躲貓貓？藏貓貓？

（按：本文是我讀過《南華早報》上的一篇英文文章 ‘How Chinese Officials Inflated the Nation’s Birth Rate and Population Size for 2019’後，寫給該報評論版編輯Robert Haddow的電子郵件。它的命運跟我寫給其他媒體指出其不實報道的郵件一樣，都是“如同射向黑洞一束光，或者用肉包子打狗，有去無回”。該文英文版於2020 年 2 月 29 日在馬特市發布，原標題為“An Evil Secret behind the Stolen or Faked Blank Birth Certificates”（被盜與偽造出生證明背後的罪惡）。

最近，電影《親愛的》原型孫海洋終於找回被拐賣的兒子（但並不是獨生子），我決定將該文稍加修改後翻譯重發，讓大家見識一下造假大師易富賢是怎樣用“藏貓貓”的學術研究新方法，將失竊或偽造出生證明背後的兒童拐賣現象隱去不談，而憑空杜撰出所謂“人口水分”的。也讓大家看清，拐賣人口現象背後的真正原因究竟是什麼。

本文所配的封面是我家貓咪抓耗子的圖片。我看到那隻耗子了，你能看到嗎？）

About one month ago, South China Morning Post published an article ‘How Chinese Officials Inflated the Nation’s Birth Rate and Population Size for 2019’, authored by Yi Fuxian, the famous senior scientist of UWM.

大約1個月前，《南華早報》發表了一篇文章《中國官員怎樣誇大2019年出生率和人口規模》，作者是威斯康星大學著名的“高級科學家”易富賢。

In that article, Yi claimed that, in China, ‘as more than 20 social benefits are tied to one’s place of birth, under the hukou household registration system, some parents buy additional to provide a “dual citizenship” to their newborn’.

在那篇文章中，易富賢聲稱，在中國“的戶口登記系統中，與個人出生地相捆綁的社會福利多達20種以上，有些父母通過為一個孩子購買多份出生證明的方式，來給新生嬰兒提供‘雙重公民’身份”。

Below that claim, Yi cited 2 examples from a report by the Democracy and Legal System Times’ and an official announcement released by ‘the Commission for Discipline Inspection of Chenzhou city, Hunan province’ .

為了證明自己的觀點，易富賢援引了兩個例子：來自《民主與法制時報》的一篇報道，以及“湖南省郴州紀委”發佈的一個公告。

I found these 2 articles, the former was titled as ‘Faked Information but Real Hukou: An Investigation Revealing the Inside Story of the Birth Certificates Trading’ (《假信息真户口：“出生证”买卖内幕调查》https://www.sohu.com/a/115017011_305034) , and the latter, ‘Birth Certificates from 500 Kilometers away (《千里之外的出生证明》http://www.czlz.czs.gov.cn/ajjc/content_2934302.html).

我找到了這兩篇文章，前者為《假信息真户口：“出生证”买卖内幕调查》，後者為《千里之外的出生证明》。

I read them from the beginning to the end, but found no word, not a single word, mentioning the ‘dual citizenship’ or the so-called ‘more than 20 social benefits’ claimed by Yi.

從頭到尾仔細讀過兩篇文章後，我沒有在文中找到任何文字——真的是一個字都沒有——提到易富賢聲稱的“雙重公民身份”或“20多種社會福利”。

But I found something Yi didn’t mention in his article.

但是我的確找到了易富賢文章中沒有提到的東西。

The first story, ‘Faked Information but Real Hukou’, concerned the problem of how some families from Fujian Province used faked birth certificates to conceal the real identifications of their 'adopted children', of which some were suspected to be trafficked from other provinces.

易富賢援引的第一篇文章《假信息真户口：“出生证”买卖内幕调查》講的是福建省的一些家庭，怎樣用偽造的出生證明，掩蓋其“收養子女”的真實身份：有人懷疑，那些孩子可能是從其他省份拐賣而來的。

It was an anti-trafficking volunteer who first blown the whistler.

這件事情最早的“吹哨人”是一位打拐志願者。

‘In black market, the price of a birth certificate could be as high as 100,000 yuan’. The journalist(s) pointed out.

