吴征学历一事，我们需要知情权

 时间：2001年11月30日 22:24　来源：bonnie 原创-IT



2001年11月30日 下午14:57 阳光四通就杨澜吴征被造谣中伤一事发布通告 

通告内容大家都已看过了，总之是指造谣中伤者是有组织有预谋的，严正声明、彻底调查、动用法律手段，“…可笑的谎言及歪曲的事实…卑鄙之行为…我们已觉得太无聊，故不愿在此逐条予以反驳…蔑视…自食其果…” 

读完这些**色彩颇浓的话语，感觉很惆怅…作为观者，还是更希望能看到理智的辩解、有说服力的证据。在缺乏证据的情况下，无论轻易地站在质疑者还是站在被质疑者一边都会显得有失公允和过于草率；而在被质疑者拒绝解释的情况下，就更难以判断而无法去“携手共创和谐、美好之未来”！ 

新浪是媒体，阳光也是媒体，作为媒体，也许更为清楚公众最想要的是知情权。了解事情的本来面目，或者在无法了解事情的本来面目的情况下，更多地了解各个侧面的情况，了解多方的反应，以免以偏盖全。而对于公众一直关心的新浪，知情权的要求将会更为迫切。 

进一步而论，新浪不仅是媒体，更是上市公司，上市公司，即通常所称的公众公司，其信息披露的基本要求是回答公众合理的问题。吴征此次担任新浪董事长，降大任于斯人也的同时也要承担责任。身为上市公司的董事长，其历史的不详之处、可疑之处如果引起质疑，特别是对那些采用合法言语的质疑最好还是要给出回答，辅之证据。当然，如果无法适时找出证据，只要情况真实，大多不会产生严重后果。但如果情况不实，则需要承担美国股民集体诉讼的后果。 


这段时间，对吴征董事长学历的质疑之声不断，看了若干篇的报道，感觉其中有些质疑还是合理合法的。比如：美国财经著名杂志福布斯http://www.forbes.com/global/2000/0515/0310058a_2.html 上刊登的文章中（见附录）涉及到吴征，说到其学历“a Ph.D. in international finance from Barrington University (a cybercollege whose headquarters are in Mobile, Alabama) ”译成中文是“在Barrington巴灵顿大学获得国际金融博士学位” 

巧的是，网上有人找到了http://www.barrington.edu/的网址，是一家远程教育的学校，首页上赫然写着Barrington University (同于 福布斯文章 中所指的Barrington大学)。而在这个barrington大学的学位授予中，有四种硕士学位课程、四种学士学位课程，两种customize课程，却惟独没有博士学位课程。这就引发了许多争论。不排除有两种可能：1、相关人士没能在barrington大学的网页里找到吴董事长的国际金融博士学位或者这个学位原来有现在取消或不招了；2、这个barrington大学不是吴董事长的那个barrington大学。当然，上述的两种可能并不意味着我们排除了其他的一些可能。 

从目前情况看，争论的焦点集中于能否给出信服的证据以证明吴董事长的barrington大学国际金融博士学位的真实性。 

这也确实是上市公司的特殊之处。如果是一个普通的有限责任公司，甚至是一个没上市的即使规模很大集团公司，对于此类问题完全可以不予回答或称之为机密不对外。但是作为上市公司，大都有必要进行解释，答疑释惑，因为股民需要了解真实的情况以对上市公司做出更准确的判断。答疑释惑的对象当然不仅仅限于持有新浪股票的人，还包括没有持有新浪股票的人。因为在买卖之前，允许公众对上市公司进行评价，以做出是否买卖的决定。也就是说，解答还未成为新浪股东的公众的问题是因为他们将依据新浪提供的信息对自己是否成为新浪股东做出是否买卖的选择。从上述几点看，对于吴董事长学历的质疑，新浪恐怕还是需要提供更多的论据做出相应解释。 

