【11.08.04 纽约时报】中国官员拐卖儿童 － 邵氏孤儿的惨剧
【中文标题】中国官员拐卖儿童 － 邵氏孤儿的惨剧
【原文标题】Chinese Officials Seized and Sold Babies, Parents Say
【登载媒体】纽约时报
【原文作者】SHARON LaFRANIERE
【原文链接】http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/world/asia/05kidnapping.html?_r=1&ref=china
湖南省隆回县，杨亲正在和他的两个孙子准备晚饭。杨先生说，2005年，中国计划生育委员会的官员抢走了他的第三个孙子，因为杨先生的儿子没有登记结婚。
从1999年到2006年，至少有16个孩子被隆回县计划生育委员会的官员抢走。拐卖儿童在中国是一个长期存在的现象。
袁新权既没有结婚证，也拿不出6000元人民币（745美元）来缴纳罚款，他的孩子在一个公共汽车站被带走。留给他的只有一个塑料袋，里面装着孩子的衣服和一些配方奶粉。
一所孤儿院门前的一条路，被抢走的婴儿都被关在这里。运作这所孤儿院的是邵阳市社会福利院，在这里收养孤儿的外国父母必须捐助5400美元。
2006年，这样的行为暂时停止。当时熊超（中）在他母亲与当地官员争斗时，从二楼阳台跌落。官员们开出了一个条件：如果她同意支付孩子的治疗费，就可以留下熊超。
中国，隆回县——在这个遍布梯田和甘薯地的山区县城，很多孩子的父母和祖父母都知道一些最近的藏身之所。当计划生育委员会的官员一出现，他们可以用最快的速度把孩子藏起来。他们说，很多很多婴儿被这些官员抢走之后，就再也没有出现过。
但是，袁新权在2005年12月份的一个早晨，遭到的却是突然袭击。当时的他才19岁，抱着出生52天的女儿在一个公共汽车站等车。突然有6、7个人从一辆白色公务面包车上下来，要求他出示结婚证。
他并没有结婚证，他和孩子的母亲都没到法律结婚年龄。
他也拿不出6000元人民币（745美元）来缴纳罚款，他们说这是留下孩子的条件。最后，留给他的只有一个塑料袋，里面装着孩子的衣服和一些配方奶粉。
上个月，他在家里接受采访时说：“他们简直是强盗！”他的家在水稻梯田上边，要沿着一条山间小路走半个小时。
他说，后来的六年里，他依然希望能转达一个消息给自己的女儿：“请快回家吧。”
袁先生的女儿是被隆回县计划生育办公室官员在1999年到2006年抢走的16个孩子之一，这个贫穷的村庄位于中国南部省份湖南。在上个月进行的采访中，孩子的父母、祖父母介绍了详细的情况。
在中国，绑架儿童是长期存在的问题。传统上对男孩的偏爱，加上对生育数量的严格控制，让黑市交易儿童变得有利可图。就在上个星期，警方宣布在人贩手中解救了89名儿童。公安局副局长痛斥“国内买卖儿童”的行为。
但是隆回县的父母说，在这里，把婴儿当成赢利工具的是当地政府官员。动不动就要罚款1000美元，甚至更多，这几乎是当地家庭平均年收入的五倍。如果缴不起罚款，孩子就被从家里非法抢走，放到孤儿院中，等待外国人领养，这是另外一大块收入来源。
到了2006年，隆回县停止了这种行为。原因是当地计划生育委员会的官员在与一位母亲抢夺孩子时，这个8个月大的婴儿从二楼阳台上跌落。
尽管在中国大陆之外出现过一些报道，有关隆回和其它地区存在政府批准绑架儿童的行为，但是中国的政府媒体一直对此视而不见，甚至压制相关报道。直到今年5月，以非同寻常的胆量深入调查重大事件而著称的财新杂志（译者注：应为《新世纪》）报道了这些绑架事件，并引起了官方介入调查。
邵阳市下辖隆回县，曾定保是邵阳事件调查组的组长，他曾经承诺尽一切努力彻查到底。但是，一些迹象显示他在试图把问题漂白。6月份，他在接受共产党官方报纸《人民日报》的网络版采访时说，当地的情况“并不像媒体报道的那样，有婴儿买卖的现象”。
据孩子的父母说，当地政府并没有帮助寻找、解救被抢走的孩子，而是惩罚那些“乱说话”的人。两名最活跃的父亲在邵阳被监禁了15天，罪名是在一个妓院中拉客。47岁的杨理兵和34随的周颖和说，他们是遭到了陷害。
杨先生说总是有政府人员跟踪他，周先生说村里的党支部曾经警告他，不要再向记者提及他的3个月大的女儿在2003年3月被绑架的事情，否则还要继续惩罚他。周先生说：“他们就像一个犯罪团伙。”