在那篇文章中，記者指出：“目前在黑市上，一張出生證的價格，最高賣到10萬元。”

That’s a big money for most Chinese people. In 2016, the per capita disposable income of China was only 23821 yuan, according to a report by Xinhua News Agent. ( 《2016年和2010年相比 居民收入实际增六成》http://www.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2017-07/07/c_1121279359.htm)

對大多數中國人來說，那是一大筆錢。作為對比，我們不妨讀讀新華社的一篇報道《2016年和2010年相比 居民收入实际增六成》，裡面提到：“2016年，全国居民人均可支配收入23821元”。10萬元相當於這個數字的4倍以上。（後來李克強又指出中國有6億人口月收入不到1000元，要購買出生證明、獲取易富賢筆下子虛烏有的“20多種社會福利”，他們需要不吃不喝八九年才能湊出10萬元。）

So how many families could and would pay that big money just to get ‘more than 20 social benefits’ which Yi never specifically stated?

那麼，有多少家庭能夠且願意支付那麼大一筆錢，就為了享受易富賢憑空杜撰出來的那“20多種社會福利”呢？

Mr Yi, who has always been able to collect data from resources which ordinary scholars could not even dream of, never gave us a reliable figure on this.

這位易先生一向神通廣大，總能以普通學者做夢都想不到的途徑，獲取一些來歷不明的數據。可是在這裡，他硬是不肯給出一個可靠的數字：到底有多少人能夠且願意支付那10萬元？他們能夠為中國人口數據帶來多少“水分”？

Some people may point out that, due to the One-Child Policy, it was difficult for children born outside Family Plan to get birth certificates. Of course such phenomenon did exist and might account for some of the cases appeared in those 2 articles mentioned by Yi.

有人或許會指出，因為“獨生子女政策”，有些“超生子女”很難獲得出生證明。這樣的現象確實存在，易富賢所援引的那兩篇文章中的部分案例，或許也真的是出於這個原因而使用偽造或盜竊的出生證明。

In that case, if as many as ‘4,000 blank birth certificates… were stolen and sold’ at only one hospital in Mengcheng county alone, as Yi himself mentioned, then in the whole country there must be large quantity of new-born babies who, as the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th…child of their families, could not get legal birth certificates and therefore be omitted by ‘the Health Statistics Yearbook compiled by China’s health care authority’.

如果是這種情況，如果像易富賢說的那樣，僅僅蒙城縣的一家醫院就有多達“4000份空白出生證明被偷走出售”，那麼，全國肯定有大量的新生嬰兒作為家裡的第二個、三個甚至四個……孩子，無法獲得合法的出生證明，因此被中國衛生保健部門的“卫生健康统计年鉴”忽略。

That means what Yi claimed, ‘the number of births released in the Health Statistics Yearbook is overestimated’, is completely groundless. The contrary is far closer to the truth.

那意味著易富賢聲稱“《中国卫生健康统计年鉴》公佈的出生數據被誇大”完全是無稽之談，事實很可能恰恰相反：年鑒公佈的數據大大低於實際數字。

But parents with children born outside birth-control plan surely aren’t the only potential buyers of illegal birth certificates.

但是，育有“超生子女”的父母肯定不是這些非法出生證明的唯一買家。

Because from the beginning of 2016, China had implemented the two-child policy and abolished the old rules concerning those children. So such problem no longer existed for them any more from then on. That means, since 2016, any children delivered in hospitals could get the birth certificates they need to apply for hukou.

因為從2016年開始，中國就實施了“二孩政策”，廢除了有關“超生子女”的種種規定（例如不交罰款就不給超生孩子上戶口的規定）。所以，從那以後，這樣的問題對這個群體也就不復存在了。那意味著，從2016年開始，任何在醫院出生的孩子都能獲得報戶口所需的出生證明。

And according to Yi, ‘the hospital delivery rate is 99.9 per cent in China’.

而根據易富賢的說法，“中國的嬰兒有99.9%是在醫院出生的”。

As for the 0.1 per cent delivered in other places, they could still get the birth certificates if their families could provide some extra materials, including DNA identifications from qualified hospitals to prove that they were their biological parents.

至於那0.1%在其他地方出生的孩子，如果其父母能夠提供一些額外的資料，例如由具有資質的醫院出具的DNA親子鑒定報告，來證明他們就是孩子的生身父母，那麼他們仍然能夠拿到出生證明。

However, some reports show that the illegal trading of birth certificates in black markets continued to exist after 2016.

