April 1, 1995	                                     

                         An Open Letter Critiquing
            The Memoirs of the Private Physician of Mao Zedong*	Li Zhisui, 

	who was once the "baojian" (literally "ensuring the health of") 
doctor of Mao Zedong, published last fall Chinese and English editions of his
memoirs. The English edition, The Private Life of Chairman Mao, was published
by Random House of the United States; its Chinese edition, Memoirs of the 
Private Physician of Mao Zedong, by China Times Publishing Co. of Taipei. The 
publication of this book has received prominent attention in the U.S. media. 
It was given front page coverage in The New York Times. Excerpts of the book 
appeared in The U.S. News and World Report. The book was reviewed by a number
of noted scholars. Professor Andrew Nathan of Columbia University was closely
involved in the publication of the book and wrote a foreword for it.	

	The book portrays socialist China under Mao's leadership in a 
negative light and relates some "inside stories" and "scandals" concerning 
Mao's sex life. Attacking the personal life of political opponents is nothing
new. In the early 80's, criticizing Mao became something of a fad in China 
and Mao's private life was subjected to intense scrutiny and discussion among
the public. The fad, however, was short-lived. Mao Zedong is still the most 
revered figure in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people today. Clearly 
they revere him not as a saint devoid of human emotions and desires; nor do 
those who hate him do so on account of his private life.	

	Personal attacks on a historic figure normally do not merit rebuttal.
One wonders, however, why the unfounded allegations in the book have so 
riveted the attention of the U.S. media. The so-called exclusive inside 
stories have been recounted with gusto in media reports and scholarly reviews
by the likes of Andrew Nathan. They all spout a common theme: Mao was a 
ruthless, sex-crazed feudal despot and Chinese communism is a dictatorship 
that devours its own people. On the basis of our readings of the English and 
Chinese texts and, in particular, the revealing differences or discrepancies 
between them which can not be explained by legitimate editorial or 
translation needs, we, the undersigned, have concluded that the main 
accusations against Mao in the book are either products of wild imagination 
or outright fabrication, malicious personal attacks and slanders well beyond 
the normal confines of the expression of personal opinions or observations. 
Andrew Nathan's involvement in the publication and promotion of this book 
flout the basic norms of academic probity and we have reasons to question 
whether he has in fact knowingly participated in an endeavor that can only be
described as intellectual fraud. Moreover, we are of the view that the widely
disseminated slanders and fallacies trotted out by certain China scholars and
journalists, saturated with stereotypes of the Chinese nation and society 
habitually found in Eurocentrist narratives, have not only smeared Mao's 
image but also insulted the Chinese people. Andrew Nathan's foreword is a 
particularly offensive text which oozes with cultural imperialism's contempt 
for the Chinese people.	

	On the threshold of the 21st century, China is entering a period 
marked by choices of world-historical magnitude. The opinion whipped up by Li
Zhisui, Andrew Nathan and company is by no means isolated or merely 
anecdotal; it raises questions that need to be addressed by all who are 
concerned about the dignity and future of the Chinese people and Third World 
people in general.  Here then are some of our considered views. 

IS THERE ANY BASIS TO ALL THE ASSERTIONS IN THE BOOK?		

	How much truth is there in Dr. Li's accusations and attacks against 
Mao? A clue can be found in the way the putative scandals are presented. 
While a selling point for the book is the disclosure of lurid "scandals" in 
Mao's private life, all that the so-called scandals amount to are laconic 
allegations about Mao's sexual life interspersed in Dr. Li's reminiscences 
with no substantiation or corroboration. It is such unsubstantiated 
assertions that the mainstream media have picked up and eagerly touted as 
scandals. For example, the book repeatedly mentions that Mao enjoyed ballroom
dancing and often danced with young females who were members of  Cultural 
Work Troupes. This in itself is no news for it has been reported elsewhere on
many occasions; but the author did not  stop there, and went on to regale the
readers with his "insider" information that many of those pretty, young 
ladies had sexual relations with Mao. Any responsible author making such 
shocking revelations would document their account with facts and details. Dr.
Li has not followed this practice of responsible scholarship.	

	Throughout the book, Dr. Li gives the minutest account of anything he 
witnessed, or even merely heard of, no matter how trivial, that had anything 
to do with Mao, sometimes in incredible detail; the sexual mores of other 
figures such as Li Yinqiao and Deng Xiaoping are illustrated with far greater
detail. Why does he skimp over details when it comes to the shocking and 
tantalizing revelations about the central figure's sex life? The explanation 
can only be that they did not have any basis in fact.

