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.

---

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.

 

  今天心血来潮,觉得又想写space了,大概是因为最近做相关的项目,加上身边的朋友大多都开始勤奋笔耕,让我不禁产生见贤思齐之心的缘故吧.

   今天换了个背景音乐,想来那首<金日成将军之哥>放在这里的时间也够长了.

 

   这回放的这个不是很照顾非成都的同志,下面附上歌词,算是语言支持吧:

 

   江南-【成都好吃嘴】-欺头耙活奉献评书版

  

  作词、演唱：小王飞哥

  跟到苍蝇儿飞，跟到飞哥追，成都的欺头耙活大街小巷多的起堆堆，那就要看你眼睛好不好，身体好不好，整不整得下，涨不涨的到，注意你找到确适84安逸的又涨不下的，迅速与飞哥联系，帮你消化……

华兴街的麻辣烫
锅锅端了还在香
多半只有三河场
才买得到正宗绞绞糖
文殊院旁边甜水面
还只是卖两块五一碗
马鞍路建工电影院
肥肠粉加节子不要钱
切面挂面拉面
就在西南民族学院
味道84得惨
九眼桥河边大头菜锅魁黑咸
新华职中公共厕所的对面
加了果酱的蛋烘糕味道好甜
“823”后面的冷串串
吃完不敢喊老板数签签
人民商场后面卖的沙锅饭
添饭不要钱真的想起都划算
商业场后面的巷巷儿里边
卖冰粉的小妹数钱时候
笑得很牙尖

飞哥：“味道硬是安逸，84，老板老板再给我整碗肥肠粉打个心肺汤，加两个节子哈，搞快，搞快……”  

咸烧白太难捻
粉蒸排骨味道很酸特色菜游乐圆
东主寺的汤圆又大又圆我喜欢
牛市口的那家蕃茄煎蛋面
老板经常要搞忘多放一个蛋
茶店子豆汤饭憋憋赚钱
开了家分店地点在双楠
在伊藤洋华堂买的烤香肠
每次都是吃完才发现有点烫
青石桥刀削面生意很忙
掺茶的那个小伙子阴到沟兑老板娘

  小工：“嘘，买主你标去告我们老板哈，我把面汤给你掺宽点，牛肉都要给你多放几砣~”  

  俗话说得好，身体是革命的本钱，人是铁饭是钢，一顿不吃都饿得发慌。那么希望各位来到成都能够耍的好，吃的好，涨的饱,到处欺头吃，天天有火烤！好的各位我们就此别过，后会有期~

    美国前副国务卿阿姆蒂奇近日在接受日本媒体采访时公然挑唆日本与中国为敌,再次暴露出以小布什为首的美国政府惟恐天下不乱的丑恶嘴脸.在高规格接待了即将退位的小泉之后,美国指使阿氏这位退位政治家在媒体面前大放厥词,其通过破坏中日关系以达到其巩固世界霸权之目的的狼子野心已是昭然若揭. 前者的直接目的除了强调美日军事同盟的坚固性也在于昭示世人美国对小泉内阁各项政策的肯定; 而后者则是美国在觉察到后小泉时代中日关系可能出现的改善后使出的阴险招数. 正当天皇谈话记录(天皇披露其认为拜靖国神社供奉二战战犯有所不妥)的发表为今后的首相停止参拜靖国神社提供道义支持进而为中日关系改善带来一线曙光的时候,美国试图通过媒体为日本右翼势力张目,同时利用公开承诺稳定可能已经有所动摇的即将上任的日本鹰派政客安倍晋三等人延续小泉纯一郎外交政策的决心. 而之所以要让阿氏来做传话筒,无非是为了给美国政府预留些许回旋的余地,避免彻底撕破美国那事实上早已支离破碎的伪善面纱.

 

 

 

 

 

Misperception Drag

 

Let A = {a, b}, a and b being two states of nature.

 

The utility one could potentially derive from a is denoted as u(A=a), and that from b u(A=b).

