Saturday, November 25, 2006

[Alert] Press Freedom, may I count you in?


There are two dates for press freedom. Would you be free?

The first one is "Date of Yellow Ribbon, Tea with MCA Leaders".
Date: 1 December 2006 (Friday)
Time: 7.00 pm onwards
Venue: MCA headquater, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur
Agenda: (a) Media Laws Reform
(b) No to Partisan Control of Media

The second one is "Pro-competition, Anti-Monopoly" Virtual Peaceful Assembly
Date: 27 November to 26 December 2006
Time: 24 hours a day, Rain or Shine
Venue: Parliament House, MCA Headquarter, Sin Chew Headquarter (all at once through
http://merdekareview.com/emerge_files/virtual_assembly.php
Agenda: (a) Media Laws Reform
(b) No to Partisan Control of Media
(c) No to Media Monopoly

See you there.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

[Alert] 号召博客声援传闻即将受到内阁对付的《南洋商报》!!!



From http://i-exchange.blogspot.com/

《独立新闻在线》报导,《南洋商报》周日以封面整版高调报道《巫统代表言论过火 华团政党炮轰》的新闻,已经招惹巫统政要不满,内阁将在明天(22-11-2006/星期三)的内阁周三例常会议中决定如何处分《南洋商报》。

因此,本人恳请关心新闻自由以及媒体编务独立运作的博客和网友们,通过各种网络发言空间和发声管道,一齐声援传闻即将受到内阁对付的《南洋商报》!

这里有几项网民可以在几分钟的短时间内,即能马上表达对此课题高度关注的方法:


* 撰写一篇简短的博客文章(blog post),简略的提及您反对政府和政党通过媒体法规所赋予的权力来钳制媒体独立编采作业,藉以压制新闻自由和剥夺人民知情权的做法。

* 把“黄丝带”帖纸声援南洋商报张贴在您的博客或个人网站容易让人看见的界面上,譬如一般部落格的sidebar。情顺便在贴粘“黄丝带”帖纸image的 < img > tag 的 alt部分,加上“声援南洋商报”等字眼的词句,以便当读者把滑鼠箭头(mouse cursor)指向“黄丝带”帖纸时,他们会阅读到“声援南洋商报”的讯息。

* 发送电邮给其他朋友告知这项政府可能钳制新闻自由的事件,并要求他们转发电邮和在各自的部落格或个人网站上声援《南洋商报》。


以下为转载自《独立新闻在线》的相关报导:

(新闻网址:http://www.merdekareview.com/news.php?n=3001)

[Alert] Save Nanyang from becoming UMNO's sacrifice


Nanyang Siang Pao has apparently become the sacrifice lamb for UMNO representatives’ inflammatory speeches in its Assembly. It is alright for UMNO representatives to air their grievance but not for other Malaysians to register their dissatisfaction of these speeches.

Remember the nude-squat gate? The morale of the story is the same: the bad guy can do whatever bad things, but the media must not report it, else, all blames go to the press.

For its cover story on last Sunday (19/10/2006), “UMNO representatives’ excessive speeches slammed by Chinese associations and parties”, the newspaper has invoked the wrath of UMNO senior politicians. The Cabinet meeting today will determine the penalty for Nanyang Siang Pao.

(See the report by Merdeka Review, http://www.merdekareview.com/news.php?n=3001)

We call upon all bloggers to express support on this cause:
- write a brief blog post, making your stand on issue of press freedom and news censorship.
- Paste this yellow ribbon (the symbol of the campaign for press freedom in Malaysia, adopted since May 2001) icon at prominent places on your blog, eg. Sidebar. Please add phrases like “Support Nanyang Siang Pao” after the ‘alt’ in the tag in ‘edit html’ mode. This would allow the readers to read the “Support Nanyangt Siang Pao” message when they point the mouse cursor at the yellow ribbon icon.

- Email this news to your friends and ask them to do the same.

Remember we can make a difference. Nanyang is now being abducted to the back lane, the thugs hope that no one pays notice or cares to intervene. If we freedom-loving citizens of Malaysia and the world do, and we walk into the back lane for her rescue, the thugs will have no choice but to flee. Please save Nanyang Siang Pao from UMNO’s assault! We have enough victims of the thuggery.

