A Very, Very Hard Fix?

The following are two excerpts from the April 26 column by Globe's Margaret Wente:

I know, I know. It's not about the math. It's about doing the right thing, and the example we want to set for the world, and the kind of planet we want our children to inherit. A journey round the world starts with a single step.…..

I'm merely pointing out that fixes are very, very hard. And politicians everywhere are in a fix, because people don't want to hear that.

I am sure you all know that she was cracking a lot of nuts in the above excerpts. But you may wonder what she meant by "very, very hard" fixes.

I knew what she meant the moment I read her column because just two days before that, I was set up to hold a small plastic bag (about 3cm x 3cm) of what I now believe marijuana.

Here is the details of the fix. You decide whether it was a "very, very hard" one.

Tuesday. April 24. It was drizzling. I had to go out because I needed to mail out an important letter.

I went out around 10:30AM. I took the usual road. Half way through, I saw a small plastic bag on the ground. Since the bag was sealed, I picked it up and looked at it for quite a few seconds as I was curious about its contents. -- I had never seen marijuana before in my life.

On my way back from the Post Office, I passed a police car near the same spot and immediately feared a set-up because:

1. I walked on that road quite often, maybe once every two days on average lately.

2. The spot where I picked up the bag was near a chained road-barrier. Normally people do not look down while walking. But when they pass a barrier, they have to look down. The bag was planted there so that I could not miss it.

3. There was no police car when I was on my way to the Post Office. It was parked close to the spot only when I was on my way back. But apparently, the police wanted to draw my attention to their car because it was parked on the wrong side of the street with its headlights - maybe even high beams - on and a police officer was sitting inside.
   

Why the fix? My guess is that, having me in a picture holding a bag of marijuana would be a convenient excuse for the Bush administration to deny me entry into the United States because apparently, letting me learn from and work for Mr. Warren Buffett was the greatest fear they have. In the scenario, people will doubtlessly see me as who I truly am, a genuinely good guy with a sense of self-deprecating humor. -- Maybe when I called the Bush administration a "paper tiger", I was being too charitable. "Chicken little" should be more appropriate.

Although neither Mr. Warren Buffett nor I am a politician, we advocate doing the right things and actually do them ourselves. That made certain politicians very nervous. Why? Because doing the right things is also the hardest thing to do for these politicians, although they all know that it is the true measure of political leadership. The contrast between them and me would be tremendous.

What these politicians lack inside they try to cover it up from outside. This explains why so many politicians are image-conscious. For example, prime minister "Steve" Harper hired a make-up artist just to help him look good.

Because they pay so much attention to image themselves, naturally they would try to use the same trick on their opponents by damaging their images. This is exactly what the Harper government has been doing to me as I am seen as a threat to their political fortune even though I am not a politician. And they would routinely use law enforcement agencies for that purpose. Similar to how the FBI treated Martin Luther King, Jr., RCMP/CSIS is doing the same thing to me. And these so-called fixes are just part of the politically motivated and directed prosecutions the government is trying to pursue against me. Of course, their whole purpose is to drag me through the mud and in the mean time, with the help of the media, the facts and logic of my story would be lost.

Will they succeed? Only if "politicians everywhere are in the fix". But I have not given up hope in finding that one politician who is not afraid of doing the right thing, just like what I have been doing as a simple guy trying to right the wrong inflicted upon Cecilia Zhang.

Oh, BTW, if that ridiculous set-up three weeks ago was a "very, very hard" fix when there was no witness around, why should we even be bothered with the "very, very soft" fix of late when at least one citizen could put me away from that part of the town?

 

Wildly Oscillating Interpretations (4): “Steve” Harper

This series (Part 1 on Hu Jintao, Part 2 on the Bush administration and Part 3 on Tony Blair) would not be complete if "Steve" Harper is not included. Writing about Mr. Harper presents a unique difficulty for me, thought, because there were too many nuts-cracking by him over the years and for a long time, since he was on my side of the issue, I did not take notes.

Of course, his stand on my cause turned out to be unprincipled as reflected in his changing attitude before and after the last election. Indeed, not only is he a political opportunist, he is also a mean one. I will document how his government treated me even worse than the previous Liberal one if I find more time and energy.

For now, let me cast my memory to the more distant past and recall events that show Mr. Harper did know my file and indeed, he pretty much rode on my file to power.

