1

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‟

2

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

3

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,

4

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. … Sun Yat-sen

was truly concerned with every issues related to the Far East. He studies these issues

and helped find the ways to the solutions with the parties concerned.8

Table 1. Sun Yat-sen‟s Visits to Nanyang, 1900-119

Key Place Number of Visits Date Duration

Hanoi &

Saigon

6 1) Jun. 1900

2) Dec. 1902

3) July 1905

4) Oct. 1905

5) Sep. 1906

6) Mar. 1907

1) more than 2 weeks

2) around 3weeks

3)??

4) around 6 months

5)??

6) over 1 year

Singapore 9 1) July 1900

2) July 1905

3) Feb. 1906

4) July 1906

5) Mar. 1907

6) Mar. 1908

7) Dec. 1908

8) July 1910

9) 15 Dec. 1911

1) 3 days

2) 1 Day

3) almost 2 weeks

4) 1.5 months

5) a few days

6) 3 months

7) 5 months

8) 1 week

9) 1 day

Penang 6 1) Autumn 1905

2) July 1906

3) July 1908

4) Oct. 1908

5) July 1910

6) 12 Dec. 1911

1) a few days?

2)??

3) 1.5 months

4) 3 days

5) 4.5 months

6) 1 day

Bangkok 2 1) June 1905

2) Nov. 1908

1)??

2) 10 days

While in the case of the Dutch Indies, although there was no evidence to show that Sun

Yat-sen was physical presence there, it is known that he had been watching over and

maintaining contacts with some people in the area by correspondence. Indonesian Chinese

warmly welcomed the 1911 Revolution. To celebrate the establishment of Republic of China

in Nanjing, on 19 February 1912, for example, many Chinese in Surabaya went to the streets

to organize assemblies, burn firecrackers and hang flags of ROC. But the Surabaya Chinese

celebration was suppressed by the Dutch colonial authorities. The Dutch colonial police had

5

shot 3 Chinese dead, injured 10 and arrested more than 100. This was the so-called

sensational “Surabaya Event”. Besides intensive diplomatic mediations and protests, Sun

Yat-sen convened a cabinet meeting and reached a four-points resolution with the Dutch

Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 26 February. The resolution included the release of arrested

Chinese within three days, pay for Chinese property loss, pay for the killed and the injured,

and equal treatment of Overseas Chinese in Indonesia. The Dutch authorities were eventually

forced to accept these terms and conditions. “The Surabaya Event” was the first diplomatic

challenge imposed onto the newly established ROC. Its satisfactory settlement proved a

significant triumph for Sun Yat-sen.10

It is important to note that it‟s not a coincidence that it

was after the 1911 Revolution that Sun Yat-sen and his revolutionary thought started to be

influential and his revolutionary movement started to be popular among Nanyang Chinese.

THE COMMEMORATIONS OF SUN YAT-SEN AND THE 1911 REVOLUTION IN

CHINA

Because Sun Yat-sen was very much associated with the 1911 Revolution, and vice versa, it is

almost impossible to separate each commemoration without mentioning the other. Prior to

1949, the commemoration of Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution in China had been

monopolized by the KMT regime. Sun and the Revolution were regarded as a fundamental

part of orthodox KMT party historiography in the highest esteem. In the case of Sun Yat-sen,

for example, he was mystically worshipped and deliberately represented as a matchless icon

to unite and consolidate the KMT regime ideologically as well as politically after his death.

Sun was hence symbolized and ritualized into the various aspects of KMT political, economic,

educational and socio-cultural lives. Sun was not only a great revolutionary but also a

frustrated one. It was claimed that it was the KMT and Jiang Jieshi were the legitimate

successors to Sun‟s unfulfilled revolution. As the “Founding Father of Modern China”, Sun

Yat-sen was worshipped as a flawless political god, a social ritual and an ideological legacy,

hence providing the KMT and Jiang Jieshi with the foundation of legitimacy, ideology and

dynamics.11

The deliberate construction of Sun‟s political symbols consisted of his memorial

halls, monuments and statures, portraits and scuptures, songs and dresses, school textbooks,

and many cities, towns, roads, schools, libraries, and parks all over China were named after

Sun. The most prominent was obviously the construction of Sun Yat-sen‟s mausoleum in

Nanjing.12

After 1949, the CCP took over the commemorations of Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution

in Mainland China. Indeed it took a little while before this happened and was conducted in a

different style from the previous KMT practice. Despite rapturous applause from Chinese

audience, both Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution received mild criticism by the PRC

regime and CCP Marxist scholars owing to bourgeois class backgrounds.13

Nevertheless,

interestingly, the post-1949 CCP commenorations also served as an ideological propaganda.

Notably, Beijing claimed that the CCP, rather the KMT, was the true legitimate successor to

Sun Yat-sen‟s unfulfilled revolutionary cause. Sun and his Revolution also served as a

common political legacy for the eventual unification with Kuomingtang-ruled Taiwan.