然而，一些新聞報道卻顯示，2016年之後，非法倒賣出生證明的生意在黑市上仍然存在。

In 2019, a ‘Focus Interview’ Show from CCTV revealed how a hospital in Sichuan Province sold faked birth certificates for 30,000 to 40,000 yuan each. (《四川遂宁现代妇女儿童医院医生倒卖出生证明 已停业》https://finance.sina.com.cn/chanjing/gsnews/2019-10-23/doc-iicezzrr4464278.shtml）

2019年，中央電視台的“焦點訪談”節目曝光了四川省的一家醫院以每份3萬至4萬不等的價格，倒賣偽造的出生證明。（詳見《四川遂宁现代妇女儿童医院医生倒卖出生证明 已停业》https://finance.sina.com.cn/chanjing/gsnews/2019-10-23/doc-iicezzrr4464278.shtml）

' The birth certificates are probably faked to conceal the crimes of trafficking children or illegal adoption', the report pointed out.

報道中指出：“伪造出生证有可能是为了掩盖拐卖儿童和非法领养的犯罪行为，严重影响公安机关对拐卖儿童案件的侦破和追查。”

Another report of the same year from the Democracy and Legal System Times, titled as ‘Baby-Trafficking Gang Provided Service Packages with Birth Certificates, and Proclaimed “Do No Sin”’ (《45人贩卖婴儿团伙捆绑销售出生证 自称不做缺德事》https://news.163.com/19/0302/23/E9A557RQ0001875P.html), told the story of a gang from Hunan Province who bought unwanted new-born babies from their parents and sold them to families which wished to adopt children but could not get any, due to the strict adoption laws of China.

同年，來自《民主與法制時報》的另一篇報道《45人贩卖婴儿团伙捆绑销售出生证 自称不做缺德事》（https://www.163.com/news/article/E9A557RQ0001875P.html），講述了湖南省一個犯罪團夥的故事：他們從一些父母那裡收購他們不願撫養的新生嬰兒，倒賣給那些想收養孩子，卻因為中國嚴格的收養法律，而難以如願的家庭。

Ironically, the gang, which was called as ‘Kele Gang’, actually made more money from selling birth certificates than babies.

非常諷刺的是，這個自稱“可樂”的犯罪團夥，從倒賣出生證明上賺的錢，其實比倒賣嬰兒賺的錢還要多。

According to the leader of that gang, ‘baby-trafficking is only the sideline, their main business is selling birth certificate’. Similar to those from Sichuan Province in the above story, the certificates themselves were actually genuine ones from a big hospital, only the information of the babies’ parents were faked.

據該團夥的頭頭介紹，“他们的主业是卖出生证，贩婴只是副业。”就跟上文中提到的那個四川的案子一樣，出生證明本身是來自一家大型醫院的真文件，只有嬰兒父母的信息是偽造的。

In one case, the gang would get 110,000 yuan from the package selling of both the baby and the birth certificate, but pay only 40,000 yuan to the biological mother.

在其中一個案例中，該犯罪團夥從捆綁銷售嬰兒及出生證明的生意中獲利11萬元，但只付給孩子的生母4萬元。

Some people may blame such thing to the strict rules on adoption. A case happened in a railway station of Nanjing can explain how necessary such rules are for protecting the human rights of the adopted children.

有人或許會把這樣的事情歸罪於中國嚴格的收養法律，但發生在南京火車站的一個事件卻說明，這些嚴格的法律對保護被收養兒童的人權是非常必要的。

In 2017, people waiting for their trains in that station witnessed how a little girl was sexually harassed by a young man accompanied by his parents, in public. After investigation, the police revealed that the little girl was adopted by that family. (《身份确认！南京南站被猥亵女童为养女！警方回应》http://js.ifeng.com/a/20180620/6665462_0.shtml)

2017年，在南京火車站候車的乘客目睹一個小女孩公然被一個年輕男子猥褻，而他們身邊就是那個男子的父母。警方經過調查，發現小女孩是那個家庭的養女。（詳見《身份确认！南京南站被猥亵女童为养女！警方回应》http://js.ifeng.com/a/20180620/6665462_0.shtml）

The public felt furious about what happened to that girl, some even suspected that she probably was a child bride because such evil thing has existed for decades in certain areas of China after the communists came to the power.

公眾對小女孩的遭遇感到憤怒，有些甚至懷疑她是個童養媳，因為童養媳現象在共匪當政之後，仍然在某些地區繼續存在了數十年之久。

Among such areas, the most notorious is Putian in Fujian Province. And the victims of this modern crime was the ‘Chang Le Girls’, or ‘A Le’ as they have been simply called. Most of them came from Chang Le County of the same province and were sold into actual slavery as child brides since they were babies.

