愚蠢、邪恶和绿坝的荒谬

 

做坏事有两种情况。好心做坏事叫做愚蠢，歹心做坏事叫做邪恶。近来工信部强制推行绿坝软件的行为，随着时间推移，越来越让人感到愚蠢不能完全解释政府部门的行为模式。

我很希望相信绿坝的推行是一件好事，但不论从寻常网民还是国家利益的角度看，强制推行这一款基于PC机的过滤软件都不是一件好事，而后者所受的损伤要远大于前者。对于网民来讲，绿坝只是让他们更进一步的被限制和监管而已。既走五十步，复走百步又何如。 过去寻求宪法赋予他们的自由所需要的是VPN和Proxy，而绿坝登场后，港澳通行证、外国签证或者水货老板的联系方法将成为新的必备装备。一切照旧，只是正品电脑日子更难过，没钱和缺乏网络知识的人被封锁的更严实而已 – 而对于这些人来说，是否受到了“进一步”封锁实在是没有什么实质性差别。

但对于国家而言，绿坝带来的，除了对计算机制造和销售行业的潜在打击及其附带的税收后果以外，是一次全方位的公共关系灾难。在国外，西方媒体甚至不需要任何歪曲事实的努力就可以用“绿坝事件”加深民众对中国政府“奥威尔式独裁者”的印象 – 任何读过 《1984》的人都很难不把工信部的行为与奥威尔笔下“真理部”的所作所为联系在一起。在国内，人们不会有这样的反应，因为只要中宣部存在一天，《1984》就永远是禁书。但不将负面情感具体化不意味着没有负面情感，“绿坝政策”出台后线上线下的一片骂声说明利用国家机器损害公民权利，用纳税人的钱开发限制纳税人自由的产品并且强卖给纳税人的行为是万民所不齿的。退一步讲，即便绿坝的开发和推广真的是为了“保护未成年人”，政府机关及国字头机构为推销绿坝这一产品所做的不遗余力的又要当婊子又要立牌坊的努力，实在让国人对有中国特色的国家资本主义感到鄙夷和恶心。

在个人电脑上安装过滤软件关乎公民宪法权利的限定，应该是一项长期的，系统的，严肃的工作。没有公开论证，没有人大讨论，一份莫名其妙的紧急通知（《关于征集绿色上网过滤软件的紧急通知》）和一场为期仅区区两周的招标闹剧就决定了数亿网民的命运和数千万元民脂民膏的去向。其实既然早有内定，何必用手段如此拙劣的伪招标来侮辱群众的智商呢？广大国人已经习惯了领导批示高于法院判决，行政指令超越规章制度的基本国情，工信部大可不必装出一副遵纪奉公的样子。要装就装的敬业些，毕竟招标费用也是纳税人的钱，让大家花钱买场自我安慰的好戏看也还是不错的。只是两个星期的招标期限，实在是有点掩耳盗铃，就“节目质量”而言，充其量也就是新闻联播的水平，好戏是谈不上了。

写上面一段的时候差点吐了，因为里面提到了新闻联播四个字。其实说新闻联播是最恶心的节目是很不公正的。应该说央视所有的新闻评论性节目，以及在广电总局和中宣部阴云笼罩下的多数新闻评论性节目都是非常令人作呕的，不想减肥或是自杀的人实在不应该轻易尝试。在这次绿坝营销战役中，央视大手笔出击，不惜以数档新闻评论节目对Google发起铺天盖地的舆论攻势，大有十年动乱时搞批斗大会的风范。欲加之罪，何患无辞。我实在不能也不愿相信堂堂中国的工业与信息化部会真的以为Google搜索是基于人工手动推介而非算法自动生成的。你可以说Google没有有效的过滤网上色情内容，但对网站及其内容的过滤不是Google的职责和功能所在，不能因为用Google能找到色情信息就一口咬定Google在传播色情信息。这就像有大款到大学里找情妇和一夜情对象并不能说明大学是拉皮条的场所，毛泽东在革命队伍里两度重婚并不能说明革命队伍是为薄情郎连线第三者的地方。

