Fool's Mountain: Blogging for China

At a time of economic uncertainty, in the US, people also increasingly conscious about the quality of their politicians. The Washington Post recently carry a report ‘2012 Republican presidential candidates all have flaws’ (30 Jan 2011). A survey by NBC News/Wall Street Journal (March 2010) indicated that the Congress enjoy only 17% of approval rating from the American public.

In the UK, the 2010 election also resulted in a hung parliament, with all 3 major parties “failed to disclose to the voters the scale of tax rises and public sector cuts required to tackle the financial crisis”. The outcome of the election has been label as “No Choice Democracy”.

China has been very much misunderstood by the Western World due to the disinformation of the mainstream Western Media.

In the meantime, this article in the Guardian (19 January 2011) under the heading ‘China’s tentative steps towards democracy’ may interest you. The article ends with quoting a statement made by Daniel Bell, a Canadian-born professor of political theory at Tsinghua University in Beijing, who says China may be groping toward “a political model that works better than western-style democracy”.

For the sake of humanity and the welfare of the Western Public, should we forgo our cold war mentality against China and begin to look into the positive aspect of the Chinese Communist Party and their progressive political ideology and methodology in an objective manner?

This is the link to the full article: http://outcastjournalist.com/index_Democracy_needs_reform_lead_by_the_unqualified.htm

If you don’t know by now, this controversial Ad from CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste) which depicts of a Chinese Professor warning about the demise of the US because the US government spent too much money has gone viral.

Have you ever wondered how hundreds of presumptively Asians knew the message of the Ad before they decided to be a part of it? Apparently they don’t. This is according to one of the extras, Josh H, who became an extra in the Ad.

http://www.racialicious.com/2010/10/29/an-extra-in-the-chinese-professor-ad-speaks-out/

So yes, I was an extra for this commercial. The way I got involved in this commercial is by signing up to be an extra for Transformers 3, which was being filmed in DC. So I got an email from my Kollaboration staff (I am on the board for Kollaboration DC) saying that they were filming Transformers 3 (Our show just ended btw too, like a week ago). Some of us signed up to be extras and a couple of us got called for this commercial because the Transformers 3 shoot was full, and they informed me that it was for a conservative – political ad, so I was aware of the political stance (thinking it wouldn’t be a serious issue). So thats basically how I got involved.

BTW, to sign up to be extras we had to fill out information like, our name, gender, age, height, ethnicity, and a picture.

It was filmed at a community college (NOVA in Alexandria VA) and when we got there, the production team did tell us about the ad, but in a misconstrued kind of way. I know that the ad was about the US deficit and they did tell us the premise of the ad (taking place in the future, and we all supposed to be “chinese” students in a lecture). I saw the commercial and it’s pretty intense and one thing I did not know that the commercial would do, is put this almost red-scare type of fear in the eyes of Americans (effectiveness wise, the political ad works, not saying I agree with the tactics).

What’s interesting is that the production team told us that we would all be laughing in the commercial because the “Chinese Professor” said something funny, so there were multiple shots where we all “laughed” after the “Chinese Professor” said his so called, “joke.”

At the end of the production, the person who was in charge of managing the extras came to us at the end of the shoot to inform us that the production crew is non-partisan about the issue, and that they were just doing it for the money. Of course as extras we all did get paid for the all day shoot. Another thing, the production team didn’t convey to us that this ad would be used in this way either.

Personally, I had no idea that this commercial would be aired nation-wide and as soon as it aired, it was put onto the politico blog. I got a few emails from friends who work in politics telling me that they saw me in this crazy ad, and it kind of took me off guard.

Apparently, the person who is in the Ad knew what was in the Ad was probably the “Chinese Professor” himself.

The 21 August, 2010 Federal election in Australia ended in a limbo with no outright winner. As a result of the unprecedented number of informal or protest vote casted by our frustrated voters, our unique Preferential Voting Systems failed to prevent the outcome of a hung parliament. The Age (23 Aug 2010) is right to title the situation as a ’sign of disillusion’ by the voters.

While the two major parties still waiting for the outcome of the few undecided seats and are in the process of a negotiation with the 4 independents and the green, let’s have an overview of the kind of candidates available to the voters.

Election without choice – Quality of Candidates need to improve

Our parliament is by right the most important and respectable institution in the country. It bears the heavy responsibility in the management of our A$1.1 trillion economy. Our elected representatives bear the responsibility in the formulation and regulation of policies in the area of health, education, environment, defence, law and order, social welfare, infrastructures, foreign relation etc.- to ensure a safe, harmonize and prosper society. The issues are complex, challenging and they required deep thinkers, great leaders and people with all kind of special knowledge and skills to brainstorm ideas in order to move thing forward.

However, let’s have a quick look at the kind of candidates Australia voters were forced to choose from:

Let put aside the reality of some ‘funny’ personalities running as candidates such as:

* Outcasts bikie who “had served time in Australia and Holland for drug, firearm and kidnapping offences, and said the experience served as an eye-opener to flaws in the system”. (News Limited, 21 July 2010)

* The stupidity of a major party (Coalition) candidate went on Facebook to describe his opponent as “a strong Muslim” and claimed that Labor would bring Australia ”closer to the hands of a Muslim country” (Sydney Morning Herald, 26 July 2010). Even though he was immediately replaced by someone else from the party, the case reflected badly on the availability of quality candidates within the major parties.

