6 August 2016 v - china-studies.taipei Sta Romana1.pdf · 6 August 2016 v.2 2 Project Coordinator: Tina S. Clemente Project Assistant: Pamela G. Combinido Back then, our impression

6 August 2016 v.2

1 Project Coordinator: Tina S. Clemente Project Assistant: Pamela G. Combinido

Expert: Chito Sta Romana Interviewer: Lucio Pitlo III

Chito Sta Romana is one of the Philippines' foremost China experts. He spent almost 40 years in China and worked for 2 decades as a veteran journalist for an American media company, ABC. He took his Bachelors in Liberal Arts and Commerce at De La Salle University and his Masters in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Boston.

Pitlo: Can you tell us how you developed your interest in China Studies? Was it something you planned for?

Sta Romana: No. In a sense, it was actually accidental. My interest in China basically came as a result of my involvement in the student activist movement during Martial Law. I was then a young student leader in De La Salle University, where there was hardly any activism. My batch was in fact among those who pioneered it. I was part of the Council and the student organ, and I was exposed to the movement through contacts with colleagues from UP and other universities, from the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), and from the College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP). I was very active as head of NUSP-Manila. This experience really led me to the student movement. I graduated in 1970, right after the First Quarter Storm. And I knew renowned student leaders like Edgar Jopson, who was then the Head of Ateneo's Student Council, while I headed that of La Salle. As contemporaries, we were together during the first demonstration in Congress during former President Marcos' State of the Nation Address. NUSP organized it, and we marched to Congress together with other protesters.

After graduation, I went to UP where I enrolled for a Masters in Economics degree. I took about 21 units but did not do a thesis. After that, I went on to obtain some units on Asian Studies from the UP Asian Center. I became more involved in student activism since I was already in UP, the bastion of the movement in the country. At around this time, China was under the Cultural Revolution, where students and the youth played prominent roles. Student power was very popular the world over. Like other students then, I saw a lot of ills in society, the disenchantment against Marcos' rule, and his rigging of the elections to stay in power. Pitlo: Would you say that Filipino student activists at that time looked to China as their role model? Sta Romana: Yes, it was in a sense a model. Student activism was becoming a model for effecting change. While I was in my junior year at La Salle, I got a grant through the university and the US Embassy to travel in the U.S. for three (3) months. Travelling to different universities like University of California Berkeley and Columbia University, among others, exposed me further to the student movement, which was very popular in the U.S. Student activists strongly opposed the Vietnam War. This experience impressed on me the value of student power as a source of inspiration and as a model. When I came back to La Salle that was actually one of the things I introduced and advocated in the Student Council. La Salle's students then were very formal and constrained; they were trained to be company executives. But we just wanted more student freedom—more freedom to write in the school newspaper and an end to school uniforms. Even though I was In La Salle, I started taking courses in UP during the summer break. I took courses in history and Philippine nationalism under Professor Mila Guerrero. I brought back the ideas I learned from these courses to La Salle. In UP, I also took courses on Jose Rizal's novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo which were not taught at La Salle then. Back then, we had this Nationalist Committee in the Student Council, which became involved in national and international student politics. My student activism deepened further while I was a graduate student at UP. Like many student activists at that time, we were influenced by China's Cultural Revolution, which we thought demonstrated student power.

6 August 2016 v.2


Back then, our impression was that the Red Guards were part of student power and youth rebellion. We did not know that they eventually went out of control. The Cultural Revolution was a model at that point, and the young Red Guards conveyed the sense that rebellion was justified. What they did and what really transpired during that time only came to light after, with the benefit of hindsight. I started reading about China and Maoism, trying to know what was going on there and if the Philippines could draw lessons from China's experience. And of course in UP, there was already a strong leftist movement which saw China as a model. In a sense, that was a confluence of events. Aside from the Cultural Revolution, another development that increased my interest in China was the ping pong diplomacy between China and the U.S. I was already studying in UP at that time. The attempts by the two big countries to establish relations were big news. Later on, Chairman Mao and U.S. President Nixon would conclude a historic meeting. That was the moment I became really curious. What was China doing? What developments in the international scene prompted the Sino-U.S. rapprochement? Was it USSR and Soviet revisionism? The international division of the socialist bloc also had its domestic reflection, with the Philippine left divided between Joma’s (Jose Ma. Sison) group and the Lava group. Then there was also the Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), which was part of the context in which the 1970 First Quarter Storm (FQS) emerged. I already had misgivings about the Con-Con. FQS was really formative for me. People were disenchanted with President Marcos and the way the Con-Con was going. In order to better channel and harness this protest, people had to be politicized and mobilized. And it was on the question of how to do it that the Chinese model came into prominence. A lot of interesting things were happening in China at this time, including the Sino-U.S. ping pong diplomacy. Big news. And then China began to open up gradually. First, they started to invite a business delegation, followed by a women’s delegation, and then a youth delegation. I was part of the youth delegation that was invited for a three-week trip to China. Pitlo: Aside from the ideological or practical inspiration that China provided, were there other factors that motivated you to travel and experience China? Did curiosity play a part? Sta Romana: Yes, curiosity was there. I wanted to go to China to see what was happening there, so I joined the youth delegation. Actually, I headed that group, which included student leaders from leading universities like UP, La Salle, and Ateneo. We were 15 in the group. Ten managed to go home. Pitlo: Was the group above ground? Sta Romana: Well, yes, it was above ground in the sense that there was a formal invitation from the People's Republic of China, which did not have an Embassy in the Philippines at that time. Pitlo: So how was the invitation coursed? Sta Romana: It is actually a long story. In 1970, there was an expo in Japan, and Keio University invited Asian students for a conference. So we went. Present were leaders of the Student Councils of UP and La Salle. The group includes Jerry Barican (the late lawyer, Development Bank of the Philippines Board Member, and Presidential Spokesperson for former President Estrada) and Nelson Navarro (exiled in U.S. for 15 years; a noted columnist and biography writer). On the way, we passed by Hong Kong, where the group actually wrote a letter applying to go to China. After several months, the UP Student Council received a positive response: the Chinese government was inviting a Filipino youth delegation. However, there was a complication, since there was already a business and women’s delegations from Philippines who had visited China. One of the heads of the women’s delegation was Charito Planas (lawyer,