6

The commemorations usually centred around three important dates: 12 March (date of Sun‟s

death), 10 October (date of the revolution) and 12 November (date of Sun‟s birth). However,

as the date of death is ritually regarded one of sorrow, it‟s not proper to organize any big

organizational commemoration for it, although there are regular annual memorial activities

reported to indicate the collective national remembrances. Therefore, in terms of political

significance, the commemoration usually focuses on the other two important dates: the

anniversary of the 1911 Revolution and Sun Yat-sen‟s birthday. The 100th and 50th

anniversary commemorations are the most significant, but it is not absolutely true as always

because of political situations in mainland China and island Taiwan. For example, there was

almost no big commemoration over the decades, especially during the Cultural Revolution.

And when the DPP came to power in Taiwan in 2000, the commemoration of Sun Yat-sen and

the 1911 Revolution in China became more fundamental in terms of cross-straits political

dynamics.

Although Sun Yat-sen is usually associated with the 1911 Revolution, and vice versa, yet it is

distinguishable between the two interconnected commemorations. Over a half century

between 1946 and 2010, and as far as Sun Yat-sen‟s birthday commemoration is concerned,

five dates of years are the most important: 1946, 1956, 1986, 1996 and 2006. While for the

1911 Revolution anniversary commemoration over the same period, four years are the most

significant: 1961, 1981, 1991 and 2001. The considerations for high-level commemorations in

these years are not only because of the Chinese tradition that attaches importance to the tenth

and centennial anniversary, but also because of changing political situations across the Taiwan

Strait. In other words, the political/policy considerations, international, domestic, or

cross-strait, are the fundamental considerations behind the commemorations. The different

policy considerations in the period under study can be categorized into three different stages

and orientations.

First stage, from 1946 to 1976

For the period 1946 and 1949, there were some articles and radio announcements mentioning

Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution on the CCP side. However, there were no deliberate

commemorations and the announcements served purely for the military purpose of the United

Front after the World War Two. Even for some years following the establishment of the PRC

in 1949, although there were official commemorations, the 1911 Revolution was regarded as a

scholarly and politically sensitive domain. Only after 1956 when Chairman Mao‟s famous

memorial article on Sun Yat-sen was published that serious research on the subject began to

emerge. In the first stage before 1976, the icon of Sun Yat-sen was constructed more

ideologically and politically. The construction focused on the revolution and internationalism

serving the PRC‟s international and domestic politics. It consisted of two aspects, that is, Sun

as the founding father of the modern China on the one hand and his Asianism on the other.

For Sun‟s revolution, it was constructed that the CCP under Mao Zedong, rather than the

KMT under Jiang Jieshi, was the true successor to Sun Yat-sen‟s revolutionary cause. For

Sun‟s Asianism, it was used to emphasize that the PRC was the brother of Asian and African

7

countries under the umbrella of Mao‟s Third World paradigm.

Table 2. The Statistics of People’s Daily‟s Reports about the Commemorations of Sun

Yat-sen‟s Birthday and the 1911 Revolution, 1946-2006

Year Birthday‟s Reports in

November

Reports of the Year Birthday

1946 Nil 57 80th

1956 136 218 90th

1966 16 24 100th

1976 1 7 110th

1986 92 200 120th

1996 36 129 130th

2006 23 84 140th

Sources: the People’s Daily, 1946-2006.

Table 3. The Statistics of People’s Daily Reports about the Anniversary Celebration of the

1911 Revolution and Sun Yat-sen, 1951-2001

Year Commemoration

Reports in October

Reports of the Year Anniversary

1951 Nil 16 40th

1961 43 82 50th

1971 None None 60th

1981 138 293 70th

1991 47 105 80th

2001 31 99 90th

Sources: the People’s Daily, 1951-2001.

The Sun Yat-sen‟s 90th birthday commemoration in1956 was especially meaningful. Firstly, it

was the first top-level magnificent commemoration since the CCP came to power in 1949, in

which both the central government and all provincial governments were mobilized for

organizing this priority event. Chairman Mao Zedong himself attended the commemoration

conference of November 11 that lasted for four hours. He wrote a famous memorial article,

entitled “In Memorial of Mr. Sun Yat-sen”, which was published in the newspapers. In that

article, Mao raised two fundamental points regarding the assessment of Sun Yat-sen that set

the basic tune for the commemoration and study of Sun Yat-sen. They were firstly that Sun

Yat-sen was a great Chinese revolutionary pioneer and all modern Chinese, except for a few

reactionaries, are successors to Sun Yat-sen‟s revolutionary cause. Secondly, Sun Yat-sen‟s

unfulfilled dream of “Strengthening and Modernizing China” would certainly come true

under the CCP leadership and Mao envisioned that China would have even greater changes,

turning itself into a modern and strong world power in forty-five years when the centurial

anniversary of the 1911 Revolution would be commemorated.14

In addition, the conference, in which 150 foreign diplomatic delegates and guests from 30

countries and 40 Overseas Chinese were invited to attend, was the first high profile

8

international function to showcase China‟s national commemoration of Sun Yat-sen‟s birthday.

It was very unusual, if not unprecedented, that the People’s Daily published 34 articles and

reports under titles specifically relating to Sun Yat-sen with 3 days from 11 to 13 November.

Just for the 12 November issue, 17 articles were devoted to Sun.

