FCR: What did you think of the political situation in mainland China after witnessing it yourself for the first time?
Chiang: When I was in the United States in May and June, all the newspaper headlines were about the student demonstrations for democracy in Peking. I had many opportunities at that time to talk with mainland Chinese students in Washington, D.C., Boston, New York, and San Francisco. Their complaints about the Chinese Communist regime, and what other students said during TV interviews, were confirmed later by what I personally observed on the mainland.
The mainland authorities emphasize again and again that everything they do is for the people. They have the so-called "People's Liberation Army" and "the People's Government," and the term "republic" is frequently used. But I found it incredible that mainland Chinese students actually believed that the regime was a republic and that it was for the people. And they believed that the army would not be used against the people.
I was also surprised to learn that mainland students knew so little about democracy. Just because "people" is in the regime's name, they believed that it belonged to the people. Actually, there is no direct relationship between the people and the regime. The students also believed that the army belonged to the people, while in fact the army is entirely controlled by the party. The students had no idea that there should be a clear line between government and the party. They didn't know the basic ABCs of democracy.
In today's world, it is incredible that there exists such a place. It's like something from medieval times. More than a million people gathered on Tienanmen Square for more than three weeks, yet no one from the authorities came out to face the public. Instead, all the leaders suddenly disappeared, and rumors were spread that they were either sick or dead.
In recent years, the Communist leadership has said repeatedly that politics should be "transparent." Actually, the contrary has occurred. The leaders are so mysterious that people on the mainland know nothing about where they live, when they attend meetings, or what they say in the meetings. People also know nothing about how decisions are made.
People on the mainland don't even have any idea about the family background of the key members of the leadership, such as who is whose son or daughter. Almost every appointed successor is said to be someone's adopted son or son-in-law. Their family background is always a secret. But the leaders still say that they belong to the people. Strangely, people on the mainland seldom raise this fact as a subject for discussion.
Actually, it is the people's lives that are transparent instead of the leaders'. The regime emphasizes the importance of people, yet its leaders do not seek opportunities to see people, let alone meet with them. I think the last time Teng Hsiao-ping had a chance to be with the people was the last time that he fell from power a decade or so ago.
Another strange thing is the so-called chiang hua (speech or talk) of the leaders. Chinese Communist leaders never face the public when they give speeches. These are given in committee meetings or seminars, and are later restated by television announcers or newspaper reporters. They should at least speak for themselves for the sake of appearance. Despite this, the leaders say they belong to the people! Perhaps their mysterious method of ruling is a continuation of the "Yen-an style" during 1936-1948. They know how to manipulate the news media, but do not know how to act in front of the cameras.
One other thing that attracted my attention while I was on the mainland after the June 4 tragedy is that every day on TV there were films about how Chiang Kai-shek's troops had been defeated by Mao's forces. When I watched such programs in hotels, even the mainland people laughed as the Communist troops were again and again portrayed as heroes. The regime is now especially emphasizing the importance of the veteran CCP cadres because they obtained legitimacy to rule through their defeat of the Nationalists, and not through building China into a modern country.
FCR: While you were on the mainland, a Taiwan TV station played a recording of you saying that "Nobody wants to stay in this damned place." What situation gave rise to that comment?
Chiang: That's because we [reporters] were followed by plainclothes security personnel day and night. Huang Te-pei had been arrested, and we didn't know where to turn. We had no idea where Huang had been taken. That's frightening.
Some Chinese Communists, such as those from the office that handles Taiwan affairs or the United Front Work Department, now didn't dare answer our phone calls, even though they had talked openly to us before. The so-called PR people and important spokesmen suddenly disappeared, and so did the professors and students who used to talk with us. Those who once expressed opinions were all too frightened to say anything. Of course it was a damned place. No one dared to say anything. Under the martial law, whatever foreign journalists did was against the law—you were either doing illegal reporting or distorting the facts.
FCR: Isn't it true that if you applied for a permit through Peking's office in Hong Kong, you would be allowed to gather news on the mainland?
Chiang: The problem is that they did not allow you to enter the mainland as a journalist. Reporters from Taiwan tried again and again, but the Communist authorities just refused to accept the applications. When I was in Peking after the massacre, foreign journalists there only stayed in the hotels and wrote articles based on the information from TV and the newspapers. We didn't interview anyone because people were afraid to talk to us.
But if the stories we wrote didn't suit the authorities, the stories were criticized for distorting the facts. As a result, every story was considered false. You were either illegally interviewing people or writing distorted stories. But the authorities weren't consistent, because they only deported a couple of foreign journalists.
It is obvious, however, that the Communist authorities treated journalists from Taiwan better than those from other places. True, they did arrest Huang Te-pei on the streets like a robber, but they treat their own reporters in the same way. Huang was fortunate because a confession was not exacted by means of torture. In their wording, it was a "civilized way of handling a case." They told Huang, "If this happened in your country, the relevant organization definitely would not be as tolerant as we are."