为了迎合中国政府，Google在中国几乎是把头插在屁股里做人了。国家让他遮蔽什么它就遮蔽什么，便是千夫所指也仍旧“义无反顾”（或许用“执迷不悟”更恰当）。就这样，当国字头资本家需要一个幌子卖他的狗皮膏药的时候，第一个想到的还是Google。泱泱大国，为了几只硕鼠的一己私利和缄万民之口障万民之目的妄想，就可以置道义与诚信于不顾。国犹如此，民何以异哉。而一个缺乏道义和诚信的民族怎可能得到世界的信任，承认与尊重？没有信任，承认和尊重，被利用可能也就是我们能期待的最好结果。

愚蠢而邪恶的人做着愚蠢而恶邪的事，但因为他们的愚蠢，他们不知道他们的行为有多邪恶。

(See BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7744399.stm)

 

I can't quite get my head around the question whether the Dalai Lama is plainly naive or evilly manipulative. Reaching out to the ordinary Chinese, of which I am a part, is a nice idea, but keep lying to the world about the situation in Tibet, and the root cause of the troubles is not helping. If anyone is using "fear and ruthless suppression" - word the Dalai Lama used to describe the conduct of the Chinese government in Tibet - as a tactic, it is the Dalai Lama himself - by manipulating the fear of China among the western world and the exile Tibetan community, he is suppressing Chinese people's legitimate rights to peace inside the country and friendliness outside.

I am extremely disappointed with the British media. Had it spend a tenth of the resource it spends on over-exposing the darker side of China - which by the way is almost all that it "exposes" about China - on discovering the history of Tibet, the behavioural pattern of the Dalai Lama, the functioning - or dysfunctioning to be more precise - of the Tibetan government-in-exile, and the lives of Tibetans living in exile - with an objective eye - the world would be a much more just and much less depressing place for an ordinary Chinese like myself, who, in order not to upset my friends in the UK, need to put up with much of their well-articulated but ill-conceived view about my homeland.

China is almost living in a witch hunt era. Ideas that have not been thought through with consideration of China's national interest are presented to this young country all the time - expensive ballot boxes (or democracy as some might prefer),abrupt currency appreciation, giving power back to the Tibetan government in exile, more stringent labour law, to name a few. Like for those accused of being witches in the middle-ages, the choice for China is between being downed in premature - and often perilous - idea to prove its innocence, or being burnt alive. Take the labour law issue as an example. After China tightened its labour law regarding hiring, firing, working condition and wage requirements last year, jobs started to  shift to Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, etc where labour laws are less stringent. Now, same number of worker work under poor conditions, but since Chinese workers become jobless, and Chinese economy suffers, everyone's happy - not the Chinese obviously, but to our media and politician friends in the West, that's kind of beside the point.

I do not oppose the idea that China needs to change - on fronts of human rights, political system, economic policy, etc. Changes, however, need to be constructive, well-thought through, and, most-importantly, mutually beneficial. Expecting hard working Chinese people to give jobs away to people in richer countries, or to accept money being squandered on ballot boxes, or to allow one of the country's autonomous regions to become a theocratic kingdom, sprawling its territory well into other provinces, and throw out all non-Tibetan residents in the mean time may not be completely absurd as some of them may sound, but there has to be a good enough reason that goes beyond ideological prejuduce and one-size-fit-all type ideoticity. For now, the Western media and its Barbie dolls - such as the 14th Dalai Lama - has a long way to go before even starting to winning my heart and mind.

I can't say I understand American politics, and Mr. McCain's choice of running-mate for this year's election has certainly confuse me even further. Practically he has chosen someone who is

 

a) The governor of the least populated state which is closer to Russia than to other states in the US

b) Someone with little more than no diplomatic credential (something McCain has been banking on)

c) Someone who's conservative enough to be against abortion, yet libral enough to embrace her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy.

d) Someone who's yet to be cleared of power-abuse allegations

e) Someone who's recorded on TV saying she's yet to understand what VP does on a daily basis.

 

As far as I can see, either McCain is plainly stupid - which would be devastating to anyone who still have any remote faith in US democracy - or there's something more cunning ans sinister to come... either way it is likely to reflect very badly on the prevalent social values in the US... can't wait to see how things will develop ... expecting things to turn pretty ugly in the coming months...

