宋·释普济《五灯会元》：“僧问：‘化城鉴如何是各尚家风？’曰：‘不欲说。‘曰：‘为甚如此？’曰：‘家丑不外扬。’”
A monk asks a villager: "How is it that Hua Cheng Jian, the Buddha master, is able to tap everyone?" The villager was silent. Again, the monk asked, "How is it that Hua Cheng Jian, the Buddha master, is able to have everyone follow him?" Finally, the villager replies: "One doesn't wash their dirty laundry in public."
_______________
A recent article on Malinda's "ChinaAdoption" blog presents her account of a recent conversation with Dr. Changfu Chang, an ex-journalist from China who is now making his mark by producing and distributing adoption-themed DVDs to adoptive families. It seems that Dr. Chang is touring various FCC gatherings discussing his films, and discussing "life in China" with understandably curious families.
At the end of each session, Dr. Chang opens up the discussion for questioning. With the recent news from Hunan, invariably an audience member will ask him how concerned adoptive families should about corruption in China's adoption program. It seems that his answer is fairly formulaic in each event -- families should not worry about these matters at all; that it was, according to Malinda's account, "extremely rare."
Malinda continues: "He said that some (unidentified) people were claiming that as many as 30% of the children in international adoption were trafficked. However, he could assure us that that was not true and that we simply should "stop worrying about it." Only a miniscule number have been trafficked, he claimed."
Full disclosure -- I have never met Dr. Chang, and have seen none of his videos. But I do know something about his subject in these quotes. As I see it, there are three options -- Dr. Chang is very ignorant of China's international adoption program, he is intentionally lying to adoptive families, or he is not understanding what is being asked.
I will start with the third possibility first. Careful readers of the statements made by various participants in the China scandals, from Hunan to Zhenyuan to Gaoping and the others -- will note that in nearly every case the participants did not feel that they were doing anything wrong. The directors of the Hunan orphanages made their defense that buying babies was not illegal (although selling babies is), and that even if it was illegal, it benefited the children so there was no harm. The same idea is seen in the Zhenyuan case where the Civil Affairs flatly stated :"They're better off with their adoptive parents than their birth parents."
So, for a member of China's upper-class as Dr. Chang is, one must start by asking him the correct question. It is entirely possible that Dr. Chang sees corruption only in terms of children being taken unwillingly from birth families. This would fit comfortably into the mind-set seen in nearly every orphanage area in China -- the orphanages pay money to get babies away from the poor uneducated and ignorant peasants, to be adopted by well-to-do Americans and given a good life. Possibly, Dr. Chang does not see this as corruption. Certainly most orphanage directors don't.
So, adoptive families must be more exact with their questions, since many of them probably would argue that baby-buying is corruption. Instead of asking, "Do you feel there is wide-spread corruption in China's program?" a better question might be "Do you feel that paying substantial amounts of money for children is adoption corruption? And how wide-spread do you feel this baby-buying is?" It may be that he hedges, like the villager in the opening story, out of a reluctance to air China's dirty laundry, for there is one characteristic of the Chinese that I understand very well, having lived with one for seven years: The Chinese do not like to reveal the dirty secrets of their country, even to friends. It is a tradition and understanding that goes back hundreds of years. We might view it as lying, but the Chinese consider it "saving face."
It is of course entirely possible that the third option is not the explanation for Dr. Chang's statements. It might be that he is fully aware of what is being asked of him, and refuses to answer honestly out of fear that he will offend adoptive families, who he feels are good and benevolent people (who also happen to support his projects by buying his DVDs). Or it is possible that the first option is correct -- that he really is ignorant of the true state of affairs in a majority of China's orphanages. Maybe he has never even thought to ask an area foster family or other orphanage employee if they pay "Lucky Money" to people who turn in kids. I am sure if he had visited Shaoyang in 2005 no one would have volunteered where many of that orphanage's kids came from. There are no signs above the orphanages stating "We buy babies for cash." One must look for it. One must ask people questions. It is possible that Dr. Chang has never asked those questions, and thus he would not have been made aware of these programs.
One possibility is not probable -- that the reason he is not aware is because such programs don't exist. As readers of our public and private blog realize, such programs are used by an overwhelming number of orphanages. If you define "corruption" in terms of international law, Dr. Chang's statement that "some (unidentified) people were claiming that as many as 30% of the children in international adoption were trafficked", and that it "was not true and that we simply should 'stop worrying about it'" is either gross ignorance, a misunderstanding of the term, or a lie to save face. There is no other option.
To be notified of new postings, e-mail me.
We also have a paid subscription blog for families interested in more detailed analysis of China's program. Due to the sensitive nature of these articles, they are available by subscription only. (http://www.research-china.org/blogs/index.htm)
16 comments:
I've been to one of Dr.ChangFuChang's presentation ... he gave me a much different impression ... that we did have to worry about corruption.
