I thought this is a great piece when I saw it on Ming Pao. I am glad it is posted here.

As I read the piece, I can't help but wonder... is this phenomenon something more universal? This incident reminded me of other incidences (not just image/PR project) such as controversy around the design of HK Central Library, Pork-Barrel projects in the US, some IMF and World Bank aid programs, etc. There seems to be an incentive for politicians or government bureaucrats, in a democratic or authoritarian state, to do something so that they can say, “this happen because of me.” Obviously, in a democratic state, those actions still need to align (or have the appearance of aligning) with public interests, but the motivation is the same: self preservation and legacy. Politicians need to build their list of "accomplishments" for re-election, while bureaucrats do it to advance their careers. But they focus on themselves instead of the society as a whole. What they neglected is that things often happen in spite of them instead of because of them. I wonder what kind of political system can promote public officials that act for the society as oppose to their ego or legacy.

Everyone can lie _when_ it happens to his survival. In business terms, cutting edge. Actually "image" is not a bad thing. As leung said 「首先我們要理解「抽象」的活動本來是現代國家能力的證明，一個政府愈是能夠藉著圖表、統計和各種調查去簡化複雜龐大的現實，它就愈能完好地治理國家。」

I think the lenug's point is not whether image engineering is good, but rather the limit of image engineering. His point is "China crossed the red line". Where is the red line? I think his answer is Credibility: the image is no longer credible.

There is nothing 100% credible. There is always a gap between image and reality. How much gap is reasonable? There is no answer in the article. I consider this article is really "empty" in content.

I think he is speaking nothing more than that. He does not need to take 12 long paragraphs to explain that thing. It will be helpful if he can reduce the length by half, because the whole article has no point except the red line.

荷里活所有電影都作假，沒有人罵，因為大家都知道，美國政府也不會走出來說，這些電影代表國家利益所以要作假。

這次的問題是中國政府把奧運開幕抬到天般高，又代表中國崛起，又代表國家利益。結果中國崛起被人閱讀成 insistence to fake（對假冒的堅持），正好 made in China 的劣質貨品充斥市場，一點作假，就變成國粹，這不更羞家？

Obviously no one is a Saint… which is why, people/governments _should_ be criticized for their follies when they make them, instead of brushing those faults over as if the government is a perfect saint. Governments in the west are severely criticized too when they lie (see Iraq war and the mythical WMD.) How can you bring resources together to fix a problem if you don’t shed a light to it? So if you don’t want 作假 to be 中國的國粹, then we should all criticize it whenever it happens. (By the way, don't you see the conflict between the concept of a "perfect public image" and the argument of "not a saint"? why seek a Saint-like image when you are not a Saint... something to consider.)

Other than that, I have a big problem with this type of arguments… “世界上哪個負責任的大國沒做過假“ … why does that matter? Can’t you tell right from wrong and good from bad for yourself? Why, as China becomes stronger and more powerful, are you still insist on using other countries’ actions as your moral compass? We can certainly use other countries experiences as supporting examples, but definitely not as the arguments themselves. Otherwise, we can justify genocide simply because nazi germany has done it. And so what if other countries have lower standard? Isn’t the point for China to become stronger is to be better than other countries? I mean, the US has a lot of gun problems too, do you want to follow that example?

I think you have to qualify the statement “沒有危害老百姓“. Do you mean no one get hurts at this moment or over the long run? I think there is still a huge gap in the understanding of credibility and trust. Why do you think parents from mainland come to HK to buy powdered milk?

As for 歌手假唱, that’s another misunderstanding of the incident. She was not just lip-syncing, her voice was replaced! And again, that’s no justification anyway… I wouldn’t go to a lip-sync concert (I can always listen to a CD.) Would you go to a Kelly Chen concert that’s dubbed with the voice of Sandy Lam?

