「要放，也得小聲點!」

下面這兩篇文章，有一篇觸動我的心思，另一篇的數據很有用。留在部落格上有機會就再讀幾次！

和國際人士交談，或閱讀他們的文章，發覺現在的中國人無信、無禮、無恥、無法，似乎已經是公認的。昨天看到紐約時報頭版，寫Bill gates和Warren Buffet邀請五十位中國巨富一起討論如何捐出財產做好事，可是只有兩人反應，其他的龜縮不回應（原文貼在最後）。文章中分析其原因，原來是因為不少富翁的錢財是貪來的不法所得！(這和KMT的那批貪官污吏權貴如出一轍)。願意捐出錢財的寥寥無幾。在世界大報第一版上，好丟臉哦！驕傲的中國人應該回去中國，發揮影響力，讓他們抬得起頭嘛！最好不要在已經有民主基礎的台灣，大放厥詞；要放，也得小聲點。

還有，別忘了，

一個人的國家認同，是取決於對「自由、人權、民主、法治」的響往，而不是由「DNA、基因相似」、或「語言、文化同宗」裁定。

否則難道新加坡是中國一省?美國是英國的附屬國?

 

﹝李筱峰專欄﹞好個中國人王曉波

王曉波是個說真心話的人，他在日前多場高中歷史課綱公聽會上，以高分貝宣稱：「我永遠是中國人，不是台灣人！」比起選前宣稱是「新台灣人」、「燒成灰也是台灣人」的馬英九，王曉波真的有夠坦白。而且他不僅自己坦白，還曾幫馬英九講出真話，說馬最終目的是統一。不過，如果了解中國文化中那套陽奉陰違、笑裡藏刀、表裡不一、虛矯粉飾的特質，如此坦白的王曉波真不像中國人。

即使在五○年代指揮許多白色恐怖案件的情報頭子蔣經國，到了晚年都還會說：「我來台灣已經這麼久了，我也是台灣人！」但王曉波連這種門面話都不講，確實有夠坦白。

不過王曉波的坦白卻帶有幾分挑釁！他的口氣讓我感覺他的意思是：「我堂堂中國人，才不屑當你們台灣人！」如果我沒過度解讀，這種口吻又確是十足沙文主義的中國人口氣。一個在台灣生活了六十多年的人，卻那樣決絕地對我們台灣人嗆聲：「我不是台灣人！」這是何等心態？

現在輪到我對他嗆回去：「我是台灣人，我不當中國人。」為何我不當中國人？因為我不喜歡做一個侵略別人（如侵占東突成為「新疆」、侵占圖博成為「西藏」）的霸權國家的國民；我不喜歡做一個不能享有民主法治的國民；我不喜歡有新聞管制的國家；我不喜歡一黨專政的國家；我不喜歡我的國家在世界上名列「不自由國家」；我不喜歡我的國家有「十億人口九億騙，還有一億在訓練」的順口溜；我不喜歡我的國家多的是在公共場所不知排隊，卻只會吆喝喧嚷吐痰丟垃圾的國民。我不喜歡我有這麼多的不喜歡。

這麼多的不喜歡，讓我覺得做中國人並不光榮。我很慶幸我沒有受這種國家的宰制，可是偏偏「海畔有逐臭之夫」。

除了中國人，世界上沒有一個國家的人會認為做中國人很光榮。奇怪的是，許多自以為光榮的中國人，一有機會去美國日本歐洲，就滯留不歸，設法不回去他光榮的祖國。

不過王曉波雖身在台灣，但胸懷中國，而且不容別人侮辱他的國家和民族，他的祖國情，是緣於他及雙親皆出生中國，他說：「我父親是中國貴州人、母親是江西人，而我生在江西，我當然是中國人，不能侮辱我的國家與民族。」對於自己和雙親的出生地能如此繫情，我要表示敬佩！不過請他搞清楚，沒有人侮辱他的國家。中國侵占東突與圖博並屠殺其人民、中國缺乏人權法治、中國沒有民主自由、中國一黨專政、中國迫害法輪功及民運人士、中國用飛彈威脅台灣、中國圍堵台灣國際空間…，這些都不是因為中國受侮辱，相反的，是中國侮辱人！王曉波既然選擇當中國人，就應該努力幫助自己的祖國民主化、人道化、和平化，那樣的中國才有光榮，說不定還能化解台灣獨立。