What frightens people on the mainland most is that when someone is arrested it is because he has been followed for a long period of time. Even if the authorities have gathered enough evidence on a crime, they still wait before taking action. They are patient enough to let you "sink" further. When the authorities finally make an arrest, they don't make the arrest or the sentence public. This is quite different from what we do in Taiwan. In the mainland, there are no newspaper stories or public trials, and no one knows how many people are arrested. Even if arrests are made public, people still doubt the authenticity of the announcements. This does not happen in democratic countries.
FCR: Why did you, along with other reporters from Taiwan, risk going to the State Security Bureau in Peking to seek the release of Huang Te-pei?
Chiang: That's because we were at a dead end; we had no other options. It's also because we thought that the Chinese Communists would not treat reporters from Taiwan badly. Also, since the Bureau is next to a broad street full of people, we were less frightened. Although civil cases are not that frightening, those with political implications really scare people on the mainland.
It's quite strange that in this era there is such a regime-one that at all costs sets itself against the rest of the world. During the student demonstrations, all the foreign journalists were cursing the regime. After Huang Te-pei's arrest and the possible disappearance of Wang Tan, I discussed the situation with some foreign journalists and members of foreign embassies. They were all upset with the situation and were eager to give assistance. The regime had gone too far, and the authorities lied without shame. They lied, just as they lied about the number of students and citizens that died during the massacre.
FCR: What is your impression of mainland newspapers and TV programming?
Chiang: You aren't able to buy copies of the People's Daily on the streets. You have to subscribe to it. There were a few newspapers on street stands, but I didn't see anyone buy them. As for TV, all I saw during my stay were programs urging people to learn from Teng Hsiao-ping's speeches. Mainland reporters, artists, actors, movie directors, secretaries of provincial party committees, and even mine workers all praised Teng on TV for his greatness, and they said they resolutely supported the Party leadership. Can you believe that propaganda like this still happens? It could exist in the 1950s or 60s, but now? Even after more than a decade of "openness" to the outside world, foreigners really can't understand why the Chinese Communist authorities still adopt this out-dated form of propaganda.
FCR: What are your views concerning the mainland leadership? Chiang: Three or four months ago, people on the mainland were able to criticize Teng Hsiao-ping in whatever language they liked, and they even asked him to step down. It now seems that the clock has been set back 20 years. Even though the leaders lie openly, they seem to think that the people have faith in what they want them to believe.
Those leaders attending important meetings or conferences, such as members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, are rather old, in their 70s or 80s. They blame young people for their lack of ideals and disloyalty to the regime. They also blame the capitalist countries for manipulating the student demonstrations. These old people would sacrifice the well-being of young people, especially those in their 20s or 30s, despite the long-term costs.
The thoughts of the young people and their outlook on life are definitely different from those of the veteran Chinese Communist cadres. How can these 80-year-old grandfathers decide the futures of their grandchildren? And to think that they used tanks to kill them! There is no such regime in any other part of the world. These old veteran cadres, who are uneducated but good at guerrilla warfare, have no idea at all about rule of law and democracy, let alone knowledge of modern science. They are truly useless.
Of course, it is true that some so-called "technocrats" have gradually emerged on the mainland. They are experts in science and technology, but they don't know much about politics, society, or social values. While technocrats stress the importance of the power of the regime, stability, and economic progress, they are not concerned with political development or democracy.
But this is a universal phenomenon. Technological advancement doesn't necessarily bring social progress. It is possible that the more technology advances, the more the country will be ruled autocratically because control will be more effective. In fact, the rise of technocrats in centralized countries is very worrisome.
Chiang Tse-min and Li Peng both have scientific backgrounds, but they only want a free environment for developing the economy while still exerting tight controls over political freedoms. They don't see the relationship between the two. They aren't capable of viewing the situation as a whole.
FCR: How long will it be before the mainland has the rule of law or achieves democracy?
Chiang: I'm afraid you need to ask the experts. But I don't think that the regime will last very long. I went to Hong Kong before going to the mainland. Like [mainland journalist] Liu Pin-yen, I was invited by the Hong Kong Journalists Association. When I first met Liu last year, he was advocating the "second type of loyalty" [loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party, not to the leadership]. I disagreed with him. In my opinion, both kinds of loyalty are blind devotion. If someone is considered to possess the second type of loyalty, he must place high expectations on the party. But a real democracy should not emphasize loyalty of this sort, because it is a form of feudalistic thinking.
During my short stay in Hong Kong earlier this year, I found out that Liu has changed his views considerably. He bitterly attacked the current mainland regime. And he refused to discuss Communism; he spoke instead about socialism. The June 4 massacre forced Liu to make a thorough self-examination of his views about Communism. Before the massacre Liu had been considered an enlightened person who advocated reform within the party. But now he realizes that any reform is useless if the system itself is not changed. There has to be a counterbalancing power. By this I mean opposition parties.