WHAT DO DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN  THE CHINESE AND THE ENGLISH EDITIONS SAY?

	A close reading of the Chinese and the English editions is very 
revealing. The two editions match in general but when it comes to the sexual 
life of Mao, supposedly the most intriguing part of the book, significant 
discrepancies appear. Here are a few examples.	

	One "scandalous" anecdote relished by the media is about Mao 
transmitting his venereal disease to his 
sexual partners. In fact, neither edition dares make the outright assertion 
that Mao had venereal disease. There is only an indirect reference to VD in 
the English edition: "with so much sexual activity, venereal disease was 
practically inevitable"(p.363).  The book then goes on to describe Mao's 
trichomonas vaginalis--which is not a venereal disease--transmitted to a host
of sexual partners. In the Chinese edition, there are no hints or innuendo to
suggest Mao had venereal disease.	

	In his foreword, Andrew Nathan decided to go beyond an indirect hint 
of VD; he put a spin on the aforementioned allegation of the spread of Mao's 
trichomonas vaginalis to assert directly that Mao had caused "the spread of 
venereal infection among his female companions." In the Chinese translation 
of this foreword, Dr. Li found it necessary to do a reverse spin: Andrew 
Nathan's direct reference to venereal disease was struck out; in stead, the  
Chinese text of Nathan's foreword now states that Mao had caused "the spread 
of trichomonas vaginalis among his female companions." Why the removal of any
reference to venereal disease? Because trichomonas vaginalis is caused by a 
parasite and communicable easily through clothing and it is not a venereal 
disease. If Mao had had VD, Dr. Li should have been able to name the disease.
Not having the nerve to openly lie about Mao's having VD, he had to alter his
own memoirs and Nathan's foreword for the Chinese edition. The VD claim in 
the English edition was fabricated to create media publicity for the book and
to smear the name of Mao.	

	The English edition claims that Mao adopted the Daoist practice of 
complementing Yang with Yin via sex. In the Chinese edition, the book states 
in its typically laconic fashion:	
	"Mao became a practitioner of Daoism then [when he was 67]: sex was 
	intended to prolong life and not just for pleasure." (p.343)
That is all there is to the sensationalist story of Mao practicing Daoist 
sexual methods. No mention of Yin or Yang or any other details. In the 
English edition, this sentence is slightly altered:              
	"It was then that [Mao] became an adherent of Daoist sexual 
	practices, which gave him an excuse to pursue sex not only for 
	pleasure but to extend his life.[italics added]"   
Then the "editors" of the English version proceed to add two entirely new 
sentences that are not in the Chinese edition:	 
	"He was happiest and most satisfied with several young women 
	simultaneously sharing his bed.  He encouraged his sexual partners 
	to introduce him to others for shared orgies, allegedly in the 
	interest of his longevity and strength." (p.358)
On the same page, the "editors" also insert a long footnote, amplifying the 
term "Daoist Sexual Practice" with the explanation how Yin could be made to 
complement Yang. There is another reference to group sex in the English 
edition:	 
	"[It was at] the height of the Cultural Revolution, that Mao was 
	sometimes in bed with 3, 4, even 5 women simultaneously."(p. 517) 
There is no explanation of who saw this or under what circumstances it was 
observed. The Chinese edition makes no mention whatsoever of group sex for 
the simple reason that the Chinese would see through the lie.  Likewise, the 
Chinese Edition does not make the assertion that Mao also liked to have sex 
with men as is alleged in the English edition.(p358--359)	

	On a separate occasion, Dr. Li also demonstrated his penchant for 
making farfetched statements in English which he would not have the audacity 
to make in Chinese. When interviewed by BBC, Dr. Li, in alluding to Mao's 
peasant origin, asserted that the only pastime for the Chinese peasants was 
sex! In an attempt to offer some insight on Mao's sex life, such a statement,
instead, offers ample insight into the mentality of Dr. Li himself.

WHAT KIND OF BOOK IS IT?	