中国的计划生育政策尽管是世界上最严格的政策之一，但它也禁止把超生的孩子从父母手中没收。如今，类似邵阳这种滥用职权事件的规模，远不及过去那样嚣张。但评论人士认为，国家计划生育委员会下属的地方官员手中的权力还是过于强大，而且便于用来剥削获益。
布鲁金斯学会的高级研究员王峰曾经主持成立了布鲁金斯—清华公共政策研究中心，他说：“大方面的问题是，独生子女政策过于严格，让地方官员有胆量做不人道的事情。”
这起丑闻再次提出了一个问题，就是美国人或者其它外国人是否有收养过这些被错误定义为弃儿和孤儿的孩子。至少有一家美国收养机构曾经在这家政府运作的邵阳孤儿院中组织过收养活动。
张丽丽是波士顿中国爱心领养机构的负责人。上个月，她在电话中说，她的组织找到了在2006年收养6名邵阳儿童的父母。这些都是女孩，姓都随城市名称被改为“邵”。她说，中国政府曾经证明每一个孩子都是符合收养条件的。没有具体证据支持，她的组织不能独立开展对孩子背景情况的调查。
她说：“我们是一个领养机构，不是警察。”
邵阳社会福利院的孤儿院被要求每新接收一名儿童，就要把这条消息在《湖南日报》上连续刊登60天，这份报纸仅仅会发送到隆回县订阅人手中（译者注：指无法在零售处买到）。之后，无人认领的孩子被改姓为“邵”，政府批准可以被领养。领养孩子的外国父母必须向孤儿院捐赠5400美元。
在过去十年里的前五年，有关计划生育委员会官员抢夺儿童、强迫绝育、摧毁民房的报道在隆回县引起了极大的恐慌。恐怖行为中的受害者至今还沉浸在痛苦、悲伤和愤怒中。
被控在妓院拉客的两名父亲之一的杨理兵说，当她第一个女儿杨玲出生的时候，他正在南方城市深圳打工。2005年5月，孩子9个月大的时候从他父母家中被抢走。
计划生育委员会的官员隔着泥墙发现了家里晾在外边的杨玲的衣服，随之进来，声称要把孩子带走。孩子的奶奶抱着她躲到猪圈里。但是孩子的爷爷扬清正，这位党员和退伍老兵，把孩子抱出来。
他在上个月说：“我不会不服从官员们的命令，他们怎么说我就怎么做。”
杨玲的父母没有办理结婚登记手续。官员们说，如果想留下孩子，杨老先生必须当场支付将近1000美元。否则，他需要签署一份放弃孩子的书面文件，宣称自己不是孩子的亲生爷爷。
他说：“我彻底愤怒了，但是我没有反抗的勇气，他们没有道理可讲。”他签署了这份文件。
杨理兵在深圳街边的一个共用电话与家里通话，他兴奋地问：“女儿听话吗？”而回答，让他一病不起。
火速赶回家之后，他恳求计划生育委员会的官员允许他支付罚款。他们说已经太晚了，当他试图抗议时，有10多个人围上来殴打他。后来，一位管事的官员给出了一个折中的解决方法：既然他的女儿已经要不回了，杨家可以再多生两个孩子。
杨先生说：“我几乎无法描述我对计划生育官员们的仇恨，我恨到他们骨头里去了。我在想，他们自己是不是孩子的父母？为什么他们像对待畜生一样对待我们？”
当被问到他是否还会继续寻找女儿时，他说：“当然！我们不是丢了一只鸡、一只狗，我们丢了一个孩子。”
46岁的胡舍莲是另一个痛苦的受害者，他在1998年生下第二个女儿。尽管计划生育专家说，在她居住的地区，如果夫妻双方的第一个孩子是女孩，可以生第二个孩子。但是她说，计划生育委员会的官员有一天破窗而入，抢走了她的电视机作为罚款。
第二年，她又生了第三个女儿，那些人对她处以5000美元的天价罚款。当她说自己一贫如洗，无法支付罚款时，4名官员把孩子从她怀中抢走，把她塞入一辆汽车，到县医院强制做了输卵管结扎手术。他的孩子消失在邵阳孤儿院黑洞洞的大楼深处。
熊超逃脱了这样的命运。村民说，他是官员们最后一个试图抢走的孩子，也是极少数留在父母身边的孩子之一。
6年之后的今天，他的63岁的祖母戴玉林在水泥墙上用蓝色和白色的粉笔耐心地写字，徒劳地盼望熊超能认得这些字。
她说：“他已经上了整整一年小学，但还是不认识1和2。”
旁边那所黑暗、狭窄的小屋就是2006年9月她试图让熊超不被计划生育委员会官员抢走的地方。他那时才8个月大，是他儿子的第二个孩子。当地官员要罚款1000美元，发现家里拿不出钱之后，就要把孩子抢走。
孩子的母亲杜春华冲向计划生育委员会的官员，与之搏斗。
当她在二楼阳台与两名官员纠缠在一起的时候，孩子从他手里滑落，摔在10英尺下的水泥路面上。
她说，后来，孩子在医院昏睡不醒，前额永久性畸形。官员们开出了一个条件：只要家里负担熊超的医药费，他们可以不提罚款的事情。
他们还说，熊家可以留下这个孩子。
原文：