我想起美國獨立建國元勳富蘭克林（Benjamin Franklin）和潘恩（Thomas Paine）曾有這樣的對話─富蘭克林說：「何處有自由，何處便是我的祖國。」潘恩回道：「我的祖國正在一個沒有自由的地方。」前者以自由主義為出發點，要擺脫殖民母國的專制；後者以美利堅在地主義為立足點，要追求在地的獨立自由，異曲而同工。

以上富、潘的對話，正可用來解釋台灣追求獨立自由的意義。王曉波則不然，他熱愛其祖國，卻不在乎其祖國有無民主自由。不過，我們仍尊重其選擇，只是既然不當台灣人，請別再干涉我們台灣的歷史教育！

（作者李筱峰現任國立台北教育大學台灣文化研究所教授，http://www.jimlee.org.tw）

台灣民心大勢：脫統趨獨

◎ 高志仁

最近有三份台灣民眾統獨立場民調公布，分別來自《聯合報》、《遠見》雜誌、行政院陸委會，所列條目大致相同，按照上述民調機構排序分別如下。（永遠）維持現狀：五成一、五成一、六成五；維持現狀再走向獨立：一成五、一成一、一成三；儘快（宣布）獨立：一成六、一成九、六．五％；維持現狀再走向統一：九％、四．七％、八．一％；儘快統一：五％、二．八％、一．七％。

以上民調，所謂「急統」皆不到三％，「緩統」也都不到一成。台灣未來的統一選項不得民心，在《遠見》民調進一步的詢問上益為顯豁：若在經濟、政治、社會各方面條件差不多時，認為可以統一的只有一成二，高達六成六認為沒必要統一。《遠見》民調的「緩獨」與「急獨」合計在三成上下，然其另外詢問受訪民眾台灣是否終究應該獨立成為新國家，則有幾達半數的四成九表示贊同，顯示在約佔半數的認同（永遠）維持現狀者之中，有相當比例是非「急獨」亦非「緩獨」的「終極獨派」，整體而言凸顯出台灣民心「脫統趨獨」大勢。

以上三份民調於所謂「急統」、「緩統」、「緩獨」三者數字差距不大，另兩者則陸委會調查明顯異於《聯合報》和《遠見》，其所謂「急獨」的六．五％比例偏低，（永遠）維持現狀的六成五則偏高，這主要應可歸因於陸委會特殊的「儘快宣布獨立」選項，陸委會民調統計說明指出，此乃依學者建議修改，一九九七年十一月之前為「儘快獨立」。從「儘快獨立」到「儘快宣布獨立」，或許牽涉對台獨主張內容的辯證，然而也不無壓縮台獨主張之嫌，因為「宣布」獨立聽來更添立即而不確定的危疑因子，使得原本想儘快獨立的也不想那麼快了，從相對比例上來看，這些「急獨」派大概許多轉而選擇「永遠維持現狀」了。

「永遠維持現狀」這個奇妙選項，近來似乎成了台灣民意新寵。從《遠見》民調的一成三，到陸委會的三成一，《聯合報》甚至未提供受訪民眾選擇維持現狀再看情形，因而「永遠維持現狀」衝高到五成一。有句話說「不在乎天長地久，只在乎曾經擁有」，聽來浪漫灑脫；台灣人則倒過來，對其實只宜乎「曾經擁有」的台灣實質主權獨立的不確定現狀，想要「天長地久」永遠維持下去。小心浪漫不足，取巧有傷啊！

（作者為部落客，http://www.wretch.cc/blog/kotsijin）

September 23, 2010

Chinese Attitudes on Generosity Are Tested

By MICHAEL WINES

BEIJING — Like most everything else in China’s economy, philanthropy here is in a boom period, fueled by phalanxes of newly minted billionaires and foundations, encouraged by an army of professional advisers on charity and, increasingly, sanctioned by the government.

Which makes the case of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who will come to Beijing next week to share their thoughts on philanthropy with some of China’s wealthiest people, all the more curious.

Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates, the Rockefeller and Carnegie of this age, announced plans last month to invite about 50 of China’s superrich to discuss their concept of philanthropy, which includes enlisting the world’s wealthiest people to give away at least half their fortunes.

Things appeared to be going swimmingly until early September, when the Chinese news media quoted a Beijing official of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as saying that “a small number of people” had declined to come, and that others had asked whether they would be pushed for donations.

Last week, Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett issued a letter stating that they were not coming to China “to pressure people to give,” but to listen. “ China ’s circumstances are unique, and so its approach to philanthropy will be as well,” they wrote.