	A comparison of the two editions brings out something unprecedented 
in book publishing in the world. In the English edition, Li Zhisui is listed 
as the author and Tai Hung-chao as the translator; on the cover of the 
Chinese edition, Li Zhisui is the author, Tai Hung-chao, the English 
translator and Li Zhisui, the Chinese translator-- without specifying which 
edition is the original. If the original is in English, why did it need to be
translated into English? If the original is in Chinese, why translate it into
Chinese? And how does one account for the numerous discrepancies between the 
two editions? We believe that there's more to the book than simply personal 
memoirs. As pointed out in the acknowledgments in the English edition, Andrew
Nathan was involved in the publication of the book from the outset; 
researchers were assigned the task of checking other works concerning Mao. 
One American, Ms. Anne Thurston, participated in putting together the English
edition and a Chinese, Mr. Y. Xu, was involved in polishing up both editions.
This latter fact is omitted from the acknowledgments in the Chinese edition 
and the contribution of that Chinese went without recognition. The 
discrepancy between the two editions leads one to believe that the English 
version has been embroidered and spiced up with lurid anecdotes such as cited
above, which are absent in the Chinese edition but have been invented and 
tucked into the English edition. Another example is a "scandal" mentioned on 
p.314-315 of the English edition, not to do with Mao's private life but with 
Deng Xiaoping's, who, during the period of Lushan Conference, allegedly 
stayed in a hospital in Beijing, got a nurse pregnant and later forced her to
have an abortion. This episode was also deleted from the Chinese edition.


	No notable inside stories are told in the book about Zhou Enlai and 
Deng Yingchao, but insulting words of character assassination describe Zhou 
as Mao's slave, who, like a faithful dog or butler, answers the master's 
every beck and call submissively. His wife Deng Yingchao is painted as a 
self-serving smooth operator who consolidates her own position and power by 
fawning on the powers that be.

WHAT HAS THIS BOOK REVEALED?	

	Li Zhisui was packaged and heralded by the media as an honest person 
whose memoirs are an honest record of events. His words and deeds, however, 
belie this reputation of honesty. Li, as Mao's doctor, enjoyed Mao's trust 
for more than two decades, was a confidant of Wang Dongxing, the security 
chief of Mao's China and a politburo member, and, according to himself, was 
privy to the inner workings of the factions at the top, including the 
top-secret plan to arrest the Gang of Four, which was carried out under the 
direction of Wang. With the death of Mao, he suffered setbacks in his career,
lost his prestigious position as director of Hospital 305, and finally came 
to the U.S. Before Mao's death, he was considered a faithful apostle of Mao 
Zedong Thought and Communism; once in the U.S., he ingratiated himself with 
the anti-Communist scholars here and made a profitable living out of 
vilifying Mao and Communism.	

	A manipulative author who bowdlerizes his own work to suit different 
readerships is no honest and trustworthy witness but a swindler out to make a
name for himself and to hell with truth. To be sure, one is entitled to 
change one's political belief, but not at the expense of one's integrity and 
national dignity. Disregarding a physician's obligation to protect his 
patient's confidentiality, he disclosed information about Mao's physical 
health; revealed state secrets he had privileged access to, and collaborated 
with imperialist anti-Chinese elements to concoct "facts" to drag Mao's name 
through the mud. By the yardstick of both Chinese and Western moral values 
and legal norms, what he did was unconscionable.	

	Andrew Nathan touted these memoirs of fabrications and slanders as a 
work recording historical facts. It is disingenuous for him to claim in the 
foreword that other works published in China corroborate many details in Dr. 
Li' account but differ from his by leaving out unflattering aspects of the 
story of Mao's life, for what is at issue here are not those parts of Dr. 
Li's account that are consistent with other works but those intended to 
illuminate the dark side of Mao's life which other works have purportedly 
left out. The final English edition has been the product of years of 
'editorial work', headed by Anne Thurston, personally selected by Andrew 
Nathan for Random House; and it is to be expected that the finished product 
of such extensive 'editorial work' would not blatantly contradict published 
accounts whose accuracy is generally accepted. What is truly of central 
relevance here, however, is the fact that most of the passages crafted to 
depict Mao's dark side can not even be corroborated by a different language 
edition of the same book., the above cited examples being only a fraction of 
the innumerable discrepancies between the Chinese and the English editions. 
By attributing unique historical value to the lurid anecdotes in the book, 
Andrew Nathan violated the basic tenets of scholarship.	
	Li Zhisui and Andrew Nathan not only assailed Mao but also insulted 
the Chinese people. They totally negated China in Mao's time and considered 
Chinese socialism an unmitigated disaster. To them, China after liberation 
fared worse than during KMT rule. Their logic inexorably leads to the 
conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people living under 
communist dictatorship were either ignorant or suppressed their hostility 
toward the regime. Andrew Nathan's foreword affords a telling glimpse into 
his Eurocentrist prejudice and his contempt for the Chinese people. He 
viciously caricatured Mao and his entourage: "Women were served to order like
food"; "the party and army political departments" had the task of recruiting
beautiful young women of proletarian background "for possible service in his
bed."; at the same time, he praised Li's western training and  'foreign 
tincture';  that Dr. Li's  open expression, soft cheeks and neat clothes 
betrayed him as one who came back from the west, and made him stand out among
his stony-faced Chinese cohorts. In his eyes, the overwhelming majority of 
the Chinese people are ignorant peasants and only a small number of Chinese 
such as Dr. Li with western training and 'foreign tincture' are capable of 
joining him in modernizing China. A group of so-called leaders of the 
democratic movement have coagulated around a project he put together at 
Columbia's Institute of East Asia Studies called "China and 
Constitutionalism". Never mind that hundreds of millions of Chinese people 
are working hard for a better future, in Andrew Nathan's eyes, he is the sole
arbiter and judge of the Chinese people's enterprise. And he has condemned 
the path chosen by the Chinese people on the mere allegations of scandal by a
physician whose track record has shown him to have no scruples whatsoever, 
capable of saying anything to curry favor with his actual or potential 
benefactors.	