Friday, November 17, 2006

[AWSJ] Milton Friedman died at 94


Influential Economist Friedman Has Died in California, at Age 94
By GREG IP

Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the last century and a free-market champion, died today. He was 94.

Mr. Friedman died of heart failure at his home in San Francisco, his daughter, Janet Martel, said.

Mr. Friedman's death was also announced at a conference of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington by the institute's vice president of academic affairs, James A. Dorn. The audience of academics and policy makers observed a moment of silence in
observance.

Mr. Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1976. He long championed the cause of political and economic freedom and the links between the two. He originated, or was associated with, many breakthroughs in economics since the 1950s. He is best known for explaining the role of the money supply in economic and inflation fluctuations.

He also developed, with this year's Nobel Prize winner in economics, Edmund Phelps, the theory in the 1960s that policy makers couldn't achieve a permanent tradeoff between lower unemployment and higher inflation, and that efforts to do so would simply result in the same unemployment rate and higher inflation, a view that holds sway at major central banks today, including the Fed.

Mr. Friedman also exercised extraordinary influence not just through his academic work but also through his advice to politicians and his many popular books, such as "Capitalism and Freedom" in 1962 and "Free to Choose," with Rose Friedman, in 1980, which was both a television series and a book.

Mr. Friedman had enormous impact on economic policy though he never had a formal job in a government administration after World War II. His opposition helped lead to the end of the draft. He was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He was also closely associated with school vouchers and other applications of free market principles to policy issues.

In commentaries in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Friedman praised the policies of President Reagan and former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan. Earlier this year, Mr. Friedman wrote that Mr. Greenspan's "performance has indeed been remarkable. There is no other period of comparable length in which the Federal Reserve System has performed so well. It is more than a difference of degree; it approaches a difference of kind." (See the commentary.)

Mr. Friedman is survived by his wife Rose, his son David and daughter Janet, four grandchildren and three great grandchildren. The Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation said in a statement that, in accordance with his wishes, Mr. Friedman's body will be cremated and the ashes scattered over San Francisco Bay and no service will be held at this time. The family has asked that in lieu of flowers or gifts, contributions be made in his honor to the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. (Read the foundation's statement.)

Born in New York City

Born in New York City on July 31, 1912, Mr. Friedman began developing his economic theories during the Great Depression when President Franklin D. Roosevelt based his New Deal on the ideas of Britain's John Maynard Keynes, the most influential economist of the time.

Mr. Keynes argued that the government should intervene in economic affairs to avoid depressions by increasing spending and controlling interest rates. (When asked in 2004 by The Wall Street Journal to name the most important economist of the 20th century besides himself, Mr. Friedman named Mr. Keynes. Read the full Q&A.)

Mr. Friedman graduated from Rutgers University in 1932 and earned his master's degree the following year at the University of Chicago. After working for the National Resources Commission in Washington from 1935 to 1937, Mr. Friedman was a member of the staff of the National Bureau of Economics Research in New York from 1937 to 1945 and received his doctorate from Columbia University in 1946. After World War II, he
taught at the University of Minnesota, then returned to the University of Chicago. He became a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in 1977.

"Most Americans have no idea what the science of economics is about. Milton Friedman made economic thought more accessible to more people, and he did it in a simple, straight-forward way that avoided politics and cut to the heart of free market capitalism."

Mr. Friedman married Rose Director in 1938. They had two children, Janet and David, and Rose was co-author of some of his books.

Among his most famous books were: "Price Theory," 1962 (with Rose Friedman); "Capitalism and Freedom," 1962; "An Economist's Protest," 1972; "There Is No Such Thing As a Free Lunch," 1975; and "Free to Choose," 1979, co-authored with his wife. "Free to Choose" also was a series on the Public Broadcasting Service.

The producer of that series, Bob Chitester, told the University of Chicago that Mr. Friedman's "insatiable curiosity" made him a different kind of thinker. "He set forth ideas without regard to their popularity or acceptability. He has been equally tough on himself and others in his search for tools of analysis that consistently and
accurately predict outcomes in both micro and macro economics. And he has never compromised the resulting analysis to please those in power. Such courage is essential to the survival of a free society," Mr. Chitester said.