The other important occasion of attaching importance to Overseas Chinese and their

contribution is the 1981 commemoration. It was an encouraging and positive political

announcement for the China‟s changing policy towards Overseas Chinese, who had been

labelled as bad and reactionary element during the Cultural Revolution. It is not a coincidence

that in the issue of 12 November 1956 the People’s Daily published one article by Chen

Qiyou, entitled “Overseas Chinese would never forget Mr. Sun Yat-sen”,15

while in the issues

of 19 September and 12 October 1981 another two complementary articles by Hong Sisi and

Zhuang Xiquan, entitled “Overseas Chinese‟s Great Contribution to the 1911 Revolution” and

“Nanyang Chinese and the 1911 Revolution” respectively.16

As for the commemoration of the 1911 Revolution, the year 1961 was very significant. It was

not a coincidence and an isolated event. To put in perspective, the 1961 commemoration of

the 1911 Revolution was of course encouraged by the 1956 commemoration of Sun Yat-sen‟s

90th birthday.

17 To a great extent, its political and intellectual significance could be

comparable to the 1956 commemoration of Sun Yat-sen‟s birthday. It was the first time that

the 1911 Revolution was magnificently saluted by the CCP as “a great democratic revolution”

and that a national symposium was held in Wuhan with around 100 prominent scholars,

bearing in mind that no scholars dared to touch on such a sensitive topic not so long before.

The 1961 commemoration of the 1911 Revolution was also conducted at one of the highest

levels. The conference, dated on 9 October, was attended by ten thousand audiences, chaired

by Zhou Enlai in the capacity as the chairman of CPPCC chairman and presented by Liu

Shaoqi in the capacity as president of the PRC.18

Unfortunately, that good atmosphere was

soon spoiled by the Cultural Revolution.

By tradition, the 1966 commemoration of Sun Yat-sen‟s birthday as the centennial

anniversary should be more important than the 1956 commemoration. Indeed it was prepared

in that way one year earlier. On 24 October 1965, the Standing Committee of CPPCC

convened a third conference chaired by Zhou Enlai decided to commemorate Sun Yat-sen‟s

centennial birthday next year. A Preparation Committee was set up, consisting of 271

prominent high-level officials of the central committee of the CCP and other senior social

activists. The chairman was Liu Shaoqi, but not Mao Zedong, and Song Qingling, Dong Biwu,

Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chen Yun, Lin Biao and Deng Xiaoping were among 62 deputy

chairmen. Liao Chenzhi was the secretary-general.19

On 31 October, the Preparation

Committee had its first conference convened by Chairman Liu Shaoqi, who made an

important speech on Sun Yat-sen and his contribution and passed eight measures on the

commemoration.20

Nanjing, Shanghai and Guangzhou also set up their respective branch

preparatory committees and each was headed by the number one official of Jiangsu province,

Shanghai municipal city and Guangdong province. During February and March 1966, these

three key provincial committees also convened their first conferences to work out their own

9

commemorative measures.21

However, ironically, in November 1966, it didn‟t turn out as planned due to the dramatic

changing political climate. More ironically, on the occasion of the commemoration

conference held on 12 November, Preparatory Committee Chairman Liu Shaoqi didn‟t even

have a chance to give a speech, although it was reported that he was present. On the other

hand, Chairman Mao Zedong‟s article on Sun Yat-sen written in November 1956 were read

loudly by workers, peasants, and PLA delegates before the opening of the commemorative

conference, although Mao Zedong nor Lin Biao showed up at the conference. The conference

was opened by a revolutionary veteran Dong Biwu and attended by 10,000 delegates. The

keynote speakers were Dong Biwu, Zhou Enlai, Song Qingling and He Xiangning. Not

surprisingly, Zhou Enlai also began his speech by quoting Mao Zedong‟s article of 1956. It

was obvious that the domestic political struggle against Liu Shaoqi and international

anti-imperialism (USA) and anti-revisionism (Soviet Union) dominated the commemoration

agenda, highlighting the great helmsman, Chairman Mao, and his Cultural Revolution.22

During the Cultural Revolution, a few reports were mentioned that occasional

commemoration activities were held in the years of 1967 and 1972-1976. However, there was

an absence of any mention of Sun Yat-sen during the years from 1968 to 1971. Even worse,

Sun Yat-sen was labeled as NiuGui SheSheng [all sorts of bad elements] by Jiang Qing. Both

the Zhongshan Memorial Hall at Beijing Fragrant Hill and the Zhongshan Memorial Pavilion

at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou were forced to close and many valuable relics were

taken away and destroyed.23

Second stage, from 1977 to 1995

In this stage, the cross-straits relation and national unification were targeted as the prime aim.

The new situations were that since two life-long rivals, Mao Zedong and Jiang Jieshi, had

already passed away, there should be less ideological, and more economic and trading

cooperation emphasized, thus deliberately putting aside old feuds between the CCP and KMT.