	Cultural imperialists need someone like Li Zhisui to help spread the 
gospel of the west in China and, alas, it's not hard to find Li's kindred 
spirits in China. Li is a Chinese who agreed to openly vilify the Chinese 
people but chose to do it on foreign television. He claimed he wanted to be 
history's witness and denounce the crimes of Chinese communism. For such a 
weighty undertaking, he allowed ghost writers to churn out an English edition
first and then had it translated into Chinese and reimported into China. 
Andrew Nathan claimed that this book is the most revealing book ever 
published about Mao's true nature; we believe that, on the contrary, it has 
revealed the true nature of Li Zhisui and Andrew Nathan who have stooped to 
such baseness.	

	Major representatives of U.S. media such as CNN, BBC, The New York 
Times and scholars like Andrew Nathan are in the habit of setting  themselves
up as supreme judges of Third World countries' politics, history and 
morality. This book reveals the length they will go to manufacture public 
opinion in favor of their verdicts.

WHY DO CHINESE PEOPLE REVERE MAO ZEDONG?	

	Mao Zedong is a great Chinese and world leader. The Chinese people 
are exceedingly proud that China produced such a towering historical figure. 
He is revered and remembered for his lofty political vision to which he 
dedicated his entire life with admirable courage, bold initiative and 
selflessness. More important, he showed the Chinese people a bright future: a
just and egalitarian society.  Some people revile him today, precisely 
because there are so many Chinese people who still revere him, miss him and 
cherish his vision.	

	Serious assessments of a political figure should be based on his or 
her public words and deeds and eschew vulgar speculations about his or her 
private thoughts or doings. Some people attack Mao on the grounds of sexual 
mores, but it is precisely in the field of women's liberation that Mao's 
theory and practice have left a powerful legacy recognized around the world. 
He showed that institutionalized gender discrimination could be eradicated 
and that the concept of male superiority could be effectively fought. 
Longstanding social ills such as prostitution and concubinage disappeared 
from new China. These achievements put the old society to shame.	

	It cannot be denied that in little over a quarter century, China shed
its hundred-year legacy of being bullied and carved up by foreign powers and
became a world-class power to be reckoned with. This metamorphosis was made 
possible by Mao and the Chinese Communist Party, whose leadership sparked the
Chinese masses' nationalism and socialist enthusiasm and blazed a path 
unpalatable to the imperialists and achieved results that cultural 
imperialists before Andrew Nathan had never dreamed were possible.	

	China faces both bright prospects and an inevitably tortuous road 
ahead. Prospects are bright because under Mao's leadership, China has 
regained its independence and sovereignty and laid the groundwork for 
national renaissance; perils loom ahead because imperialists do not relish 
China's reawakening and there are too many Chinese who volunteer to spearhead
the cultural imperialists' invasion of China and denigrate nationalism as 
Boxer mentality and treat socialism as a scourge.	

	The arrogance of Li Zhisui, Andrew Nathan and company thrives on 
their perception that the Chinese government and people are docile and 
passive and usually ignore an outrage of this kind. It is imperative to let 
them know that they are wrong, for if we do not stand up to their onslaughts,
the unhealthy trend of self-promotion with the help of foreign patrons will 
grow, further fueling the arrogance of cultural imperialism. Unity confers 
strength. This open letter is intended precisely to show that such insults 
and provocation can be and certainly will be effectively answered.