6 August 2016 v.2


environmentalist and women's rights advocate who became Quezon City Vice Mayor and former Presidential Spokesperson for President Macapagal-Arroyo). She was actually the one who told us that the Chinese wished to invite a youth group, after which the invitation letter came. The Chinese were doing their small opening-up; they were trying to invite foreigners to come in. Mao was already trying to control the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, and with Zhou Enlai, was shifting the policy, especially towards the U.S. So that led to that Philippine youth delegation. But there was a problem because it was then prohibited for Filipinos to travel to the Mainland. So we kept it quiet. We had to go through Hong Kong. From there, somebody from the China Travel Service helped. We got a detachable visa with no mark on our passports. This way, we could go back. They took care of us; we stayed in Hong Kong for a night or two before entering the Mainland by train. It was a quiet trip, but the Chinese news agency announced it: “Filipino youth delegation arrived in Beijing.” Pitlo: You mentioned that Filipinos then were barred from entering China? How did you get in? How would you describe the trip? Sta Romana: To get to the Mainland, we took the Lo Wu bridge in Shenzhen, which was then a sleepy fishing village along the train station, to reach Guangzhou. From Guangzhou, we transferred to a Russian Antonov plane. It was then the time of the Cultural Revolution; the flight attendants were singing Maoist songs as in-flight entertainment. It was very interesting. There were 15 of us in the delegation. But in the airplane, it was a regular domestic flight, not a chartered one so the passengers were mixed. We arrived in Beijing that night. Beijing Airport at that time was smaller than Manila International Airport. Now that they have built new big airports, I think they still use the old one for executive jets or presidential jets and chartered flights to avoid the main airport. Anyway, the old airport was so small you could exit right away. Beijing at night then was dark, with only few lights. It was not a cosmopolitan city. Pitlo: So your delegation's arrival became news in China? Sta Romana: Well, yes, partly. The Chinese then were accepting delegates from Third World countries, and they were starting to open towards the West. What was initially intended as a three-week trip became longer than we expected. We were there on National Day in October, and we attended the National Day banquet. Pitlo: So what was your initial reaction upon arriving in Beijing, the capital city of a country that you had looked up to as a model? Sta Romana: I remember that one of the first questions I asked was where Chairman Mao lived. And the question I got from one of our guides captured the prevailing mood in China at that time - Bu qingchu (Not clear), which means “we are not clear.” And that became a common phrase. It is a substitution for saying they do not know. It was a way of avoiding or deflecting the question. Later on, as we were driving to Peking Hotel where we would stay, they were to tell that somewhere along the way was the residence of the central leadership. They would not say that was where Mao lived. Anyway, we rested in the hotel, and the next day had breakfast and meals. We saw the other foreign youth delegations. Many were from Vietnam, for instance, because it was then the height of the Vietnam War. There were also quite a number of Africans, who were guests. The first place we wanted to visit right away was Tiananmen Square. And so we went. Our interpreter guides hurriedly rushed us. They were discussing amongst themselves in their local language, but we got a sense that we could not go there. There may have been some security issue. Anyway, we were starting to have an idea of

6 August 2016 v.2


the situation. It was an introduction for us. We realized that it was not proper to go out without their permission. Pitlo: When you got a sense of the security situation back then, did you feel that China was not a safe place? Sta Romana: I mean that it felt a little awkward. Eventually, you would hear more stories about the internal politico-security challenges that China was facing. Looking back, however, we were very curious about China and the first thing they talked about was the itinerary and what we wanted to see. At that point, our hosts knew we were young student leaders, and from the suggestions we gave and also from what they were ready to show us, there was an expectation that we would be venturing into what is now more known as “red tourism” or political tourism, where guests would be shown places of interest in China's revolutionary history. Pitlo: So eventually, you were able to see the official places of interest celebrating China's communist revolution? Sta Romana: Yes. We were able to go to the official places, like Mao’s home village and the area where he set up his revolutionary base. But aside from these, they also took us to Shanghai, Guangzhou, and other key cities. Pitlo: So the intended short trip was extended? Sta Romana: Yes. Originally, the trip was only for three weeks. But on our first week, actually on the same night or second night of our arrival, we did not know that the Plaza Miranda bombing had happened in Manila. We learned about it because one of our interpreters was asking us what the meaning of habeas corpus was. I asked how habeas corpus came into China. We were trying to figure out what he was asking. And it turned out indeed that something taken place back home; and that it had something to do with habeas corpus. The Plaza Miranda bombing was reported in a “reference news” item (like a compilation of foreign news) put out by Xinhua, which was available in the local language but which was also distributed in English in hotel rooms. We could not get copies in our first few days, and only really got know later on what was going on in the Philippines. We knew, however, it was critical. Pitlo: How were you treated and accommodated by your hosts? Sta Romana: It was very organized. They had a Philippine section. When we landed and came out of the airplane, there was a reception line and one young lady who greeted us in Filipino: “Kayo ba ang delegasyon ng kabataang Pilipino?” (Are you the delegation of Filipino youths?”). As head of the delegation, I answered “Yes” in English. Later I found out, that the Chinese lady was an announcer at Radio Peking. She was born and grew up in the Philippines (in Binondo, Manila), and came back to China. I was surprised – she was a Binondo girl! I was not expecting to hear a Filipino-speaking guide and interpreter. She was with us the whole trip. There was also an Indonesian who was learning Filipino. He was born and raised in Indonesia, but came back to China, as did the aforementioned Binondo lady. In his case, the suppression of the Chinese minority, who were seen as supporters of the Indonesian Communist Party, prompted his departure. We also had other Chinese guides/minders. Pitlo: Did you feel a bit worried going around the city with minders around you? Sta Romana: Eventually, we figured it out. Since our delegation was invited, some protocols had to be observed. We came from and represented different schools. We did not know the protocol in China. We only came to do so as we went along. One such formal protocol was the reception lane that had been laid out when we came out of the plane. We were also taken into different cars in groups. As the delegation head, I was