* Then we have another childish candidate from the Family First Party who was forced to say: ‘I’m sorry for homophobic tweet’ (Brisbane Times, 12 Aug 2010)

* 24 candidates from the Australia Sex Party sponsored by the sex industry. Their only interest is about the interest of the sex industry.

* A candidate from the Coalition Party who have a record of anti-gay, anti-Semitic and anti-female views in a magazine either penned or edited by him. This is just an example of how he wrote: “the truth is that women are bloody stupid” and reproduced a joke about a gay man dying of AIDS. However, his leader, Tony Abbott dismissed the views as “colourful”. (Sydney Morning Herald, 10 Aug 2010 – Abbott dismisses candidate’s anti-gay, anti-Semitic and anti-female views as ‘colourful‘)

* Again, a 19 year old teenager without any work experience became a major party (Coalition) candidate. (Brisbane Times, 5 May 2010 – ‘Teenage candidate stands up to PM’)

* ‘Independent candidate charged over broken jaw attack’ at a night club in Gosford (Sydney Morning Herald, 19 Aug 2010)

* ‘Democrats sorry for sex offender candidate Darren Andrews’ (News Limited, 20 Aug 2010)

* Independent Candidate’s ‘Bob Katter threatened to kill me, claims Liberal MP Peter Lindsay’ (News Limited, 25 Aug 2010)

* Another Coalition Party case: ‘Logan City Council calls in Crime and Misconduct Commission to investigate how-to-vote cards on Luke Smith’ (Courier Mail, 13 Aug 2010)

* A blind candidate from another major party – the Labor Party (WA Today, 9 Aug 2010 – ‘Peacock makes ‘handicap’ gaffe in blind candidate’s electorate’)

Note: I have to confess, I do feel bad to include the blind candidate to the above list of ’funny’ personalities. It is definitely a sensational thing to have all type of people from all wards of the society to present as candidates in an election. However, given the responsibility of the parliamentarians to the well being of the nation and the people, I believe that, it is fair for one to ask, will these people have the necessary skill, knowledge and expertise to make the right decision on our behalf? Are they able to understand and comprehend the challenge we encountered in this fast moving 21st century?

The sad thing with the Australia political circle since 1996 are that, there are hardly any good and able people offering themselves as candidates. Even the credibility of the heavy weight within the major parties are often questionable. For examples:

Coalition Party – Leader, Tony Abbott

Tony is a sceptic of climate change. In a recent visit to an Adelaide school, in a question-and-answer session, he told his student audience (Year 5 and 6) that the issue relating to “human contribution to climate change” is an “open question,” he then claimed that: “it was warmer at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth than now”. (Sydney Morning herald, 10 May 2010 – ‘Climate scientists cross with Abbott for taking Christ’s name in vain’)

In another question-and-answer program on the ABC’s TV, when he was quizzed on his criticisms of the Rudd Government’s softening of Australia’s border protection policies and how that criticism squared with his own strong Catholic faith, he claimed that: “Even Jesus Christ would not accept every asylum-seeker” (detail in News Limited, 6 April 2010)

As for his personal finance, Tony “made no secret in the past that he had often found it challenging to make ends meet”. When he lost government in the 2007 election, his income was halved as he lost his ministerial salary, he then complaint in January 2008 that “politicians don’t get paid enough”. He later “took out a new A$710,000 mortgage on his family home” but failed to declare the loans to Parliament for almost two years apparently in breach of the parliamentary rules covering MPs’ pecuniary interests. (News Limited, 23 June 2010)

(Note: The income of a member of parliament including all kind of allowance is around A$160,000/year, it is a lot higher for a shadow opposition’s minister and leader. If Tony Abbott find it hard to make end meet with that kind of income, how the average Australians going to live on? For detail of politician’s income, click on ‘Politicians awarded secret pay rise’ – News Limited, 25 Aug 2010)

However, Tony Abbott is at least honest about one thing: during an interview with the 7.30 Report, he admitted that “his only utterances that should be regarded as ”gospel truth” were carefully prepared and scripted remarks such as those made during speeches or policy pronouncements”, “Otherwise, he indicated that statements he made during the ”heat of discussion” such as radio interviews or under questioning at press conferences, were not necessarily reliable” (Brisbane Times, 18 May 2010 – ‘Read my lying lips: Abbott admits you can’t believe everything he says’)

As a result of his above “gospel truth” confession, in an interview with the Radio 3AW, when Tony Abbott claimed that he will not reintroduce ’Work Choice’ if he win the election, the radio host didn’t believe him and challenge him to put his promise in writing. He then follow suit with the statement “Work Choices dead, buried, cremated”. The childish action has effectively make him a crown and has since become a laughing stock across the media industry and among his opponents. (‘Mr Squiggle: Abbott’s scrawl over the WorkChoices finish line’ – WA Today, 19 July 2010)

Tony Abbott has focused his campaign almost exclusively on stopping the boat (i.e., stopping the asylum seekers). One of the Coalition most frequently appeared political advertisement on TVs was to “STOP the Boat”. He pledged to reopen the detention facilities in Nauru and restart the Howard government’s Pacific Solution on asylum seekers. (Adelaide Now, 2 Aug 2010 – ‘Nauru and asylum seekers a first-day priority for a Tony Abbott Government if elected’). To enforce the point, few days later he travelled all the way to Brisbane to meet the Nauru President who visited Australia (WA Today, 7 Aug 2010 – ‘Abbott to meet Nauru President’); He then pledged to set up a hotline between the Navy and himself, and he will personally decide if an asylum seeker boat be turned away. (Courier Mail, 16 Aug 2010 – ‘Holy asylum seekers! Tony Abbott to take charge of boat people hotline’). On the eve of the polling day, he further set a target of limiting unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia to three a year. (Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Aug 2010 – ‘Three boats a year our target, says Abbott’).