And now some mainland people have gradually sensed the significance of the existence of such a counterbalancing power. This is a useful process of self-examination. If the June 4 massacre had not occurred, perhaps the people on the mainland would not have had this chance to really think about what democracy is. In the past they thought they were undergoing democratic reforms. But how can you call that kind of reform a political reform?
FCR: What were your impressions of how people lived on the mainland?
Chiang: Unfortunately, I saw only the bad side of the people during my stay. I was told that they used to be brave enough to say anything to people from outside. But when I was there, they did complain about the regime, but only in private.
As in all socialist countries, the system on the one hand encourages everyone to be lazy, but on the other it asks people, through various forms of propaganda based on moral sense and ideology, to sacrifice themselves for socialism and the development of the regime. Such a system degrades the quality of the people. As a result, many people there are rude—such as the way salespeople treat their customers. There was even a television program every afternoon teaching people how to be polite. Topics included such things as offering a seat to an old or a sick person, stopping the habit of spitting, or avoiding the beating of children in front of guests. It reminds me of what Taiwan was doing more than three decades ago.
It was distressing for me to see how many people are sacrificed in that kind of system. They don't have a chance. They have no place to go. They have no future. They have nothing. They are young, bright, and look forward to going to the United States to develop themselves. And before June 4, they thought they might have a chance to do this because of the economic reforms. But now Teng Hsiao-ping has announced the suppression of this development.
As a result, mainland China is taking the road backwards. There is no hope at all, and the future of several generations is sacrificed. There are so many worthy Chinese young people, and many of them are scholars, but they don't even have adequate books or even dictionaries for their studies. There might be some good books in the libraries, but they aren't available in bookstores. Yet, in such tough conditions there are still some scholars who are working hard. If they were in a better environment, they would be able to accomplish more. And if the young people were given a chance, mainland China would no doubt be very strong. But under the current system, it seems that all of them are "growing vegetables on stones." They should instead be given a chance to develop themselves.
The majority of the people on the mainland know that it is an unjust system and that the regime won't last very long. When Liu Pin-yen was asked if he would be in exile for a long period of time, he replied that he would go back to mainland China in two years at most. He meant that the current regime wouldn't survive.
Other student leaders, such as Yen Chia-chi, have also made the same prediction. They also hope that the government in Taiwan does not blame all the Chinese Communist Party members for the June 4 tragedy. A mainland intellectual, who is against Teng's leadership, told me that Taiwan has been excessive in its propaganda about the June 4 massacre because the phrase Taiwan uses is "massacre by the Chinese Communists." But he asked, "What does that mean? I am a member of the Chinese Communist Party. I was almost killed. How can you say that I am a murderer? You should only blame Teng Hsiao-ping, Li Peng, Yang Shang-kun, and their followers."
FCR: Do you think the ROC government should allow mainland reporters to cover stories in Taiwan?
Chiang: In May, while I was in Hawaii visiting the East-West Center, one of the five journalists of our group was from the China Daily. One day he said to me, "I don't believe there is democracy or freedom under the Kuomintang. We welcome your reporters to do reporting on the mainland, but Taiwan authorities refuse to let our reporters to do the same thing. "
I told him, "there is no freedom of information on the mainland, but we do have such freedom in Taiwan. Take myself for example. Although I often criticize the Kuomintang, I am still allowed to publish a weekly magazine. Other people like me are also able to publish newspapers. But you don't even dare cover the stories in front of your own door. Have you ever made true reports about what's happening in Tienanmen Square or the riots in Shanghai?"
Although I often criticize my own government, this time I agree with it. Mainland reporters should not be allowed to come here. They only represent the Chinese Communist Party, not the whole Chinese people. All you can get from the China Daily and the People's Daily are articles refuting news reports by foreign countries. What will mainland reporters be able to write about if they come here and return to the mainland? Publishers, directors, editors-in-chief—they have all been facing the possibility of being replaced or purged.
Of course, the news media in Taiwan should also make a close self-examination. Many reporters only cover the bad side of mainland China, but in Taiwan they do the opposite. Can we get a very clear picture of Taiwan's political, social, and economic condition from our own TV programs? The answer is no. It's true that local newspapers have made great improvements in letting our people know what's happening in Taiwan, but not TV reporting.
FCR: What changes do you see in local views of mainland China? Chiang: During recent years in Taiwan, some of the so-called "liberal" professors who have been advocating democracy locally are, on the contrary, very conservative about mainland China issues. And those who used to be conservative about mainland problems now have suddenly become particularly interested in and support the democracy movement on the other side of the Straits; they have been eager to urge the government to change its mainland policy. We should be cautious about such requests. Of course, this whole issue involves problems such as one's place of origin and ideology.
I also find it strange that there are some conservative local reporters who are against the democracy movement in Taiwan yet still support the mainland student demonstrations for democracy. It might be because they are against Communism, but they should be able to distinguish between being against Communism and supporting democracy.