Among various commemorations during this stage, the 1981 commemoration of the 1911

Revolution is the most significant one. It signified the CCP‟s new changing policy under the

new era towards Taiwan and the KMT, calling for the CCP-KMT cooperation for the third

time and emphasizing the common blood identity of Chineseness by leaving behind the past

feuds and looking forward to the great Chinese revival. In terms of scale, level and dimension,

it could be comparable to the 1956 commemoration of the Sun Yat-sen‟s 90th birthday

anniversary activities. However, unlike its previous commemorations, which were confined to

the domestic political gatherings, the Chinese Central Government invited the overseas

distinguished guests from Hong Kong, Macau and foreign countries to attend the grand

ceremony for the first time since the founding of the PRC.24

Interestingly, and for the first

time too, scholars from Taiwan were invited to attend the international conference on the 1911

Revolution held in Wuhan. Although Taiwan scholars failed to attend the Wuhan conference

eventually, the regret was made up in early April 1982 at the Chicago conference of the

Association of Asian Studies (AAS), in which two scholarly delegations from mainland China

and Taiwan, each consisting of five professors and one working staff, were invited to present

10

their views together in one panel. They were joined by another six scholars from the USA and

Japan. The panel was entitled “The 1911 Revolution and the Establishment of the Republic:

Review After 70 Years” and it was the most important and longest session of AAS 1982

annual conference and had its largest audience filling a 500-seated auditorium.25

The overall context was that it was the first grand commemoration under the new era of

reform and opening and modernization strategy after the Cultural Revolution. Both Mao

Zedong and Jiang Jieshi passed away already and a new generation of leadership came to

power on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. Internationally, Sino-America relations improved

as demonstrated by the establishment of formal diplomatic ties. Obviously, this had a huge

impact on the Taiwan regime. In this regard, it is especially important to note that the

unification of Taiwan and the mainland had been projected as one of the Three Grand

Missions of China in the 1980s. At least three significant events were fundamental in shaping

the changing policy and 1981 commemoration. Firstly, on the special day of New Year, that is,

1 January 1979, the NPC Standing Committee issued a message entitled “A Public Letter to

Taiwan Native Fellows”, conveying New Year‟s greetings from the Mainland people and

calling for the end of the military tension and non-contact status among the people across the

Taiwan Straits.26

Secondly, the NPC Vice-Speaker, Sun Yat-sen‟s widow, Song Qingling, died

on 29 May 1981. Before her death, the CCP Central Political Bureau decided to accept

Madam Song as a formal member of the CCP on 15 May27

and the NPC Standing Committee

passed a resolution to appoint her as the Honorary Chairwoman of the PRC.28

It‟s not a

coincidence that the first meeting of the CPPCC Preparatory Committee was convened and

chaired by Deng Yingchao on 19 May when Song was in a very critical condition. At that

conference, it was decided that the scholars from Taiwan and guests from overseas were

welcome to attend the commemoration.29

Moreover, the next day after Song‟s death, it was

officially announced that all Song‟s relatives and friends from Taiwan were welcome to attend

her funeral scheduled on 3 June. The special planes from Taiwan China‟s Airline were

allowed to land at the airports of Beijing and Shanghai and all costs concerned would be

borne by the Song‟s Funeral Committee.30

Thirdly, on another special day, namely, China‟s

National Day on 1 October 1981, the NPC Speaker Ye Jianying‟s “Nine-Points Policy

concerning Taiwan‟s Unification with the Motherland” was published, calling for the third

CCP-KMT cooperation and listing a series of concrete policy measures for that purpose.31

One year earlier, at the thirteenth conference of the CPPCC Standing Committee, dated 7

October 1980, it was decided that China would hold a grand commemoration for the 70th

anniversary of the 1911 Revolution. The Preparatory Committee of 171 VIPs were set up with

the NPC Speaker Ye Jianying as chairman, Song Qingling, Deng Xiaopeng, Hu Yaobang,

Zhao Ziyang, and Deng Yingchao as associate chairmen , and Quwu, a veteran in the 1911

Revolution, as secretary-general, indicating its highest level and significance of the event.32

On 9 October, the 70th anniversary grand commemoration in Beijing was opened by the NPC

Speaker Ye Jianying. Party Secretary-General Hu Yaobang gave a keynote speech, and Deng

Xiaopeng, Zhao Ziyang and Deng Yingchao were present. Over 10,000 guests attended and

all foreign Ambassadors and diplomats were invited.33

All provincial and municipal city

capitals also hosted their respective commemorations. In his speech at the capacity of Party

11

secretary-general, Hu Yaobang openly invited fifteen VIPs in Taiwan, including Jiang Jingguo

and Song Meiling, and all other Taiwan native fellows to visit the mainland and their

homeland, be it for the purpose of having a visit or a talk.34

In order to highlight a close

linkage between the 1911 Revolution and the unification cause, the CPPCC

Vice-Chairwoman, Deng Yingchao, again hosted a tea party for the invited guests to discuss

the NPC Speaker Ye Jianying‟s “Nine Points” policy and the CCP Secretary-general Hu

Yaobang‟s speech in the morning of the very next day,. 35

The 1991 commemoration of the 1911 Revolution was also meaningful, not only because it

took place after the 1989 “June 4 Event” and the fall of Berlin Wall, but also because it was

held before Deng Xiaoping‟s “Southern Tour” and the “Wang-Koo Talk” in Singapore in 1992.

Moreover, it took place under the new leadership both in the mainland and Taiwan, that is,

Jiang Zemin in the case of the CCP and Lee Tenghui in the case of the KMT. By the 1991

commemoration, China had sent a clear signal to outside world, including Taiwan, that

Chinese government would firmly adhere to reform and the opening policy on the one hand,

and that the Chinese government would be against any attempt of pro-Taiwan independence.