The first time Mr. Harper drew my attention was during the final days of general election 2004. He defended his party's position that the then prime minister Paul Martin supported child pornography. The allegation was so outrageous that it had to draw my attention. In retrospect, I guess drawing my attention was exactly his purpose in making this campaign "gaffe". It was a desperate cry for help from me as his party was falling behind the Liberals in the polls. Indeed, partly because of this remark of his and partly because of Paul Martin's words and actions before and during the campaign, I sensed that my file was more significant – I did not realize the connection to Cecilia Zhang murder at the time - than I originally thought. That's why I concluded right after the election that the election had probably been stolen by the Martin Liberals.

Between the two elections, there were a lot of nuts-cracking by Mr. Harper and his caucus members. Especially during the final weeks of the spring 2005 session of the Parliament, the Conservatives sent out so many hints to me through the media that some journalists used the word telegraph in their veiled attacks on them. Unfortunately, I can only recall two incidents involving Mr. Harper himself:

1. Days after I wrote my blog titled Untitled, Mr. Harper said during Question Period in the Parliament on February 8, 2005: "Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to call the Prime Minister the artless dodger." Before that, Mr. Martin was only known as a dodger, I guess.

2. Day(s) after I posted my blog, This entry is written with dignity, Mr. Harper gave me advice by making comments publicly that when fighting an opponent as nasty or cruel as the Liberals, one should be careful not to lose oneself.

When it came to the last general election, I am able to remember more of Mr. Harper's speeches that demonstrated his knowledge of my file. As I said before, my file was at the center of last election campaign for all parties involved, not just for the Conservatives.

Right after the Parliament was dissolved and the election formally began, Mr. Harper made his election statement in front of the House of Commons. Using the phrase "people's verdict ", he made reference to my unfinished Chinese article, Liberal hypocrisy in immigration policies, published just one week before.

While ordinary Canadians have worked hard, paid their taxes, and played by the rules, the Liberals have been preoccupied by damage control, lurching from one scandal to another, recklessly promising to spend money and desperately trying to avoid the people's verdict.

This speech of Mr. Harper's set the tone for the Conservative campaign. Some pundits called it Tory's Time Horton approach. Since nobody is willing to talk to me, I don't know how much, if any, impact my letter of early fall 2005 had on the Conservatives in forming their strategy: "I think the Conservative has a great opportunity at hand. I would like to work with you for a better Canada, a Canada that is truly for the people, rather than for the elite."

My article, Liberal hypocrisy in immigration policies, which Mr. Harper made reference to in his speech, was written just a week before the election call because I knew that my cause of fighting for justice for Cecilia Zhang would be especially well received in the immigrant communities. I guess everyone else could see that, too. As it turned out, however, attracting immigrant votes, rather than acting on principle, was the real reason that Mr. Harper wanted to be on my side of the issue. On January 5, 2006, in a speech designed to woo immigrant votes in Toronto, Mr. Harper said: "I see a city whose fundamental character is beginning to change", in an apparent reference to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's action-plan-for-Canadian-election article published on Washington Post in early December 2005. He was essentially signaling to me to ignore Rice's article and join in his campaign.

In another speech aimed at wooing immigrant votes and calling me to join the campaign fray, Mr. Harper emphasized that immigrants were honest people. I immediately understood that Mr. Harper was trying to defend me as I had exaggerated my credentials when I first came to Canada in 1991 as a graduate student at Simon Fraser University and it looked like Martin Liberals and media people would make this stain in my personal history an issue. I mentioned in my Canadian Election 2006 series Paul Martin's speech at the UN conference where he used the word "reticent" and implied that he knew my file at SFU. A strange editorial on Toronto Star in the middle of the campaign on December 31 also conveyed, on behalf of all mainstream media, similar warning to me. Indeed, being a "jobless immigrant without privacy", I had expected, ever since I decided that going public with my story was my only option, that this stain of mine would probably become an opening for personal attack someday, as reflected in the word "overstatement" in the very first open letters I wrote to Canadian government in December 2003.

Unlike other honest or dumb mistakes I made in my life, this one is indefensible. And I don't feel good writing about it. It was symptomatic of the time in China when the prospect of a life-changing opportunity seemed to justify a little short-cut. I hope Chinese people will draw a lesson from me and above all, try to slow down as, I believe, the future of China is bright. Likewise, by openly admitting this personal mistake, which had nothing to do with the racially motivated Cecilia Zhang murder, I hope people with knowledge and conscience will stand up and speak the truth, not just for Cecilia, but also for a better Canada.

