Sunday, March 10, 2013

Fang Zhouzi: Fu Ping's "Clarification" is Full of Lies

On February 2, right after Fu Ping published her "clarification" blog on Huffington Post, Fang Zhouzi published a response in his own blog, calling the clarification as full of lies. This blog has been translated into English by an associate professor of University of Florida. Fang Zhouzi also posted the translated version on Amazon himself.

The original Chinese version follows the English one below.

Ping Fu posted a clarification article on her blog today in response to my criticism. Her article can be found here
Ping Fu claimed that although my comments are correct, they are made based on the inaccurate Forbes report, not based on her new book. The Forbes report has since been corrected. 
In fact, if you read my article, you will know that the Forbes report triggered my criticism, but I made my comments not just based on this report, but also based on a series of reporting, radio and TV shows, and video interviews on American news media since 2005. I also read the two chapters of her book that are available on Google Book. All of them provide a consistent picture. If the Forbes report made mistakes, then the reports by other US media and what Fu said by herself on the interviews will also be wrong. It is useless to single out Forbes (as an scapegoat). 
In her clarification, Ping Fu said, "I did not say or write that I was in a labor camp; I stated that I lived for 10 years in a university dormitory on the NUAA campus. Chinese children don't get put in labor camps. I also did not say I was a factory worker. I said Mao wanted us to study and learn from farmers, soldiers and workers." 
Just ten days ago, in a video interview with Google, [7:15] Ping Fu said that she lived in a ghetto for 10 years of Culture Revolution. 
In a different interview with NPR, [15:50] she said that she was sent to a correctional farm when she was 10 and stayed there for about 10 years. She vividly described a story of how she brought food from the correctional farm back to feed her sister. 
How could she blame the US reporters for mistaking what she actually meant? 
In her earlier interviews with US news media, she always claimed that she had been forced to work in a factory since nine years old, without education (schooling) for the entire Culture Revolution. Now her factory experience becomes "Mao wanted us to study and learn from farmers, soldiers and workers." That's what every Chinese student experienced in that era. Not forced labor, it is just a part of the normal school curriculum at the time. How come it becomes her personal tragedy? In her logic, should every Chinese student from Culture Revolution claim that they worked for 10 years in factory without being educated? 
But Ping Fu now also said that since the schools reopened in 1972, she studied tirelessly. In fact, schools reopened in 1968 during Culture Revolution. Let's just accept that Nanjing schools were special and they somehow reopened in 1972. But why would all previous US reports say that she was not schooled for 10 years? Here are a few examples: 
Inc. Magazine's report
WeNews report
NPR even said that she never set foot in a classroom for those 10 years.
Illinois Alumni said she was locked up for 10 years and released when she was 18.  
Why did all these US media make false reports? Why would they all believe she was different from other Chinese students of that time, not receiving any normal education while others did? 
Regarding the extraordinary story about her witness of a teacher being torn into pieces by four horses, Ping Fu clarified, "To this day, in my mind, I think I saw it. That is my emotional memory of it. After reading Fang's post, I think in this particular case that his analysis is more rational and accurate than my memory. Those first weeks after having been separated from both my birth parents and my adoptive parents were so traumatic, and I was only eight years old. There is a famous phrase in China for this killing; I had many nightmares about it" 
She acknowledged that she might have treated nightmare as reality. The famous Chinese phrase was killing by five horses, not by four. Killing by four horses was a western way of execution in ancient history. If she had a nightmare when she was a Chinese kid, she would have dreamed about five horses, not four. A possibility is that she fabricated this story to meet western mindset. 
Ping Fu acknowledged that her undergrad thesis on female infanticide was never published, nor was it reported by People's Daily (#1 newspaper in China). But she said she read an editorial on gender equality on People's Daily in 1982. 
However, she also claimed in earlier US interviews that her thesis made big public impact, with Wen Hui Bao and People's Daily reporting her findings, though her name was not referenced. Listen to what she said on NPR [18:00] 
If her thesis was never published, how would newspapers know her findings? All right, granted that those newspapers had secret channels to learn her findings. How come the People's Daily report was about gender equality? It was commonplace for Chinese newspapers to promote gender equality in those years. What makes her to connect that editorial with her thesis on female infanticide? 