Simply put, under the circumstances, Beijing manifested that it would continue the policy of

reform and the opening to the outside world and its peaceful unification with Taiwan. On 9

October, a Beijing conference at the highest level was convened with the presence of all seven

standing committee members of the CCP Political Bureau, including Jiang Zemin, Yang

Shangkun, Li Peng and Wan Li. It was attended by 5,000 participants. Chinese President Yang

Shangkun and the Chinese KMT Central Committee Honorary Chairman Quwu gave keynote

speeches respectively. 36

Third stage, from 1996 up to the present

In this stage, owing to Taiwan changing political situations, a new dimension emphasizing

anti-Taiwan‟s independence is added as a very important working or policy priority. The

context was that the tense cross-strait relations as a result of Lee Tenghui‟s visit to the USA.

It became worse after the DPP candidate, Chen Shuibian, came to power in 2000 and got

himself re-elected for another term four years later on. This posed a great challenge both for

the CCP and KMT. The third CCP-KMT cooperation was hence called upon and Sun‟s legacy

was constructed as the very founding linkage for the China‟s unification cause.

Under these new situations, the 2001 commemoration of the 1911 Revolution and the 2006

commemoration of Sun Yat-sen‟s 140 turned out especially significant for cross-straits

relationship. The former was a very good occasion for the CCP to pronounce its firm and

clear policy on Taiwan issue under Chen Shuibian‟s new regime, while the latter formed a

solid foundation to renew the CCP-KMT historic co-operations under the common umbrella

of Sun Yat-sen and his revolutionary cause. The forthcoming centurial anniversary

commemoration of the 1911 Revolution would be more magnificent and meaningful. Firstly,

the KMT has taken back power from the DPP in 2008; secondly, the “three direct links” were

realized on 15 December 2008 and the historic ECFT took into effect on 1 July 2010. Thus

the commemoration has its economic dimension as well as political significance. For example,

12

it would be the first time that the commemoration is jointly held in Taipei by two sides. Sun

Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution have become a common historical and cultural legacy for

cross-strait relations. Moreover, one important point is that Sun Yat-sen‟s “People‟s

Livelihood” principle has a direct relevance for contemporary China. As announced by the

official Xinhua News Agency in a report on the establishment of the CPPCC Preparatory

Office headed by Poliitcal Bureau Member Wang Gang, the commemoration of Sun Yat-sen‟s

birthday and the 1911 Revolution in 2011 would take place in a new historical circumstance.

It would further consolidate the unity among the Chinese all over the world and certainly

promote Chinese peaceful unification across the Straits of Taiwan.37

THE COMMEMORATIONS OF SUN YAT-SEN AND THE 1911 REVOLUTION IN

NANYANG

The commemoration of Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution in Nanyang takes place only

occasionally, rather than as annually as practiced in China. Initially, it was useful to promote

friendly diplomatic relations with the PRC in the 1950s, notably for Indonesia, Vietnam and

Burma. However, other countries, such as Singapore and Malaysia, deliberately kept China a

distance. For the former, it was due to the similar background in which independence was

secured. For the latter, it was because of the sensitive domestic ideological issue and

communal politics. It is not until about twenty years ago that Singapore and Malaysia began

to rediscover the legacy of Sun Yat-sen for Nanyang‟s re-engagement with China. Likewise, it

is not a coincidence that in the last decade, Zheng He‟s voyage during 1405 and 1433 was

rediscovered by both China and Southeast Asia to serve their respective political and

economic interests. Because of ideology and the Cold War, it is interesting to note that the

high-level commemorations in Indonesia, Burma and Vietnam in the 1950s were in contrast

the deliberate official negligence in Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. It is equally

interesting to note that Singapore and Malaysia have recently turned out to be the most

enthusiastic countries in conducting the recent series of memorials. That shift was coincided

with the reorientation of Cold War politics in Asia, of Sino-Southeast Asian relations, and of

changing domestic political dynamics in Singapore and Malaysia.

Another shift is the changing theme of Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution commemorations.

One interesting contrast is that the commemoration in the 1950s was initiated and

implemented by the Overseas Chinese communities, endorsed and promoted by the

non-Chinese Southeast Asian nationalist revolutionary leadership, and focused on Sun Yat-sen

and his ideological legacy of revolutionary nationalism and Asianism, while the current

memorials in the 2000s are mainly concerned with historical legacy and cultural heritage in

Nanyang (endorsed and appropriated by the authorities). Moreover, it is important to note that

nowadays both the government of Singapore and local state of Penang have duly realized the

merit of such heritage, either in terms of domestic agenda or international implication. Unlike

the pre-1990s, they are proud, but no longer shy as before, of that connection with China. In a

word, it would be justifiable that the theme of the commemoration in the 1950s was the

emphasis on Sun Yat-sen‟s legacy among Southeast Asian nationalist leadership in Indonesia,

13

Vietnam and Burma, while the theme in the 2000s highlights Nanyang‟s legacy in the 1911

Revolution. Here, Nanyang and Nanyang Chinese were deliberately coined, emphasizing the

more historical and cultural aspects despite the unavoidable political dimension.