Yang Qinzheng cooks dinner with two of his grandchildren in Longhui County, Hunan Province. In 2005, Mr. Yang said, Chinese family planning officials seized a third grandchild because Mr. Yang's son had not registered his marriage.
At least 16 children were seized by family planning officials in Longhui County, above, from 1999 to 2006. The abduction of children is a continuing problem in China.
Because he did not have a marriage certificate or 6,000 renminbi, then about $745, to pay the fine, Yuan Xinquan's child was taken from him at a bus stop. He was left with a plastic bag holding her baby clothes and some powdered formula.
A passerby walks past the gate of the orphanage where abducted babies were held. The orphanage is run by Shaoyang's welfare agency. Foreign parents who adopt must donate about $5,400 to the orphanage.
The practice came to a halt in 2006 when Xiong Chao, center, was dropped from a second-floor balcony as his mother struggled with officials. The officials offered a deal: they would let the family keep Chao if they paid his medical bills.
LONGHUI COUNTY, China — Many parents and grandparents in this mountainous region of terraced rice and sweet potato fields have long known to grab their babies and find the nearest hiding place whenever family planning officials show up. Too many infants, they say, have been snatched by officials, never to be seen again.
But Yuan Xinquan was caught by surprise one December morning in 2005. Then a new father at the age of 19, Mr. Yuan was holding his 52-day-old daughter at a bus stop when a half-dozen men sprang from a white government van and demanded his marriage certificate.
He did not have one. Both he and his daughter’s mother were below the legal age for marriage.
Nor did he have 6,000 renminbi, then about $745, to pay the fine he said they demanded if he wanted to keep his child. He was left with a plastic bag holding her baby clothes and some powdered formula.