Recent BBC report in Xinjiang is a classic snapshot of how Western media reports in China

 

This is how the report went

 

1)      The reporter traveled thousands of miles to the most remote province in China to ensure that the background location is as depressing as possible

2)      The reporter start his story by stressing the tightness of media control in China, and implicitly attribute the possibility of the report to his bravery and luckiness, rejecting any possibility that China might be moving forward and the Chinese authority might be attempting to genuinely open up

3)      After interviewing a few people, the reporter found that the message he gets from the people is not exactly what he wants to delivery to the viewers back home. He then attributes the failure to get negative words to the presence of Chinese propaganda official, who might well have volunteered to accompany the reporting crew out of pure hospitality (presence of foreigners in remote parts of China is still a rarity, and is often warmly received by local residents as well as officials).

4)      Giving up on getting a negative story out of passers-by, the reporter starts getting creative,  using images of policemen working on the street (conveniently ignoring the fact that increased police force is the result of recent terrorist attacks in the town) combined with commentary on the authority’s heavy-handed handling of state affairs to reinforce the longstanding misperception

5)      At the same time, he ensures that his camera records only faces that look either miserable, or emotionless, or unintelligent, or perplexed …  

6)      Lacking material evidence to portray a convincingly negative image, the reporter was lucky enough to accidentally bump into a English-speaking local man in the marketplace of this remote town. As always, the man is desperate to talk, yet is hesitant to reveal his identity. With out displaying his face, the man tells the reporter three things that the reporter needs to hear: a) he feels unsafe; b) he fears to talk, c) he can’t answer questions … (wait a minute, so this man was so desperate to talk he dragged a random reporter into a street corner where his identity could be protected. Yet the only thing he wanted to say was that he can’t talk? …)

 

In summary, the grand rules for reporting in China are

a)       Focus only on bad things.

b)      Make bad things in the middle of nowhere that happens once in a blue moon look like daily phenomena

c)      If interviews don’t come out the way you want, there are three options: ignore it, twig it, fake it – only losers care about truism and objectivity.

d)      Make Chinese look stupid and ignorant. Demand answer and explanations from solders and policeman in English. Avoid talking to Chinese who can speak proper English

I tried to register for the protest on April 19^th, but the places were strictly limited and my application went in too late. I did, however, go to Westminster anyway to be a quiet witness and to show my support. Having been following the BBC’s coverage of China for the past 8 years - including that of the recent turmoil in Tibet and the Olympic torch relay, the BBC’s tireless reiteration of its objectivity and impartiality sounds almost laughable to me. It seems that the BBC (and many other media outlets) is so biased that it can no longer appreciate the reason for which millions of Chinese around the world – many of whom are well educated, and some of whom even spent significant amount of time immersing in the Western environment – find the BBC’s reporting on China to be biased. Before the BBC, and other formerly respected member of the Western media start to come up lame excuse such as successful government propaganda and simple-minded nationalism, let me, an ordinary Chinese citizen, give the magnificent BBC some enlightening hints

 

1.       Positive reports on China are a rarity on the BBC, and are always accompanies by a lengthy “but”. Negative reports on China, in contrast, occurs little short of weekly, and almost never had to bear the burden of polemics

2.       Negative reports on the Tibetan government-in-exile were never aired on the BBC despite ample evidence of its

a)         Former, if not on-going, brutality (The head of Forteen Settlement Party, Gungthang Tsultsim, was murdered in his own courtyard by an assassin hired by the Tibetan Government in exile on March 13th 1977. Forteen Settlement was a political organisation set up by devotees of the other four sects of Tibetan Buddhism beside the Dalai Lama's Gelugpa sect to oppose the latter's effort to consolidate its administrative power over religious, as well as political, issues)  

b)        Prevalent corruption

c)        Prevailing nepotism

d)        Aggressive agenda (the Tibetan Youth Congress, which constitutes a significant portion of the Tibetan government-in-exile, calls upon followers to sacrifice their lives for the course that they are pursuing. It also provokes hatred among Tibetans against China, Chinese people, and the Chinese government)

3.       The possibility that some actions taken by the Chinese government might be well intentioned is almost never entertained

a)         Blaming the “Dalai Clique” – maybe part of its purpose is to avoid ethnic hatred against the Tibetans in general

b)        Reduced negative coverage of the disturbances during the Torch relay – maybe it is to avoid creating too much hostility against the West (BBC was quick to redicule China’s “ostrich media policy”, minutes after the end of the disastrous London relay when it was already late night in China)

c)        Restricting media access to Tibet – maybe it is designed to cut the fuel for further riot. In case the BBC has not already noticed, maximum media stunt is what the rioters and violent protesters, both inside and outside Tibet, are looking for.