In respond to 阿藹, I think there needs to be a differentiation between fake and unreal. Hollywood movies are definitely unreal, make-believes, but I don’t think they can be counted as “fake” in the sense that they pretend to be something they are not. Surely there isn’t a “real” version of a creation of the human mind. But if you mean those fake boobs and plastic surgery… yeah, there’s a lot of them, but it’s not something that’s promoted as good virtue. It’s more like a source of ridicules and a sign of a washed-up star. And there’s definitely a movement trying to turn the tide against artificial "beauty" (see the highly successful Dove commercial campaigns.)

我很失望張五常,林超榮等都胡扯一些例子辯護.

綜合保駕護航者的例子,包括：李寧飛天;電影,戲劇;巴伐諾堤;還有場刊上已有楊沛宜名字等.

李寧飛天：

這點張健波已有回應.李寧飛天,現實上不可能,觀眾不會誤會.同理,因為有明確分類和標識,讀者不會以為副刊小說是報道.若李寧不敢,找替身代勞,卻誤導觀眾表演的是李寧真人,兩事才可以比較.

電影,戲劇：

那麼電影,戲劇不是常常找替身嗎?電影,戲劇本來就是假的.電影,戲劇演員在戲中不是自己,而是扮演其他角色.如飛天遁地的超人,成就斐然的偉人等,前者在現實上不可能,當然要依賴電腦特效和替身.後者也不一定找到演員的能力及得上那位名人,替身也難以避免.

巴伐諾堤：

在其他回覆已經提到,不贅.

場刊上已有楊沛宜名字：

若非陳其鋼揭破,不但在場觀眾不明所以,絕大多數電視觀眾仍然蒙在鼓裡.張五常稱「她是真唱的，只是沒有擴音，被楊沛宜之聲蓋過了」也不過事後之見.

至於從「整體」來看,在「表演」而言可以容許,更加無稽.原來整體上一件藝術品隱匿其中一位創作者努力,取替其名是可以接受的;以後有什麼表演,香港歌手再不必擔心走音,找人代唱就行,有很多大人物支持你們.

樓上寫了那麼多字,十分辛苦,就由本站最不成器的我回應你吧.

我在過去一篇留言說過,每當有人批評中國,總有人條件反射地羅列西方國家的黑暗醜惡,尤其是美國.懷疑批評者都雙重標準,盲目親美,偏袒一方.另一位網友亦曾留言,大意是批評中國前,是否須要先詳述世界各國滔天罪行,方顯批評公正不阿?

我曾在其他論壇忝為政治版主,這類反駁簡直無日無之.初時還有心機回應,後來自己也覺煩悶,這種人實在太多,無能為力,只好放棄.

樓上未必是這種人,但看來很接近.羅列各國假象後,以沒有用作結.既然那麼無可奈何,寫上那麼多字幹麼?難道勸我們節省點,何必再針對此事?歷史從未能杜絕犯罪,不等於接受犯罪.雖有人說現在的制度不過比以往好一點,但畢竟有一點,不要這麼灰心.如樓上便知道「美國將自己塑造成...正義使者」,這裡「罵」美國的人著實不少(包括我),不妨和本站高手交流切磋,揭開內幕,免得大家受「成功的形象工程」蒙蔽.認為「罵」不能解決問題,你來「提出針對問題的"切實可行"的辦法」也無不可,防止造假的方式「更隱秘更小心更富麗堂皇」,相信我們必定有所裨益.

君不見廣告都電影化,戲劇化?以假亂真,不知幾何,所以各國都有專責機構監管.

如你所說,寫那么多勸人省點也太不值得了.

首先我想表達的是如果批評了一堆卻什么有用的辦法也給不出來,同樣的,值得嗎?批評它是覺得它做的不好,但應該如何做才好?可否順手在批評之后給當權者些切實可行的建議?是好的辦法,口耳相傳,不也有可能給決定事情的那幾個政府官員一些經驗教訓嗎?