Signatories (organizational affiliation for identification purpose only):

C. H. Hua, Association for Peaceful Unification of China; 
J. F. Wu; 
Dr.Teng Li; 
Nan Ping Tan; 
Chung Wang, Institute of Sino Strategy Study, LA; 
Juan Wu Lee; 
J. P. Wang, China Unification Association, Taiwan; 
Dong Ping Han; 
Dr. Chung-wu Kung; 
Dr. Chia-ping Huang ; 
Dr. Xu L. Dong; 
Spring Wang, Asian Pacific Women's Political Caucus; 
Professor H. Y. Yeh, U.C.L.A.; 
Chi Weng, Institute of Sino Strategy Study, DC; 
Chung Kwang Yang; 
Professor Shiao Po Wang, World University of Journalism, Taipei, Taiwan; 
Jian Kang Xu; 
Professor John Chen, Temple U.; 
Professor  Che-tsao Huang, York College/CUNY; 
Heh Lee; 
Nancy Sang; 
Li Tsang, Asian Arts Foundation; 
Shou Teng Hsu; 
Dr. Sheng-hui Chang; 
K. H. Yang; 
Ai Ai Jing; 
Prof. Y. Wang, Howard U.; 
Nei Chien Chu; 
Chang-chieh Lin; 
Ching-li Su; 
M. Chao; 
Dr. C. Y. Tung; 
Y.C. Chen; 
Shih Hsiung Chang, Mainland-Taiwan Culture and Trades Exchange Ass.; 
Dr. Sheng Yu Liu, Chinese Socialism Study Group; 
Dr. K. C. Lin; 
L. C. Chu; 
Professor T. N. Mao, Chung Hsing U. of Taiwan; 
S. C. Jiang, China Unification Association, Taiwan; 
P. F. Lin, China Unification Association, Taiwan; 
Tian Ming Liang; 
Su Yang Lin, Association of Political Prisoners in Taiwan; 
Li Fung Lin, Association of Political Prisoners in Taiwan; 
Professor C. M. Chen, College of Chinese Medicine on Taiwan; 
T. Y. Tang, Association for Advancement of Teachers' Rights in Taiwan; 
Tian. T. Liao, Overlook magazine; 
Ming. S. Chang; 
Li Hsia Wang, Taiwan Labor Party; 
Dr. Ken Chang, Teh-lin Yen; 
Jianiu Pan; 
Andrew Kwan; 
Professor T. Sun, SUNY at Binghamton; 
Professor Hsing Sheng Tai, the National Academy of Sciences of 
People's Republic of China; 
Yan Qiu; 
Ling Zhi; 
Zhu Zhong-hui; 
Wendy Hsiao; 
Z. Chi; 
Chien-ping Juan; 
Sze Tan Miou; 
Meichi Lin; 
Dr. Gu Wei-kuan; 
Dr. Shen Song-qi; 
Dr. B. C. Chow; 
Dr. Zonghai Xie; 
Robert Hsu; 
Professor P. Y. Kin; 
Shi Liu; 
F. C. Hwang; 
Y. H. Yang; 
H. N. Chen; 
Y. C. Lee; 
Jian Hu; 
Yong Lin; 
G. D. Yang; 
D. S. Lu; 
D. Y. Lin; 
C. C. Huang; 
J. T. Chen; 
Tong Liu; 
H. T. Lin; 
Feng Chou; 
J. L. Yang; 
Y. W. Lian; 
T. C. Lin; 
General Ce Shen; 
J. G. Chang; 
C. B. Chang; 
J. L. Ren; 
Y. H. Lin

*This is a revised edition of an open letter, originally drafted in Chinese, 
which was first published , on Feb. 18, 1995, by The Asian American Times, a 
Chinese language weekly paper in Queens, N.Y., and subsequently, by more 
newspapers in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Any suggestions and help for wider 
publication and dissemination of this critique will be greatly appreciated. 

Please direct your communication to:    
C. H. Hua, 370 Riverside Drive, #2A, New York, NY 10025 
Tel/Fax: (212)222-1699; 
C. Y. Tung, 501 W123 Street, #5F, New York, NY 10027
Tel/Fax: (212)865-7132; 
Y. Wang, YW@SCS.HOWARD.EDU