(Second of two parts)
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana.
After I read the article by Mr. Teodoro M. Locsin published in the Philippine Free Press in 1952 entitled “Chinese Question,” which I shared in the first part of this report, I became interested in making a short review of our history about what could have culminated in the Chinese massacres in the Philippines during the Spanish regime in 1600. This important part of Philippine history was not discussed well during my history classes in high school and college.
Historical records show that Chinese interaction with the Philippines began as early as the 9th or 10th century, with consistent trade established during the Song and Ming dynasties (10th–14th centuries). Significant large-scale immigration began in the 16th century, leading to the creation of the Parian in 1581 and Binondo in 1594.
According to history professor Jose Eugenio Borao of National Taiwan University, who contributed significantly to Itinerario: European Journal of Overseas History, Volume 23, published in 1998 by Cambridge University Press, from a historiographic point of view, the incident of 1603 was significant in the long and tragic history of Chinese massacres in the Philippines and was best recorded not only in Spanish but also in Chinese sources.
Borao’s article was entitled “The Massacre of 1603: Chinese Perceptions of the Spaniards in the Philippines” (pp. 22–39).
In 1603, Manila stood on the verge of danger.
In the last decade of the 16th century, Manila was ruled by only 2,000 Spaniards, while the Chinese immigrants were estimated at 20,000 to 30,000, called Sangleys. Trade and commerce were dominated by them, and Spanish authorities relied on the Chinese for the collection of taxes for economic needs. These Sangleys outnumbered the Spaniards, which caused fear among the latter.
That fear was reinforced in 1593 when Governor Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas recruited 250 Chinese traders, against their will, to serve as rowers on his expedition to the Moluccas. Four ships were deployed, and the flagship carried the 250 Chinese along with Governor Dasmariñas. Before reaching the Moluccas, the Chinese mutinied, eventually killing the governor and seizing the ship. They escaped to Ilocos and returned to China. The Spaniards wrongly assumed that Chinese laborers were loyal to Spain.
In Cebu, his son, Luis Pérez Dasmariñas, upon learning of his father’s untimely death, assumed office in Manila. Then in 1603, “three Chinese mandarins” arrived in Manila from mainland China to validate rumors of a “mountain of gold” in Cavite. The Spaniards doubted this alibi because they saw the local Chinese bowing to these officials as if they still answered to a foreign emperor. The Spaniards became suspicious when the Chinese in Binondo showed full respect for their visitors. The mandarins gave orders. The Sangleys bowed. To the Spaniards, these actions signified disloyalty to Spain.
On the night of October 3, 1603, the Sangley Insurrection erupted, led by Juan Bautista de Vera, also known as Eng Kang, a baptized Chinese Christian who had served as gobernadorcillo of the Chinese community in Parian and Binondo. Deaths were enormous, reaching about 25,000.
Chinese records state that the Sangleys were merchants and traders from Fujian, China, who were forced by the Spaniards to perform hard labor in the Moluccas. Spanish accounts claimed otherwise, saying that hundreds of Chinese planned to enter Manila disguised as merchants while hiding weapons beneath their robes. Whether it was a preemptive strike or a planned conquest, the uprising was real. Fighting spread through Parian, Quiapo, Tondo, and beyond. It was a bloody incident.
Despite warnings, Governor Luis Pérez Dasmariñas responded with fatal overconfidence. Dismissing warnings from his senior officers, he bragged that “twenty-five Spaniards were enough to conquer the whole of China.” He pursued the Sangleys into marshland beyond Manila’s walls. There, in a swamp, he and his men were surrounded and slaughtered. He was killed by Chinese hands, and the Chinese took their heads as trophies.
Governor Pedro Bravo de Acuña tried to quell the rebellion. He organized Spanish troops, joined by loyal Filipinos from Pampanga and Japanese residents of Dilao, and crushed the rebellion. Over the next three weeks, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 Chinese were killed. This was considered one of the bloodiest massacres in Philippine colonial history conducted by Spaniards in Manila. Eng Kang was captured, executed, and his head was displayed as a warning.
The massacre almost eradicated the Chinese population of Luzon and Manila. Some fled by sea and returned to China.
Chinese Emperor Wanli of the Ming dynasty declined retaliation, believing that the overseas Chinese had abandoned their homeland. Beijing did not provide protection to the Sangleys.
The deaths of both Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas and his son at Chinese hands left a permanent mark on Spanish colonial memory. For many Spaniards, the events of 1603 cemented the belief that the Chinese, no matter how integrated or baptized, remained loyal first to their own people. Trust, once shaken by mutiny, was shattered by open rebellion.
The corrupt Spanish authorities in Manila were blamed because they failed to follow the immigration laws imposed by Madrid, which allowed only up to 6,000 Chinese to hold a license to trade in Manila.
When chaos erupted in Tondo, Parian, and Binondo, resulting in the burning of houses and establishments instigated by the Chinese in protest against harsh tax laws and forced labor, the Spanish authorities in Manila did not report to Madrid what really happened. More than 25,000 Chinese had rioted and died. Instead, they reduced the number to 8,000 for fear of punishment because they had sold licenses at high prices. Corruption by Spaniards was seen as a root cause of the 1603 rebellion in Manila.
From 1952, the time of Mr. Locsin’s article, to 2026, 74 years have passed. Many things have changed in the system, along with the Chinese immigrants.
Yet Filipinos often forget the past. Some government officials, including immigration and customs officers, continue to accept bribes from Chinese businessmen.
Today, some Bureau of Immigration officers under the Department of Justice continue the practice of accepting bribes from Chinese nationals who wish to migrate to the Philippines, as well as from other nationalities, particularly those from Punjab, in exchange for alien registration cards and naturalization.
We cannot deny that Filipino-Chinese are active in many sectors of the economy. Many have adopted Filipino names, though their ancestry remains part of their identity.
They have established Chinese schools, celebrate Chinese New Year, and maintain their culture and traditions.
They are present in banking, real estate, insurance, telecommunications, sea and air transportation, technology, universities, construction, food and beverage, and hospitals. Some face tax issues, but they are given due process by tax authorities and the courts.
Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGOs) thrived in the country, manned by Chinese nationals, some of whom could not speak fluent English or Filipino. Some remained in various parts of the country despite expired travel documents.
Despite what happened in 1603, the Filipino-Chinese, once called Sangleys, were allowed to prosper here.
There are many Filipino-Chinese who have shown courage in helping poor Filipinos. Some have served in government and have chosen to live in harmony with local communities.
I remain optimistic that even if Chinese-Filipinos are dominant in business and trade, they will treat Filipinos as employees with equal treatment.
Lastly, Filipinos should learn from the lessons of the past to avoid speaking harshly about the Chinese. Not all of them are bad or enemies. Some Filipino-Chinese are also family.