Ping Fu claimed that she heard UN sanctioned China (due to her findings) while awaiting her passport. This is a significant but ridiculous event (UN sanction needs the blessing from China and other four permanent council members). She heard it from someone, and then made this claim (as a fact) everywhere in US media!? 
In response to questions about UN sanction, Ping Fu mentioned a Stanford student, Steven W. Mosher, who wrote about Chinese female infanticide in 1981 and published his book in 1984; "the same year I was waiting for my passport," Fu claimed. Then she continued with, "According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied George W. Bush to cut UN funding for China. His story and the timeline are consistent with my experience." 
Ping Fu arrived at US in January 1984. In order to draw connection with Mosher, she changed gear by stating that she was waiting for her passport in that year. As for Bush's cut of UN funding, that's Bush sanctioning UN (due to China's birth policy), not UN sanctioning China. Moreover, Bush became the president in 2001. That's 17 years after Fu moved to US. What will all these have anything to do with her story of being forced to leave China? 
Ping Fu claimed in her clarification that the government told her to leave, not giving a specific destination. (She said she waited her passport for a year.) She got a student visa, which was secured through a family friend at the University of New Mexico. 
However, in earlier interviews, she had repeatedly claimed that the government told her to leave China in two weeks. She even repeated this statement to the Forbes reporter the day before yesterday. Listen to what she said 10 days ago in the Google interview: Her thesis caught national and international attention, UN sanctioned China, she was jailed for three days, Deng Xiaoping (China's paramount leader after Mao) intervened, she was released and given a passport two weeks later, and told to leave China. See Authors at Google record, [10:30] 
She got her passport in two weeks after her three-day arrest! Yes, she said that, facing the camera, just 10 days ago. Now she changed her words, stating that it was very difficult to get the passport and she got hers more than one year after her release. Is she lying? 
Fu said in interviews that she knew only three English words when arriving at US although the specific words varied in different interviews. She now says, "English language classes were offered, but not required. I did not study English ever. I had `level zero' English, just like most Americans know a few words of Spanish or French. I tried to learn more English when I knew I was going to the U.S., but when I arrived, I only remembered a few." 
A few, not three anymore? But what she says now is still a lie. First, since 1978, English is a required course in college. Second, her classmate (Zhi Lao Zhai, blog name, acknowledged by Fu as her classmate) stated in his blog that, "the 1978 students in the Chinese literature department were placed in two English classes. Fu's English is good among us. She was in the fast-track class."Third, Fu acknowledged that she passed the entrance exams to become a graduate student in Nanjing University. Graduate entrance exams had English. 
In her clarification, she claimed that, "One of my classmates also responded to Fang's article on his blog. What he says is consistent with what I wrote in the book, so he must be a classmate."
That's another lie. She can fool American readers who do not know Chinese (the classmate's bog is in Chinese). In fact, her classmate's blog was entirely dedicated to reveal her lies. The blog is here.
Fu claimed that she didn't apply for political asylum. (It was a common routine to apply for green card through political asylum with claims of mistreatment by Chinese government on its one-child policy in late 80s. ) 
However, in February last year, when Singtao Daily reported on the first immigrant entrepreneur forum sponsored by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, it clearly stated that Fu received her green card through political asylum: "The four immigrant entrepreneurs on the speakers' stage all have their stories. Geomagic's Ping Fu was born in the mainland of China, grew up during Culture Revolution, received residence status through political asylum after coming to US in 1983, and then created her own business." 
If Fu didn't get her green card through political asylum, how did she get it in 1987 when she was an undergrad international student? Other means for green card could not been applied to her. 
Ping Fu said, "Criticism is not a form of defamation; it is a form of speaking or seeking truth. I welcome constructive criticism." 
But she has been lying, for many years. Now, as she finds that she can no longer hold up the old lies, she creates new ones to cover the old. How can that be constructive? Revealing a liar's lies, exposing a cheater's cheats, that is not defaming. That is merely pointing out the truth.

