环球时报：艾未未“借钱还税”搞得太戏剧性

bridged

文章出笼了。中英文版有少量区别。

摘要：每个人都有选择生活方式和人生道路的自由，但只有历史和真正的大众，才能验证他们的眼光是不是对的。
　　作者：单仁平 环球时报评论员


　　艾未未“偷逃税案”近日出现戏剧性一幕。艾未未本人日前向媒体透露，中国司法机关判其补缴1500万元人民币的税款和罚款。紧接着，艾未未在互联网上公开向公众“借钱”，他表示自己同官方打赢官司后，借的钱将“加倍偿还”。艾未未称，响应者很快超过“上万人”。这件事被境外舆论称为一些中国人向艾未未“捐款”。此外，“借钱还税”还被广泛看成艾未未的“特殊对抗行动”。


　　立即有专家指出，艾未未这样做涉嫌非法集资。由于艾未未的“借钱”是在公众之间进行，与“非法集资”至少在形式上确有相似之处。另外《卫报》等西方媒体报道说，艾未未去年在柏林买了一套“豪华公寓”，还曾计划今年在柏林再买一处4800平米的工作室，他需要‘借钱补税’吗？但我们不是法律专家，也不是“查财务”的，本文对这些都不做深入探讨。



　　我们要谈的是，中国会有少数人愿意为艾未未“捐款”，这大概是真实的。一些“捐了钱”的人称，他们把捐钱当成了“投票”，这应该也是他们的真心话。但艾未未的“借钱”和这些人的“捐款”，并不能对艾未未案带来什么新鲜的改变。


　　第一个变不了的，是艾未未有偷逃税的事实。实际上，对艾未未有过偷逃税，他的支持者中怀疑的人也很少，只不过有人认为中国“偷逃税的人多了”，官方是借“追税”来“整艾未未”。


　　第二个变不了的，是中国社会对艾未未案的基本态度。中国这么大，有一些人，哪怕是艾未未宣称的“上万人”愿意用“捐款”来支持他，这都是很平常的事。艾未未的支持者很可能比“上万人”更多些。但即使这样，用“少数人”甚至“极少数人”来称谓他们，都是准确的。艾未未和这些人的政治倾向根本就代表不了中国公众的态度。政治上的激进和对抗姿态，与中国社会的主流政治意愿背道而驰。


　　现在中国有一些“少数人”，不知从哪里获得了“大多数人”的错觉和优越感。或许是互联网的虚拟社区提供了“扎堆”的方便，使一些小圈子里的东西被放大成“好像是大众的”。西方媒体热衷于捕捉这种动向，他们看上去很愿意帮助一些“伪大众”的要求，变成中国“真大众”的运动。


　　然而历史的潮流不是那么容易制造的，以艾未未的个人经历，他对名利的态度，让他做历史的引领者，尤其很勉强。他是不是优秀的艺术家另当别论，但仅仅他在纳税上的不良表现，就让对他的支持很难不在某一刻陷入尴尬。


　　中国有两起演艺界的偷逃税案出了大名，前一起的案主是刘晓庆。然而刘晓庆案几乎没有争议，即使她在监狱里蹲了400多天。而艾未未只蹲了两个多月，一些人、尤其是外国人就高喊“不公”。艾、刘的遭遇是多么不同，看来搞艺术的同时“兼搞些政治”，总会另有收获。


　　然而艾未未今后大概不会“兼搞些政治”了，他像是准备今后“兼搞些艺术”。在中国这样做的人比以前多了，这大概是因为这样做的个人风险比过去总体上还是小多了，而且开始有了一些这样做有利可图的缝隙。一些人希望这个缝隙会逐渐变成“时代的大口子”，并愿意现在就为此进行“投资”。


　　每个人都有选择生活方式和人生道路的自由，但只有历史和真正的大众，才能验证他们的眼光是不是对的。▲（作者是环球时报评论员）


Ai Weiwei's tax evasion case takes a new twist
Global Times | November 07, 2011 01:19
By Global Times            Share
  E-mail    Print Comments(0)
There is now a drastic twist to the tax evasion case of Ai Weiwei. Ai revealed to the media recently that China's judicial institutions have asked him to pay for his tax evasion actions which total 15 million yuan ($2.3 million). On Weibo, Ai openly asked to "borrow"money from the public.

Ai said he would repay everyone several times the amount borrowed after he won the case. He claimed that more than 10,000 people quickly responded. This event has been interpreted by some foreign media as the Chinese people donating to Ai's cause. The action has also been regarded as a special protest by the artist.

Some experts have pointed out this could be an example of illegal fund-raising. Since he's borrowing from the public, it at least looks like illegal fund-raising. Meanwhile, as Western media reported, Ai purchased an upscale apartment in Berlin last year, and had planned to buy a 4,800-square-meter studio this year also in Berlin. Does he need to borrow money to pay off his tax evasion? However, as we are neither legal or tax professionals, these are not the key points we have tried to make.

It might be true that a few people in China would like to give him some money. Some donators said they view the donation as an act of voting. But the thing here is, Ai's borrowing and the subsequent donations will not make any substantive change to Ai's case. First, it will not alter the matter of Ai's tax evasion, something his followers don't even question. But many hold the view that tax evasion is rampant in China. This time, it is an excuse Chinese authorities have used to punish the dissident.

The donations will not change the public's attitude toward Ai's case, either. It is absolutely normal for a certain number of people to show their support for him with donations. But these people are an extremely small number when compared with China's total population. Ai's political preference along with his supporters' cannot stand for the mainstream public, which is opposed to radical and confrontational political stances.

China has more than a few artists who have made headlines because of tax evasion. One is actress Liu Xiaoqing who went to prison for over 400 days. But unlike Ai, Liu's case aroused almost zero attention in terms of unfairness from this small group of people, while Ai was only detained for around 40 days.

Ai probably will spend more time in politics than in art in the future. In China, more people are imitating Ai's approach than ever before. It is probably because the overall risk of doing so is not as great as it once was but the financial gain is obvious.