6 August 2016 v.2


escorted into a separate vehicle. That was when we figured out their different approach. On our first trip, we had a big bus, but I was again placed in a separate car with a senior member of the host team. Later on, we requested if all of us could ride in just one bus. Pitlo: How did you make of this approach or style? Sta Romana: We were not used to this treatment of a visiting foreign delegation. It was actually hierarchical when we were expecting it to be egalitarian. We laughed because we thought we were familiar with this treatment. The Red Guards thought like this. At that point, the Red Guards had not yet received their negative reputation, but looking back, you could already sense that it was already heading in that direction. Anyway, so we went around the city and the university. We were shown the Forbidden City, the Summer Palace, and other historical places. Eventually, the tour and discussion became more political. So it was very light at first. We went around the city, and it was a great experience because we were interested in Chinese civilization. We also visited Tiananmen Square. We also requested if we could pay a visit to a university such as Peking University. Pitlo: Did you have a chance to interact with local students? Sta Romana: That was actually an interesting thing. They brought out some students but there were no classes. Universities were closed. We did not realize it then. We thought that the Red Guards Revolution was the Cultural Revolution. However, while universities were closed, they were somehow in a period of reform. They seemed to be reforming the education system. So we met instead the University Administration, some faculty, and a handful of students. We were told that most of the students were still out in the countryside. Even the ones who were in Beijing happened to be on temporary vacation, so we did not have a lot of interaction with students. We were really wondering. That eventually led us to propose the idea of asking and going to where we could meet what they call the educated youth: the young, the former Red Guards. Pitlo: So were you able to actually meet a Red Guard? Sta Romana: Yes. We communicated our request to meet the youngest member of the Central Committee's leadership. Eventually, our request was granted. We met him in Shanghai. He was a Red Guard in a very high position in the Party. But something very strange and funny was already happening. Looking back at that point, we were already wondering. I forgot his exact age, but I would say pushing 40, late 30s pushing 40. You know, the Chinese definition of “youth” goes further. He was the youngest member of the Central Committee at that point. Since we were in Shanghai, we asked him if he could share the story of the Cultural Revolution in the city. He was accompanied by an elderly person, and it was this old man who was narrating, not the youngest Central Committee member. He was always the one talking. During the dinner, he would also play the host and lead the talk. But during the discussion, he never used the first-person. We were wondering why he was the one doing much of the talking. I mean, he was telling the story. Incidentally, it was around this time that the Lin Biao affair happened. Lin Biao was supposed to succeed Chairman Mao, but eventually, it was discovered that he had plotted to assassinate Mao. And when the plot did not materialize, he tried to flee China. We did not know that these things are happening because the news was limited to what they showed and what we saw and to the discussions we had during our trips. So one of the things we discovered was to listen to shortwave broadcasts, Voice of America (VOA).

6 August 2016 v.2


Pitlo: Was that allowed? Sta Romana: Well, one of the things we did while we were in Hong Kong was to buy a radio tape recorder with shortwave broadcasts which we would bring back to Manila. That was what we were using. It was my first time to listen to VOA because I didn’t usually listen to it, but because of the situation we were in, we thought it was helpful. Actually, we wanted to follow then what was happening in the Philippines. And we found this Far Eastern Broadcasting Station. We were listening to all the news about people being arrested, about what happened to them and so on. It was in the course of listening that we found out about VOA. That is how we learned about the things happening in China. And in our naiveté, we would ask our interpreter to which she will answer back, Bu qingchu (it is not clear). At that point, we knew there were developments in China, but as guests, we just observed over a period of time what would happen and what new developments would occur. We kept going to Tiananmen and we saw youths practicing marching. They were preparing for the National Day parade. Our hotel, Peking Hotel, is along Tiananmen, so we often got to see these practices. As we were hearing about events in the Philippines, we eventually got a letter from friends back home that some of us were wanted back in the Philippines and that there was an emergency situation. Pitlo: Was this already beyond your intended three-week period trip? Sta Romana: No. This was still within the three-week period when we got this information. They were able to send us some communications, but of course, there were some delays, though we knew the news of people being arrested because of our access to the shortwave radio. I knew some friends who were arrested. Pitlo: Was this the time you decided to stay? Sta Romana: Well, we originally said, we thought that we would just stay for a while and wait for the situation to settle down since that was the advice friends who sent the letter gave us. We were told to wait until after the election. There would be an election in which Marcos will lose, so we thought we could go home. What happened was that 10 members of our group of us did manage to go back home. Five of us who were on the wanted list stayed, as there was a court case against us for violating the Anti-Subversion Law. Those who went back home did so via roundabout route through Tokyo. Because there was no mark on their passports, they were able to go there. And since it was still before martial law when they got back, some of them later went underground. One actually disappeared during martial law and was never found since then. For the five of us who decided to stay, we were in a state of waiting, so our Chinese hosts organized more tours. By the way, when our group was in Shanghai sometime in September and on the way back to Beijing, we requested if we could see and attend the National Day parade. They said they would work on it. However, we were told that for austerity reasons, there would be no National Day parade for that year. Because the parade was an important annual event that made us really think. We actually believed it. It was like China Watching 101! In the beginning, you believed what they say, and then later, you realized some things were happening. Pitlo: Great! So early on in your stay in China, you were already developing a better grasp of observing China and making sense of the developments in the country. What events made you think that there was a problem brewing in China at that time?

