书香

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.

---

Today I was handing out pamphlets on the street to try to provide the British public with a different perspective to look at the Tibet issue. In doing so, I encountered

 

1)     An old lady who shouted to me “go back to your suppressive country”

2)     An Eastern-European-sound man who kept pointing his finger at me, shouting “shame on you”

3)     A police officer who said contemptuously to me “why don’t you ask your people to go away” and told me with a very serious tone “what your country did was wrong” while four of his fellow officers were busy beating up a Chinese protester who tried to push back while the police was squeezing about 6 lines of Chinese protesters towards a wall that was about one meter from the first line, hurting a large number of people, including the beaten man’s girlfriend, who screamed bleakly when her boy friend’s blood was seen on the floor. In the mean time, the Free-Tibet protesters were given a massively larger space, albeit having smaller number of people.

4)     Two Central-European looking people insisted that I was brainwashed by the Chinese government, and asked me, repetitively, how much the Communist government is paying me.

 

When I came back home, I saw the following scene on TV:

 

1)     A free-Tibet protester took the Olympic torch away from a female torchbearer

2)     Another free-Tibet protester fired fire-extinguisher at the Olympic flame

 

Conclusion from BBC and other Western media – A great day for freedom and democracy…

 

If democracy means freedom of expressing and spreading hatred, I’d rather not have it in my country.

 

Let us all work extra hard in whatever we do. One day...those who trash China will be seriously sorry... (This final line do sound like propaganda ... and this is probably exact why I start to wonder maybe, sometimes, the Communist officials genuinely mean what they say sometimes...)

Here are a couple of my angry responses to Western Media. Since both of them may be left unread by the targeted audience, I thought I might well share them on my space with people who might find them interesting.

 

To CNN:

I cannot help but to feel disappointed by CNN’s statement on its coverage of the recent upheaval in Tibet. After weeks of biased coverage, it amuses me that CNN, as a reputable international media company, did not even have the courage and courtesy to apologies for its failure to upholding its professional integrity.

 

In its statement, CNN unapologetically stated that it is aware of “only two instances where it (Tibet) was incorrectly referenced as a country”, sounding as if it is entirely acceptable for a media group which boasts about its accuracy of reporting to make mistakes like this.

 

While it is true that “CNN’s reputation is based on reporting global news accurately and impartially”, in many cases during the past two weeks, as will be discussed below, CNN’s reporting has failed to live up to such reputation.

 

Shortly after the inception of violence in Lhasa, CNN started quoting death tolls from both the Chinese state media and the Tibetan government in exile. In almost every occasion, the reporting reads as “The Tibetan government-in-exile said at least 80 people were killed by police, but local authority – and Xinhua – said only 13 people died” – no specification made about the fact that the 13 cases of death reported by the Chinese authority referrers to the death of Han Chinese. For those who are not extremely familiar with the situation and does not corroborate numbers reported by CNN with those from other sources, such reporting could be highly confusing and lead readers to think that the Chinese government has admitted to the killing of Tibetan rioters.

 

In more than one occasion, where CNN described the spreading of riot into neighboring provinces, reports referred to an area in Gansu province to which the riot spread as “part of historical Tibet, but is not inside what is now known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region” without referring to the fact that the area has been a part of Gansu province since early Qing Dynasty some 400 years ago. For readers who are not familiar with Chinese / Tibetan history, a seemingly truthful statement like this could mislead the readers to think that the communist government separated parts of Tibet and merged them into Chinese provinces, which is entirely untrue.

 

Also, in more than one occasion where CNN referred to the Chinese government’s accusation that Dalai Lama is behind the recent riot and is trying to harm China’s image ahead of the Olympic Games, an attributive clause “a Nobel Peace Prize winner” is added to the word Dalai Lama. While there is yet to be any material evidence to substantiate the Chinese government’s accusation, and what is contained in the attributive clause is indeed try, the way in which CNN referred to Dalai Lama in this particular instance, nevertheless, can not be said to be entirely objective. By stressing the fact that Dalai Lama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, CNN seems to have been trying to steer the readers towards refuting Chinese government’s allegation without question – a conduct in which objective and responsible media group should not engage. (Yasser Arafat is also a Nobel Prize laurite. Rarely did he, however, enjoy the treat of having the honorable suffixed attached to his name.)  

 

These are a few examples of the words used by CNN that have biased connotation and may bear the consequence of steering public opinion towards one direction rather than to encourage rational debate.

 

In addition to the use of words, the selection of events covered in CNN reports also shows signs of political bias.