之后我不認同梁先生的觀點,這不僅是計劃形象,況且政府形象和國家形象不是一個級別,我認為它們在中共心目中是不一樣地位的.如此重視奧運甚至中共的高層"集體"出現開幕式,恰恰和中共自己說的相反,奧運開幕式是一次政治事件,同時也是"形象戰爭"或"媒體戰爭"是一個附屬政治的行動,有"政治利益"的,是可以利用來反擊國外媒體對中國發動的"形象戰爭",因為西方對西藏的假報道也有"政治利益"的,所以和歷屆奧運不同,這次西方提出抵制奧運,中方提出不要將奧運政治化,恰恰說明奧運本身有獲得"政治利益"的巨大能力,因為應對抵制奧運所以中國自己提出了反對政治化后將自己言論限制了,而陳其鋼口中的"國家利益"是很貼切的.(俄國打格魯吉亞要講借口,什么為了俄國人的安全...這是塑造自己的正面形象,之后是要打仗的,打仗就是為了國家利益,之前的借口是為后面的戰爭服務的.西方對西藏假報道也是附屬政治的針對中國"國家形象"的形象戰爭,利用奧運是中共反擊的手段,因為它可以被幾乎所有人接受,這是國家之間為了自己做事情師出有名打的"形象戰爭".)我認為這次奧運的定性就是政治奧運,所以關乎奧運成功的細節中共就認為是有關國家政治利益的一部分,這不同于政府其他的形象工程.

所以我認為批評無法改變一個國家追求其認為的政治利益,(批評山西煤礦事件有用,批評假老虎事件政府會道歉,但批評有關西藏和臺灣問題的時候,就升級成了具有政治利益的形象問題,就升級為"國家形象",這時的政治利益會凌駕于人民利益之上,怎么批評都沒有用!美國現在還要打伊朗就是個例子.)結論就是既然中共的"目的"只是想掙個面子,過程也沒有害損害老百姓什么利益,況且已經在開幕式下了那么多功夫,而且假唱又不是迫切需要解決的問題,何須有點"吹毛求疵"的對這點小事加以諷刺?(主要指梁先生)

你說的"條件反射地羅列西方國家的黑暗醜惡"的那種人,的確做法不太可取,因為中國要是黑暗醜惡不管其他國家是否黑暗醜惡,事實是中國就是黑暗醜惡.(我沒做好,你批評我,我卻說還有人和我一樣沒做好,你為什么批評我?是不是你對我有意見...你怎么不批評別人?它們不是也沒做好過......可惜忽略了客觀的事實"我沒做好")講中國錯誤當然沒有錯,知錯能改才能進步,但不少人卻忽略了"過程"(例如戰斗機,一定要經過亞音速才能達到超音速,之后才是2倍音速和更快,但僅僅因為先進國家已經達到2倍音速,而中國沒有就批評它不好,而忽略了中國連亞音速都沒達到的現實,忽略了切實需要的過程.)例如市場經濟體制不完善等問題,如果算上幾個大戰爭和3年自然災害以及文革的政策失敗,中國真正發展的時間不長,更需要時間和過程來一步一步實現,給出好的建議才能"加速"這個過程,就是說中國不可能在一年內"巨變"成人權大國或民主大國,所以單單的批評中國人權狀況不好以及不民主不是有點不切實際嗎?相信你能認同這個觀點:一個國家先和平才能發展,沒有和平,談不上社會制度,人權,言論以及一切形式的自由.中共對中國最大的貢獻就是國內的和平穩定的環境(目前),但手段是和西方國家不一樣的(制度,人權,言論自由等等)這是現實,再加上政治對立,西方對中國的壓制封鎖制裁,這也是現實,而這些現實是造成中國目前很多大問題的重要根源,但同時也是不少批評者忽略的問題(批評很容易變成"盲目"的批評,的確你是對的,達到2倍音速的戰斗機才是好的飛機,但事實上那可是西方幾代人努力的成果,中國戰后重建又被制裁現在的社會水平都還沒有達到亞音速,何來2倍音速?"那種人"當然有可能會生氣"那你看美國英國法國研制2倍音速的飛機不也很長時間不也走了彎路嗎?......")