There are too many examples pointing to Tony Abbott inability to understand a broad range of issues and their implication to the country and the society in the short and long run. Below are just a few more selected links for readers to explore:

* ‘I’m no Bill Gates’: Abbott stumbles on broadband plan’ (The Age, 11 Aug 2010)

* Tony Abbott once claimed that “economic is boring” and has been exploited by the Labor Party throughout the election campaign. This is the treasurer statement on the ALP website.

* ‘Tony Abbott faces revolt from within on paid parental leave’ (News Limited, 6 Aug 2010)

As a result, we can easily understand why his own party comrades trying to stay away from him during their election campaigns by “airbrushing Tony from their election materials”. Detail in News limited, 20 July 2010 – ‘Why tense Liberals are airbrushing Tony from election material’

When Tony Abbott won the leadership in the Liberal Party few months ago after an internal coup, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was so disgusted that, he decided to quit the party (The Age, 26 May 2010 – ‘Baillieu tells of sadness after Fraser quits Liberal Party’).

Former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating also openly added his voice by accusing the new opposition leader – Tony Abbott of being an “intellectual nobody” without policy ambition. (Brisbane Time, 16 March 2010 – ‘Abbott a poor man’s John Howard, says Keating’)

Two weeks before the polling day, Malcolm Fraser went further to warn Australian voters that the ’Coalition not ready to govern’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 6 Aug 2010).

Labor Party – Leader, Julia Gillard:

Julia Gillard was the Deputy Prime Minister in the Rudd Government. She was one of the gang of four in the so-called ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ that take the key decisions on behalf of the 20-person cabinet. Therefore, she was unable to fully clear herself of any blunder made by the Rudd’s government such as the bungled insulation scheme, the $1 b wasted on schools building economic stimulus program, the decision to break the Rudd government key election promise on climate change by delaying carbon scheme until 2012, and a series of ruthless and racist’s poll-driven-politics on the issue of skill migration and refugees leading up to the election.

As a deputy in the Rudd government, she perform well acting on the side line. However, when she overthrown her elected master in a poll-driven coup, and became the first female (unelected) Prime Minister in Australia. Her performance on the front line was incredibly and unbelievably childish. For examples,

1) On the issue of her green policy, instead of coming out with a solution as a leader of the nation, she totally avoided her responsibility by proposing to set up a Citizens’ Assembly after the election to let the citizens decide by themselves the nation’s future climate change policy. The Galaxy poll indicated that ‘Voters reject Julia Gillard’s Citizens’ Assembly’ (News Limited, 26 July 2010).

2) On the issue of Asylum seeker, she tried to race to the bottom with the well known racist coalition party (Note: During the Howard’s era, the Coalition government was condemned by the United Nation as a racist government, this is why I term them ‘Racist party’).

To differential herself from the Coalition Party well known Pacific Solution with off shore processing center at Nauru, she proposed an alternative off shore processing center in East Timor without any prior consultation with the government there. The result was, she has to suffer a series of embarrassments through her own indecisiveness and subsequence flip-flop decision on the issue. For examples,

When her unconsulted proposal rejected by the East Timor Deputy Prime Minister, Jose Luis Guterres: ‘Timor says it’s too poor to do Australia’s dirty work’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 8 July 2010), she begin to back away from the idea: ‘Prime Minister Julia Gillard backs away from plan for East Timor processing centre for asylum seekers’ (Courier Mail, 9 July 2010).

However, within a mere 24 hours, she decided to revive the idea: ‘PM Julia Gillard revives East Timor as preferred destination for refugee centre’ (Herald Sun, 10 July 2010). Then, came a report that “EAST Timor’s parliament is planning to make its disapproval of a refugee processing centre on its soil known by sending a strongly-worded condemnation of the proposal to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.” (WA Today, 10 July 2010 – ‘Not on our soil: East Timor leaders’).

It was then reported that, beside Nauru, virtually all the ‘neighbouring countries shun Gillard boat plan’ (Adelaide Now, 13 July 2010).

The fascinating thing is, “The Gillard government will forge ahead with its proposal to establish a refugee processing centre in East Timor, despite that country’s parliament rejecting the idea yesterday” (Brisbane Times, 13 July 2010 – ‘Push for refugee centre will continue despite East Timor rejection’)

Note: Australia has a history of colonising some of the pacific island nations, bullying their leaders, interfering with their internal politics, exploiting their resources and has been exploiting the East Timor oil and gas resources since their independent from Indonesia. It puzzle me that, as the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard seems to have no knowledge of our shameful history in the pacific region, or at least a basic understanding towards the kind of resentment again Australia in the region. The notion that she can forge ahead with its proposal to establish a refugee processing centre in East Timor despite their on-going expression of refusal remind me of the existence of the colonial mentality among some of our political ‘elites’ (perhaps?).