The 1956 commemoration of Sun Yat-sen‟s birthday in Nanyang took place in the contexts of

international Anti-colonialism and Anti-imperialism and domestic nation-building in the

region. Prior to the commemoration, there were three important visits for Sino-Southeast

Asian relation. They are Madam Song‟s visits to Burma and Indonesia in January 1956 and

August 1956 respectively, and President Suharto‟s Visit to China in October 1956. All three

visits were arranged during their National Day‟s celebration and took place under the

umbrella of Asia as one family following the Bandung Conference in 1955. If Song‟s visit to

Burma in January 1956 was just part of her 50-day visit to South Asia including India and

Pakistan, then the other two visits deserve special mention. For these two visits, Sun and his

legacy were usually engaged as a key topic of speech for both sides and obviously formed a

significant linkage for mutual cultivation of international diplomacy as well as personal

friendship. In the case of Indonesia, it was from Sun Yat-sen that Sukarno for the first time

had learnt about the idea “Asia as one Family” and Sun‟s “Three People‟s Principles”. These

had much influence on Sukarno‟s revolutionary enlightenment and cause, and Sukarno

praised Sun as a revolutionary leader not only for China, but also for the whole Asia.38

In this

context, it is no wonder that Sun‟s widow Madam Song was chosen to head the Southeast

Asian visit on China‟s behalf.

Sukarno‟s visit to China lasted for half a month and was welcome by the highest level by

China. Led by Chairman Mao, almost the whole team of Chinese leadership, including Zhu

De, Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai and Song Qingling, went to airport to welcome Sukarno‟s visit

and Mao again saw Sukarno off at airport for his continuous visit to other places in China.39

In Beijing, Madam Song, accompanied by Liu Shaoqi and Zhou Enlai, invited Sukarno to her

home for a banquet. And after dinner, together with Peng Zhen, Song herself even took

Sukarno to visit Wangfujing Department Store.40

Beyond Beijing, accompanied by

Vice-Premier Chen Yi, Sukarno paid a tribute to Sun Yat-sen‟s tomb in Nanjing immediately

after his arrival at the airport.41

He also visited made a deliberate effort to visit Sun‟s old

residence in Shanghai. It was in Sun‟s old residence in Shanghai that Sukarno received a

special gift from Song via her secretary. Interestingly, the special gift was all related to Sun

Yat-sen, including Sun‟s copper portrait, his funeral commemoration album, and wedding

photo with Song. Moreover, at his request, Sukarno also received another special present from

Song, that is, a photo of Song‟s youth day kept at Sun Yat-sen‟s residence, as Sukarno

mentioned that he once saw that photo in 1929 and kept for his private record, but was lost

after he was arrested.42

Southeast Asian delegations from Burma, Indonesia and Vietnam were invited to attend the

1956 Sun Yat-sen‟s 90th birthday commemoration in Beijing. Delegates were usually

friendship association officials, congressmen and university scholars. Among thirteen invited

conference speeches by foreign distinguished guests were three delegates from Southeast

Asian countries of Burma, Indonesia and Vietnam.43

However, Chinese government and

14

leadership also received telegraphic greetings from their counterparts of Burma, Cambodia,

Indonesia and Vietnam, among whom were Premier U Ba Swe and Chairman U Nu of Burma,

King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia, President Sukarno and Premier Sastroamijoyo of

Indonesia, and Chairman Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam.44

While in Nanyang, mainly in Burma

and Indonesia, these non-Chinese Southeast Asian national and local leaders joined the

various commemoration gatherings and gave keynote speeches. These functions were usually

organized and attended by Nanyang Overseas Chinese, including veterans of Tongmenghui

and KMT. The local mainstream newspapers highlighted these activities and published a

series of memorial articles.

In Burma, prior to the commemoration day, the local Chinese newspapers had published

telegraphic greetings by Burmese national leaders and a series of important articles by

Burmese Vice-Premier, government ministers, political veterans, newspaper editors-in-chief

and film directors. On 10 November, at the press conference and on a radio speech, Chairman

U Nu reiterated that border talks between Burma and Chinese were sincere and friendly and

based on the five peaceful co-existence principles set by the Bandung conference. In

particular, U Nu mentioned that Chinese Government would welcome any delegate from

Taiwan for peace negotiations and the Sun Yat-sen 90th Birthday Commemoration Preparation

Committee would even send an invitation to the KMT in Taiwan, and that he had passed on

Chinese Government‟s attitude to Secretary of State Dulles.45

On 11 November,

commemoration conferences were held by Overseas Chinese in Rangoon, Mandalay, Tavoy

and other cities.46

In Indonesia, the Commemoration Organizing Committee was set up in Jakarta, consisting of

more than eighty members, many of whom were the veterans of XingZhongHui,

TongMengHui and KMT, including Sun Yat-sen‟s ex-bodyguard Lin GuoXing.47

On the night

of 12 November, Overseas Chinese in Jakarta held a magnificent commemoration conference

with 3000 people present. President Sukarno was invited to give a keynote speech, in which

Sun Yat-sen‟s internationalism was elaborated in the contexts of Chinese domestic

nationalism and contemporary global anti-imperialism. Among distinguished guests were

Indonesian Second Deputy-Speaker, Jakarta Mayor (his wife present on his behalf), Jakarta

Vice-Mayor, Chinese Ambassador, and diplomats from Soviet Union and other Asian and