Mr. Chitester's new biography of Mr. Friedman, titled "The Power of Choice," will air on PBS in late January.

Mr. Friedman wrote columns for Newsweek from 1966 to 1983 and was one of the few economists to bridge the gap between academia and the public. He involved himself in political campaigns, supporting Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1968. He served on President Nixon's commission for an all-volunteer Army in 1969 and 1970.

In an interview with Playboy magazine in 1973, later republished in a collection of his essays titled "Bright Promises, Dismal Performance," Mr. Friedman said he was encouraged by an apparent trend away from government control.

"There are faint stirrings and hopeful signs," he said. "Even some of the intellectuals who were most strongly drawn to the New Deal in the 30s are rethinking their positions, dabbling just a little with free-market principles. They're moving slowly and taking each step as though they were exploring a virgin continent. But it's not dangerous. Some of us have lived here quite comfortably all along."

Mr. Friedman, whose wit made him a popular guest on radio and television shows, appeared to enjoy sparring with other economists.

In the Playboy interview, he referred to his disagreement with John Kenneth Galbraith, who endorsed wage and price controls. When Mr. Nixon went against Mr. Friedman's advice and imposed the controls in an effort to slow inflation, Mr. Friedman said he wrote a note to Mr. Galbraith.

"You must be as chagrined as I am to have Nixon for your disciple," Mr. Friedman wrote. Mr. Galbraith didn't reply, Mr. Friedman said.

--The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

[BH] 张晓卿的伊拉克?

为了方便大家流传和收藏,黄丝带期刊第一期PDF版本面世了!

本期文章收集了上周在《东方日报》、《独立新闻在线》、《当今大马中文版》与其他中文网站同步刊登的七篇文章。这份电子报能够面世,有三方面的功劳应该记下,为后来者识。

第一,策划这系列文章的mksow(苏铭强)。他是剑及履及的好汉,匆匆几天就联络好媒体和作者。
第二,撰写这一系列文章的作者,和同步刊载的各媒体。他们二话不说,就答应共襄盛举。
第三,主动提出把文章编成电子报的曾维龙。他在教学与论文之余,接连几个晚上挑灯夜战,参考各方意见一再修改,终告杀青。

未来的日子里,黄丝带运动文章系列会在每一周刊登后变成电子报。有人可能秦皇梦正酣,可是,焚书坑儒的历史条件已不存在。你可以在百万读者前封杀我们,但是,我们将把我们义不帝秦的声音放射在网络的空间中,有一天连龙应台、南方朔也不能宣称他们不知道马来西亚发生什么事。

个人观察,“黄丝带2.0”的特色是许多人都是自动自发拿起武器保卫新闻自由。顾美盈、余福祺、丁国亮、黄智能等如此,黄业华、王德齐、白云山、彭雪琴、谢光亮等如此,苏铭强、曾维龙等如此,更多无名英雄亦复如此。从十七岁到七十岁,我都看到豪迈自信的战士。

这是街巷战,这是全民皆兵,这是读者力量。有人怀疑它能够撑多久?我的答案是:压制有多久,反抗就会有多久。布什也会有向压力低头的一天。晓卿大帝可以和马华组成 ‘自愿联盟 ’,而罔顾民间公议; 南洋报业会不会就是他的伊拉克?(注)让我们拭目以待,因为时间在我们这一边。

(注:南洋和伊拉克唯一适合相比的就是独夫身陷的泥沼。其他并不契合:南洋报业并没有Saddam Hussein,布什后面没有巫统,南洋义勇军使用的武器更是理性而非暴力。)

Sunday, November 12, 2006

[BH] Remember the Alamo!