在此類仍然保存了童養媳惡俗的地區中，福建省的莆田是最臭名昭著的一個。而這種現代罪惡的受害者，在當地被稱為“長樂子”或“阿樂”，因為她們大部分都來自該省的長樂縣，在嬰兒時就被賣作童養媳，淪為事實上的奴隸。

‘A Le’ had first appeared in 1960s, so don’t blame this to the Family Plan Policy that came into being almost 2 decades later, the omni-scapegoat for nearly all the social and economic problems of China in the ‘research’ of Yi and others who share the same view with him.

“阿樂”們最早出現於1960年代，因此就別讓差不多20年後才實施的計劃生育給這種事背黑鍋了。在易富賢及其反節育派同類心目中，計生是中國幾乎所有社會和經濟問題的萬能替罪羊。

Mainly through illegal ways such as stealing or deception, or, in other cases, after being abandoned by their parents, many baby girls of Chang Le County were trafficked to Putian by the so-called 'match-makers'.

長樂縣的這些女嬰，主要是通過盜竊或欺騙等非法途徑，被所謂的“媒婆”拐賣的，但也有一些是被父母拋棄的棄嬰。

If they were strong enough to survive the long journey and the poor conditions, the girls would be sold in the villages around Putian, or on a bus station in that city.

如果她們的身體夠強壯，能夠在拐賣過程中的長途運輸與惡劣環境中倖存下來，那麼這些女孩就會在莆田周邊的村子或市區的一個汽車站出售。

‘The bus station looked like a market for baby-selling...’ a 2011 report described the ridiculous scene, ‘parents were picking and choosing, bargaining with the matchmakers, as if they were buying vegetables or clothes’. (《调查称福建莆田有数万名童养媳 多数从云贵拐卖》 http://roll.sohu.com/20110519/n308011134.shtml )

一篇2011年的報道描繪了那裡的荒謬景象：“當時的莆田車站就像一個銷售嬰孩的農貿市場……父母們挑選孩子、同媒婆砍價，就像買菜或挑衣服。”（詳見《调查称福建莆田有数万名童养媳 多数从云贵拐卖》。我在文章英文版中所附的搜狐網鏈接已經失效，不過從新浪網還能讀到這篇文章：https://news.sina.com.cn/s/sd/2011-05-19/093822492296.shtml ）

‘A group of women selling baby girls went into a village and stayed at the Buddhist temple.’ a victim recalled in a 2018 report, “Putian Matchmakers’ Network of Abandoned Girls”, written by Guyulab（谷雨实验室）, ‘During the daytime, they would carry a load of babies, peddling on the streets like hawkers, as if they were selling toufu or Chinese cabbage’ . (《莆田“媒婆”的弃女网络》https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?src=11&timestamp=1582549023&ver=2178&signature=Tr*yZ8u8vwTTHdwG5HRfEIFt13xaVVpFWVClaMZGkkU0ve6DYWbJo3aSAaEfqBuzrtLyRCxYBIKX7pg0QplyKXa8LjKTctsaESgzJnHCdpj*S7slTgS5*HMWzXRCx1FN&new=1)

谷雨實驗室的一篇文章《莆田“媒婆”的弃女网络》（https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/586505.html）也描述了類似的荒誕場面：

卖孩子的女人三五成伙，进了村，住在庙里。白天她们像“卖白菜”“卖豆腐”一样，挑着女婴走家串户叫卖，或者摆在路边任人挑拣。卖不完的，晚上再挑回庙里。

Sometimes, the villagers would see baby girls dying or already dead, by the side of farmlands, in the fish ponds or outside the temples, obvious abandoned by the ‘matchmakers’.

當地的村民不時在“田边、池塘、寺庙门口”看到死嬰或奄奄一息的嬰兒，顯然是被“媒婆”扔掉的。

Some of the ‘Chang Le Girls’ were lucky enough to be treated by their adopted families as their own children, but others became small slaves, being abused and deprived of the opportunity to get education, having to do heavy works for the families. After they grew older, they were forced to marry their ‘brothers’.

有些“長樂子”比較幸運，被收養家庭當作自己親生的孩子對待；但另外一些就沒有這麼幸運了，她們淪為小奴隸，遭到虐待，還被剝奪了受教育的機會，並且必須為家裡幹重活。長大成年之後，她們又會被迫嫁給收養家庭的兄弟。

But not all the ‘A Le’ were trafficked from Chang Le County.