Except for denying a report from Xinhua, the state-run news agency, that only two tycoons had accepted the invitation, the organizers of the event have largely fallen silent.

But the Chinese are unlikely to stop talking soon. In a nation where explosive growth has opened a yawning gap between rich and poor, reports that Chinese billionaires might stiff-arm the invitation have spawned a sort of national Rorschach test of Chinese generosity, not to mention attitudes toward the rich.

“Are Chinese rich scared to be charitable?” asked The Global Times, the Communist Party’s English-language newspaper. Not at all; “This is the Americans’ conspiracy,” wrote one of 2,000 people who posted comments on the controversy on Sina.com, a major Internet portal. Academics grumbled about efforts to impose Western philanthropic values on Chinese tradition.

Actually, however, Chinese philanthropic tradition was being upended well before the Gates-Buffett dinner was even conceived. In barely a decade, the Chinese economy has created at least 117 billionaires, according to a Forbes magazine ranking, and hundreds of thousands of millionaires by the estimate of Hurun Report, a magazine based in Shanghai whose target audience is the rich. Only the United States has more billionaires.

While China’s reported philanthropic donations are now comparatively tiny — about $8 billion last year, the government says, compared with $308 billion in the United States in 2008 — changes in China’s economic structure and in government policies make that figure almost destined to rise quickly. And, in contrast to the past, riches are starting to flow to social and charitable causes.

“The Chinese have been very generous for a long period of time,” Rupert Hoogewerf, who publishes Hurun Report, said by telephone. “The difference has been that they do it between families, and don’t publicize it. What we’re seeing now is a new era of transparency.”

Translucency might be a better term. More than a few fortunes have been built on corruption, and their owners stay in the shadows. The China Reform Foundation, an economic research group based in Beijing , estimated last month that about $870 billion in corrupt “gray money” was being hidden by the wealthiest 10 percent of China ’s population.

Huang Guangyu, who built an appliance shop into a fortune valued at $2.7 billion to $6.3 billion, was singled out by Hurun Report in 2007 as especially miserly. Today he is in prison, convicted of stock fraud and insider trading.

A Global Times article this month stated that in the last decade, 17 members of an annual list of China ’s 50 richest people had been convicted of economic crimes.

Ordinary Chinese, steeped in petty government corruption, are often bitterly cynical toward the rich.

“Of course they’ll decline the invitation,” one wrote of the invited billionaires on the Sina.com postings board. “None of their money is clean!”

Yet a growing number of China ’s corporate titans are open both about their wealth and about giving it away. The leading example is Yu Pengnian, an 88-year-old real estate baron who gave the last of his $1.3 billion fortune in April to a foundation he created to fund scholarships for poor Chinese students. The latest is Chen Guangbiao, 42, a Jiangsu Province recycling-company owner who has taken the Gates-Buffett pledge to give away his $440 million fortune when he dies.

“Wealth is not something that comes to you when you are born,” he said in an interview last week. “It’s like water. If you have only a cup, you keep it to yourself. If you have a barrel, you share it with your family. And if you have a river, you share it with everyone.”

This is a new phenomenon, and not only because the money is new. China ’s Communist Party claims to represent the downtrodden, and has been reluctant to turn to the private sector to address problems of poverty and disease.

But since the outpouring of support for victims of the Sichuan earthquake in 2008, the government now seems to be edging toward a more accommodating attitude about private philanthropy. It offers corporations a tax break of up to 12 percent for charitable gifts, rising to 30 percent for individuals.

This year, a reregistration drive has certified more than 1,000 nonprofit groups as able to accept tax-deductible donations. Government officials have also said that they plan to enact the nation’s first charity law, with rules that clearly define what a charity is and how it must operate, by late 2011.

But whether revised rules on charities and nonprofit groups generally will broaden or restrict philanthropic work is unclear, said Jia Xijin, who directs the Nongovernmental Organization Research Center at Tsinghua University in Beijing . While the government has slowly given new leeway to some charitable groups, especially those that provide social services, it keeps a tighter rein on groups that advocate policy changes or raise money on their own.

The government’s concern is that “most public fund-raising organizations need some social cause, and if you organize people,” she said, “that means the organization represents some social force.”

For Mr. Chen, the recycling magnate, the best way to encourage philanthropy by the group invited to dine with Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates is to publicize the names of people who decline to attend.

“I’ll help you bash them in the media,” he said. “We can’t be misers.”

Zhang Jing contributed research.