6 August 2016 v.2


Sta Romana: When we got back in Beijing, we were invited to the National Day reception, though there was no parade. That made us really think because we thought austerity had forced the cancellation of the event. China's top leadership was present during the reception: Zhou Enlai, Mao's wife Jiang Qing, the Gang of Four, everybody except Mao. Lin Biao was also absent. Zhou Enlai went around, toasting along with the Beijing mayor. This was supposed to be the first signs that there was a problem. There was no major speech by Zhou Enlai or anything like that. I think there was just a toast. A few days after the National Day parade, the Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie, came and met Mao. Here, China watchers realized that there was really something wrong. The protocol in China during toasts for such events was to say, “Long live the health of Chairman Mao and the health of Vice-Chairman Lin Biao.” But during this event, there was no mention of Lin Biao. It was the first hint. At that point, the speculation in the West was that the parade was cancelled because Mao was sick. And around that time, a group of American doctors/heart specialists were on a tour, so people thought that they were out to cure Mao. But the doctors came out saying they did not do anything. So what happened during the visit of Emperor Haile Selassie was the first sign. The other one, which was also noticed by the West, was that for a time no airplanes were allowed to fly from any airport. That was actually the time when Lin Biao was allegedly escaping. This is all looking back now, but at that point, it was a mystery. We were hearing all these from radio shortwave, but in all of China, it appears as though there was nothing happening; on the surface, it was just quiet. More so if you were a foreigner since you were sheltered. Pitlo: Where did you go after the Beijing National Day reception? Sta Romana: After that, we went out on a trip and they brought us to Yan'an. This was revolutionary tourism. The caves of Yan'an, Shaanxi province, was the birthplace of the revolution. This is where Xi Jinping and Wang Qishan were working as young students. That is why President Xi would later revisit this area and try to reconnect with the revolutionary spirit of the place. As for us, we did not know much about it at that time. It was actually here that we were able to meet young people of our age. They were Red Guards, and we had discussions with them. We would ask them questions in the course of our exchange. One, out of curiosity, asked, “How long will you stay here?” Their reply was, “All our lives.” We were surprised. “Because that is the need of the revolution.” We asked ourselves what this was. But that was what they were saying then. Pitlo: So it was like a permanent revolution? Sta Romana: Yes. What was funny was that when we got back in Beijing, we met some of these students whom we met in Yan'an. We recognized them and some of them also recognized us. So we asked, “Hi, why are you back here?” They replied: “No, no we just came back here because of some medical or family visit, but we’ll be going back again.” Anyway, at that point, we realized that Yan'an was supposed to be the cradle of the revolution. There are statues and big pictures of Mao and Lin Biao there. Lin Biao and his military unit were responsible for producing copies of the Red Book. Lin Biao wrote the preface of the book, and he wrote in Chinese characters encouraging readers to study conscientiously Chairman Mao’s work. Later, we noticed Red Guards tearing that page. That was when the Chinese people began to acknowledge what was happening. There was very intense internal struggle, but they kept it to themselves. No one among us would know about it. All of these were happening while we were touring, which we continued until December after the end of the Philippine elections that saw Marcos getting defeated. Marcos retreated a bit and ten of our fellows were able to go back home. This was after 3 months.

6 August 2016 v.2


Pitlo: So what happened to those of you who decided to stay? Did the tours continue? Sta Romana: We were advised by our lawyers from the Philippines who were working on our cases. They said that they could win these cases and we could get back home, but told us we just needed to stay in China a little while longer. We were staying in another hotel at this time, the Peace Hotel. We were often listening to the radio and were also reading a lot. There were no more tours during this time. The three weeks became three months; ten of our colleagues managed to go back. So we were confronted with a question of what to do while waiting. Pitlo: Were your hosts concerned about your safety if you decided to go back? Sta Romana: Our own families were very concerned about us. But yes, our hosts were also concerned. China, at that point, was quite sympathetic. During this time, there was a provision in their Constitution (which was removed during the time of Deng Xiaoping) that foreigners subject to persecution in their own countries because of their political or scientific beliefs may stay in China. They give you a sort of “exile provision,” wherein you are free to stay or go. Pitlo: Was that indefinite? Sta Romana: Yes. Actually, we eventually met some of political refugees in the place we were staying. They were two elderly Americans. Later, we found out that they were the editors of Chairman Mao’s works in English. Pitlo: Was that the reason they were persecuted in the US and had to seek refuge in China? Sta Romana: No. They came to China because they were persecuted during the McCarthy red/communist scare period in the U.S. At that time, many were wrongfully accused -- some were persecuted -- of having communist links, including people working in government. This was the case for the two Americans. They were both government officials, one worked in finance and the other one worked in treasury. They were both economists. They went to China and sought refuge there. They ended up staying and dying there as well. They were already really old when we met them - in their 60s and 70s. They had their families with them. They did not speak Chinese, but their children were able to learn while staying in China. I attended their funerals. Eventually, their children returned to the U.S. We got to know these people while waiting. Pitlo: Stuck in China and unable to get back home, what were the things running in your head at that time? Sta Romana: We decided at that point to make ourselves productive while waiting, so we asked if we could stay in a rural area and join some work units to better learn and experience China. So our hosts brought us to a state farm in Hunan. That is where we saw and experienced China from the bottom-up. It was planting season. We were able to experience plowing and use of the carabao for rudimentary farming. What was funny is that they put us in the company of young high school girls who taught us. We had no prior experience in farming of course. The girls were well familiar, and the boys were even much faster. We were trying to follow and learn from them. One of us five who had stayed was also a woman. Pitlo: This must have been very practical learning for your group. How would you assess the experience? Sta Romana: It was actually very rudimentary. Half a day of work and another of studying the Chinese language. The universities were closed, so our hosts got a teacher from the language institute who used to

6 August 2016 v.2


teach Pakistanis and other foreigners. This teacher had been with us when we were working on the farm. We would work in the morning and he would teach us in the afternoon. It was quite an experience. We stayed there for a couple of months. I would say we did not do well with the job. Perhaps, I would not have given it a passing grade. Pitlo: Would you say that your experience in staying in China at that time convinced you that China was indeed a worthy model should the Philippines decide to pursue a socialist path? Sta Romana: Overall? No. Pitlo: So the charm of China's socialist model already disappeared after 3 months? Sta Romana: When we saw first what happened, there were positive and negative sides. What we experienced in the Hunan farm (although we had never been to a farm in the Philippines, and most of us are from the landed class, not the peasant class) seemed similar to most rural areas in the Philippines. If you looked at their living conditions, they were not very dissimilar from the Philippines, except perhaps that they were more egalitarian and there was no pronounced social disparity. But having gone through all that happened in China, you would want economic growth to improve, as it did during the time of Deng. But the political system would probably not work in the Philippines. Perhaps it is OK if you are with the ruling faction. But if you were in the opposition, it was very difficult. There seemed to be no diversity, but of course under Deng, diversity was allowed for a while. But now with Xi Jinping, it almost seems like the second coming of Mao. At that point, we were still open and wide-eyed. Pitlo: Did you come to treat China as a worker’s paradise? Sta Romana: Well, it was not exactly paradise. What we noticed is that they treated foreigners very well. We would go on train rides and plane trips, and they would always put us in first-class. Of course, the first thing you would notice is that the trains were long and there were many people queuing and riding. Our hosts would escort us while walking and we would be treated better than the ordinary Chinese. And when it comes to food, they would give us good delicacies. You wonder what they were eating. That is when I noticed that most of it was tofu and rice and some vegetables and very little meat. Eventually, although we were sheltered, we got to know about the rations. People received limited rations of grain, meat, cooking oil, while only foreigners had access to friendship stores. In the beginning, we thought these were for tourists. We only realized about it later as we stayed. For example, we came to know that if you looked Asian, the guard at the store entrance would stop you. If you were not accompanied by an interpreter, they would ask for your ID. Pitlo: Since you were Asian, did they mistake your group for locals? Sta Romana: We dressed in local Chinese clothes. We realized that the disadvantage of that is that if we went to friendship stores, we would be stopped. Or when we went to a Chinese restaurant, they would ask for coupons (lian piao). And there were special restaurants for foreigners as well. That is when we began to see that something was wrong somewhere. Pitlo: That there was disparity, an unequal treatment between local and foreigners? Sta Romana: The rations were meant to equalize, but there were many loopholes and the thing was that you knew they were a developing country too, except more egalitarian. And then you recognized their unisex approach. Men and women were alike: same dress, no cosmetics, no make-up. This was during Mao’s period.