Of course, in the face of the persistently hostile attitude toward her asylum seeker policy in the region, Julia Gillard has finally come to term with directly copying the coalition’s Pacific Solution Policy using Nauru as a processing center. As a result, “NAURU has re-emerged as a serious option for Julia Gillard’s asylum-seeker processing facility” (Courier Mail, 14 July 2010)

The down side for Julia Gillard is that, she tried to race to the bottom with an authentic racist party, and she is unable to win over the kind of voters that supported the that party. Her action has instead alienated her own traditional base supporters. This was perhaps one of the major reason behind the high volume of protest vote that resulted in the current hung parliament situation.

3) Despite the fact that Tony Abbott had in many occasions insisted that “Work Choices is dead, buried and cremated”. Labor still tried to make that an issue through their political advertisements and a series of media interviews. On the eve of the polling day, Julia has a last shot on the issue of Work Choices. (The Australian, 20 Aug 2010 – ‘Julia Gillard campaign switches to negative mode, warning of ‘risk’ of electing Tony Abbott’)

4) Facing a dramatic down fall in her popularity in a series of opinion polls, Julia Gillard suddenly came out with an idea to revive herself by telling voters that what they have seems of her so far are not her true self. She then created a term called the “Real Julia” – (WA Today, 2 Aug 2010 – ‘‘Real Julia’ vows to throw rule book out window’).

Please forgive me, I cannot thought of any nation leader as childish as this, as a result, she has effectively became a laughing stock by the media and her opponents over the next few weeks leading all the way up to the polling day.

There are other issues with Julia Gillard such as ‘Bodyguard deputised for Gillard for national security meetings’ (Perth Now, 30 July 2010) etc.

The Childish Behaviour of Post Election Blame Games

If you cannot control the behaviour of your own comrades within your own party, you are not a good leader. The logic is as simple as that. A good leader will usually undertake the responsibility of the party performance.

However, in Australia, there is a culture of blaming someone else for their failure. The cruel reality is that the very people that involved in the childish blame game are our nation most highly ranked politicians at both state and federal levels. The blame game actually reflected badly on the kind of leadership quality we rely upon to run the country.

Despite the flaws and stupidities on her own accords during the election campaign, Julia Gillard begin to blame the incompetency of the state government of Queensland and NSW for her suffered in the poll before the polling day by telling voters ‘Don’t blame me for their sins’ (Illawarra Mercury, 16 Aug 2010)

As a result, immediately after the election, a political blame game has began between the state and nation’s Labor governments. You may click on the following links to have a good laugh at the childishness of our top ‘elites’:

‘Labor members bag party’s ‘faceless men’‘ (The Australian, 23 Aug 2010)

‘Federal Labor points finger of blame at Bligh’ (Brisbane Times, 23 Aug 2010)

‘Keneally lashes out at Bligh’s ‘NSW disease’ jibe’ (Brisbane Times, 24 Aug 2010)

‘Keneally blames Rudd for state’s voter backlash’ (The Australian, 24 Aug 2010)

‘Anna Bligh puts blame on Labor machine’ (The Australian, 24 Aug 2010)

‘Labor war hurting bid for power’ (The Australian, 25 Aug 2010)

‘Keneally blames MPs for her falling popularity’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 26 Aug 2010)

The Coalition is of no exception. They have two leadership Coups prior to the election. The following is just a sign that, if they are unable to form a minority government, there may be another leadership coup:

‘A terrible time for Liberals to go to war’ (The Daily Telegraph, 24 Aug 2010)

‘Now Coalition begins its own civil war’ (WA Today, 25 Aug 2010)

The Frustration of Australia Voters

Given the above examples of the kind of political leadership we had in this country, I believe that the following survey will not shock any body:

Two month before the election, a survey conducted in June indicated that “Australians are pretty fed up with their political leaders” (News Limited, 4 June 2010 – ‘Polls reveal public fed up with politicians’).

A month later, another survey in Queensland indicated that “majority of Australians think neither Labor nor the Coalition deserves to be elected” (Courier mail, 18 July 2010 – ‘Queensland voters facing a bruising time as fertile election ground’)

In fact, the number of people interested in our democratic process has dramatically declined. Despite the fact that voting is compulsory in Australia, according to the Australian Electoral Commission two months before the polling day: “1.4 million people are “missing” from the roll” (Herald Sun, 10 July 2010 – ‘Record number of young people have not enrolled to vote’). 20 days later, the Australian Electoral Commission issued another warning: ‘Decline in voters ‘a threat to nation’s democracy’’ – (The Age 30 July 2010).

The reality is, the number of membership within the two major political parties have drastically declined as well. Dr. Kemp, a former Howard government minister have this warning to the Liberal Party two years ago ‘Ailing Liberals need young members, says president’ (The Age, 31 March 2008). It was then revealed that “membership of the Victorian party has fallen from a post-Whitlam peak of 33,000 in the 1970s to 13,000 today. Over the past two decades, the number of Liberal branches has dropped by almost 20% to 393, and the average age of a Liberal member is 62.”