  事实上,看过我对她的批评文章的就知道,虽然福布斯的报道引发了我的批评,但是我的批评并非仅仅针对福布斯的报道,而是针对自2005年以来美国媒体对傅苹的各种报道、傅苹的电台和视频访谈。我也看了傅苹新书放在google book上供试读的前面两章。它们的内容都相当的一致。如果说福布斯的报道有错的话,那么此前美国媒体的其他报道、傅苹接受电台和视频访谈亲口说的话,也全都错了。怪罪到福布斯上面是无济于事的。
  就在10天前,傅苹接受谷歌的视频访谈时,还说整个文革十年她都生活在隔离区(ghetto)( 大约7分15秒开始)。NPR采访她时,说她十岁时被送到劳改农场(correctional farm)达10年之久,她有声有色地讲述如何从劳改农场带东西回来喂她妹妹的故事( 15:50开始)。她好意思怪美国记者理解错了她的意思?
  文革期间的学校复课是从1968年就开始的。我们姑且相信南京学校比较特殊,迟至1972年才复课吧。但是此前美国媒体的报道全说她整整10年没有上过学,例如《公司》的报道( ),WeNews的报道(,1#.UQzHxqVkw1I ),NPR甚至说她十年间没进过教室( )。《伊利诺校友杂志》则说她被关了10年,18岁时才被释放。( )
  此前她在接受美国媒体采访时不是一直在说她的论文一度引起了轰动,《文汇报》《人民日报》都不点名地报道了其研究结果了吗?甚至连邓小平都对她的论文感兴趣吗?(听她亲口在NPR说: 18:00)既然她的论文从未发表过,报纸怎么知道她的研究成果?就算报纸有秘密通道知道其研究,所谓的报道居然就是一篇呼吁男女平等的社论?当时中国报纸呼吁男女平等那是一点都不奇怪的,她有什么理由相信那和她的论文有关?在其声明中她甚至不敢明确地说《人民日报》的社论与她的论文有关。
  傅苹提到美国斯坦福大学学生Steven W. Mosher在1981年发表中国溺婴的研究,在1984年出版了有关著作,并称那一年她正在等护照。她并提到《洛杉矶时报》曾报道说Mosher成功游说小布什政府不向联合国提供用于中国的资金。她认为这与她在国内的经历一致。
  在此前她接受采访时,全都说是她被中国政府要求在两周内离开中国。直到前天她还在对福布斯记者这么说。最离谱的是她10天前接受谷歌的采访,这是她亲口说的:她的论文引起了国际轰动,联合国对中国进行制裁,她被投入监狱关了三天,因为邓小平问写论文的那个人现在怎么样了,她才被放出来,两周后警方交给她护照要她离开中国。( 从10:30开始)她的案子连邓小平都被惊动了,她两周就得到护照了——没错,这是她十天前对着镜头亲口说的。仅仅过了十天,她就改口说因为办护照极其困难,她被释放后等了一年多才拿到护照。这不是撒谎、骗人,是什么?
  但是《星岛日报》去年2月份关于她参加美国国土安全部移民局举办的首届移民企业家峰会,并获得美国移民局授予“杰出归化美国人”称号的报道明确说她是通过政治避难获得绿卡的:“坐在主讲台上的四位移民企业家都有各自的故事,杰魔公司华裔董事长傅苹出生在中国大陆,成长于文革时期,1983年来美国后申请了难民庇护得到身分,之后创立了自己的公司。”( )如果傅苹不是通过政治避难获得美国绿卡,她又是通过什么途径在1987年之前获得绿卡的?其他途径都更不适合她。

No comments:

Post a Comment