这是德萨斯一群孤军如何坚守城池至几乎最后一兵一卒的故事,有点像中国唐代的张巡,比抗日时期的四行仓库更加悲壮。 

当时墨西哥中央政府要削弱地方自治权力,引起美裔移民居多的北方省份的反抗。Alamo就是叛军的一个据点。其守军来自(当时还是墨西哥领土的)德萨斯各地和美国各州。墨西哥总统Santa Ana以几乎20对1的军力优势下亲征。在13天的围攻后,孤堡终于被攻破,200多名守军几乎全数以身殉城,只有妇孺、奴隶幸免于难。

Alamo陷落前4天,1835年3月2日,德萨斯人发布《德萨斯独立宣言》,德萨斯共和国实质宣布成立。当时,Alamo守军对此仍一无所知,13天的坚持,却让德军的统帅Sam Houston成功聚集800壮士,打败Santa Ana人数两倍的军队,逼使后者签城下之盟。10年后,德萨斯加入美利坚合众国成为其中一州。

Alamo一役背后有美国和墨西哥两方的角力。你可以站在另一边认为这其实是墨西哥反对美国帝国主义的保卫战。Santa Anna更是一名废奴主义者。更多细节请看
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

我想起的Alamo是电影中Sam Houston在Alamo城破前,劝一群义勇军要克制悲痛和冲动见死不救,因为以卵击石只是陪葬。然而,不旋踵,他就在时机成熟时,领导全军喊出“Remember The Alamo!”这个终德萨斯革命不衰的口号,杀入敌阵,让墨方溃不成军,更俘虏了Santa Ana本人,让他割地求和,使200多孤军所流的血功不唐捐。

历史上像Sam Houston这样能冷静发言的人很多,但很少人会像他一样冷静背后是热血更急速地奔流。 更多人是冷静下来就忘记了自己的Alamo。

Friday, November 10, 2006

[WAMI] In Defence of Weekend Mail's Right to Publish




In Defence of Weekend Mail’s Right to Publish:
Public need not the Minister to decide what to read

Writers’ Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI) criticizes the Internal Security Ministry’s decision to suspend Weekend Mail for publishing in last weekend pictures and stories ‘contrary to Eastern values’. This is pathetically the fourth newspaper suspended in the year 2006. We renew the civil society’s call on May 3 earlier this year for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to review all media-related laws including the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA). Once again shown in this episode, the law has given the Minister unchecked power to suppress the freedoms of expression and of the media.

While we may not agree with the tabloid’s taste and judgment, we vigorously stand up for their right to publish and the public’s right to critique their content, and against the state’s arbitrary power to dictate our journalism and cultural life. The Ministry cited sub-section 6(2) of the PPPA to justify the suspension while the sub-section says nothing but the absolute power of the Minister who ‘may at any time revoke or suspend a permit for any period he considers desirable’.

The parliament-made law provides neither specific definition nor any objective test for contents that may be considered ‘contrary to Eastern values’. Simply because we treasure our cultural heritages, we believe that no single politician has either the ability or the right to define or defend the degree of civility and decency in our society. Debating and converging on the standards for cultural appropriateness is the duty and the right of every concerned citizen. The tabloid’s prompt apology in fact has shown the power of public opinion. Surrendering now the decision to few political elites will destroy our society’s moral judgment and undermine our cultural soul.

On this principled ground, we firmly defend the right of the Weekend Mail to publish and express our solidarity to its suspended editor Mohd Zulkifli Abdul Jalil. We may not share his taste and judgment. It’s exactly our right to disagree with him we are now steadfastly defending. Mr Minister, we can choose for ourselves what to read and what not to. Your job is now to help establish a Parliamentary Select Committee to review all outdated media laws made under outdated mentality

[WAMI] 公众阅读品味不必部长决定


维护媒体撰稿人联盟 (WAMI) 谴责国内安全部因为《周末邮报》上周末刊载“不符东方价值”的文字与图片而吊销该报出版准证的决定。何其不幸,这是2006年来第四家被吊销准证的报章。我们重申公民社会在今年53日的呼声,要求国会成立特选委员会检讨所有管制媒体的法律,尤以《1984年印刷与出版法令》最为关键。该法赋予部长过大权力,压制言论与媒体自由,这次事件再次显现其弊端。

虽然我们未必认可该报的品味与判断,但我们坚决捍卫其出版权利与公众批判出版品内容的权利,并且反对国家随意决定公民的新闻专业与文化生活。国安部援引《印刷与出版法令》第62)条来吊销该报准证,实际上该条文只说明部长有绝对权力,可以“随时可以收回或中止准证至任何他认可的期限”。