吴董事长的学历的质疑将在多大程度上影响新浪的运作呢？应该说，影响很大。如果吴董事长的学历是真实的，公众有理由继续信任新浪，给予足够的信任，新浪在此事上并没有提供虚假信息，新浪高层没有提供虚假信息。反之，将大大挫伤长期以来广大公众对新浪给予的信任和支持，并进而影响到新浪的商誉，特别是对一个亏损边缘的dotcom公司。 

相信，事实最终会说明一切。而适当的质疑正象防腐剂，会有效地遏止不良事件的发生。当然还有另一更广为流传的说法：太阳是最好的防腐剂，一切罪恶会在阳光下暴露无遗。不知当初他们命名为阳光时，是不是隐含了这种寓意。 


最后附上来自美国财经著名杂志福布斯上的原文报道，其中的有关段落被用更多分行符隔开，以方便大家阅读商讨。 

http://www.forbes.com/global/2000/0515/0310058a_2.html 


Page 2 of 2 from China’s Newest Cable Guys 
Uwe Parpart, Forbes Global, 05.15.00 

At a time when policy makers around the world are trying to better understand risk-taking behavior, Bruno Wu and Johnson Ko make an interesting pair to watch. Born Ko Chun Shun in 1951 in a village in Fujian province, Johnson Ko (his name was changed by a Hong Kong high school teacher) recalls that during the famine years following Mao Zedong’s disastrous 1959 Great Leap Forward, the family survived on little but sweet potatoes. 

His father made it to the Philippines and ran a restaurant in Manila’s Chinatown. With his help, Ko got to Hong Kong in 1961 and after a few years of schooling held a variety of jobs–tour guide, trader, tailor, foreign-exchange dealer. Ko calls the 1970s and 1980s his “wild years”–and much of the money he made he then lost in the 1987 stock market crash. 

Five years later he was back on his feet and operating the Hong Kong airport currency exchange concession. In 1992 he acquired his first listed company, a money losing pharmaceuticals manufacturer called Jack Chia, and transformed it into a property developer, Mandarin Dragon. Ko reinvested the proceeds from selling Mandarin Dragon to buy the publicly traded UAL, a consumer electrical goods maker that specialized in Christmas lighting. Ko got out of lights and into making cordless telephones, marketed in the U.S. by BellSouth. In March 1999 Ko’s UAL bought DVB and began to reshape it into its present form. 




His partner Bruno Wu Zheng is cut from a different cloth. Urbane and well schooled, he was born in Shanghai in 1966 at the start of the Cultural Revolution. His French-educated grandfather was the Chinese ambassador to the League of Nations in Geneva, and young Wu attended the best schools in Shanghai. When French President Franois Mitterrand visited China in 1986, Mme. Mitterrand helped arrange for Wu to study in France. From there it was on to the U.S., a master’s degree at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, a Ph.D. in international finance from Barrington University (a cybercollege whose headquarters are in Mobile, Alabama) and another Ph.D. from the elite Fudan University in Shanghai. 




In 1997 Wu was asked by a group of mainland investors to arrange the acquisition of Asia Television Ltd. (ATV), one of Hong Kong’s two free commercial TV stations. ATV was nearly bankrupt, but Wu turned it around in a year. Early last year Wu, who has strong media experience and connections in Shanghai and Beijing, invested with Johnson Ko’s UAL in taking over DVB Holdings. 

Can Ko and Wu make a go of DVB? Jordan Wu, formerly head of Greater China Corporate Finance at Merrill Lynch in Hong Kong, is now the chief financial officer of both HiTV and DVB. Jordan Wu (no relation to Bruno Wu) projects 250,000 subscribers for HiTV by year-end and 100,000 for S & E Digital. He figures that revenues will split 85-15 between subscriptions and advertising by 2001 and expects that the two companies will report around 4.01 per share. Trevor Cheung of Indosuez W.I. Carr values it at 6.81. There’s a huge amount of risk in this venture; the financial markets have made that clear by blowing the air out of DVB’s stock. But the risks are not out of line with the potential rewards.