Our meeting took place in December 1923 in Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s house beside the Pearl River, which flows through the center of Canton.
Dr. Sun had only recently recovered from a serious illness. Although he still appeared to be very weak, he was always happy to receive guests who were part of the struggle, particularly those from Asia. Also present at this meeting were his son, Dr. Sun Fo, the late Liao Chung-k’ai, and I think also the late Hu Han-min and Wang Ching-wei, the last three being well known at that time as Dr. Sun’s most loyal followers.5
Dr. Sun opened the conversation with me by saying: “In this case you can cooperate with Japan.” I was absolutely amazed to hear this! Only a few weeks previously I, and other Communists from China, Korea, and even Japan, had been examining and attacking Japanese imperialism in Korea, Manchuria, Taiwan, and China itself.6 (Bear in mind the “21 demands” Japan presented to China in 1915.)7 Certainly for us there was no difference in principle between Japanese imperialism and that of America, the Netherlands, Britain, or France. The only difference was in the form and origins of the various imperialisms.
I was struck dumb. Obviously it was not the place to engage in debate; I was a guest and in any case I was too young to contradict one of the greatest figures in all of Asia. Also I knew, or had gathered from Dr. Sun’s tone of voice, that he intended to give me carefully considered advice. And finally, was it not the case that Dr. Sun desired the unity of Asia, had long lived in Japan, had many friends there, and had even used Japanese cadres in his struggle to seize central power in China? In short, this advice came from someone who in his heart of hearts was sympathetic to the Indonesian movement. So I did not debate the question of whether Indonesian revolutionaries could work together with the Japanese empire.8
[107] Perhaps Dr. Sun himself felt that the door to such a debate was closed, perhaps because he knew a lot about the practice of such cooperation with Japan or because he had only wanted to test my reaction on this question. Whatever the reason, the conversation was turned in a different direction.
It was clear that Dr. Sun’s knowledge of details, particularly as regards Nanyang, was extraordinary. It was also apparent that Dr. Sun was a fugitive who had many “strategies” and who had friends everywhere. The presence of Chinese people in all corners of the world made things easy for his movement.
“A passport from my government would make things even more dangerous for you than having no passport at all,” he said, “since such a passport would be examined by the British in Hong Kong, the gateway to Kwantung. And their examination would be very thorough. But it will help if I introduce you to the leaders of the Seamen Union based in Hong Kong.”9
I thought for a long time about his admonition to “cooperate with Japan.” Coming from a great revolutionary like Dr. Sun, it could not simply be disregarded. Perhaps because British, French, and American imperialism still stood between Japan and Indonesia, he felt that Japan could not (or could not yet) pounce on Indonesia directly. And he did begin with the words “in this case.” But it was true that one of his most important tactics was to embrace one country today and another tomorrow.
It is unfortunate that I did not try to fathom the real reason for Dr. Sun’s statement. He was an opportunist revolutionary (seizing every opportunity), and his intuition was frequently correct.10 Is it not so that after some twenty years those same words were taken up again by Indonesia’s foremost “nationalist” leaders, when they stretched out welcoming hands to their “older brother” in order to “work together” to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Can we forget the words in the Panca Dharma, “faithful to Dai Nippon up to and after the final victory”?11 Did not Indonesia’s leaders say that we were not helping Japan out of any calculation of gain, but because “Japan stands for truth, justice and purity”? I see this as the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Chinese leader made on the banks of the Pearl River.
[108] I have read Dr. Sun’s books San Min Chu I and China’s International Development.12 They contain much for practical application, but also much that contradicts reality—for example, the proposal that international capital could industrialize China, for the welfare of the Chinese people and for world peace. Of course, one must admit that that is fine in theory. But I think the proposal gives insufficient attention to the competition or even conflict among the capitalist nations themselves, who would have to work together to “advance” China; and, just as important, it gives insufficient attention to the competition and conflict between an industrialized China and the Western capitalist nations. In spite of this, in his spirit and way of thinking Dr. Sun Yat-sen was as different from that “holy” man of India, Mahatma Gandhi, as day is from night. I find Dr. Sun’s writings far more informative than those of the Mahatma on politics and economics or on concrete actions.
Dr. Sun was not a Marxist, and his way of thinking was logical, not dialectical. When he criticized Marxism in San Min Chu I, he used the cheap arguments of bourgeois professors that the class struggle is a mere accident. Dr. Sun analyzed problems in a scientific manner, and he expressed his viewpoint clearly, precisely, and attractively. He was not only an expert writer, but also an effektive [sic] speaker, clear from start to finish and able to win the interest of the people.
But, in my opinion, Dr. Sun’s strength did not rest in his intellect, his speaking skills, or his theory of “nationalism, democracy, and socialism.” I myself attended some of his speeches. They were indeed good and technically proficient. But Wang Ching-wei was just as good, if not better. I have read Dr. Sun’s writings and theories. Other Chinese writers like Professor Dr. Hu-Shih were, I think, also capable of developing such theories.13 But in three areas none surpassed or even equalled him: not Wang Ching-wei, Professor Dr. Hu-Shih, or the tens of other modern Chinese speakers and thinkers.
[109] The first was in the area of sincerity. Well-known Chinese people, even those who were not followers of Dr. Sun in his time, and all the other Asians who met the doctor of the Pearl River stress Dr. Sun’s sincerity and honesty. The father of the Chinese republic acted in accordance with his words and spoke in accordance with his pure heart. Dr. Sun was neither a Tammany politician nor a “revolutionary” who used words to collect enough votes to get elected or to empty the pockets of the common people. Dr. Sun’s theories, speeches, and actions were directed toward what he considered important for his country and his people. Human beings are fallible, and if Dr. Sun made errors, they were not born of deceit.
The second was in the area of confidence, perseverance, and his unselfish nature. Several of his Chinese seaman comrades have recounted to me with pride the sixteen failures of Sun Man in attempting to seize China’s independence from the Manchu dynasty. Only on the seventeenth try was he victorious.14 These failures were presented to me proudly, and I considered that proper. The word “although” was always slipped in at the beginning of the sentence describing these failures, meaning: “Remember, although Sun Man failed sixteen times he did not give up hope.” In this perseverance (thoroughness) Sun Man exemplified a characteristic of the Chinese people as a whole. I believe that the people’s continued faith in Dr. Sun was based on his honesty and lack of greed. He was always ready to sacrifice everything, including his life, to achieve what he was fighting for.
The third was in the area of closeness to the people. His title of Dr. and his ability to mix easily with even the upper classes of his own people and foreign nations did not separate Sun Man from the poor people, the proletariat. The common people of China would not have tied their hearts to his struggle had he not been able to hold their faith.
It was not a coincidence that the victory of the Kuomintang in 1911 was supported by secret societies of the people such as the Kola Hui, which were very close to Dr. Sun.15 After several failed putsches staged by heroic members of the intelligentsia, apparently
