) Sultan Abdullah of Perak

J. Douglas. C.M.G.
Colonial Secretary,
Straits Settlements


pg389......others worth reading


coming back to british such as below:

Bukit Kepong Incident was an armed encounter which took place on February 23, 1950 between the police and the Malayan Communists in pre-independence Malaya. This conflict took place in an area surrounding the Bukit Kepong police station in Bukit Kepong. The wooden station was located on the river banks of the Muar River, about 59 km from Muar town, Johor.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Chronology
2 Reinforcements from Nearby Villages
3 Aftermath
3.1 List of killed in action (KIA)
3.1.1 Policeman
3.1.2 Non-combatants (Auxiliary Police (AP))
3.1.3 Police family members
3.1.4 Auxiliary Police (AP) were killed in action (KIA) outside police station
3.2 List of survivors
3.2.1 Policeman
3.2.2 Police family members
4 References
5 External links

The incident started just before dawn with the Communists launching a guerrilla assault on the police station. It ended in a bloody massacre with the aggressors killing almost all of the police officers stationed there. When they began the siege, the attackers strongly believed that they would be able to defeat the policemen and gain control of the police station within a short span of time. This is due to several factors in their favour: their arms and numerical superiority and the relative isolation of the station. The battle began at about 4:15 am.

According to eyewitness accounts, there were about 200 Communists attacking, led by Muhammad Indera, a Malay Communist. Despite the odds, the policemen led by Allahyarham Sgt. Jamil Mohd Shah, refused to surrender, although numerous calls by the communists for them to lay down arms were made. Several officers were killed as the shooting continued and two wives of the defending officers took up arms when they discovered that their husbands fell in battle.[2]

Desperate and alarmed at the defenders’ tenacity, the Communists captured one of the officers’ wives and threatened her at gunpoint to urge the policemen to surrender. The defenders replied that they would never surrender and continued fighting. Another wife of the officers and her daughter were also forced to do the same. Their refusal then resulted in their execution.

the questions are killing british officers can be concluded as heroes such as killing birch or other british colonial officers or not????????

the viewpoints must be they are british officers, colonial officers or as descried in history as running dog of british colonial.

when the discuss viewpoints regard all officers, british officers like birch, many other are oppressing and harming rakyat, then the viewpoint of fighting any british officers, irregardless of who, whom or anyone should be regarded as heroes!

if we don't accept this viewpoint, then those killed birch and any british officer, colonial officers are not heroes..........but the killer and should be removed from history text book--from primary till university the history and tell anyone that kill british colonial officers are killers!!!!!!!!!! the logic is simple, the facts are the facts.....



Rise and fall of communism in Malaya
Compiled by ANDREW SIA

1930: Formation of Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

1930s: CPM inspires labour unrest. In March 1937, miners declare “independence” and take over the Batu Arang coal mine in Selangor for 24 hours.

December 1941: World War II reaches Malaya. The British accept the CPM’s offer to cooperate to fight the Japanese invaders. The CPM forms the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA).

Aug 16, 1945: The Japanese surrender. In the five weeks before the British resume control of Malaya, the MPAJA emerges as the de facto authority in the country.

December 1945: MPAJA is disbanded after the CPM is directed by its secretary-general, Lai Tek (who was also a double agent for the British), to accept the return of British colonial rule and adopt a moderate “open and legal” struggle for its ideological goals.

Jan 6, 1946: The British give various CPM leaders, including Chin Peng, medals for fighting the Japanese.

1945–1948: The CPM infiltrates some trade unions and help organise strikes to demand better pay and working conditions. The British respond by tightening laws.

March 1947: Lai Tek absconds with several million straits dollars of CPM funds. Chin Peng, 26, is appointed CPM secretary-general.

March 1948: The CPM’s Fourth Plenum (meeting) formally abandons Lai Tek’s “moderate strategy” in favour of a “people’s revolutionary war”.

June 16, 1948: Three European planters are killed in Sungai Siput, Perak. A State of Emergency is declared within nearby parts of Perak, spreading to the whole country by June 23. Emergency regulations include the mandatory carrying of identity cards and the death penalty for unlicensed possession of guns.

June–December 1948: Large scale CPM attacks in Kulai (Johor), Jerantut (Pahang) and Batu Arang fail to establish Mao Zedong-style “liberated areas”.