African countries. Except for having their own commemoration conferences, various Chinese

communities from Bandung, Semarang, Surabaya and Palembang also sent special delegates

to attend the general conference in Jakarta. By the time of Sun Yat-sen 90th birthday

commemoration, it turned out a Sino-Indonesian and Asian-African friendship and solidarity

conference. 48

As for Vietnam, there was no such grand conference as in Burma and Indonesia because of its

on-going domestic anti-imperialism military struggle. However, in two days of November,

newspapers in Hanoi consecutively published memorial articles on Sun Yat-sen and his

connections with Vietnam by local scholars and Chinese veterans of TongMengHui. For the

sake of Vietnamese domestic military struggle, they of course highlighted the theme of Sun‟s

influence on Vietnamese revolutionary nationalism and mutual assistance among

15

Sino-Vietnamese revolutionary comrades. It was decided that the commemoration meetings,

organized by Vietnam-China Friendship Association, would be held in Hanoi and Haiphong

on 16 and 17 November respectively.49

For the current wave of commemorations, especially in Singapore and Malaysia, historical

and cultural projects overweigh ideological and political concerns, unlike the ones in

Indonesia, Burma and Vietnam in the 1950s. Two outstanding examples are the Sun Yat-sen

Nanyang Memorial Hall in Singapore and the Sun Yat-sen Centre in Penang, which showcase

how the mixed history, culture and ethnicity are instrumental in shaping the local, national

and regional agendas under changing situations.50

It is not a coincidence that these two states,

where the Chinese are majority community, host the current wave of Southeast Asian

commemoration activities. Also, in the context of improving Sino-Vietnamese relation after

more than a decade of tension and conflict, it is not surprising that the eight institutions and

associations in Vietnam, including the Vietnamese Historical Society, organized a joint

conference in Hanoi to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the 1911 Revolution.

51 Perhaps,

such shifts can be seen as: (1) a make-up for their absence in involving themselves with

Chinese grand commemorative activities in the 1950s; (2) a manifestation of historical reality

of their close involvement with the 1911 Revolution that was deliberately neglected and even

forgotten over decades; (3) an efforts to structure or re-structure their own cultural and

historical memory and heritage so that the construction and reconstruction of Sun Yat-sen,

Nanyang, and the 1911 revolution formed an integral part of their own communal, local and

even national history; and (4) a political and economic platform to engage China and

Chineseness in the context of China‟s rise and prospect of peaceful unification. On the other

hand, the current wave commemorations seem to have been considered to be normal as they

would no longer cause political suspicion from governments and local communities.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In shaping Chinese modern history, Sun Yat-sen was an epoch-making revolutionary pioneer

and the 1911 Revolution was a water-shed democratic event. Both in China and Southeast

Asia, Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution are engaged, constructed and reconstructed more

as political-ideological icon, rather than as pure scholarly intellectual subject, serving their

domestic agenda respectively with the implications going far beyond the very personality and

event. There was not only a difference between the pre-1949 KMT commemoration and the

post-1949 CCP commemoration, but also a contrast between the 1950s Southeast Asian

commemoration and the current Southeast Asian commemoration. Behind the dynamics of

commemoration and representation of Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution, for China, its

priority agenda is more ideological concern of revolution and the CCP-KMT rivalry initially.

Later, it is shifted to the less ideological issue of national unification cause across the Taiwan

Straits. For Southeast Asia, it has been mainly the business of Overseas Chinese communities

and instrumental linkage emphasized by some newly independent countries of Burma,

Indonesia, and Vietnam, and recently, Singapore and Malaysia in particular. From what we

have presented, the commemorations of Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution in China and

16

Southeast Asia have been dominated by politics whose agenda is influenced by revolution and

ideology in the early decades and by culture, ethnicity and history in the later years.

Revolution and ideology were both domestic and international. These would include the

confrontation between the CCP and KMT on the one hand and conflicts between nationalism

and colonialism or imperialism on the other. Culture, ethnicity and history are instrumental in

promoting the agenda of political economy, either national or international.

The different commemorations in different periods by different peoples and governments in

China and Southeast Asia tell us not only about the structured difference of the regimes in the

CCP-ruled Mainland and the KMT-ruled Taiwan, but also about the fundamental difference of

the circumstances in shaping Southeast Asian nations of Indonesia, Vietnam and Buram on

the one hand and Singapore and Malaysia on the other. More importantly, they tell us how the

value of Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution and even the history of Chinese nationalism are

remembered, appreciated and appropriated differently by these different peoples and different

regimes under different circumstances. Even ironically, under the current changing

circumstances, despite different purposes and agendas behind all these different peoples and

governments, one point is common and certain: that Sun Yat-sen and the 1911 Revolution

have now turned out to be a historical linkage, political legacy and new dynamics, not only

for cross-straits relations, but also for China-Southeast Asian interaction. Is that driven by a

new Asian dynamics, if not a new and evolving Asianism yet, in the context of a global

China?