然而，並非所有的“阿樂”都是從長樂縣拐賣的。

With the Reform and Opening-up Policy befalling, people could travel more conveniently within China, therefore girls from other places, especially south-western provinces of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan, were trafficked to Putian and nearby districts.

改革開放後，國內交通變得更加便捷，一些來自其他地方的女孩，尤其是來自西南三省雲貴川的女孩，也被拐賣到莆田和周邊地區。（詳見《调查称福建莆田有数万名童养媳 多数从云贵拐卖》）

Such terrible crimes have lasted for several decades.

這樣可怕的罪行一直持續了幾十年。

According to a 2010 report from Strait News （《海峡都市报》）, a gang of criminals had trafficked 46 babies during a period of 2 years. It's the most serious criminal case of this kind in Fujian Province since 1949. This time, the 46 babies were all boys, some people bought them because they believe in "more sons, more happiness".

根據2010年一篇來自《海峽都市報》的文章（詳見《安溪特大拐卖儿童案宣判 13人两年拐卖46名男婴》），一群犯罪分子在兩年內拐賣了46名嬰兒，這是福建省自1949年以來偵破的人口拐賣案中最大的一起。這46名嬰兒全都是男孩，一些買家是出於“多子多福”的觀念而購買他們。

In the past, local governments usually turn a blind eye on this phenomenon, and some of the trafficked children could get their hukou registered if the police officers were bribed.

過去，當地政府往往對這種現象睜一隻眼閉一隻眼。通過向警察行賄，一些買家還給被拐賣的孩子上了戶口。

But, as the public became more and more intolerant to such crimes, the government had to tighten the registration rules of hukou. So those families which ‘adopted’ children through illegal channels had to seek new ways to conceal their evil secrets. And faked birth certificate or the genuine ones with false informations became the must for them.

然而，隨著公眾對這種罪惡越來越難以容忍，政府也更嚴格地實施戶籍登記制度了。因此，那些通過非法途徑“收養”兒童的家庭，不得不通過新的途徑掩蓋其邪惡的秘密。而偽造出生證明，或寫有虛假信息的真出生證明，就成了他們“洗白”被拐兒童的必需品。

That’s why birth certificates remained to be one of the highly demanded commodities in the black markets of China even after the Two-child Policy had been introduced. And that is the little evil secret behind the groundless conclusions of Yi Fuxian’s new ‘demographic research’.

“二孩政策”實施後，出生證明仍然是黑市上需求最大的商品之一，原因就在於此。那也是易富賢這份新鮮出爐的“人口學研究”中那毫無根據的“人口水分”結論後面，所隱藏的罪惡秘密。

Now here is the question: why Yi Fuxian lied in his unreliable ‘study’? or, why he tried so hard to cover up this evil secret behind those faked or stolen birth certificates?

那麼問題來了：為什麼易富賢要在他胡編亂造的“研究”中撒謊？換言之，為什麼他要如此殫精竭慮地掩蓋那些偽造或被竊出生證明背後的這個罪惡秘密？

Perhaps we could find the answer from the leader of that baby-trafficking gang in Hunan Province.

也許我們能夠從前面提到的那個湖南兒童拐賣團夥的頭頭那裡找到答案。

‘I did no sin in my whole life. I myself have child(ren) too’. She said.

她聲稱自己“这辈子不做缺德事，我自己也有孩子。”

And she didn’t think baby-trafficking was wrong, ‘I’m helping parents realize their dreams.’ she tried to convince the anti-trafficking volunteer who pretended to be a potential buyer, ‘It’s adoption, not baby-trafficking’.

她並不認為拐賣兒童是犯罪，辯稱那是“替人圆梦”。

为让暗访人员打消顾虑，“可乐”多次表示：“这是‘收养’，不是拐卖。”

Does that opinion ring a bell?

這個想法是不是聽起來有些耳熟？

Maybe it reminds some people of the famous ‘anti-Family-Plan professor’ Yang Zhizhu, who tried to defend those parents who sold their own children, and even intended to legalize such activities, just several years ago.

如果一個人記性夠好，也沒有選擇性失憶的毛病，也許他或她會讓人想起著名的“反計生教授”楊支柱，他試圖為那些出賣自己孩子的父母辯護，甚至打算將賣兒賣女合法化。這事就發生在幾年前。（詳見楊支柱那篇著名的雄文《出卖亲生儿女不宜定拐卖儿童罪》）

And Yang thinks child-trafficking is something benevolent that could ‘accumulate merit and virtue’.