6 August 2016 v.2


Pitlo: Would you say that was too harsh, the way they conceived their egalitarian society? Sta Romana: Well, I thought the Chinese could take it because of their culture. They are more used to it. But after Deng came to power, I saw that in a sense they were just like any of us. If you give them a sense of freedom, they would behave like people who had just come out of prison. Pitlo: So after the Hunan farm experience, what kept you busy when you returned to Beijing? Sta Romana: Eventually, we ended up in a university since the universities were re-opening. So we enrolled in a formal language certificate program in the university, along with Chinese students. It was a mixed class. I had a Chinese roommate in the dormitory. The Chinese students, on the other hand, were learning English. So our learning of the Chinese language was supposed to promote it. Those were the old days. Now, that is no longer the case. The locals were separated from the foreigners in Chinese language classes. But at that time, it was the usual approach. At that point, you will notice that the foreigners were really different from the locals. So what the Chinese could not buy in Chinese stores, they would ask their foreigner friends to buy it for them in friendship stores. Those are the favors that they would usually ask. That is when you got to see it. And then they were very curious about things foreign. For instance, at that time, all watches were made locally and imported ones were prohibited. Chinese-made watches were not automatic. So when we (in the delegation) were wearing the automatic watches we had before coming to China (in my case, I was using a hand-me-down from my father), our Chinese colleagues kept looking at it. And I was telling them about the tape recorder I mentioned before, which has a short wave radio combination. There was none in China then, just radios and black-and-white TVs in the beginning. So they were asking us, “what is this,” “where did you buy that,” etc. You could see that they were quite behind. So it became an interesting experience in that sense. Pitlo: Did you ever feel that the Chinese resented the fact that foreigners were given special treatment? Sta Romana: That is an interesting question. They had this system of treating guests well, and you would feel it. That is why they would ask favors from you to buy for them; you reciprocate in that way. Another thing, during the tours, the Chinese actually mobbed us (as foreigners) so our guests had someone who would discipline the crowds, someone who was a little harsh. The locals were surprised or amazed to see someone who looked different. So if they realized that you were a foreigner, they would gather around or mobbed you. We were actually telling our guides not to be too rough. We were the ones who feel ashamed. We would rather be mixed up with them than to keep them away. Pitlo: Could they easily tell at that time if one was a foreigner? Sta Romana: Because of the way we dressed. Later, we would start to wear local clothes. In addition, there were also a couple of women in our group. Their hairstyles were different from those of most of the local women – not the usual pigtails. Also, foreigners usually stood out. There was just something different in them that locals could sense. That is when you realized that they were not used to seeing foreigners. China was very insular and isolated. Eventually of course, China would become very different, but they were very closed during the Cultural Revolution. Pitlo: How would you describe Chinese society at that time?

6 August 2016 v.2


Sta Romana: It was spartan and egalitarian; they were not exposed to consumer goods, especially Western ones. It was very different. It was like being in a different planet. It was different, but in some respects it was also the same. So it was very revealing when China decided to adopt changes. Pitlo: You mentioned earlier that your group became convinced that the Philippines should not go the way China had gone. What made you think of that? Sta Romana: At that point, we had not decided yet. We only did so only after years of experience. China's position shifted away from Mao’s model to Deng's. Deng maintained that each country should tread its own path according its own conditions. Actually, even under Mao, this approach was already surfacing. You should develop a model to suit your own conditions. So eventually, the Chinese went their own way. The point here is that I think there are certain things in Philippine society and culture that need to be factored in when coming up with our own model. That model should be our own and reflect our conditions and integrate the positive aspects of our culture that suit developmental requirements. Filipinos are a little more spontaneous and freewheeling. The Chinese, on the other hand, are ritualistic and Confucian values are very strong. Of course, I did not know then China’s culture was Confucian. I thought it was just being Chinese. Pitlo: Did it occur on you that Filipinos, based on our culture and traditions, could possibly reach the stage that China did? I mean with the type of discipline, rigor, commitment to work, and willingness to sacrifice that the Chinese demonstrated? Sta Romana: I think the former President Marcos tried it, but it did not work. Pitlo: You mean through his New Society Program? Sta Romana: Yes, the New Society. Yes, I think you would need a very strong dedicated leader who can be a model. At the same time, there has to be a sense of crisis that would unite the people and make them accept the price of discipline. I think that happened for a while during the Japanese period. Those were very difficult times, and people just improvised and found ways to live within their means. But otherwise, Filipinos are a little more like the Spaniards and Latin Americans. In fact, we were actually likened to Latin Americans. Pitlo: Filipinos’ laid-back character? Sta Romana: Yes. As well as certain aspects of Filipinos’ religion, culture, and politics, which make it difficult for authoritarianism to take root, although there seems to be a recent surge and inclination towards a strongman leader. The appeal of a strongman is becoming more popular. Pitlo: One author mentioned what he considered as Filipinos' democracy fatigue. Would you say that Filipinos’ “Asianness” is finally catching up with them? I mean, many Asian countries had been led by strongmen and attained high levels of economic development through the East Asian governance/leadership model. There seems to be a growing frustration over the system of checks and balances (three coequal/interdependent branches of government) that paralyzes crucial decision-making and polarizes the country politically. Sta Romana: That is possible. Let us see. There are two experiments we have not yet done. One is federalism. We did the other partly during the time of former President Marcos, but not in a proper setting. I am referring to a parliamentary government. However, I am not too optimistic about that. Federalism may, to a certain extent, decentralize government and mobilize local initiative. A parliamentary system, similar to Japan’s, would possibly mean frequent changes in government. It is really tough to tell. It will