The Labor party is facing the same problem – former cabinet minister Race Mathews revealed a year ago that “the party’s national membership has plummeted to about 50,000 — down from about 370,000 immediately after World War II — and the average age is about 50.” (The Age, 26 Jan 2009 – ‘Faction-hit ALP ‘faces extinction’)

How Long can we afford to have politicians not doing anything right for us?

The list of incompetency among our political leadership that I am able to provide is by no way exhausted. I do not want to bore you with too many of such examples, but to make the point, I would like to provide another two stories:

* Our federal deputy opposition leader ‘Julie Bishop apologises after second plagiarism incident’ (ABC, 27 Oct 2008)

* Latest incident: ‘Furious independent Rob Oakeshott harassed by rogue Liberal MP’ (News Limited, 30 Aug 2010)

Like all countries, Australia is facing a series of new and accumulated problem. For examples, the currently hotly debated issue of aging population; the record level of national and individual debts; the lack of hospital funding; years of water mismanagement with dying rivers; Global warming with disastrous weather pattern such as the threat of flood, bush fire and sand storm; the threat to the survival of the Great Barrier Reef and a series of social imbalance in the form of the number of homeless population and the issue of housing affordability etc. All these required finance, technology and human resources to overcome. Can Australia cope with these challenges without reforming our current election process to ensure people with the right mindset, attitude, knowledge, skill, expertise, delegation and commitment seating in our Parliament?

This short article written by Geoff Gallop, former premier of Western Australia may worth your time to read: ‘An election is fine, but what about the future?’ (WA Today, 20 July 2010)

I know, some Westerners are sensitive with the way I brought up the name China. However, for the sake of our own humanity and long term well being, I believe that it is in our interest to put aside the prejudice we had against China. After 30 years of economic and political reform, China is no longer the country our media wanted us to believe in.

There are many advance feature in their political system that ensure democracy and consultation on a broad base such as in the form of village and county’s elections, as well as , narrower based democracy within the party, government departments and ministries.

We have witnessed the smooth transfer of their top leadership every 10 years with younger generation without drama.

There is no reason for us to ignore their records of lifting 400 million people out of poverty within the last 30 years, and the ability to become the world 2nd largest economy this year from a dire condition 60 years ago, and the fact that they have being the biggest creditor of the United State with a national reserve of USD2.4 trillion are by no way nothing got to do with the leadership their system managed to provide.

China is still not a perfect country, but it is getting better and better every year. Only if we can put aside our prejudice against China, we can then learn from their wisdom and make improvement on our own. I will write an article on democracy with China characteristic sometime in the future.

Will democracy at its current form, a formula for disaster in the 21 century?

Written on 31 Aug 2010 by www.outcastjournalist.com

To read this article with hyper-links to the Sources, please go to my personal website: http://www.outcastjournalist.com/index_democracy_needs_reform_the_frustration_of_Australia_voters.htm

毕研韬/文

2010年6-7月，笔者第三次进入藏区考察学习。此行历时27天，途径四川省、青海省、甘肃省和西藏自治区。此次考察的重点是藏传佛教，兼顾藏区政治与社会生态。途中参观的宗教场所有四川省亚青寺、白玉寺、德格印经院，青海省塔尔寺，甘肃省嘛呢寺，西藏自治区的大昭寺、小昭寺、色拉寺、扎什伦布寺、布达拉宫、班禅夏宫，等等。

笔者多年来一直密切关注“西藏问题”。这次进入藏区的主要目标是了解“西藏问题”的实质：“西藏问题”究竟是宗教问题？民族问题？社会问题？经济问题？还是政治问题？长期以来，中国政府和“西藏流亡政府”唇枪舌剑，双方都极力影响国际舆论。但目前看来，北京似乎处于下风。国际社会倾向于相信流亡藏人而质疑中国政府。那么，藏区的真实状况究竟如何？北京政府和流亡藏人究竟谁更可信？笔者试图自己找出答案。

一、 藏传佛教

长期以来，世间传说，藏族是个全民信教的民族。笔者现在相信事实并非如此。在藏区，不止一个人告诉我，现在藏族牧民信教者较多，农民较少，市民很少（尽管整体上藏民信教比例极高）。在理塘县城，一位藏族姑娘看到我佩戴着活佛法相，一脸不解地问道：你们汉人也迷信啊？在藏区，我们经常看到藏人在车里和店里悬挂着活佛法相，但这并不意味着他们是佛教徒。

藏族信教人数减少是否意味着达赖喇嘛在藏民中的影响力下降？在藏区，几位地位较高的藏族朋友都明确告诉我，大约99%以上的藏民都尊奉达赖喇嘛。在理塘县某寺，大堂里赫然悬挂着第十四世达赖喇嘛的法相。在康定县某寺，一位出家人公然为达赖喇嘛鸣不平。值得警惕的是，某些汉族干部似乎低估了达赖喇嘛的影响力。一位经常在藏区行走的汉族干部告诉我，达赖喇嘛的影响力可用5:3:2概括，意思是50%的藏民完全信奉，30%似信非信，20%完全不信。我所接触的藏族朋友对此一律否定。