延續朝雲的說法；國家的對立面不是另一個國家。

每一個國家領袖都不介意放縱製造對外國對立的情況，這樣有利於統治，有利於把人民推向想像戰爭之中。想像戰爭不是不好，曼聯對巴塞也是一種想像戰爭，不過，中美／美蘇／冷戰思維這類想像戰爭就真的好無謂。

我沒有說這個現象不是 universal，但 universal 就是 universal，不是只指國家範圍而已。

与之前重复...

I think there's a bug... some comments are being repost in different order while other is delayed...

I agree with all the points 朝雲 so eloquently articulated in his latest post so I won't repeat them. What I will do is to response to some specifics in a more elaborate way and put forth some observation.

"事實是無論你批評與否,老百姓都無法改變人會殺人的事實"... exactly... so why are we still so critical on murderers by punishing them? (according to J SON K's position, if there's nothing we can do about it... ("解決不了") then we shouldn't criticize it right?)

In my humble opinion, J SON K's arguments are an example of totalitarian narratives I've read about from other places. May be this is some kind of manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome... I don't know... but there is some strong identification with the regime. For example, "可否順手在批評之后給當權者些切實可行的建議"... as if the regime is a person like you and I that will accept suggestions and open to exchange ideas. Then there is the 戰鬥機 metaphor that treats a government as some kind of inexperience adolescence. The bigger problem with the metaphor is that it is not even accurate for individuals let alone government and social collectives. Children don't learn to speak and write by developing their own language from scratch; nor do engineers redevelop a design from nothing for every supersonic jets they build. There is such a thing call _knowledge and experience_ and that can be transfer beyond individuals and borders.

It's also quite interesting how this "progression theory" is often so selectively applied. The regime can obviously pick up the "skills" for market economy quite quickly... just not in other public policy areas. (I suppose "one person" can only do so much at a time? :-P)

A solution to a problem is not a necessary condition to criticism. We may need experts and resources to produce a workable solution, but we don't have to be an expert to criticize. You can tell a computer is broken without knowing how to fix it; you can tell a building/bridge have problems when you see concrete slabs falling form it without being a civil engineer...

「补充一下,我只是在阐述我认为的想法,你不认可这个想法,就可以用上了"蒙混""委過苟免""藉口""扭曲是非"这些具有很强否定性的词语,何以如此确定你的批评想法一定对呢?与你不同见解的就是不分是非者呢?人无完人,又何以肯定您的想法每次都具有很高的价值而没有什么"错误"呢?

再补充一下,我认为这个世界上没有绝对的对错,有的主要是价值观不同造成的观点上差异,批评美國攻打伊拉克,但有可否想过那些不堪忍受萨达姆专制的伊拉克老百姓?看看法庭指控萨达姆的哪些罪行(Anti Human Crime)?假如他们有不同意见也属于不分是非吗?」

第一段話十分虛妄,答錯問題會不會用這番道理和老師辯駁?請就事論事,爭取別人認同自己對是非判斷,世人一向如此.美國就不理會伊拉克人民(遜尼派)的異議,照樣吊死薩達姆.不屑別人「无价值」的批評,與我無干,你的問題是連你都認為值得批評,但涉及對外「政治利益」便毋須批評,這是顯然易見的不公.你對梁文道批評恐怕不會引起什麼「舆论」,我等恐怕也不會因你的批評而變.按你的說法你的異議也挺「无价值」.

最後,我已經說過,電影,戲劇本就是假的.刻意找漂亮演員拍戲.我們不會以為平時可以見到那些俊男美女.同理,正常的人都知道化妝品公司刻意找美女拍廣告,不會以為模特(不論局部與否)用過那些化妝品才變得這麼漂亮.現在廣告表演形式往往與電影,戲劇沒有分別,宣傳的未必是商品而是形象.我亦沒有表示接受廣告弄虛作假,已說過各國都有機構監管,很感謝魯豫披露造假手法,使大家有所警惕.