6 August 2016 v.2


entail more experimenting for the Philippines. China during the Cultural Revolution experimented, and all of them suffered; even those who would become top leaders like Deng Xiaoping were sent to rural areas, so they really saw the policy's adverse effects. If the Cultural Revolution did not happen, and they did not have a leadership who suffered from it with the people and who realized its negative effects, moderate and reformist leaders who succeeded Mao would not have had the same intensity and political will to steer China's transformation into a different direction. Pitlo: China has gone through a lot before attaining its present status. The country suffered from many socioeconomic and political policies, as well as programs which led to failures like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Do you think the Filipinos would have the strength to try different approaches and be willing to pay the price like the Chinese? Sta Romana: Yes. That is the problem in the Philippines. Look at 1986 EDSA Revolution. Its price was not that great, so there was really no meaningful and enduring transformation. Now the Marcos family is back in positions of political power. They are still around. In China, they could have been sent to jail or another set of leaders had taken over. Our price was Martial Law, but looking back, it was not. But that was our version of a price or sacrifice. In a sense, the leadership transition in EDSA was less violent. Marcos was an authoritarian leader who grew corrupt and was overthrown. But US involvement mitigated a potentially violent outcome of the leadership change. If Americans had not intervened (i.e. rescued Marcos), the resolution to the crisis could have been more drastic and possibly bloody. When a crisis is peacefully resolved, people tend to disregard and cherish the outcomes. That is unfortunate. I hope there won’t be such a high price or sacrifice, but either way, we will have to go through it again. Just as a restoration took place after the French Revolution, so did the same happen in the Philippines after 1986. The oligarchs and political dynasties returned to power. It’s a cycle. Direct experience teaches people but after a generation, the lessons sometimes get lost. In our experience, when we activist youths talked with our parents, they would always tell us that we never experienced, what it was like to live during the Japanese war period. Now, it’s our turn as former young activists to tell our children and grandchildren that they never experienced what Martial Law was like. We basically sound like our parents. Anyway, people have to experience a crisis. Hopefully with wisdom. What is important is that we institutionalize change and deliver its gains. And this I think is the lesson of China and Communist Party rule. They were almost on the verge of collapse; what Deng did was to produce rapid economic growth, which became the new source of the Party’s legitimacy; they delivered the goods again, so to speak. Now that is the problem confronting the Party – it has to sustain these gains and continue delivering. Pitlo: Would you say that your interest in Chinese Studies developed as a consequence of your experience in China? How did your experience help you in your media work covering China? Sta Romana: Yes. My experience in China contributed a lot to my work as a foreign journalist. What was particularly helpful was that I was able to work with a Western/international news organization while watching and observing China. Although I lived there, and my livelihood depended in a sense on my being in China, I was also an outsider. This gave me a more detached view. Even so, it helped that I was able to view the country from the inside, having lived and worked there, since I got to know people's sentiments and talked to them. For instance, do you know that during the Cultural Revolution, especially during its radical phase, you could already feel their frustration and hear their complaints over its excesses, especially against the Gang of Four’s and Mao's harsh policies? In the same vein, when Deng was rehabilitated and began undertaking reforms, you could hear people talking that what he was doing was good for China. At the same time, mass media was

6 August 2016 v.2


heating up with articles against the Gang of Four. It’s like being close to the railway tracks and you can hear the train coming. Anyway, because I had an insider’s view of the country, I knew that there were forces which one could not read about in the media, ones that you had to read between the lines, so to speak, in order to detect. So my China experience really helped a lot in that respect. Pitlo: What did your China experience teach you in terms of understanding and forecasting goings-on in China? Sta Romana: It taught me to be a little skeptical. That you should never accept what’s on the surface. You may know about it, but it is almost like the art of reading tea leaves. It is never easy. That is why China watching actually became part of my life. First is because I lived and worked there, and then I worked as a foreign journalist who had to explain what was going on in China to an international audience. Pitlo: So not everything is as it seems? Sta Romana: Yes. That was lesson 101. Bu qingchu (not clear) compared to bu zhidao (not knowing). It’s like something is out there but it is not clear. Remember the Lin Biao incident I told you about? When they are going through an internal struggle, they will never admit it. But when they are done and ready, they will acknowledge it. It has to be resolved first. It is the same thing when you go through ancient or contemporary Chinese history. My China experience really helped me a lot in terms of trying to figure out China. But even the Chinese people can be skeptical about their government. For instance, while I was studying Chinese language in school, Zhou Enlai made his famous speech in 1975 where he outlined “The Four Modernizations.” I studied that speech together with my Chinese dormmates; we discussed it while eating in the canteen. It was interesting that they were very skeptical about it. On the one hand, they wanted the goals to be achieved; they wanted China to be a modernized country. On the other hand, they were very skeptical about whether they could achieve this. Some of them did not believe it was achievable because of their experience during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. I think it is accomplishing and being able to pursue the reforms that convinced a lot that there is hope for better times. Pitlo: In Mao’s time, China positioned itself as -- and was seen by many as well -- as a model for agrarian countries who wished to pursue socialism and to oppose revisionism and Western imperialism. But later, China would have a rapprochement with US. How was this explained to you by your Chinese hosts and what was your take on it? Sta Romana: China was a model for developing countries and for revolutionary movements worldwide. At that point, Mao was also trying to sound a call to oppose revisionism and to argue that he was a true Marxist; that China's track was the revolutionary way; and that the egalitarian model produced by the Cultural Revolution attested to this authenticity. On the Sino-U.S. rapprochement, I remember we kept asking our hosts about it, about why China was doing this. They gave very interesting answers. It had something to do with their interest in international politics. Again, they quoted Mao. They were studying an article of his written during the Anti-Japanese War, “On Policy.” I became familiar with it. Mao's method of analysis focuses on contradiction: what the principal contradiction was and who the principal enemy was. Before the Japanese invasion, the principal enemy was Chiang Kai Shek's Kuomintang. And when the Japanese came, they became the principal enemy. The Communist Party, therefore, sought to unite with the Kuomintang against the principal enemy. That was the whole point of the article. That same analogy was applied to the Sino-US rapprochement. China at that time faced two enemies and had to decide who the principal enemy was and then try to forge a tactical unity with the other. In essence, it was an application of the aphorism, “The enemy of your enemy is your friend.”