For my part during the election, it was through watching Mr. Harper's campaign that I realized my "role" as a candidate for the 5^th generation of Chinese leadership. At first, all those 5% blue signs accompanying Mr. Harper's announcements of his party's target of the GST cut caught my eye. Then, on the first day of the second half of the campaign, Mr. Harper revealed Conservative's 5 priorities in the biggest announcement of his party's campaign platform up to that point in time. In retrospect, it was apparent that Mr. Harper wanted very much for me to join in his campaign. And he certainly did not mind the perception that I was a candidate for the next generation of Chinese leadership.

Another connection between my writing and Conservative campaign strategy was their very effective "one policy announcement one day" approach in the early goings of the election. Back in September 2005, I had written another Chinese article, Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway, also with the coming election in mind. In the article, I praised Mr. Harper and the Conservatives for their policy ideas, using his speech earlier that month on expanding trade with China and India as an illustration.

I should point out that, at the time when I wrote my article, I just thought Mr. Harper's idea excellent. In retrospect, I think that, by emphasizing in his speech "in exploiting the growing demand of China, India and others for our natural resource sectors" and later, by proclaiming that he was not guided by "blind ideology" in his rebuttal to a National Post editorial on his speech, Mr. Harper was sending me an overtone. Obviously, I am extremely dismayed by Mr. Harper's reckless China-bashing lately. It is apparent that Mr. Harper thought this was a good way to dispose of my file because (1) it set up the stage for an eventual diplomatic showdown with China where my cause of fighting for justice for Cecilia Zhang would be lost, and (2) Canada should not be afraid of such a showdown because, as he justified publicly, China needed our natural resources. This is a risky and irresponsible game Mr. Harper is playing based on flawed reasoning.

Yes, as I've said before, I think Canada and other Asian countries complement each other very well in the natural resource sectors and I am all for increasing trades between Canada and these countries. But if Mr. Harper thought that the reason I was so persistent in having my cause be dealt with in Canada was that I wanted Canada to sell more resources to China, then he was flatly wrong. My cause is primarily a Canadian one and properly dealing with the issue will only contribute to building a better Canada. As shown by other issues such as the Air India investigation and Maher Arar affair, RCMP as an institution has a history of treating immigrants as second-class citizens. Mr. Harper and other politicians may not agree with me, but I believe Canadian people will be on my side once they know my story, as they usually are well ahead of their political and intellectual elites. Of course, if people could see, from the words and actions of me and others in my story, such as Cecilia Zhang family and Min Chen family, that Chinese people are a genuinely good people, and lose some of their prejudice – be it economic or ideological - in their future dealings with China, so much the better.

********

********

Update 11 hours later:

The Bush administration knew that I had exaggerated my credentials, too. As I mentioned before, March 2006 was a low time for the Bush administration in the development of my story. Near the end of that month, they or people close to them even sent me a serious personal overtone, which I disclosed for a very brief period of time last August and did not anticipate to do so again except under extraordinary circumstances. Hearing no response from me, Mr. Bush went on the offense. On April 10, he gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University, one of the universities I applied with the same exaggerated credentials while in China and had been warned about over the years.

********

********

Update 20070508:

Similarly, the Bush administration carefully read my Chinese article, Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway, too, and saw oil everywhere. And they appeared to have over-reacted after Mr. Harper won the election on January 23, 2006. First we saw President Bush proclaimed in his annual State of the Union address on January 31 that “America is addicted to oil” and needs to greatly reduce its dependence on importation from Middle East. Then the energy department started a media campaign about the importance of Canadian oil in helping to achieve that goal. For example, an energy department official was quoted in this February 4 CanWest report as telling the Reuters that “If (the United States) receives all (Alberta oil sands production), which we don't have in our forecast, it could reduce even more our dependence on the Middle East”. In other words, U.S. would like to have it all. Another Chinese report by government-funded Voice of America on February 5 was more direct in naming names and implied that U.S. goal was hindered by competition from China and India in Alberta oil sands. When Washington Post filed a report about Canada’s new government on February 6, it did not forget mentioning oil, as reflected in it byline: “Harper and Fellow Conservatives Inherit Strong Economy, Vast Oil Deposits”. The Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman himself went out to “justify” why Canadian oil should go to the U.S. in a March 2 speech, as reported by Globe and Mail: “It will cost them something to get the oil to China from Canada.”

Obviously.

