Comment on the Document
(July 1965)
This person speaks quite well; many people overseas would like to return.
[1]


This comment was written on a document published in No. 872 of the “Investigation Bulletin” compiled and printed by the Investigation Department of the CPC Central Committee on July 30, 1965. The document contained an opinion from a Taiwanese individual who regarded Li Zongren’s return to China as a victory for Chairman Mao’s call that patriotism knows no before or after.

The document stated: This person had engaged in a lengthy private conversation about Li Zongren’s return. He said that Li’s return represented a triumph of the Communist Party’s united-front policy and a victory for Mao Zedong’s moving appeal that “patriotism knows no before or after.” The impact, he asserted, was undoubtedly immense and far-reaching. Li Zongren’s decision was both wise and correct, and his courage deserved admiration. From a personal standpoint, one might say, “If this place will not keep you, there is surely another where you can find refuge”—a gesture intended to send a message to Chiang Kai-shek while also venting years of pent-up resentment. Looking at the bigger picture, with the CCP regime as solid as a rock, what real insecurity could there be in returning? Even one’s posthumous historical reputation could ultimately earn praise as having turned from darkness to light. To be frank, I sympathize with Li Zongren; making such a decision could not have been easy. As I see it, Li’s return this time was the culmination of years of inner turmoil, vacillation, cautious observation, and patient waiting. In Hong Kong and Taiwan there are many individuals who have fallen out of favor with the Chiang dynasty—figures of varying stature, all in some sense “another Li Zongren.” Seeing Li’s action and Beijing’s response, they certainly cannot remain indifferent. However, conditions are not yet ripe, and the right moment has not yet arrived, so they are unable to make any overt move. These disaffected individuals, stirred to varying degrees by Li’s return, may well think, “If Li could do it, so can I.” That said, Taiwanese figures find it difficult to take concrete steps until after Chiang’s death. In Hong Kong, however, following their initial wavering, new ideas are likely to emerge. By the time Zhang Shizhao next visits Hong Kong, there will be much more scope for meaningful discussion. It is precisely here that the profound and lasting significance of Li’s return lies.