 

Despite a number of incidences where overseas Chinese diplomatic institutions were unlawfully attacked by Tibetan protesters (Toronto, San Francisco, Paris, etc), few made their way into CNN news reports. Also, while CNN was eager to remind the world about China’s mishandling during the two anti-government protests in 1989, it mentioned nothing about the appalling human rights record of the Dalai Lama government prior to their fleeing to India. No pro-China expert were interviewed to give a different point of view; and all CNN reports (other than the James Miles interview), particularly televised ones, point at “Chinese suppression” – either explicitly or impolitely - as the sole cause of the riot, overlooking the ethno-socio-economic dynamics that are not dissimilar to those in play during the 1998 anti-Chinese riot in Indonesia. Last, but certainly not least, during early days of the event, CNN news reports overlooked almost completely the suffering of Han and Hui Chinese as a result of the riot, and acted almost like a mouthpiece for Western politicians and anti-China organizations to air their condemnation of China for a crime China may have never committed – i.e. heavy-handed clampdown of the riot (or, in the words that most Western politicians and media groups choose to use in a seeming attempt to downplay the level of violence involved, protest).

 

In the reporting of the recent riot in Tibet, CNN is certainly not the only one that has shown signs of bias against China – some such as Sky TV in the UK even used pictures taken in other countries to “sex-up” the story. As one of the world’s most reputable media group, however, CNN should commit itself to a higher level of standard, and refrain from simply echoing the most popular opinion amongst the Western world, which – when it comes to issues surrounding non-Christian countries – are typically not so accurate and embracive. The role of a responsible international media is to foster mutual understanding and encourage constructive dialogue – not to reinforce misperception and provoke conflict. By this standard, CNN has not acted responsibly, and hence should apologize to those who have vested their trust in CNN to help them form objective judgment. Self-denial is never a solution to problems; and the lack of media freedom – or indeed anything that one, based on western values, does not fully approve of - does not justify compromising of professional integrity.

 

 

To EuroNews:

 

     I've been watching Euronews reports on Tibet recently, and have felt strongly that rather than reporting with objectivity and impartiality, Euronews has been using inaccurate and incomplete information in a way that could mislead the general public.

 

     On a documentary-type news report broadcasted on EuroNews, the area of Tibet prior to communist takeover was grossly exaggerated. The report followed on to claim that a large part of Tibet was merged into China after the communist takeover. Such claim seriously deviates from historical facts, and is a sign of either ignorance or strong bias – the latter of which would indicate a lack of integrity among Euronews editors. As a matter of fact, the communist Chinese government did not remark the border of Tibet after the takeover in 1950. Much of the current Tibetan border was marked in the early Qing Dynasty which is some 400 years ago.

 

   As a documentary made by an independent media group, the story should reflect both sides of the argument. In this report, however, no mentioning was made on the brutality of the Dalai Lama regime prior to its fleeing to India in 1959. The Lamaist state ruled by the Dalai Lama was one that had no regard to human rights whatsoever. 95% of the population was constituted by serfs, whose lives can be taken away as their masters – the theocratic lamas and the rich aristocrats – will. Many religious rituals required the use of fresh human blood and body parts, which are commonly taken from the serfs. While the Dalai Lama is now an advocator of peace and human rights, he never showed any regret for supporting the 1959 riot – which let to his fleeing - instigated by Tibetan aristocrats in fear of losing their lordly privileges after witnessing the reforms that have taken place in bordering regions (the Chinese government agree to allow Tibetan aristocrats within the regions ruled by the Dalai Lama, which does not constitute the entirety of the Tibet-populated areas in China, to retain their privileges over land and serfs in the immediate aftermath of the 1950 takeover, and promised to carry out land reforms only gradually – a policy which is sound and fair by any standard given the suffering of Tibetan serfs under the Dalai Lama regime) .  

 

In addition to the documentary, news reports on EuroNews also show frequent signs of partiality and lack of objectivity. If Euronews editors and reporters have been following news reports on more responsible and objective sources such as the Economist, or have duly exercised their rational judgment, they would have realized that the calls for China to “stop the use of violence in Tibet” by Western leaders are the most ridiculous demand one could possibly make. Throughout the entire duration of the turmoil, the Chinese government has exercised an extraordinarily high level of restraint by any standard. Had such massive scale beating, smashing, mobbing and burning taken place in anywhere else in the world, local governments would have taken swift actions to clam down the violence, and deem the riot as act of terrorism. Yet since the riot happened in China, it seemed – based on the reactions from Western leaders / media – as if not only should such actions be permitted and allowed to persist, any responsive measure taken by the government to calm the deadly violence could be “justifiably” deemed as an act of suppression. Moreover, even if no forceful measure has been taken by the government, it is perfectly acceptable – since it is China - to condemn it for its current conduct, disregard what actually happened, on the sole ground of its past record.