April 1949: Communist fi ghters retreat into deep jungle camps for retraining. By year’s end, there are increased guerrilla attacks on rubber estates, tin mines, transportation routes and government offi cials.

December 1949: A Scots Guards patrol shoots dead 25 Chinese farmers in Batang Kali, Selangor. It was hailed as “the biggest success” of the Emergency but in later years was described as a massacre of innocents.

Feb 23, 1950: Twenty-fi ve people die defending the police station in Bukit Kepong, Johor, against the communists.

March 22, 1950: Lt Gen Sir Harold Briggs becomes the Director of Operations in Malaya. He formulates the Briggs Plan to (forcibly) resettle 500,000 Chinese farmers into “new villages” surrounded by barbed wire and government soldiers to deny the communists food and other support.

September 1950: As part of the government’s anti-communist strategy to improve the socio- economic status of rural people, the Rural and Industrial Development Authority (Rida) is set up. Later, it becomes Majlis Amanah Rakyat, or Mara.

1951: Communist strength reaches over 7,000 fi ghters from about 2,300 fi ghters in 1948.

June 1951: Briggs launches Operation Starvation. Movement of food throughout the country is controlled to force the communists out of the jungle to forage for food, thus allowing them to be ambushed and killed.

Oct 6, 1951: British High Commissioner Sir Henry Gurney is ambushed and killed by the communists while en route to Fraser’s Hill.

Feb 7, 1952: General Sir Gerald Templer becomes the new High Commissioner and Director of Operations. All intelligence and spying operations are integrated into the Special Branch of the police.

March–April 1952: A 22-hour curfew is imposed on Tanjung Malim, Perak, after a communist attack. Such collective punishments induce people to inform on the communists.


National Heroes of Kenya
123Independenceday » Kenya » National Heroes

Kenyan heroes were the dauntless martyrs who did not hesitate to take any step against the colonizers in order to achieve independence for the whole nation. All of them comprise to form the memorable assets of Kenya. Here is describing the way they became ideals for the people of Kenya:

Dedan Kimathi
Dedan Kimathi was the pioneer leader in the Mau Mau Rebellion during the period from 1952 to 1960. This national hero showed sheer bravery in severely opposing the British Colonial government. His leadership qualities inspired the whole Kikuyu tribe who worshipped him like a hero in the freedom struggle of Kenya.

In the year 1951, Kimathi made himself a member of the ‘Forty Group’, which did not deter from adopting the violent means in order to overthrow the cruel British colonizers. After becoming a leader of the KAU, he stepped ahead to achieve national freedom even through violent measures. Year 1956 was the year when he was subjected to the death sentence issued against him by the Sir Kennith O’ Connor, the Chief Justice at that period. This was because the colonizers considered him a terrorist acting against their advantage. Consequently he received a brutal retribution at the prison called Kamiti Maximum Security on 18th February 1957. And the most distressing thing about the trial is that the Kenyan government still has not succeeded in finding his remains. Now Kimathi is considered to be the protagonist of the freedom movement of Kenya and is regarded as the most memorable national hero. Kenyan people’s appreciation for him can be seen in his statue built in Nairobi. He is and will always be an encouraging factor for the people of Kenya.

Another valiant hero of the freedom struggle of Kenya was Koitalel. He was the leader of the Kenya’s Nandi people and he encouraged them to raise their voice and fight against the tyranny of the British. The brutal manner in which he was killed can easily move anyone to tears. The Kenyan people will always remember his sacrifice.

Other Kenyan heroes that are known for their contribution in the national movement were Harry Thuku, Mekatilili wa Menza, Ezekiel Apindi and Waiyaki wa Hinga. And the government of Kenya believes them to be memorable martyrs who will always influence the Kenyan people through all that they endured during the freedom struggle.

To know more about Kenya and other countries, keep on navigating through the pages of


more heroes..........

if we read thsee countries' fight for freedom, fight colonialism........those work with colonial are bastards and traitors, pengkhianat bangsa dan kemederkaan..........

read the facts that tell all----who worked with colonial, either as civil servants, ....... are pengkhianat bangsa!

understand the history and facts, read the independence facts of these countries!!!!!!!