********

********

Update 20070509:

Having tried to document the ill treatments I endured under the Harper government, I changed my mind. For one thing, it’s too tedious to write my day to day (boring) life. For another, I believe public policy is more important than personal treatment. So, I will focus on Mr. Harper’s public policy vis-à-vis my file instead.

After Mr. Harper gained power in the last election, and especially after President Hu Jinatao’s visit to the White House in late April 2006 and Min Chen’s show trial in early May 2006, Mr. Harper took a decidedly hard line on my cause. It was apparent that his strategy was to make my life so difficult that I would have nowhere to turn but to eventually turn to the Chinese government because, after all, I am still a Chinese citizen. At the mean time, he deliberately provoked the Chinese government on a number of occasions to set the stage for an eventual diplomatic showdown where my cause of fighting for justice for Cecilia Zhang would be lost. As I said before, Cecilia Zhang murder and the subsequent cover-up is a Canadian matter. Just because he does not have the moral or political courage to do the right thing to right the wrongs for this innocent Canadian girl, Mr. Harper used his power – which he gained by riding on the very same file - to raise the stake higher, risking a fairly good Canada-China relationship. Is his strategy good for Canada? I seriously doubt so.

Here, I won’t get into details of Mr. Harper’s famous China-bashing for its supposedly “horrible” human rights condition because, frankly, Mr. Harper’s intention was not to help improve China’s HR condition, but to feed a domestic audience with feel-good rants. Besides, comparing HR conditions between Canada and China is like comparing apple and orange. I have yet to find any two countries where the one with a vastly higher standard of living has a poorer HR condition. (In other words, human rights can not exist in a vacuum.) What people can compare, though, is the improvement of HR condition over roughly the same period of time among different countries. And I am not sure if Canada would come out as a winner in that match.

Instead, I’ll give two examples where the public does not know the whole story.

On June 22, 2006, i.e., the last day of the spring session of the parliament, a Conservative motion was put forward to grant The Dalai Lama an honorary Canadian citizenship. As I noted before, the Harper government dealt two other issues that were connected to my file on that day, i.e., the Chinese head tax redress and the new Age of Consent bill. It was obvious that The Dalai Lama honorary citizenship issue was also related to my file. Indeed, The Dalai Lama himself knew it. In an interview with the Financial Times on June 1, 2006, The Dalai Lama said that China had a “psychological problem” in dealing with “superpower America”, an apparent bullying attack on my mental health, similar to those mounted by the RCMP, pundits, and former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi, etc. (I respect The Dalai Lama as a religious leader, but I certainly don’t appreciate being bullied, especially when I am fighting, against all odds, for justice for an innocent girl.) Another example illustrating that the honorary citizenship emboldened him to attack China would be his comments on the newly-constructed Tibet railway. Also on June 1, The Dalai Lama said: “The rail link in itself is positive, a sign of development.” However, during his trip to Vancouver to accept the honorary citizenship just three months later, when asked to comment on the same subject by a reporter, he became extremely harsh of the railway, using such inflammable language as “cultural genocide”. (By the way, I don’t think it was a mere coincident, either, that The Dalai Lama was given an honorary degree from Simon Fraser University, where the seed of hatred was nurtured in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder. I do remember, though, the then prime minister Paul Minister gave convoluted reasons for meeting The Dalai Lama in 2004.)

Another example was that, on July 18, 2006, during a visit to Vimy Ridge, France, Harper mused aloud: “These were sandbags, not concrete, and the enemy had guns, not cameras.” Those reporters who were not familiar with my story, such as Mike Blanchfield of CanWest, had no clue what Mr. Harper meant by that remark. But I immediately realized his meaning. In fact, I was so alarmed by it that I blogged about it right away. Yes, I agree with Mr. Harper that what President Hu Jintao did, i.e., went to Washington rather than raised my cause with his government, was selfish (and he might have considered Hu’s action an affront, too). But then for Mr. Harper to conclude that Chinese people are all selfish, and not united as one, is absurd. What’s worse, he was calling for arms because, apparently, what the previous Liberal government did to me with cameras was not enough for him.

I should note that Mr. Harper’s comments came just three days before the mysterious death of Dr. Jiang Guobing in Toronto. I should also note that on July 28, I was almost hit by a speeding SUV in the back alley of my residence, a rare chance for whoever was monitoring me as I had to stay in bed most of the time that week. – I felt at the time that somebody was trying to stop me from publicizing the case of Dr. Jiang as, obviously, I did a lot of research online about this case during that period of time.

As I said, “Steve” Harper is not just a political opportunist, he is a mean one.