楊支柱還認為，買賣兒童是“積德行善”的好事。

By the way, Yang Zhizhu is also a friend of Yi Fuxian and both of them came from Hunan Province, just as that ‘Kele Gang’ did. It seems that such opinion is widely accepted in that province.

順便說一句，楊支柱也是易富賢的朋友，是反節育統一戰線上的親密戰友。他們倆跟前面說的“可樂團夥”一樣，都來自湖南省。看起來，這樣的觀念在該省是被廣泛接受的。

But, as the famous ‘independent demographer’ well-known across the whole world, Yi Fuxian, who graduated from Hsiang-Ya Medical College and now is a senior scientist of University of Wisconsin-Madison, both among the most respected medical training organizations in China and USA, must be well aware what other people, especially people of the civilized world, would think of child-trafficking.

然而，作為蜚聲國際的“獨立人口學家”，作為湘雅醫學院的畢業生和威斯康星大學（這兩所大學都是中美兩國最有聲望的醫學培訓機構）的“高級科學家”，他肯定知道其他人，特別是文明世界的人，會怎樣看待拐賣兒童這件事。

It’s one of the ugliest and the evilest crime in modern society. There is nothing benevolent that could ‘accumulate merit and virtue’ in it.

So lying becomes necessary for Yi in that ‘demographic research’ of his.

這是現代社會最醜惡、最邪惡的罪惡之一，這當中根本沒有什麼“積德行善”。

因此，易富賢必須在自己的“人口學研究”中撒謊。

But it’s not the first time Yi Fuxian lied. I had exposed such academic misconducts of him again and again . And every time he could get away with it, thanks to the sustained supports he got from some of the most famous media of the world, such as SCMP, WSJ, NYT, RFA, VOA and BBC. It seems that they never did any fact-checking before spreading the conclusion of his suspicious ‘demographic research’.

不過，這也不是他頭一回撒謊了。我已經一而再、再而三地揭露他的此類學術不端（參考馬特市標籤“造假大師易富賢”）。而他每次都能從我的揭謊中全身而退——多虧了一些國際著名媒體如《南華早報》、《華爾街日報》、《紐約時報》、自由亞洲電台、美國之音和BBC的持續支持。看起來，在傳播易富賢那些不靠譜的“人口學研究”成果之前，他們從不做任何事實核查。

In recent years, news about young women being trafficked to China from neighboring countries sometimes would appear on certain international media, such as NYT. But none of them mentioned those Chinese girls trafficked from inland provinces to eastern or northern provinces such as Fujian, Jiangxi, Henan or Shandong since as early as 1970's. The journalists all blame this crime to the One-Child Policy.

最近這些年，年輕女性從鄰國被拐賣到中國的新聞，會不時出現在有些國際媒體（如《紐約時報》）上。但沒有一篇報道提到那些早在1960年代就被拐賣的“長樂子”，那些早在1970年代就從內陸省份被拐賣到福建、江西、河南和山東等東部省份的女性。那些報道的記者總是讓獨生子女政策給這些罪惡背黑鍋。

Why they behave so ignorantly? 

Maybe people could find some clues in my analysis above too.

為什麼他們會如此無知？

也許讀者可以從我上面的分析中找到一些線索。

The only problem is, if they refuse to face or admit the truth, such crimes would continue even if the Family Plan Policy was totally abolished.

唯一的問題是，如果他們拒絕面對真相、拒絕承認事實：人口拐賣在中國“自古以來”就存在，導致這種罪惡的真正罪魁禍首是多子多福、男尊女卑思想——這也是激發眾多反節育派如此不擇手段反對計生、鼓勵生育的“傳統價值觀”——那麼，即使計生政策全面廢除，這樣的罪惡也將繼續存在。

（因為男尊女卑導致的性別比失衡，所以很多地方的男性必須通過買老婆才能結婚；也因為男尊女卑，另一部電影《獨生》原型郭剛堂兒子的養父母雖然已經有兩個女兒了，也仍然要買個兒子才覺得人生圓滿，而且這個養子在家裡的地位甚至超過他們的兩個親生女兒；因為多子多福，所以一些福建人即使家裡已經有好幾個孩子了，也仍然喜歡買小孩如同買白菜豆腐。）

And the girls and women in and abroad China would continue to become the victims of human trafficking, because of the ignorance or dishonesty of some journalists and "scholars".

正是因為有些記者和“學者”的無知和謊言，國內外的女孩子們（有時也包括男孩）也將繼續成為人口走私的受害者。