1 The research for this paper was funded by Kiriyama Education Foundation at Peking University, for which support the author is grateful. To Professor Cheah Boon Kheng and especially Professor Caroline Hau, the author would like to record his appreciations for their constructive comments. 2 Prasenjit Duara, The Global and the Regional in China’s Nation-formation (London: Routledge, 2009), pp.151-166. 3 Caroline S. Hau and Takashi Shiraishi, “Daydreaming About Rizal Tetcho: On Asianism as Network and Fantasy”, Philippines Studies 57, no.3 (2009): 329-88. 4 Wang Gungwu, “Sun Yat-Sen and Singapore”, in China and Southeast Asia. Volume IV: Interactions from the end of the nineteenth century to 1911. Edited by Geoff Wade, p.297, London: Routledge, 2009. 5 For the details, see Yen Ching Hwang, The Overseas Chinese and the 1911 Revolution (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1976). 6 Andrew R. Wilson, “Ambition and Identity: China and the Chinese in the Colonial Philippines, 1885-1912”. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1998, pp.182, 184-185, 192-193; See also,

章开沅: “同盟会及《民报》的渊源”，《文史知识》，2005 年第 9 期，页 11。 7 Sun Yat-sen to Charles Beach Boothe, 15 July 1910, 《孙中山全集》 [The Complete Collection of Sun Yat-sen], Volume one: 1890-1911, Beijing: Zhonghua ShuJu, 1981, p.468. 8 《人民日报》 （the People's Daily），1966 年 11 月 13 日. This quotation is directly translated from Song’s Chinese article only without checking with Mariano Ponce’s original version. 9 《人民日报》，1981 年 10 月 9 日；Edwin Lee, The British As Rulers Governing Multiracial

Singapore, 1867-1914 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1991), pp.218-226; [越南] 阮文庆:

“孙中山在越南的影响”，《东南亚纵横》，2008 年 1 期， 页 69-74；王希辉、黄金：“越南

华侨与孙中山领导的革命运动”， 《八桂侨刊》，2006 年第 4 期，页 62-65；秦素菡：“越南

华侨黄景南与孙中山革命”， 《东南亚南亚研究》， 2009 年第 2 期，页 60-65；Wang Gungwu, 2009, pp. 295-306.

17

10 王叶：“1912 年‘泗水惨案’：孙中山联手护侨战胜外强”， 《侨园》，2009 年 11 期，页

68-69。 11 See James R. Shirley, “Control of the Kuomintang after Sun Yat-sen's Death”, The Journal of Asian Studies 25, no. 1 (1965):69-82. 12 Delin Lai, “Searching for a Modern Chinese Monument: The Design of the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in Nanjing”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 64, no. 1 (2005): 22-55;

陈蕴茜：《崇拜与记忆：孙中山符号的建构与传播》（南京：南京大学出版社，2009）； 李恭

忠：《中山陵：一个现代政治符号的诞生》（北京：社会科学文献出版社， 2009）。 13 Edmund S. K. Fung, “Post-1949 Chinese Historiography on the 1911 Revolution”, Modern China 4, no. 2 (1978):181-214; Zhang Kaiyuan, “A General Review of the Study of the Revolution of 1911 in the People's Republic of China”, The Journal of Asian Studies 39, no.3 (1980): 525-531. 14 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 12 日。 15 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 12 日。 16《人民日报》， 1981 年 9 月 18 日；1981 年 10 月 12 日。 17 《人民日报》，2010 年 9 月 16 日。 18 《人民日报》，1961 年 10 月 10 日, 10 月 24 及 11 月 24。 19 《人民日报》，1965 年 10 月 25 日。 20 《人民日报》，1965 年 11 月 1 日。 21 《人民日报》，1966 年 2 月 12 日，2 月 20 日以及 3 月 21 日。 22 《人民日报》，1966 年 11 月 11 日，11 月 13 日以及 11 月 15 日。 23 《人民日报》，1966 年—1976 年各期，1977 年 3 月 13 日，11 月 21 日，以及 1978 年 11

月 16 日。 24 《人民日报》，1981 年 10 月 6 日。 25 《人民日报》，1982 年 3 月 25 日，4 月 7 日。 26 《人民日报》，1979 年 1 月 1 日。 27 《人民日报》，1981 年 5 月 16 日。 28 《人民日报》，1981 年 5 月 17 日。 29 《人民日报》，1981 年 5 月 20 日。 30 《人民日报》，1981 年 5 月 31 日。 31 《人民日报》，1981 年 10 月 1 日。 32 《人民日报》，1980 年 10 月 8 日。 33 《人民日报》，1981 年 10 月 10 日。 34 《人民日报》，1981 年 10 月 10 日。 35 Chairman was Deng Xiaopeng. 《人民日报》，1981 年 10 月 11 日。 36 《人民日报》，1991 年 1 月 12 日, 10 月 10 日, 及 10 月 16 日。 37 《联合早报》，2010 年 10 月 23 日。 38 《人民日报》，1956 年 8 月 17 日，9 月 27 日。 39 《人民日报》，1956 年 10 月 1 日。 40 《人民日报》，1956 年 10 月 4 日。 41 《人民日报》，1956 年 10 月 10 日。 42 《人民日报》，1956 年 10 月 12 日。 43 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 9 日，11 月 12 日及 12 月 7 日。 44 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 12 日。 45 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 13 日。 46 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 14 日。 47 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 10 日。 48 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 15 日。 49 《人民日报》，1956 年 11 月 14 日。 50 Huang Jianli and Hong Lysa, “History and the Imaginaries of ‘Big Singapore’: Positioning the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35, no.1 (2004): 65-89;

18

See also, Hong Lysa and Huang Jianli, The Scripting of a National History: Singapore and its Pasts (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008), pp.181-204. 51 《人民日报》，1956 年 10 月 10 日。