“That is your name, isn’t it?” the interpreter asks. When I don’t answer right away, he glances at the white men and then back at me. “I shouldn’t tell you this, but your case has problems. It’s best if you accept what’s in your record. Don’t change your story now.”
“But I never said my name was—”
“Sit down!” Chairman Plumb orders. Even though I pretended not to know English during our last meeting and now, after the interpreter’s warning, feel sure I should stick to my feigned ignorance, I obey, hoping that the chairman will believe the tone in his voice scared me. “In your last interview you said you had a civilized wedding, which is why you didn’t worship your ancestors as part of the ceremonies. We have your husband’s file right here, and he says you did worship your ancestors.”
I wait for the interpreter to relay this, then reply, “I told you before, I’m a Christian. I don’t worship ancestors. Perhaps my husband worshipped his after we parted.”
“How long were you together?”
“One night.” Even I know this sounds bad.
“Do you expect us to believe you were married for one day and now your husband has sent for you?”
“Our marriage was arranged.”
“By a matchmaker?”
I try to think how Sam would have responded to this question in his interrogation.
“Yes, a matchmaker.”
The interpreter gives a subtle nod to let me know I answered correctly.
“You said you didn’t serve betel nuts and tea, but your sister says you did,” Chairman Plumb says, tapping another file, which I assume covers May’s case.
As I look at the bald man before me, waiting for the interpreter to finish the translation, I wonder if this is a trick. Why would May have said that? She wouldn’t.
“Neither my sister nor I served tea or betel nuts.”
This is not the answer the two men want. Lan On Tai looks at me with a combination of pity and aggravation.
Chairman Plumb moves on. “You said you had a civilized wedding, but your sister says that neither of you wore a veil.”
I’m torn between berating myself and May for not being more diligent in working on our stories and questioning why any of this matters.
“We had civilized weddings,” I say, “but neither of us wore veils.”
“Did you raise your veil during the wedding banquet?”
“I already told you I didn’t wear a veil.”
“Why do you say only seven people came to the banquet, when your husband, father-in-law, and sister say there were many occupied tables in the room?”
I feel sick to my stomach. What’s happening here?
“We were a small party in a hotel restaurant where other guests were dining.”
“You said your family home consists of six rooms, but your sister says many more and your husband stated the house is grand.” Chairman Plumb’s face turns crimson as he demands, “Why are you lying?”
“There are different ways to count the rooms and my husband—”
“Let’s go back to your wedding. Was your wedding banquet on the first floor or upstairs?”
And on it goes: Did I take a train after my marriage? Did I ride on a boat? Are the houses where I lived with my parents built in rows? How many houses stood between our house and the main street? How do I know if I was married according to the old custom or the new custom if I had a matchmaker and didn’t wear a veil? Why don’t my alleged sister and I speak the same dialect?
The questioning continues for eight straight hours—with no break for lunch or to use the toilet. By the end, Chairman Plumb is red-faced and weary. As he recites his synopsis for the stenographer, I boil with frustration. Every other sentence begins “The applicant’s alleged sister states …” I can understand—barely—how my responses might be taken to mean something different from those given by Sam or Old Man Louie, but how could May have given such completely different answers from mine?
The interpreter shows no emotion as he translates Chairman Plumb’s conclusion: “It would appear that there are many contradictions which should not exist, particularly concerning the home the applicant shared with her alleged sister. While the applicant adequately answers the queries concerning her alleged husband’s home village, her alleged sister seems to have no knowledge whatsoever of her husband, his family, or his family home, either in Los Angeles or in China. Therefore it is the unanimous opinion of the board that this applicant, as well as her alleged sister, be reexamined until the contradictions can be resolved.” The interpreter then looks at me. “Have you understood everything that’s been asked of you?”