4.       At the same time, the possibility that some actions taken by the Dalai Lama, and his government-in-exile, may not be entirely good-intentioned is also almost never entertained

a)         The Dalai Lama claims that he never intended to derail the Olympics and is not pursuing Tibet-independence, yet his speech on Mar 10^th was filled with inflammatory terms like “gross violation of human rights” and “increased brutality” which are outrageous exaggeration of, if not plain lies about, the real situation in Tibet. Also, if his speech had nothing to do with the Olympics, why bother marking the 49^th anniversary when the 48^th passed rather eventlessly?

b)        The Tibetan government-in-exile has a track record of lying

                         i.              Even to this day, the Dalai Lama calls the 1959 rebellion a peaceful uprising, which, in fact, was an armed rebellion instigated by Tibetan aristocrats, assisted by the CIA, and coordinated by two of his brothers Gyalo Thondup and Thubten Norbu - who, among other things, orgainised the training of Khampa guerilla fighters at U.S. military bases in the Pacific island of Saipan and in Camp Hale, Colorado

                       ii.              Dalai Lama has more than once referred to Chinese government’s policy in Tibet as “Cultural genocide” with no recognition of the fact that since the end of the Cultural Revolution, from which all 56 Chinese ethnic groups suffered, the Chinese government has made enormous investment in the rebuilding and restoration of Tibetan monasteries. Many Chinese workers, who later started business in Tibet, were originally shipped in to compensate for the labour shortage in Tibet, not to marginalize Tibetans nor to destroy Tibetan culture, which is recognized by the government as the main source of income for Tibet

                      iii.              No source, other than the Tibetan government-in-exile, suggest that Tibet (both inner and outer) had a population of 6 million at the time of communist takeover (most sources suggest around 2.5 million). And for its claim of “1.2 million Tibetans died under Chinese suppression” to be true, the Tibetan would have to have worked very hard to create a population of 4.6 million in 1990. Given the oxygen scarce environment in Tibet and people’s devotion to Buddhism, I would be very surprised if that was the case.

5.       As investigative as BBC is, it is surprising – well given that now we know the BBC is not objective, it is not so surprising any more – that little effort was made to understand the cause of the riot. Instead, the BBC conveniently adopted the conventional wisdom: “Chinese suppression”. No mentioning of the following facts was made

a)         Tibetans farmers and herdsmen enjoy the highest medical coverage among all rural residents in China. Their children are eligible for free education with food and accommodation provided. (Tibetan language IS taught in schools)

b)        Many descendants of former serfs and slaves were in fact grateful for the Chinese government. Some of them even hang Mao’s picture in their living room

c)        The riot in Tibet share many commonalities with those occurred in other regions around the world where the promotion of free-market capitalism led to minority dominance of local economy: Bolivia, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa … all have experienced similar events. Yet since it occurred in China, the answer becomes simple.

6.       Every time the BBC describes the Chinese government’s accusation of Dalai Lama’s involvement in instigating the riot, the title, the Dalai Lama, is always followed by a variation of the attributive clause, “Laureate of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize”. In a situation where objectivity is on the brink of being lost – if not already lost - in the forum of public debate, such behavior that subtly honors credibility to one side of the debate can in no way be seen as objective or impartial.

 

It is true that the media block imposed by the Chinese government made it difficult to carry out independent verification of claims. Much of what I mentioned above, however, is either well documented history or plain common sense. For a member of the general public to not check historical facts and not exercise common sense is somewhat understandable; yet for a reputable media group like the BBC to do the same is nothing but disgraceful. As experienced journalists, reporters as well as editorial staff at the BBC should know better than I do that selective facts can be deceptive facts, and convenient truth non-truth. If not, one should not blame the Chinese government for the media ban.

 

To be ignorant is one thing. To be informed but behave in an ignorant manor is quite another.