目前，藏传佛教正加速向汉地扩张。笔者认为主要原因如下：首先，藏民信教人数在减少。与此同时，汉族信教者在增加。第三，汉传佛教加速商业化，正逐步失去汉族信教者信任。汉传佛教和藏传佛教呈现你进我退的态势。第四，汉地经济发展较快。笔者亲眼看到一些汉族弟子将数万现金献给上师。据介绍，也有汉族弟子购买豪华越野车乃至别墅供养上师。每年究竟有多少财富由汉地流向藏区？笔者不得而知。

目前，藏地寺庙无不加速吸引汉族弟子。为此，寺庙鼓励四十岁左右的上师学习汉语。以四川省白玉县亚青寺为例。目前，该寺能招收汉族弟子的上师有普巴扎西活佛、慈成加参活佛、当秋堪布、秋巴让卓堪布、意西江措活佛、阿松活佛等。在四川省理塘县长青春格尔寺，目前能讲汉语的上师至少有三位。一般而言，各位上师到汉地弘法不需寺庙批准。有的汉族弟子在汉地设立佛堂。因为藏传佛教特别强调皈依“上师”，因此说所设“佛堂”实际上就是上师在汉地的根据地。在新疆，同一上师的弟子会组成团队，一起修行、交流、朝圣。

在藏区，宗教场所几乎都对当地人免费开放。布达拉宫（门票100元）、大昭寺（门票85元）、扎什伦布寺（门票65元）、德格印经院（门票50元）虽象征性地向藏民收取一元钱，但事实上很多藏民一文不交。在日喀则，当地一位藏民告诉我，这是我们自己的寺庙，不需交钱。而该寺一位出家人却对我说，我们是以寺养寺。在汉地，当地人进旅游景点也要买票。在泰山（门票125元），当地人可凭身份证申请进山证（年费50元）。藏地寺庙的此类规定似有地域歧视（民族歧视）之嫌。

眼下，藏区某些地方正在讨论：出家修行算不算一种职业？笔者在爱尔兰学习期间，一位从事中国问题研究的欧洲学生问我：西藏的喇嘛为什么天天坐着不工作？现在的焦点是，信教自由是不是就不能干预藏民出家修行？从系统论来看，如果藏区本身无法负担出家人的物质所需，汉地势必就要承担更多责任。出家人在精神层面做出的社会贡献与社会向他们提供的物质供养是否相称？如果出家人的社会贡献为零甚至为负，政府是否可以干预？

在笔者看来，藏传佛教和汉传佛教最大的区别在于：前者强调皈依“四宝”，而后者强调皈依“三宝”。汉传佛教要求皈依“佛法僧”，而藏传佛教却要求首先皈依上师，也就是说皈依上师比皈依“佛法僧”更重要。不仅如此，藏传佛教强调，弟子一旦皈依就不得质疑、诽谤上师，否则会堕入地狱，而且永世不得超升。总之，藏传佛教要求尊奉“生者”，而世间主流宗教则要求尊崇“逝者”。一般而言，“逝者”的教义是相对固定的，而“生者”的教义是变动不居的。若“生者”离经叛道，后果则不堪设想。

二、 藏民形象

2008年“3.14骚乱”之后，藏民在汉人中的形象进一步恶化，汉藏对立明显加剧。在藏区，笔者多次听说有藏民抢劫玉树地震救灾物资并打死军人与志愿者。笔者还听说，在四川省阿坝州，有藏民拦劫外地车辆。在拉萨，有汉人抱怨说，当地藏族警察偏袒藏族人。但这些都只是流言，笔者既无法证实也无法证伪。遗憾的是，流言却像长了翅膀，不仅疯狂传播，而且越传越逼真。

如今，大众传媒、人际传播和亲身经历是人们获取信息的三大途径。然而目前在中国，“西藏问题”是新闻媒体的一大禁忌。大众传媒传递的西藏信息少得可怜，远远不能满足世人的信息需求。即使在较为开放的互联网上，关于“西藏问题”的高品质信息也不充裕。来自官方的正式消息更是极度匮乏。在这样的语境下，道听途说就成了人们了解西藏的最重要途径，来自境外的消息也就轻而易举地主导了话语空间。

根据传播心理学原理，汉人之所以相信关于藏人的流言，是因为流言或者契合汉人既有的认知，或者符合汉人的主观愿望。无论何者，都反映了藏民形象的扭曲。（有人说，在某种程度上，藏人已被“妖魔化”。笔者不倾向于使用“妖魔化”这个字眼，因为它折射出了敌意。）“3.14骚乱”是个放大器，藏人凶残好斗的形象得以进一步强化。“3.14骚乱”后，达赖喇嘛多次呼吁藏汉团结，彰显了这位政治领袖的清醒和睿智。

必须承认，“3.14骚乱”后国内媒体的宣传报道加深了汉人对藏人的误解。与此同时，藏人普遍佩刀的传统形象也成为藏人凶猛好斗的一个佐证。据说，在“3.14骚乱”之前，少数民族是否可以随身带刀由地方政府决定。“3.14骚乱”之后，西藏等地开始限制藏人佩戴长刀，（但日常生活所需的短刀不受限制）。不过笔者注意到，在西藏甚至拉萨，仍有不少藏人佩戴腰刀。笔者认为，所有藏区最好统一界定限制刀具，实行统一的管制政策。