 

Rather than to refute such twisted logic, and to cast doubt on the dubious foundation on which the criticisms and condemnations were based, Euronews was quick to join force with the Western politicians, accusing, repetitively, the Chinese government of carrying out “deadly crackdown” on a “peaceful protest”. I understand the frustration that the Western media must have felt when the Chinese government banned journalist from entering Tibet. Such action indeed deserves criticism and suspicion. Suspicion alone, however, does not qualify and substantiate accusation. Making hypothesis about possible mishandling is one thing, making blunt statement about what has happened based on no substantial evidence is quite another. The latter is an irresponsible act of conduct that takes advantage of the lack of public scrutiny around accusations made against unpopular entities, and it is, unfortunate, an act of conduct in which Euronews chose to engage.

 

It would be naïve for me to demand the Western media to be completely objective, for that when it comes to international affairs journalists usually have a pre-formed set of beliefs - acquired through their earlier experience during which popular opinion, driven by political maneuvering, contributes significantly to the shaping of their subconscious - which are very hard, if not impossible to change. For a responsible media group, nevertheless, it is important to have the courage, wisdom and integrity to at least try to fight against popular opinions that are formed on historical, political, ideological and emotional grounds, and to encourage rational debate and constructive dialogue among groups with different opinions to help construct a social environment that breeds mutual understanding and embraces peace and harmony. In the recent instance, Euronews, alongside a number of supposedly reputable media groups, have failed to perform such role. It helped reinforce, rather than defuse, misunderstanding and has helped intensify hatred against China, Chinese people, and the Chinese government, which, as unjustifiably as it is given the enormous contribution all three are making to the world, is already deeply embedded in the Western society.

 

China is a lovely country - a country with rich history, friendly people, vibrant economy, and flourishing society. China has its problems – problems that are due to China’s relatively rudimentary level of development rather than its “communist nature”. Human rights issues exist in China primarily as a result of lack of awareness in the lower level government organizations and the imperfections within the legal system – particularly the institutional infrastructure for the enforcement of law. These problems are not unique in China, and are not non-existent in even the most developed countries. The Tibet issue is complicated issue, and should not be reduced to human rights violation and suppression of freedom. Tibetans enjoy the best social welfare protection among all Chinese ethic groups – 56 in total – due to their special political sensitiveness. Religious affairs are monitored closely not for the communists’ dislike of religion, but the complex intertwining between religion, particularly in Tibet, and politics. Had the 14^th Dalai Lama been less vocal about the resumption of his government’s rule and the international community been more prudent about the claims made by the 73 year old man who use to be the head of a slavery state, Tibetans monks, the once privileged class that enjoyed massive wealth without engaging in any form of productive activity, would have a much freer life, like that they had in the 1980s before they mobilised a massive riot in 1989. It is important for the world to realize that the communist government is not dark and evil. At most, it is inexperience and, as a result, incompetent. The handling of both 1989 uprisings was a demonstration of its lack of political wisdom; and it would be unreasonable for the West to assume that the government has remained unchanged for the past 20 years. China is evolving rapidly in every aspect. Judging the Chinese government based on events happened 20 years ago would be like judging the Western governments based on their engagement in slave trade, discrimination against women, the opium war, etc. Just because China bashing is popular does not mean it is right. To really engage China into the international community for the greater good of the humanity as a whole, the world need to acknowledge the contributions that China, Chinese people, and – as weird as it may sound to an average Western ear - the Chinese government have made to the world in the past 30 years, and, at the same time, to encourage China to make further improvements with, possibly, constructive assistance from the West. To steer the world toward this direction require the Chinese government becoming more adroit in public relations. Right-minded media groups in the West, nevertheless, also have a crucial role to play.  

  

Rejection of Hong Kong's pledge for universal suffrage says something about the political dynamics across the Taiwan Strait

- Yipei Liu    

 

“Democracy delayed” or “democracy denied”, that’s not the questions. Despite the massive row the State NPC’s decision to postpone any possible hope for universal suffrage until 2007 has stirred in the former British colony, the decision bears no substantial consequences to the city’s economic prosperity or social conditions. After all, Hong Kong did more than fine under British rule, during which Democracy was an almost irrelevant concept; and the current chief executive, Donald Tsang, would have been elected to office anyway, had a popular election been held in 2005.

 

What’s more interesting is the implicit message this decision sends out regarding the Chinese government’s plan on Taiwan, or possibly the lack of it.