“They are pirates,” he said last month in an interview at his home, a half-hour trek up a narrow mountain path between terraced rice paddies.
Nearly six years later, he said, he still hopes to relay a message to his daughter: “Please come home as soon as possible.”
Mr. Yuan’s daughter was among at least 16 children who were seized by family planning officials between 1999 and late 2006 in Longhui County, an impoverished rural area in Hunan, a southern Chinese province, parents, grandparents and other residents said in interviews last month.
The abduction of children is a continuing problem in China, where a lingering preference for boys coupled with strict controls on the number of births have helped create a lucrative black market in children. Just last week, the police announced that they had rescued 89 babies from child traffickers, and the deputy director of the Public Security Ministry assailed what he called the practice of “buying and selling children in this country.”
But parents in Longhui say that in their case, it was local government officials who treated babies as a source of revenue, routinely imposing fines of $1,000 or more — five times as much as an average local family’s yearly income. If parents could not pay the fines, the babies were illegally taken from their families and often put up for adoption by foreigners, another big source of revenue.
The practice in Longhui came to an end in 2006, parents said, only after an 8-month-old boy fell from the second-floor balcony of a local family planning office as officials tried to pluck him from his mother’s arms.
Despite a few news reports outside the Chinese mainland about government-sanctioned kidnappings in Longhui and other regions, China’s state-controlled media ignored or suppressed the news until this May, when Caixin, an intrepid Chinese magazine well known for unusually bold investigations, reported the abductions and prompted an official inquiry.
Zeng Dingbao, who leads the Inspection Bureau in Shaoyang, the city that administers Longhui County, has promised a diligent investigation. But signs point to a whitewash. In June, he told People’s Daily Online, the Web version of the Communist Party’s official newspaper, that the situation “really isn’t the way the media reported it to be, with infants being bought and sold.”
Rather than helping trace and recover seized children, parents say, the authorities are punishing those who speak out. Two of the most vocal fathers were detained for 15 days in Shaoyang on charges of soliciting prostitutes at a brothel. Released last month, the two men, Yang Libing, 47, and Zhou Yinghe, 34, said they had been entrapped.
Mr. Yang said he was constantly followed by government minders. Mr. Zhou said the village party secretary had warned him to stop talking to reporters about the abduction of his 3-month-old daughter in March 2003 or face more punishment. “They are like organized criminals,” Mr. Zhou said.
China’s family planning policies, while among the strictest in the world, ban the confiscation of children from parents who exceed birth quotas, and abuses on the scale of those in Shaoyang are far less common today than they once were. Even so, critics say the powers handed to local officials under national family planning regulations remain excessive and ripe for exploitation.
“The larger issue is that the one-child policy is so extreme that it emboldened local officials to act so inhumanely,” said Wang Feng, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who directs the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy in Beijing.
The scandal also has renewed questions about whether Americans and other foreigners have adopted Chinese children who were falsely depicted as abandoned or orphaned. At least one American adoption agency organized adoptions from the government-run Shaoyang orphanage.
Lillian Zhang, the director of China Adoption With Love, based in Boston, said by telephone last month that the agency had found adoptive parents in 2006 for six Shaoyang children — all girls, all renamed Shao, after the city. The Chinese authorities certified in each case that the child was eligible for adoption, she said, and her agency cannot now independently investigate their backgrounds without a specific request backed by evidence.
“I’m an adoption agency, not a policeman,” Ms. Zhang said.
The Shaoyang welfare agency’s orphanage is required to post a notice of each newly received child for 60 days in Hunan Daily, a newspaper delivered only to subscribers in Longhui County. Unclaimed children are renamed with the surname Shao and approved for adoption. Foreign parents who adopt must donate about $5,400 to the orphanage.
Reports that family planning officials stole children, beat parents, forcibly sterilized mothers and destroyed families’ homes sowed a quiet terror through parts of Longhui County in the first half of the past decade. The casualties of that terror remain suffused with heartbreak and rage years later.