 

While A might be revealed to be equal to either a or b, u(A=a) and u(A=b) could not be known until certain conditions are met.

 

When A is unknown, exp[u(A=a)] > exp[u(A=b)], where exp stands for "expected value or expectation of".

 

When A is revealed and, thus, known, four possible cases arise

 

1) When exp (A) = b, yet A = a,

   exp[u(A)] = exp[u(A=a)]',  and exp[u(A=b)]<exp[u(A=a)]'<exp[u(A=a)]

 

2) When exp (A) = b, and A = b

   exp[u(A)] = exp[u(A=b)]' = exp[u(A=b)]

 

3) When exp (A) = a, and A = a,

   exp[u(A)] = exp[u(A=a)]'' = exp[u(A=a)]

 

4) When exp (A) = a, yet A = b,

   exp[u(A)] = exp[u(A=b)]''< exp[u(A=b)] 

 

The results from 1) and 4) shows that even if an object per se remains unchanged, the revealation of its true nature (or what is perceived to be the true nature) combined with the subject's initial misperception, would cause the subjective expection of the utility of the object to decline.

 

(Guys reading psychology, need your help here)

 

   This is a rather interesting piece of news from the Times. It is a vivid portrait of the incredible arrogance and ignorance of the British upper class. By reading this piece of work, we should also appreciate the objectivity some members of the public have demonstrated and the bright side of freedom of press that is illustrated by the unfolding of this amazing event. By the way, his description of the gang of Chinese leaders is quite accurate, putting aside the alleged political connotation.

 