目前在藏区，民间私存枪支仍是藏区社会治安的重大隐患。在苏联刚刚解体之际，曾有大量苏制枪支流入藏区。如今，藏区的枪支主要来源于东南亚诸国和青海省化隆回族自治县。化隆县有私制枪械的传统，这在藏区早已是公开的秘密。在藏区期间，笔者了解到，部分藏区现在允许藏人到当地公安部门借用枪支。警方没有采取“一刀切”的禁枪策略，是考虑到部分藏民确实需要使用枪支。对这种灵活的管制模式，笔者表示赞赏。

笔者三次进入藏区，接触过形形色色的藏人。在旅途中，有时候车上只有我一位汉人。虽然从石渠县到玉树州的途中我曾被一位藏族司机欺骗过，但此类事件在汉地数不胜数。我们不能以偏概全，不能仅凭一件事、一个人就全盘否定藏民族。根据我个人的有限经历，绝大多数藏人是善良友好的。有时候，虽然语言不通，但沿途藏人会用微笑、手势来欢迎远道而来的客人。当然，语言、文化差异为双方交流的确带来了一些障碍，误读、误解时有发生。

遗憾的是，目前藏汉之间缺乏应有的互信。这种不信任在民间和官方都客观存在着。譬如，境外有论者指出，中国政府内部已经形成庞大的涉藏利益集团，其中包括公安部、国安部、总参、统战部、西藏自治区等十几个部门。如果“西藏问题”得以解决，这些部门的利益就会受损。所以该利益集团不希望真正解决“西藏问题”。对此，国内有人针锋相对：境外业已形成庞大的“藏独”利益集团。如果“西藏问题”解决了，这个集团就可能解体、大量“藏独”人士就会无以为生。

三、 管治策略

传统上，中国法律对藏民网开一面。“3.14骚乱”之后，部分汉人呼吁“法律面前民族平等”。他们认为，在法律上优惠藏人会导致藏区治安失控。如今在操作层面上，政府似乎已经矫枉过正了。在川藏线上，笔者三次被查验、登记身份证。有一次身份证还被扫描存入电脑。还有一次，警察上车后只查验出家人的身份证，而对其他乘客不闻不问。值得玩味的是，进入四川省后便没人查验身份证了。成都来的司机师傅说，四川才不这么“空”呢。

在藏区，笔者明显感受到了各地管治水平和策略的差异。在四川甘孜，大部分县城之间没有班车。在石渠县，有些正在营运的私车连牌照都没有。在甘孜州，十几个人可共用一个身份证登记住宿。在石渠县，笔者连身份证都不用便可住宿。在甘孜，有的寺庙在大堂里赫然悬挂着第十四世达赖喇嘛的法相。在拉萨某知名寺庙，笔者看到第十七世大宝法王的法相悬挂于大堂一侧。在西藏和四川，邮局是不准邮寄管制刀具的（所以人们选择物流），而青海省塔尔寺邮局却可以邮寄任何刀具。

笔者在藏区期间明显感受到了活佛的影响力。藏区各地都有不少活佛，活佛之间有明显的地位差异。活佛在社会管治中发挥着十分重要的作用。有的活佛自己开设医院、学校等。此类医院通常收费较低，对当地的官办医院形成较大冲击，矛盾也便随之产生。倘若政府不能及时协调，便会埋下重大社会隐患。有的活佛（甚至普通出家人）还“建立”了基金会，而实际上，这些基金会大都没有合法注册，完全是违法无序运作。有的出家人每天早上穿上喇嘛服自称去寺庙“上班”，同时经营着自己的饭店、宾馆、商店。

藏区，尤其是西藏，现在实行高压政策，其中拉萨为特别管控重点。据说，目前西藏的常住居民和军警的人口比例是1:1。在拉萨，尤其是大昭寺、小昭寺、布达拉宫、北京路等重点路段，武警荷枪实弹，固定哨卡、流动巡逻、便衣暗哨布满大街小巷，气氛极为肃穆。在大昭寺周边的制高点上，武警居高临下，严阵以待。在布达拉宫广场，当游人如织时，便衣们便扮作游客隐身于人群中。深夜，当游客散去后，广场上只有特警们孤独的身影。

为获得关于西藏的第一手资料，笔者在入藏前曾请朋友介绍西藏的“关系”。但遗憾的是，对方大都以敏感为由婉谢。有朋友这样回复：“现在这种时候恐怕不会有人告诉那些事”“我即使不为自己着想，起码也要为我父母朋友着想。”在藏人看来，我的调查过于敏感。加上我是汉人，而部分藏人对汉人心存戒备，这给我的调查带来了诸多困难。由于大部分藏人避而不谈“问题”，导致我难以了解到藏区存在的“问题”，对西藏的研判也就难免过于乐观。

后马克思主义者把国家机器分为“强制性国家机器”和“意识形态国家机器”两大类。中国传统政治文化也区分“王权”和“霸权”。在西藏目前特殊形势下，一定的武力存在是必要的。但是，仅靠强制力量（有人称之为“刚性稳定”）是无法维持藏区长治久安的。政府必须倾听藏人心声，在沟通、协商、劝服、妥协中提升管治水平。“以力服人”“以理服人”和“以德服人”必须融为一体，单纯依赖其中任何一种（包括“制造同意”）都是不切实际的。

