“Give a full account of the series of activities you carried out during your visit to England and other European countries, and of the information you leaked out.”
“My husband visited the Asia Company in England and The Hague and met with several directors and some other persons who had business dealings with the Far East. He also visited the factory and some other installations and equipment. We also met with several old friends.”
“Did you visit any British officials?”
“Yes. Some of our old friends are diplomats.” “Did they ask you about the situation in China?” The interrogator asked.
“The situation in China was very good before the anti-rightist campaign of 1956 and 1957. We were all happy to tell them that after years of war, the Communists had stopped inflation for the first time. The first five-year plan had been completed triumphantly, the people were able to live and work in peace and stability, and they knew all this.”
“Perhaps you have also told them something they do not yet understand, and you must give a full account.” The interrogator said.
“What can we tell them? Is it possible that you first investigate some of the friends we had in Shanghai and the type of people we came in contact with, then you will learn that we did not have a single friend to whom we could divulge important information. Because we couldn’t sneak into the city offices and steal documents, the only way to do that was from friends. And we simply don’t have a friend who has this type of information, so how could we possibly divulge any important information to these British friends? Are we in a position to do that?”
“It is not for you to decide what is important intelligence and what is not, it is for us to decide. You are to write down the whole account of your visit to England from 1956 to 1957, with the names of all the foreigners you met, and give a detailed account of your conversations with them, from which we shall see whether you have divulged any important information to them.”
“That I can’t do, and it wouldn’t do much good. How could I possibly remember every word I said ten years ago? Besides, I didn’t go with my husband to the company to discuss business, nor did I accompany him to the plant to see the oil production unit. How can I tell you what was said? And who are you to verify what I wrote? You can’t take me to England for interrogation. So for now it would be better to investigate my relations with the Chinese in China to see if there is any possibility of our stealing any secret information in China. I can assure you that none of these people with whom we are acquainted is likely to provide what we might call ‘intelligence’.”
“Are you running the case or am I?” The interrogator said angrily.
I knew very well that the interrogator was expecting me to slip up for a moment. Because sometimes a normal plea, if taken out of context. They can be straws and make a big deal out of it. And some things in the world, and often ambiguous, it is difficult to say. So I had to say: “Of course you are the interrogator. Just as you said earlier, you are representing the government and I always follow your orders. But that law you mentioned is just a waste of time.”
“We are not afraid to waste time as long as we can uncover imperialist agents. We believe that all foreign companies operating in China have a double mission. They do business to make money, for money is the capitalist’s god. But they also collect intelligence for their own government.”
“Capitalist countries have never given up their attempts to subvert China. Because China is a socialist country and we are now strong, they have no way to destroy us by military means, so they can only hope to dismantle us from within. You guys who are educated in their universities or work in their companies are their allies who are lurking inside us. Britain was the first imperialist country to invade China, and it still occupies our Hong Kong. He recognized China, but still allied with the United States against China’s entry into the United Nations. The U.S. is openly supporting the Kuomintang; Britain, on the other hand, plays both sides and is a more dangerous enemy because it is easier to hoodwink people that way.” That interrogator said.
“You are too paranoid.” I said.
“I think you should stop defending British imperialism, it will be more detrimental to you.” The interrogator said.
It was obvious that it was a waste of time to engage him in a debate about international relations. I was silent, waiting for him to say something else.
“Before you write your account, you must first correct your attitude toward Liu Shaoqi. You must be clear that the capitalists have been defeated, they can never be turned over, we have to dig out those deep capitalists. The policy of the great leader Chairman Mao is invincible, invincible. So your only way out is to confess and come to the side of the proletarian rebels. If you still want to regress to the life before the Cultural Revolution, to have close relations with foreign countries, and to be harbored by the capitalists, you are greatly mistaken.” The interrogator said.
I was satisfied with the interrogation that day, because I had the opportunity to speak and clarify several points. So I decided to take this opportunity to play on his first few words and further defend Liu Shaoqi, to confirm that there were people in the detention center who leaned toward Liu Shaoqi’s faction, in addition to the ultra-leftists.
I pretended to be ignorant of the times and said: “Frankly speaking, I still can’t figure out why what Liu Shaoqi did was not right? Why did Chairman Mao want to punish him again? In the ‘Mao Selection’, Chairman Mao praised Liu Shaoqi a few times, which I studied in the ‘Mao Selection’ when the statistics. I hope Chairman Mao will forgive Liu Shaoqi, don’t you think it is more beneficial to our country and the Communist Party? Besides, wasn’t it Chairman Liu who first coined the reference to Mao Zedong Thought and urged communists to study Chairman Mao’s writings? This would indicate that he was loyal to Chairman Mao.”
“No calling the traitor Chairman!”
“No reversing the case for Liu Shaoqi!”
They all yelled.
When they quieted down, I said, “If Liu Shaoqi is really guilty, I naturally don’t have the guts to reverse his case. But I doubt whether the materials on which the Central Committee’s resolution is based are reliable and accurate. You know, some people are easily coerced to write false accounts. As I see it, this kind of thing can happen at any time.” I couldn’t help but be sarcastic, which was just my little revenge on them. I was hitting the nail on the head, as evidenced by the panic they showed. It looked like they were eager to shut my mouth. From this, I dare to conclude that they also perceived, or at least suspected, that the so-called evidence of Liu Shaoqi’s guilt might have been fabricated by the ultra-leftists.
In 1976, immediately after Mao’s death, Jiang Qing was arrested and the Central Committee issued a document announcing to the Chinese people that Jiang Qing and Lin Biao, the Minister of National Defense, had indeed organized a task force to fabricate incriminating evidence against Liu Shaoqi, and that the document mentioned that Jiang Qing and Lin Biao’s cronies had besieged some of Liu Shaoqi’s friends and co-workers, persecuting them and pressuring them to provide incriminating evidence against Liu Shaoqi. incriminating evidence. (In order to be able to take credit to Jiang Qing and Lin Biao, these black henchmen went so far as to force and confess to these besieged people, letter, torture them, and even recorded their screams during the torture and played them back to Jiang Qing and Lin Biao.)
“Shut up! Shut up! Are you crazy?” The interrogator bellowed in horror, seemingly caught off guard by some of the straightforward words I had uttered. He went on to say, “Liu Shaoqi is guilty, and so are you!”
Recent Comments