Charles journal reveals his mourning for end of Empire By Philippe Naughton

The Prince of Wales's candid account of the 1997 handover of Hong Kong was released today at the High Court and provided a fascinating glimpse of the Prince's frustrations at being a bystander at the end of Empire and his ambivalence towards Tony Blair. The 3,000-word account, called The Handover of Hong Kong or The Great Chinese Takeaway, is at the heart of a legal battle by the Prince to prevent further publications of his journals by a national newspaper. But the Prince's own lawyers were forced to release it today on the orders of the judge. The journal was said to have been written on his way home from the handover ceremony, although one section focuses on the outward journey. The Prince said that his British Airways jumbo jet took off with a large party of official representatives from Britain and he found himself and his staff "on the top deck in what is normally club class". "It took me some time to realise that this was not first class(!) although it puzzled me as to why the seat seemed so uncomfortable," he wrote. He then discovered that other dignitaries, including Edward Heath, Douglas Hurd, "the new Foreign Secretary Robin Cook", several former governors of Hong Kong, Lord Wilson and the then leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Paddy Ashdown, were all "ensconced in First Class immediately below us". "Such is the end of Empire, I sighed to myself." The journal describes how the royal party landed in a hot and humid Hong Kong and was "delivered" to the Royal Yacht Britannia which was tied up alongside the old naval base and near the Prince of Wales building that "I must have named in the 1980s (Goodness only knows what the Chinese would have renamed it by now)". The Prince said it was wonderful to be aboard Britannia but this was "tinged with an overwhelming sadness" as this was to be the last time on an overseas visit because the yacht was being "ex-commissioned". He said that there was "a kind of exasperated sadness experienced by all and sundry" about the decision. "Why is this happening?" he was asked by Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State at the time. He added: "The PM and Mrs Blair came on board for an hour and seemed suitably impressed after the whistle-stop tour around the ship. If only he could have seen the yacht with the receptions and dinners under way and heard people’s reactions. But they are all in such a hurry, so never really learn about anything." Prince Charles said that the Prime Minister spent just 14 hours in Hong Kong. "They then take decisions based on market research and focus groups, on the papers produced by political advisers and civil servants none of whom will have ever experienced what it is they are taking decisions about," he wrote. He said that at another reception aboard Britannia everyone he spoke to was being "thoroughly optimistic" about the future for Hong Kong. "But in the background was the sneaking worry about creeping corruption and the gradual undermining of Hong Kong’s greatest asset - the rule of law." The Chinese Army was another concern because they were paid so badly that there may be "irresistible temptations to intimidate or threaten local people when the soldiers discover that a glass of beer costs about as much as their weekly salary". He added: "One can only hope that they are confined to barracks in Hong Kong." At another dinner aboard the yacht, he said Ms Albright was "good value - seemed to be well disposed towards the UK". "We had a good talk about Islam and about the unhelpful US attitude to global warming at the New York summit earlier in the month." Of Mr Blair, who had then been Prime Minister for barely two months, he said: "He is a most enjoyable person to talk to - perhaps partly due to his being younger than me. He also gives the impression of listening to what one says, which I find astonishing." The Prince also referred to Chris Patten, the last Governor of Hong Kong, coming on board Britannia and looking "incredibly sad". Speaking of Mr Patten's "moving speech" later, the Prince said: "I ended up with a lump in my throat and was then completely finished off by the playing of Elgar’s Nimrod Variations immediately afterwards." After that speech, the Prince returned to the Royal Yacht for a bath and then attended an enormous banquet for 4,000 people at the Convention Centre. "I sat next to the Chinese Foreign Minister who must have had considerable difficulty knowing what to make of me," he said. "After a lot of toasting we left the dinner and just waited around until we could go through the ridiculous rigmarole of meeting the Chinese President Jiang Zemin without loss of face to either side." The Prince referred to the President and "his cronies" at a handover dinner that followed. "For the handover this hall had been transformed into a kind of Great Hall Of The People of Peking," he said. "After my speech the President detached himself from the group of appalling old waxworks who accompanied him and took his place at the lectern. He then gave a kind of propaganda speech which was loudly cheered by the bussed-in party faithful at the suitable moment in the text. "At the end of this awful Soviet-style display we had to watch the Chinese soldiers goose-step on to the stage and haul down the Union Jack and raise the ultimate flag." But the "ultimate horror" was the artificial way in which the flags were made to flutter enticingly. "The ceremony ended with us all being photographed in a group, shaking hands and marching off through different doors. Thus we left Hong Kong to her fate and the hope that Martin Lee, the leader of the Democrats, would not be arrested ..." Later, on board Britannia, he added: "I stood on the deck gazing at the departing skyline of Hong Kong and telling myself perhaps it is good for the soul to have to say goodbye and (to) the dear yacht in the same year. Perhaps ..." The Prince's legal team is trying to win a summary judgment - a ruling that the facts are so clear that no trial is needed - on his claim against The Mail on Sunday for breach of copyright and confidentiality. The Prince is also demanding the return of seven more journals that the newspaper has. The Prince dropped a demand yesterday that a key witness statement by Mark Bolland, his former press chief, should be discussed in secret at the High Court. In that statement, Mr Bolland said that Charles sees himself as a "dissident" who flouts constitutional convention to challenge the prevailing political consensus. Mr Bolland, one of the Prince's closest aides for seven years and the man widely credited with winning public acceptance for his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, is expected to testify at any eventual trial. The court heard today that journals written by the Prince of Wales and circulated around friends and acquaintances were significant political documents and not simply accounts of 'what I did on my holidays'. Referring to the Hong Kong handover journal, Mark Warby, QC, representing The Mail on Sunday, told the court that the Prince's description of the Chinese leadership as "appalling old waxworks" was not a reference to their outward appearance but a clear political statement. He told Mr Justice Blackburne: "He (the Prince) was not saying these people look a bit funny but this is a splendid regime. He was saying this is a terrible bunch of people, just like the old Soviet regime, and we must not associate with them. He was expressing political hostility." Mr Warby said that Sir Michael Peat, the Prince’s private secretary, and Hugh Tomlinson, QC, his representative at the court hearing, had claimed that the journal did not contain political opinion. "That is unjustified," he said. Mr Warby added that there was evidence that the journals were circulated in order to influence other people’s opinions - which is why publication was in the public interest. "They were not ‘what I did on my holidays'," he said.