I suggest you watch his films, speak with him in person before painting him with a negative brush.
I would love it if he came to isolated Utah to speak so that I could hear him first hand. But many attendees, from a wide variety of locations, have reported impressions very similar to Malinda's.
Any other readers that have heard Dr. Chang speak?
Brian
Brian:
I just E-mailed Dr. Chang about what was going on and he said he was "terribly misquoted." He is screening his movie in another state right now and hopes to respond next week. I have had a few conversations with Dr. Chang in the past. Just like any person whose first language is not English, I sometimes don't understand his answers and I believe sometimes he doesn't quite understand my questions/comments. By the way, this has happened to me many times, in speaking with people whose first language is not English.
Wendy
I'm sorry that Dr. Chang feels he was "terribly misquoted," but I will vouch for the accuracy of what I reported. I do not know, of course, what he meant to convey, but I promise that what I reported is what he did in fact convey. I've checked my report with several people who attended the same session I attended and they agree that I have accurately reported what Dr. Chang said.
Kay Johnson asked my to post the following comment:
I know Changfu and can say he is neither dishonest (wanting to hide the truth from US parents "to save face" for China) nor is he ignorant, although we all know more about some things than other things.
I think the main problem here may be the definition of terms. The Chinese term for "trafficking" often includes a word that means abduction (guaimai). US Adoptive parents also sometimes assume that the term "trafficking" means kidnapping or abduction. The way you use trafficking when you refer to finder's fees as "trafficking" is probably closer to the Chinese term fanzi or fanying, which means a dealer or hawker of children, a term that does not indicate how the children were obtained.
So I guess that when Changfu says "this is rare" he may be thinking "guaimai" and he assumes perhaps his audience is asking him about the frequency of kidnapped children being sent into international adoption. Is this really 30% as they have heard? I don't think any of us are prepared to estimate such a high figure for kidnapped children in IA, even if one includes birth planning seizures of birth children. Including seizures of domestically adopted children would increase the percentage considerably but still not to 30% over the last 15-20 years.
Brian - you really should see his films. His last two are excellent. "Ricki's Story" in Daughter's Return is a particularly interesting one about the vulnerability of "hidden children" under China's birth planning regime, showing some of the indirect but nonetheless coercive ways those policies separate children from their parents. These films also invite us to consider how those old-style 1990s "abandonments" are in fact on the same continuum as the direct coercion we see in the 2000s and, from a human rights point of view, little better.
Kay J
I heard Dr. Chang a few weeks ago. I find it somewhat strange that you have not seen his films given your interest in Chinese adoptions. I find it even stranger that you would so freely comment on his work without having seen it or having spoken to him.
Dr. Chang did state that he believed corruption was low in Chinese adoptions. But it was clear to me that he was talking about abductions given his other comments. He explained that most Chinese children were willingly given up by their birthparents, but given his stinging indictment of the Chinese human rights record, it was also clear that he believed that adoption choices could not be truly willing given the overarching policies in China. It was a highly nuanced response. Did he address directly the low-level trafficking? No, but then again no one asked and given the stories in his films, there was really no need.
I also recently heard Dr. Chang talk after the showing of his latest movie.
My interpretation of what he said is very much in line with Kay Johnson's comment, "I think the main problem here may be the definition of terms."
I got the impression that Dr. Chang meant the number of children who are kidnapped for the purpose of IA is miniscule-- not necessarily that number of children for whom there is an exchange of money is miniscule.
Dr. Chang also stated something to the effect that we in the West shouldn't try to apply our morals to people in China because the cultures are too different.
'My interpretation' of this statement is that just because we view the exchange of $$ for children as immoral does not mean that it is immoral for Chinese people make such an exchange-- the lucky money thing. So we shouldn't ascribe our same standards to this situation. He didn't out and out state all this-- this is quite simply, 'my interpretation.'
I'm not really sure how I feel about the whole moral application for $$ being exchanged for children. I don't like it or that it happens. I can't help that because I am a Western person. I don't feel that I can judge the BP though, because I have not ever walked in their shoes and I don't know the level of oppression inflicted upon them.
While I do feel the exchange of $$ for children is terrible wrong, to put it mildly, out and out kidnapping is whole other ball of horrific.
I also meant to write that I too think his movies are good--interesting.
I also think that you should speak to Dr. Chang directly, or attend one of these events, if you are going to make him the subject of a blog entry--particularly if the piece is a negative or critical one. You did qualify your assertions by saying that you did not hear him speak yourself. I think you should have gone a step further, and resisted the urge to write an entry about him before conversing with him yourself. I also think you are probably on thin ice by suggesting that he is possibly telling adoptive parents what they want to hear, rather than the truth, because they are buying his videos. You have had to defend yourself numerous times from people questioning your intentions and motives because this is a business for you. I don't have a problem with it, just was surprised that you impugned the man's motives -- or questioned them, at least -- when you have never met him, seen his work, or apparently conversed with him on the topic of China adoption.