国会订立的这法律中完全没有提供何谓“不符东方价值”内容的具体定义与客观检验。正因为我们珍惜文化遗产,我们相信没有任何一个政治人物有能力或正当的道德权利(right)为整个社会决定其礼仪与规范的标准。文化上何者适宜何者戒忌,每个关心的公民都有权利与义务参与辩论与凝聚共识。《周末邮报》的迅速道歉正说明了公众舆论的力量。如果我们今天把这决定交由少数政治精英决定,我们其实是在摧毁社会的道德判断和掏空本身的文化灵魂。

从这个原则上出发,我们坚决捍卫《周末邮报》的出版权利,并对被停职的该报编辑Mohd Zulkifli Abdul Jalil表达同情。我们未必认可他的品味与判断。然而,我们今天要捍卫的正是我们反对他的权利。部长先生,我们可以自己决定要阅读什么,不要阅读什么。您的责任现在是推动国会特选委员会的成立,以便全面检讨所有在过时思维下制定与媒体有关的过时法律。

Monday, November 06, 2006

[BH]黄丝带义不帝秦


公元前257年,秦国发兵围攻赵国首都邯郸,赵国向魏国求救。魏国刚出兵,秦王就派人警告说:我不日就要拿下赵国,谁敢多管闲事,我灭赵之后就先对付他。魏王吓坏了,就下令魏军半途休息观望形势,同时派使者新垣衍劝赵王一起共尊秦王为帝,让秦国退兵。

齐国高士鲁仲连当时住在邯郸,听说此事,跑去警告新垣衍:“秦是虎狼之国,不讲仁义只重军功。他若称帝,我宁可投身东海而死!如果魏王看不到秦王称帝的害处,那我将劝秦王把魏王煮成肉酱!” 新垣衍不信,鲁仲连就举商朝末代暴君纣王如何残害三个大臣的故事说明。第一个大臣九侯自以为女儿美丽,把她献给纣王,纣王觉得她丑,就把她爸爸煮成肉酱;第二个大臣鄂侯为九侯仗义执言,结果也被杀了做肉干;第三个大臣文王长叹一声,结果被囚禁了一百天,几乎也被处死。

“今 天秦、魏都是大国,各自称王;为什么只因为看到秦国打了一次胜仗,就要尊他为帝,让自己处于肉干、肉酱的地位呢?秦王一旦称帝,就要行天子之礼,号令天 下,到时将把在各国朝廷根据本身喜好安排人事,并把秦国美女送进魏王的后宫,魏王到时还会安全吗?将军到时还会得宠吗?”

鲁仲连这一番话警醒梦中人,新垣衍拜别离赵,不再谈尊秦为帝的事。秦军听说此事,连夜退兵五十里。不久,魏国一位王子夺了援军的控制权,赶来解了赵国的围鲁 仲连是不世出的人物。在他之后,没有一个知识分子能够说服东方六国抗秦。鲁仲连之前,还有一对可爱的同学苏秦和张仪,同拜策略家鬼谷子为师,后来一个主张 南北合纵抗秦,官拜赵魏韩燕齐楚六国丞相(“六国大封相”原典),另一个主张东西连横亲秦,掌秦国相印,表面上是各为其主,实际上是联手把各国王侯玩弄于 鼓掌之间,把彼此的利益最大化。

鲁仲连义不帝秦36年后,秦王嬴政统一了中国。再12年, 陈胜、吴广揭竿而起,三户亡秦。然而,大一统思想已经深植在中华文化当中。纷乱中充满生命力、诸子百家争鸣的春秋、战国时代一去不复返。中国读书人再不见 鲁仲连、苏秦、张仪这般清醒的人物。除了少数隐士,大多数读书人都成了忠君爱国分子,甘为一家一姓卖命,只敢期望甚至幻想当朝皇帝天纵圣明,不会随便把大 臣百姓做成肉酱肉干,却不敢问:怎样才能确保只有天纵圣明的家伙才能当皇帝?或者怎样建立一个会自动淘汰昏君暴君的机制?追根究底,為什麼非要有皇帝不可?

