HISTORICAL LINKAGE AND POLITICAL CONNECTION: COMMEMORATION AND REPRESENTATION OF SUN YAT-SEN AND THE 1911 REVOLUTION IN CHINA AND SOUTHEAST ASIA, 1946-20101 WU XIAO AN, PEKING UNIVERSITY NB. 此文为非最后校对稿，原为提交给 2010 年 10 月 25-26 日在新加坡举办的“孙中山、南 洋与 1911 年辛亥革命”国际研讨会论文（主要以《人民日报》报道为主）。刊载于 Sun Yat-sen, Nanyang and the 1911 Revolution, ed. Lee Lai To & Lim Hock Guan, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) Press, 2011, pp.245-69. 若引用，请以出版发表后的论文页 码为准。 INTRODUCTION Over centuries China-Southeast Asian interactions have been best manifested through the tributary system from above and the Overseas Chinese or Chinese Overseas from below. However, over decades after the Second World Two, the linkages of the two have been shadowed by the imagined China threat on the one hand and the suspicious loyalty of Overseas Chinese on the other because of Cold War ideology and Nation-building process. Only with the end of Cold War and the rapid rise of China, China and Southeast Asia have started to be reconnected with each other substantially and at unprecedented rate. From the dusty past, the long-neglected prominent figures of Admiral Zheng He and Dr. Sun Yat-sen have eventually been rediscovered for that purpose. Zheng He‟s case serves perfectly to refute the China threat, while Sun Yat-sen‟s legacy proudly exhibits how Nanyang and Nanyang Chinese contribute to the making of a modern China. In Southeast Asia, neglected memorial halls and temples are hence renovated and rebuilt on the dusty and even damaged sites by the government funding and private donations. Likewise, there have been symposiums, films and exhibitions on these subjects. Such development is an amazing contrast with the socio-political landscape just a few decades ago. How and why were Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution represented between China and Southeast Asia under the changing situations? In China and Southeast Asia, how and why were they imagined and commemorated differently in the different stages of the period? Based on the People’s Daily from 1946 to 2010 in China, the chapter, while not studying Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution per se, tries to construct and reconstruct their commemoration and representation in China and Southeast Asia and their dynamics. SUN YAT-SEN AND NANYANG Sun Yat-sen‟s revolutionary activities and legacy in Nanyang should at least include three aspects: i) directly, his own physical involvements; ii) indirectly, his fellow compradors‟ 1 activities under his leadership; and iii) the activities after the 1911 Revolution. As Duara argues, it was only after the 1911 Revolution that Sun Yat-sen‟s legacy and influences in Nanyang had started to be dominant spiritually and consolidated institutionally by bypassing the forces of pro-Qing government Baohuanghui [Association for the Protection of the Emperor].2 Likewise, interestingly in the case of China, it was only following the death of Sun Yat-sen in 1925 that he was mystically worshipped in modern Chinese politics and society when he was constructed as a national icon by the KMT regime. Because of time constraint, this chapter would focus on his physical presence in Nanyang. In terms of financial and human resources, it is no doubt that Nanyang Chinese contributed greatly to the 1911 Revolution. However, it is the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, and even Europe, rather than Nanyang, that Sun Yat-sen had physically stayed longer and benefited most spiritually. It was not until the middle of the year 1900 that Nanyang started to become Sun Yat-sen‟s main revolutionary bases. The reason that Sun Yat-sen was forced to turn to Nanyang as his main revolutionary bases instead was due to the deportation of Sun by Japanese Government and the geographical proximity to South China, notably, Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong. For Sun Yat-sen, Nanyang had two significant dimensions or sources for his revolutionary mobilization: one was Nanyang Chinese contributions to the fund-raising and organizational support underpinned by the common ethnic identity as the common ethnic identity and Chinese nationalism in terms of anti-Manchu and anti-imperialism cause; the other was local non-Southeast Asian Chinese nationalists, who was inspired and united by Asianism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries due to the common Asian anti-colonialism and Asian nationalist awakening.3 For the former, Vietnam, Singapore and Malaysia were the three main targets, and Saigon, Hanoi, Singapore and Penang were headquarters for Sun‟s Nanyang revolutionary organizational activities. For the latter, Southeast Asian nationalists, Phan Boi Chau in Vietnam, Ponce in the Philippines, and Sukarno in Indonesia were the most prominent. They benefited from or were inspired by Sun Yat-sen and his works, directly or indirectly. In sum, just like Sun‟s dual emphasis on Chinese Nationalism and Asianism, Sun‟s Nanyang revolutionary network also had two components: one was that of the