6 August 2016 v.2


Anyway, it was very clear at that point that the Soviet Union was the principal threat to China and, therefore, U.S. President Nixon was welcomed. Pitlo: Was the rapprochement with the U.S. a recognition that there was something wrong with China's economic model at that time? Sta Romana: The rapprochement was tactical, and it had to do with China's view of international relations. As far as socialism was concerned, realization about its limits would come later, not during the time of Mao, but of Deng’s. In Mao's time, there was semblance of such a realization since China was already importing Western technologies. But it did become more pronounced during the Deng period when the idea of a socialist market economy was adopted. Under Mao, it was a pure socialist-planned economy. A good lesson in China Watching concerns the transition from Mao to Deng, particularly its position in relation to Mao's legacy and the fall of the Gang of Four. I do not know if you have ever heard of Hua Guofeng, who came into power after Mao died. The Gang of Four was arrested, tried, and punished. At that point, it was very interesting because the Chinese were celebrating; they were out in the streets and presenting Hua Guofeng as the new leader. But there was also lot of discussion on who possessed the correct path, the Gang of Four or the new group? For a long time, the propaganda was that the Cultural Revolution was good, but eventually the Chinese changed their position about it. At any rate, the Cultural Revolution became a basis for evaluating Mao. During that time, there was a lot of questioning. It was difficult to situate yourself. It took a while before you could make sense of what was going because debates were happening, some of it openly on newspapers. That was where Chinese method of debating disclosed itself. The distinction between the early Mao and the late Mao served emerged as a basis for analysis and for assessing his contributions. Mao’s early philosophical works on the importance of practice was used as the criterion to determine truth: how do you know who is right? The answer was practice, which became the sole criterion of truth. Pitlo: Seek truth from facts? Sta Romana: Yes. This approach came about during this time. Actually, it was Mao who originally used the expression “seek truth through facts,” which Deng used to criticize the Cultural Revolution and its mistakes. This was the period of confusion when it was not clear who was right and wrong. Pitlo: So bu qingchu? Sta Romana: At that point, yes. But the point is that basically, by gauging the sentiments of the people, you could see who was popular. You see, what happened was that Mao offended the workers, as their salaries remained constant for a very long time. Thus, when it was raised even by a little, it was big news. It was not in the papers, but people were talking about it: that their pay increased under Deng. At one point, when Mao was still alive, that economic incentive was attacked. At that time, you could tell that, in a sense, there was a philosophical debate on who was right in terms of how to mobilize people. The problem with Mao is that he became a little more abstract and utopian. Mao really believed you could transform people through political incentives alone, while Deng emphasized economic incentives, though his is actually somewhere between the two positions. Even so, the contrast was so stark. Under Mao, things were so extreme that peasants were neither allowed to own their own plot of land nor to grow their own crops. His vision was different. Mao thought that having private plots of land would engender capitalism. It affects food security if you cannot even cultivate subsistence crops for your family. You had to rely on the state, and for a while that was the conventional wisdom, until it was reversed and you no longer had to produce everything for the state and you could plant crops according to your needs. Even within

6 August 2016 v.2


Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory, interpretation had always triggered big debates. Basically, you had Mao, who, while conducting the revolution against the Japanese and the Kuomintang, was pragmatic. He did not follow Lenin whose idea was revolution in the cities, and instead went to the countryside because that was where most Chinese lived and because China was, then at least, largely an agrarian country. This shows that Mao adjusts. But as he got older, he went back to the books and became more dogmatic. I guess he got stuck in his old age, unable to travel anymore to really see the situation on the ground. He became more detached. For Deng Xiaoping, he had different ideas about the Great Leap Forward, whose implications he saw when he was sent to the countryside after his fall during the Cultural Revolution. He was working in a factory and lived in Jiangxi, together with other purged officials. So when they came back to power, you had a core group who shared the same ideas, which were a critique of Mao's economic policies and represented the desire to achieve economic development. That helped strengthen their political will to institute economic reforms. Pitlo: So China watching became a habit? Sta Romana: It became my life because all my adult years were spent understanding China, which has been a challenge. Pitlo: But nothing is as it seems? Sta Romana: Yes. You cannot judge from the surface. Instead, you have to view it in the context of their history. The Chinese people have a very strong culture heavily influenced by Confucianism. And there is a Marxist veneer, as well as Maoist and Dengist veneers too. You have to see the situation from there; and the bottom line is that you have to understand that human beings are influenced by all these cultural and historical forces. We are the same but yet we are different. We have our own culture and our own history. It is just that I do not expect it to be easy to understand China. I mean you could experience it yourself. If you live in China, there are certain things you have to get used to, which is not so easy. Basically, we have to find our own way of understanding and navigating in China, but also need to consider their experiences. My point now is that I view myself more as someone trying to understand China better. I do not want to focus on whether we can use the Chinese model. No. In that sense, I could say that I have matured. Rather, I want to see what we could learn from China; there are lessons that can be looked into, but you cannot take them as a whole. But looking back in time, I would not call myself a Maoist. I was interested to learn. And I lived, learned and experienced China, particularly during the Cultural Revolution. Pitlo: Did you realize the inapplicability of China's experience and model for the Philippines? I mean it takes a certain type of culture and a tenacity for sacrifices to make that happen. Sta Romana: Yes. But at that point, I was more interested in the how. I thought there were lessons that could be drawn from the way they fought the Japanese or the Kuomintang. But even that is different. They are a mainland or continental country, while we are an archipelago, so even the strategies will be different. Though general principles may be applicable. It is about how you apply and practice them, and you adjust as you go along based on the results. You really have to “cross the river by feeling the stones.” And feeling the stones is always interesting. Pitlo: So to that extent, the Chinese leadership was really not that dogmatic and blindly accepting established Marxist tenets? Sta Romana: No, this was Deng. Mao was really loyal to the Marxist classics. As he grew older, the