自2010年7月6日起，流亡藏人采用Unicode标准开发出了藏文编码技术，使得全球藏人能够通过互联网和手机等媒介方便快捷地传递信息。目前在藏区，部分寺庙拥有卫星电话，使得境内外藏人通话更加方便。再加上出入境人数增加，重要信息完全能够口口相传。更何况，在特殊情形下，海外藏人会请西方人帮忙传递信息。这一切都为信息监控增加了诸多困难。在信息时代，完全阻断信息交流已是痴心妄想。

都江堰工程的成功秘诀之一是“深淘滩，低做堰”。在藏区管治上，政府应当适度拓宽加深言路，使正当合理的诉求得以及时顺利上传，尽量避免“以言治罪”。如果境内言路不畅，藏人就会被迫求助于境外媒体和组织。当然，笔者只是倡导“适度”拓宽言路，而非一下完全放开。鉴于目前的藏区局势，突然完全开放言路必然会造成社会混乱。言路建设必须遵循渐进原则，力戒 “言而无信”“急功冒进”“东施效颦”。言路建设必须考虑藏区实际。

四、 分析与建议

“西藏问题”不是单纯的经济问题或民生问题，因而单纯发展经济、改善民生无法解决“西藏问题”。“西藏问题”也不是单纯的宗教问题或民族问题，政治因素和国际因素是解决“西藏问题”的关键。“西藏问题”更不是社会问题或文化问题，“人权”和文化只不过是双方博弈的两枚棋子。有趣的是，中国政府和流亡藏人分别强调“西藏问题”的不同侧面：中国政府强调外部势力干预，而流亡藏人则突出中共管治危机。事实上，只有政治上真正中立的观察者才能看清“西藏问题”的实质和全貌。

“西藏问题”必须置于中国语境下考察。在调研中笔者了解到某地一藏族官员被政府查办。当地部分藏族官员认为，这是汉族官员对藏族官员的打压，彰显了执政者对藏族官员的不信任。但笔者却认为，类似的政治斗争在汉地同样存在。藏族官员将之与民族身份相联系，使问题更加复杂化。同理、环境污染、官民矛盾、官商勾结等现象在汉地也十分突出，但在藏地，此类问题都被置于民族冲突的框架内加以分析，反而遮盖、偏离甚至改变了问题的性质。政府似乎已经注意到了这个问题，但官方“去民族化”的努力又遭到质疑。

与此同时，“西藏问题”必须置于国际语境下考察。国际关系的实质是维护国家利益，而人权是当今某些西方国家国际博弈的一张王牌。流亡藏人无法看到或不愿承认这一点。在西方人眼里，中国政府的公信力并不高，而且中国政府的国际公关能力低下。相反，达赖喇嘛的国际形象极佳，而且流亡藏人的国际公关水平很高。中国的新闻媒体、专家学者不敢贸然探讨“西藏问题”，而流亡藏人则以民间人士或非政府组织的面目活跃于国际舞台。在“西藏问题”上，中国政府的传播主体过于单一，因无法形成合力而导致成本高、效益差。

目前在国际上，关于“西藏问题”出现了“屁股决定脑袋”的乱象。同情、支持流亡藏人者会毫无保留地接受达赖喇嘛、不加分辨地质疑中国政府。同样，反对达赖喇嘛、支持中国政府的人士不加思索地接受北京的观点、毫不犹豫地质疑流亡藏人。中国政府和流亡藏人争夺“意见领袖”和国际舆论的博弈势必进一步激化，而目前看来中国政府显得迟钝麻木、应对乏术。如今的流亡藏人大都接受过西方的高等教育，深谙西方政治的运作奥妙。目前，国际上公开支持流亡藏人的声音持续增加，中国政府改变国际舆论态势的成本将与日俱增。

笔者注意到，为争取国际舆论的理解与支持，中国政府有关部门不断邀请境外媒体人员赴西藏参观。但遗憾的是，这些记者撰写的报告大多是继续质疑中国政府。相反，“西藏流亡政府”也不断邀请国际人士赴达兰萨拉采访。奇怪的是，这些人士撰写的文章大多是肯定流亡藏人。除了立场、道义、认知等因素外，这其中是否有操作层面的失误？笔者曾反复告诫，在传播实践中，技术正确和政治正确同等重要。

“西藏问题”是否有解？笔者认为，“西藏问题”最终会得到妥善解决，但这是个漫长复杂的过程。“西藏问题”只能在中国民主进步框架内解决。只有当中国的政治文明得以大幅度提升，政治生态得到实质性改善，执政者的管治理念和手段才会与时俱进。那时，解决“西藏问题”的障碍便会减少许多。当然，“西藏问题”绝不会自行解决，中国政府和流亡藏人之间的博弈必将长期存在。笔者可以断言，中国政府决不会向外界屈服。在民族主义情绪高涨之际，外部干预难免会适得其反。这种内外互动会在一定程度上影响决策者的意志和取向。

（作者系海南大学传播学研究中心主任、【北京】三略研究院传播学研究所所长。中欧新闻社2010年8月23日首发）