 

Whether Ma Ying-Jeou, the KMT presidential candidate, wins the general election in March, the cross-strait relationship is destined to be as murky as it has been for the 15 years. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) - now chaired by Frank Hsieh after a spectacular defeat of his party in the parliamentary election last Sunday - is bound to maintain its pro-independence doctrine, although in a possibly less manifested manor, Mr. Ma, in order to appeal to a growing middle-ground voters that prefer prolonged, if not indefinite, continuation of the so-called status quo, will have to retreat from his party’s pro-reunification stance inherited from its long-gone militarily ambitious past. The hope for any material move towards reunification is, hence, fading away, and the government in Beijing needs to decide how to deal with such a depressing reality.   

 

 What the Taiwanese concerns most about when it comes to the reunification with a now communist-ruled Mainland is the possible loss of democratic rights. Beijing’s reaction to Hong Konger’s pledge for universal suffrage is, therefore, hardly reassuring to the already sceptical Taiwanese. If the Chinese government is as sobre as I expect it to be, the signal its decision to postpone democracy in Hong Kong sends to the Taiwanese leaders is that there is no immediate agenda for reunification, the priority for now is to building an economically prosperous cross-strait relationship where the necessity of rambling about the looming “threat” of reunification is cast away, not least in the short-run. After years of trial-and-error in handling “Taiwan affairs”, Beijing should have become smart enough to understand that there is no way the next Taiwanese leader – being it Ma Ying-Jeou or Frank Hsieh – would be willingly pushing forward reunification with a country that has just denied democracy to a not-so-newly rejoined member “state”, which - to many Taiwanese – is an illustrative example of the administrative model that is likely to be applied to their island should it be formally embraced into the People’s Republic. If reunification is what Zhongnanhai had in mind, the right and almost natural step to take would be to grant Hong Kong universal suffrage bounded by a series of restrictive clauses such as central government approval of final results. After all, general election is a political game taht – as expensive as it is – the people of Hong Kong could easily afford, and their practical – as opposed to ideological - approach towards everyday business, together with high average level of education, would ensure that the flawed concept of democracy would not exert much, if any, detrimental impact on the city’s prosperous establishment.  The very fact that Beijing refrained from taking this easy option, much at the detriment of the pro-China cohort in Hong Kong’s legislature, shows that the government, despite its manifested stance, is yet to device a clear plan to integrate Taiwan into its existing system.

 

The leadership that rules China today is a highly practical one. It realises that China is not ready for a Democratic Taiwan, as much as Taiwan is not ready for an authoritarian China. Allowing a city with seven million people show-casing the entertaining game of popular election is one thing, having a province with the size of Belgium (and twice the population) operating a fully functioning democracy – no matter how dysfunctional it might be - is quite another. The latter is likely to lead to a new wave of demand for democracy, which the communist party cannot easily deal with without resorting to 1989 Tian’anmen type measures – something the CCP is not fond of, despite popular western beliefs. Instead of rushing into reunification that the government is still ill-prepared for, a wiser and more practical alternative is to maintain the status quo – something very vaguely defined but both parties seem to have a good understanding of. The decision on Hong Kong may not be very reassuring to the Taiwanese people about the CCP’s attitude towards democracy, but it could be quite reassuring to the forth-coming Taiwanese government about the party’s attitude towards reunification – if, of course, the both parties understand each other.

 

     2007 is by far the worst year in my life so far. It started with a warning sign – occurred quite literally right after the last sound of the New Year’s bell - which I quite conveniently ignored, and ended in the midst of the longest period of misery I have ever experienced. (Despite the desperate desire to substitute “midst” with “aftermath”, such act, I’m afraid, would render the whole statement untrue.) Not only did I decide- on the basis of a series of beliefs, part of which turned out to be spectacularly misconceived - to leave a company where I have made some very good friends whose accompany I thoroughly enjoy, and a city which I manage to discover fun and comfort in and is considerably closer to the place I call home, I also lost a substantial portion of faith in something that is rather important in life. Having said all that, one thing that is notably celebratable is the very fact that I survived, thanks to my lovely friends who have withstood my raging negativity and accommodated my annoying existence (for Dong Xin / Yichen, and Xu Jia, this was literally the case) over the past 8 months.

     Here I am at the beginning of a brand new year - spending some quality free time in my slightly crowded office in London – hoping that 2008 would be a better year – well, how could it possibly not be!

今天下班比较早, 心血来潮似的把前半年的照片整理了一通.乍一看数量很多,但拿的出手的东西实在不多.挑挑捡捡的上传了几张,放在"遵义"和"泰国"两个相册里.遵义之旅来去匆匆,主要是为追远祭祖,至于旅游,无非是顺路为之,也就不多谈了.最近去了泰国,有些见闻和感想,希望周末找时间来跟大家分享分享.