6 August 2016 v.2


interpretation and vision he had was very purist. There was an aspect in his judgement which maintained that the people's will achieve huge things like the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. If one mobilized the people, then you could achieve such objectives. But of course, this is where you also become a little manipulative. You may have achieved desired results for certain goals, but you cannot sustain that zeal unless you have a material foundation. Sta Romana: Yes. He played that. He really showed that if used for certain goals, the human spirit can achieve even seemingly impossible goals, but sustaining it over a long period of time is the question. Pitlo: Would you say that from then until today, the foundations for analyzing China remain the same so much so that recent developments do not surprise you anymore? Sta Romana: No. I am still surprised at how the pendulum is swinging back. I understand it would swing, but this story or joke of President Xi Jinping as the second coming of Mao does seem to be the way he is going. It is really serious. And it is interesting to know the counter-reaction to that. How long can this go on? And where will it end? And then you go to the disputes – why can they not see that what they are doing is actually producing a different effect? Pitlo: You mean the backlash against what China is doing in the disputed waters? Sta Romana: Yes. It becomes more complicated because of President Xi Jinping's need to cater to nationalist sentiments internally, obtain the support of the military, consolidate his own power, and address the economic problems that China now faces, and how all these will affect China's behavior. In some respect, it is surprising because he seems to be turning out differently from Deng and some of the things that Deng did. Pitlo: You mean policy reversals? Sta Romana: Yes. It seems that some of the old approaches are coming back to life, but we are not there yet. An example is the move from collective leadership to a strongman or strongman politics. That is one change it seems. Xi seems to be rewriting the rules of Chinese politics by sidelining collective leadership along with the rest of the Standing Committee. Pitlo: You must have heard about the alleged letter going around calling for Xi's resignation. What is your take on it? Sta Romana: Yes. If you read that, you could see the counterargument, a critique of Xi Jinping’s policies. So you could see the intense, ongoing factional struggles. Pitlo: But we can only see this because of the extent of the letter’s getting leaked in public. Most of the dynamics of inner-Party struggle escapes public eye. Sta Romana: Yes. Most of it won’t appear until they are ready. But while the struggle is happening, you will only hear a lot of stories. The problem now is how to sift for what is right and accurate because sometimes rumors dominate. Pitlo: That was very Chinese? So then or now are the same? Sta Romana: Yes. The same way that the Lin Biao affair was covered. There were many rumors or stories about

6 August 2016 v.2


what really happened; it was hard to know the truth. Up to now actually, questions have been raised as to why he did not succeed in assassinating Mao. Was it true that the daughter spilled the beans? Pitlo: But at that time, what really happened to the plane allegedly carrying Lin Biao?' Sta Romana: I think it was confirmed that the skull recovered from the remains of the plane were his. The question of most people at that time was why he had to flee to the Soviet Union. Because if he was able to flee there, it would have been really big news. But you could see he was desperate because the original plan was to go to Guangzhou. But where would he go there? There might have been some kind of civil war, but it was hard to imagine how he could win against Mao. So eventually, when his plan came to light, you could see his desperation. And of course that incident reveals that Lin Biao was not in favor of rapprochement with the U.S. He was not yet convinced that the Soviet Union was the main enemy. But he was already the number-two man behind Mao. Pitlo: So he was really very close to the top position. Sta Romana: Yes. But that has been Chinese politics. Hu Yaobang, Deng Xiaoping, and Zhao Ziyang were all partners and they really liked each other, and yet the two were not able to read Deng’s mind -- that Deng was only after economic freedom and not political liberties. For their part, they went all the way, but Deng stuck just to economic freedoms. Lin Biao and Mao were close, but I think there was an aspect of the two having different assessments of the situation then. And there may also have been a power play aspect. To a certain extent, Mao also used Lin Biao to be able to get back in power during the Cultural Revolution and then he saw Lin Biao’s weakness. And Lin Biao too wanted power. He was supposed to succeed based on the Constitution, yet he would still not get the top post. So the only way to do so was for Mao to die, especially since Mao would have changed the constitution again. I mean this was the problem of not having an institutionalized set-up, so Deng tried to institutionalize leadership succession when he took the reins of power. Now, with Xi, I think China is treading on some dangerous ground. It seems his leadership is becoming personalistic again. That is what makes it interesting. The drama continues and it’s intriguing to see how long will the Communist Party survive. The Soviets fell and the Communist Party of China almost went to the brink of collapse. And I think it is critical that the Chinese leadership address the economic challenges. If they cannot deliver the economic goods, then they could commit the same mistake of the Soviet Union. China may engage in the arms race, which they cannot sustain, and could eventually lead to collapse. Or there are also internal challenges that may lead to the country's downfall. But it is still an open question and only time will tell. Pitlo: That is why you think the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative will become existentially crucial for the Chinese leadership? Sta Romana: It is a key. But it remains uncertain if it can be a way out, which Xi is looking for. That is why one analysis posits that the main beneficiaries of OBOR will be state-owned enterprises, and exporters like companies engaged in railway, construction, and steel manufacture which are all suffering from domestic overcapacity. That is why it is important that the OBOR succeeds. But another explanation is that OBOR is the answer to how China can break away from encirclement (China's perception is that US, along with its allies, are encircling or containing China's rise). But there are many challenges along the way, and you can see that Xi is trying to cope with the situation. He is not ready for an outright confrontation with the US, but he has problems now: how to come up with a new development model. Deng’s model no longer works (China's manufacturing-based export-led development model seemed to have served its time and the country had already developed industrial overcapacity resulting to limited growth, hence the country has to find a new development model). The economic boom is over but he needs it to sustain political legitimacy. So as far as he

6 August 2016 v.2


sees it, he needs to tighten social and political control, especially on civil society, but in doing so, he is swinging back. And whether he can continue this strategy remains to be seen. It is no longer the same China. There are now other forces at work. So the joy of China watching continues. Pitlo: Thank you for the time. Sta Romana: I don’t know if you got what you wanted. Pitlo: Yes, I think I was able to get good points.

Documents

6 August 2016 v - china-studies.taipei Sta Romana1.pdf · 6 August 2016 v.2 2 Project Coordinator: Tina S. Clemente Project Assistant: Pamela G. Combinido Back then, our impression