为 什么鲁仲连之后的读书人都敢冒成为肉干、肉酱的风险,去为皇帝打天下、治天下?一个解释是,他们天真无邪,像张艺谋《英雄》里那位心存“天下”的剑客,相 信竞争是坏事,必然会互相残杀,生灵涂炭,反而统一了就天下太平。他们不明白,统一的天下,像装了所有鸡蛋的篮子,竞争只会更激烈,必然只能是“兴,百姓 苦;亡,百姓苦”。

另 一个解释是,这些读书人其实并不幻想什么为万世开太平,而是清楚知道丛林法则。他们认定某个强者是皇帝后,就会自动表现得像猎狗,会为了讨好皇帝去咬他的 敌人,咬皇帝敌人养的另一些读书人。有一些像李斯,也伺机咬和自己共事一主而可能威胁到自己的读书人。另一些像司马懿父子,为皇帝打天下时,心里也可能悄 悄想着皇位。当然,也有一些读书人比较可爱,不喜欢咬人争宠,但是,他们也同样不敢质疑皇帝存在的合理性,而会找出种种理由提醒自己皇上如何伟大。

伴 君如伴虎。这些读书人有些得到善终,有些还能入凌霄阁、忠烈祠。更多人却是鸟尽弓藏,甚至是“狡兔死,走狗烹”,像刘邦和朱元璋的开国功臣;或者像李斯一 样,踩着别人的尸首爬上去,最后轮到别人也踩着自己的尸首爬上去。为什么读书人那么迷恋权力?大陆一位作者李国文说这是一种“内在的,与生俱来的,从一开 始读书识字,便要出人头地的基因在作祟”。

鲁仲连义不帝秦两千两百五十八年后,南洋有报业被不肖政党强娶。不管当事人怎么否认,明眼人都看得出政党后面有亚洲梅铎的暗助。长久以来,华社对国家的抗争都是依赖华文报动员;而今要对抗的对象竟是被劫持和共谋的华文报,仗要怎么打?

有 人主张避重就轻,只反对政党控制,不反对媒体垄断;有人尴尬失语;有人继续风花雪月,只恋花踪处处,不见血迹斑斑;有人爽爽起义后急急反悔;有人声凄厉诉 苦暗夜被人胁迫,却未见人影;有人封锁新闻,坚持秦王无意称帝,乃是小人恶意造谣;而秦王则隔海大谈经略天下的雄心,呼唤中华情意结。

所幸民间社会正气,浩浩荡荡,既反政党控制,也反媒体垄断,黄丝带到处飘扬,昭示义不帝秦的决心。甚至连涉案政党也一分为二,几乎让霸占报业的阴谋功败垂成。怀有道德勇气的华商更剑及履及,直接集资向政党献购,暴露不肖政客的嘴脸。

九 十多只健笔,更毅然告别四家不幸沦落在政商不神圣同盟手里的中文报。李敖曾言:“英雄宁可无地用武;也不降格用武!”罢写四报的评论人却未曾因此停笔,反 而接二连三开创新的言论空间或支援愿意追求新闻自由的媒体机构,从《光华日报》、《当今大马》、《时代报》、《天网》、《自由媒体》、《民间评论》、《劲 报评论》、《东方日报》、《航》、《独立新闻在线》、《视角》到燧人氏、大众科技等出版社,未曾松懈。“维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟”(WAMI)更与“独立新闻中心”(CIJ) 等公民社会其他同道努力推动全面的媒体法律改革,并追求广义的自由民主改革。

再五年后的今天,媒体秦皇图穷匕见,终于“不计毁誉”正式入主当初处心积虑协助收购的两家报章,掌控85%的中文读者。秦皇想不到的是,五年的时间不但没有让原来的鲁仲连消失,反而让更多年轻的鲁仲连从不同的角落涌现。

我们不怕冒犯秦皇,我们完全不在意失去李斯大人的青眼,我们很高兴阿房宫的文化累积里没有我们的贡献,因为我们不会是焚书坑儒中坐以待毙的受害者。

像两千年前的鲁仲连,我们是自由的中华魂,我们永远反抗皇帝,我们誓言埋葬恶法!我们挥舞黄丝带,我们义不帝秦!

(说明:为揭露官商垄断媒体之恶果,维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟(WAMI)邀请老中青三代评论人撰写系列文章。本系列文章同步刊登于《当今大马》、《独立新闻在线》、《黄丝带》及各大中文网站论坛。)