Yang Libing, one of the two fathers accused of soliciting prostitutes, said he was a migrant worker in the southern city of Shenzhen when his firstborn, Yang Ling, was stolen from his parents’ home in May 2005 when she was 9 months old.
Family planning officials apparently spotted Yang Ling’s clothes hung to dry outside the family’s mud-brick home. Her grandmother tried to hide her in a pigsty, but the grandfather, Yang Qinzheng, a Communist Party member and a former soldier, bade her to come out.
“I don’t disobey,” he said last month. “I do what the officials say.”
Yang Ling’s parents had not registered their marriage. To keep the baby, the officials said, the elder Mr. Yang would have to pay nearly $1,000, on the spot. Otherwise, they said, he would have to sign away the girl with a false affidavit stating that he was not her biological grandfather.
“I was totally outraged,” he said, but “I did not have the courage to resist. They do not play by the rules.” He signed the document.
Yang Libing discovered the loss of his daughter during his monthly telephone call home from a pay phone on a Shenzhen street. “Is she behaving?” he asked cheerily. The answer, he said, made him physically sick.
After racing home, he said, he begged family planning officials to let him pay the fine. They said it was too late. When he protested, he said, a group of more than 10 men beat him. Afterward, the office director offered a compromise: although their daughter was gone forever, the Yangs would be allowed to conceive two more children.
“I can’t even describe my hatred of those family planning officials,” Mr. Yang said. “I hate them to my bones. I wonder if they are parents, too. Why don’t they treat us as humans?”
Asked whether he was still searching for his daughter, he replied: “Of course! This is not a chicken. This is not a dog. This is my child.”
Hu Shelian, 46, another anguished victim, gave birth to a second daughter in 1998. Even though family planning specialists said couples in her area were allowed a second child if the first was a girl, she said family planning officials broke her windows and took her television as punishment.
After she had a third daughter the following year, they levied a whopping fine of nearly $5,000. When she pleaded poverty, she said, four officials snatched her newborn from her arms, muscled her into a car and drove her to the county hospital for a forced tubal ligation. Her baby disappeared into the bowels of the Shaoyang orphanage.
Xiong Chao escaped that fate. Villagers say he was the last baby that officials tried to snatch, and one of the few returned home.
Now, six years later, his 63-year-old grandmother, Dai Yulin, patiently scrawls blue and white chalk numerals on her concrete wall hoping — in vain — that Chao will learn them.
“He has been to primary school for a whole year,” she said, “and he still cannot recognize one and two.”
Nearby is the tiny, dark room where, she said, she tried and failed in September 2006 to hide Chao from family planning officials. He was 8 months old, her son’s second child. Officials demanded nearly $1,000, then took him away when she could not pay.
His mother, Du Chunhua, rushed to the family planning office to protest.
There, as she struggled with two officials on the second-floor balcony, she said, the baby slipped from her grasp and fell more than 10 feet, to the pavement below.
Later, she said, as the baby lay in a coma in the hospital, his forehead permanently misshapen, officials offered a deal: they would forget about the fine as long as the family covered the medical bills for Chao.
Also, they said, the Xiongs could keep him.
超生是个问题 问题不是她妈的在超生 人口贩卖哦，该咋判咋判吧，不然不服众的 不知是否是真的？
如果是，就是有组织犯罪。相关人应该受到法律审判。如果是假的，造谣的人和传谣的人只能受到道德的审判---问题是太多人压根就没有道德！ 纽约时报，可信吗？
一组很普通的照片，看不出问题。
记者本可以深入“敌穴”的，为什么不假装要领养孩子进去拍拍？ 指鹿为马,刻意抹黑中国的西媒报道,
符合西媒一贯的作风
鉴定完毕 对于此类文章,建议楼主(无选择性地)翻译一些跟贴评论.
此类西媒文章内容本身无过大意义,
但外媒网友的反应评论却更重要.
个人浅见{:soso_e100:}
页:
[1]