Please understand that I have heard these comments from almost a dozen people that have attended his presentations. While I accept the probability that Dr. Chang was using language that may have been misunderstood (as Kay Johnson has posted), I do find it difficult to understand how an expert in China adoption can be so narrow in his definition after six years of events and revelations. Inside and outside China, it is illegal to sell a child. Numerous stories have come forth to show that many, many orphanages are baby-buying. Anyone familiar with China's adoption program should be aware of these stories. So, to narrowly define "corruption" as FP confiscations is peculiar, to say the least. But at the end of the day we are forced to listen to those who have had personal interactions with Dr. Chang to judge what his motives are. I intentionally emphasized the "language barrier" as the probable explanation, since I feel that is the most likely. But I have confidence in Malinda's recounting of her experience, and the many others that have similarly reported his explanations.
Brian
Brian:
I'm curious. How do you feel about some domestic adoptions in the US, where either the birth mother requests or the potential adoptive family offers, money for to the birth mother for healthcare expenses, rent, food, etc. My friends who have adopted domestically, some of them had to do this. Does this fit your definition of trafficking? Or is it all semantics...giving money for the relinquishment of a child vs. reimbursing the birth mother for her living expenses when pregnant?
Wendy
There should be no money paid to birth parents, period. The U.S. is basically alone in allowing it, and it is shameful. I realize that some feel that giving money is OK, but it corrupts the program, pure and simple.
Brian
Brian:
I am a bit confused with your reasoning. You stated the following in your March 17, 2011 post entitled "Defining Terms When Discussing Corruption:"
"When a birth family (in China) is paid by another family (say in their neighborhood) to arrange the informal adoption of a child, even if money is paid by the adopting family, this does not constitute trafficking since the adopting family is not using the child for commercial gain. Thus, payments of monies by adoptive families to birth families fall outside the traditional definition of trafficking as usually understood by adoption advocates."
How is this different from what Americans do? Is it ok for the Chinese to do it and not the Americans? In the American case, although the birth mother can request all these "financial gift," she is legally not under any obligation to give the child to the prospective adoptive parents nor return the money. At birth, she can change her mind and keep the child and not give back a dime.
Wendy
The problem behind paying money, as I clearly stated in the article you quote from, is not the direct payment of money by an adoptive family to a birth family. Although such payments are, in my opinion, unwise and to be discouraged, they do not constitute trafficking in a legal sense.
In China, the problem is that the money is not paid by the adoptive family in international adoption, but by intermediaries -- finders, the orphanage, etc., who then resell the child to the orphanage, etc. This is the very definition of trafficking. One can seek to discount such activities by trying to equate it with what goes on in U.S. domestic adoptions, but adoption programs in Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. have all been closed down for these very activities. They are, by world legal standards, illegal.
I attended the same session as Malinda (whose blog I read faithfully and find it to be an excellent and fair discussion of important issues for adoptive parents) as well as having heard Dr. Chang speak before and having watched several of his films. I agree with Kay Johnson's assessment of the situation, as that is what I took his meaning to be as well--that he was discussing the seizure/kidnapping of children. I agree that the issue here is one of semantics.
What I took from his comments (and in fairness, I base part of my impressions on the talk he gave a few years before when presenting his film on birth parents "Long Journey Home") is that percentage-wise, stolen or kidnapped children were relatively rare in the system as a whole. In both times I've seen him, he has made no bones about the issues surrounding abandonment and how there is possibly (probably?) falsified information within the childrens' files and I found his explanations around it quite plausible. I believe that he was in this case misunderstood because he stated his case about this clearly in the presentation I saw previously.
I also suggest that you watch his films or talk to him or see him speak before analyzing his arguments or points. I agree with Kay Johnson that his films shed a great deal of light on complex issues that surround the Chinese adoption system and bring up some practices that are unsettling to adoptive parents. What is ironic to me is that some of the things discussed in his films actually support some of your points of view.
Brian: Even if you aren't able to hear Dr. Chang speak, please consider purchasing and viewing some of his DVDs. His web site is lovewithoutboundaries.org. I recently saw his screening of Daughters' Return. That film illuminates many of the troubling and complicated aspects of adoption from China, and I think you owe it to yourself, your blog readers and to Dr. Chang to become more familiar with his work. My interpretation of his remarks at the event I attended was along the lines of what Kay Johnson suggested, but I can also imagine that each event is somewhat different and that questions are asked differently. I really support the thrust of your work, Brian, and I am hopeful that you will buy and view some of Dr. Chang's films.
Post a Comment