Nanyang Chinese, the other was that of the non-Chinese Southeast Asians. It should be noted that we should not treat Sun Yat-sen‟s revolutionary itinerary and activities in various places of Nanyang separately from that in other parts of the world. In fact, Sun‟s activities in various places of Nanyang form an integral part of his global revolutionary network for his Anti-Manchu revolution. Although Sun Yat-sen‟s physical activities were centred on Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore and Penang, it didn‟t mean he confined his revolutionary activities to these cities alone. To be sure, these cities functioned as headquarters for Sun‟s global revolutionary network because of their geographical and strategic significance. However, other than Southeast Asia, Sun‟s revolutionary network included Japan, Hong Kong and China as far as Asia was concerned. The choice of shifting revolutionary headquarters as Sun‟s physical bases was both strategic and tactical. Strategically, the geographical, economic and political significance of these places facilitated Sun‟s transnational movements; tactically, new headquarters had to be established as Sun was sometimes deported from one country to 2 another. Sun‟s Nanyang revolutionary network were underpinned by Chinese nationalism, Vietnamese nationalism, Filipino nationalism, and Indonesian nationalism that and connected, inspired and packed under Asianism in their fight against colonialism and imperialism. It is amazing to note that within a few years the Sun Yat-sen‟s transnational revolutionary network was able to penetrate into Nanyang Chinese social organizations and trading networks and build up new powerful organizational, financial and media forces from the region. For Nanyang, with the incorporation of the Sun‟s revolutionary network, a political community across various territorial boundaries began to emerge. The new Nanyang revolutionary network not only represented a more united Overseas Chinese nationalism, but also paved the way for the formation of a Southeast Asian regional identity via various Chinese communities. In terms of periods, Sun‟s activities in Nanyang during 1900-1911 could be divided into two stages: the first stage was 1900-05, the second one 1906-11. In terms of geography, Sun‟s activities the first stage focused on Indo-China and the Philippines.4 Fro for the second stage, they were concentrated on British Malaya, Siam, British Burma and Dutch Indies. Beyond Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore and Penang, his Nanyang revolutionary network was extended to other places of British Malaya, Siam, Dutch Indies, British Burma and the Philippines, consisting of around 130 branches and reading clubs. The organizational network was coordinated and maintained through Sun Yat-sen‟t instructions, his close cronies (e.g. Yu Lieh, Hu Han Ming, Wang Jingwei, and Huangxin), and prominent local Chinese followers ( e.g. Chan Chor Nam, Teo Eng Hock and Lim Ngee Soon in Singapore, Goh Say Eng and Ng Kim Keng in Penang, Zhuang Ying-an in Rangoon).5 If we take the Philippines as an example, Sun Yat-sen visited the Philippines as early as in the 1890s. He managed to establish relations with the Filipino revolution. His medical professor in Hong Kong, named Dr. Lorenzo Marquez, was a close friend of Jose Rizal. He helped Philippine revolutionary government under Aguinaldo via his friend Mariano Ponce to purchase weapons and ammunitions from Japan twice, although the shipment failed to reach the Philippines eventually. His classmate in Hong Kong named Dr. Tee Han Kee, was the leader of the pro-Sun group in Manila.6 Even in 1910, Sun wrote from Singapore to his American comrade Charles Beach Boothe, mentioning his intention to visit Manila in the coming few months and asking the latter‟s introduction to his friends in the Philippines. Sun also explored whether Boothe could request his close American friend, who was an ex-American general in the Philippines, to introduce Sun to visit the local officials there.7 In a very long memorial article written by Sun‟s widow Madam Song and published in the People’s Daily during Sun‟s centennial birthday commemoration, it‟s not a coincidence that Song in particular quoted Mariano Ponce‟s words to illustrate Sun‟s enthusiasm about the Philippines‟ revolution: With the utmost interest watching its development, Sun Yat-sen was very familiar with the current revolutionary situations in the Philippines. With great enthusiasm, 3 he studied the works and stories of Jose Rizal and Del Pilar, the nation‟s greatest heroes. … In the eyes of Sun Yat-sen, the problems of many Far Eastern countries were so closely connected so that in order for us to better understand each separate country‟s own problem it was essential that these countries should be throughout studied as an integral subject. … Therefore, Sun Yat-sen was one of the most enthusiastic patrons to „Oriental Youth Association‟, which was set up in Tokyo by students from Korea, China, Japan, India, Siam and the Philippines.