郑爽爸晒女儿照气:财新批评支付宝转移 马云急辩护

2011年 06月 16日 10:57
财新批评支付宝转移 马云急辩护
评论(27)
Nelson Ching/Bloomberg
2011年1月19日，北京，阿里巴巴集团主席马云在一次公司活动上发言。
一
个多月来，外界不断地要求阿里巴巴集团创始人马云做出解释：在似乎没有征得主要股东雅虎(Yahoo)和软库(SoftbankCorp.)同意的情况下，他的公司如何决定将旗下的在线支付子公司所有权转移给了他所控制的一个新实体。本周，马云看起来迫切希望对此做出回应──不过有些勉强。
在周一刊发的与中国商业周刊财新《新世纪》总编辑胡舒立的短信交流中以及次日的新闻发布会上，马云对阿里巴巴转移旗下支付子公司“支付宝”一事进行了长篇辩论。此前，阿里巴巴说，这样做是为了遵守中国央行禁止外国公司持有在线支付公司的规定。
问题是：滔滔不绝、愤怒不满，但都不太可能令批评他的人闭嘴。
Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg
2010年6月1日，日本软库（Softbank）总裁、首席执行长孙正义（Masayoshi Son） 阿里巴巴集团董事长、首席执行长马云在于日本东京举行的一次新闻发布会上交谈。
据财新网报导，马云周日联系了《新世纪》总编辑胡舒立，就《新世纪》上一篇题为“马云为什么错了”的社论做出回应。胡舒立在文章中批评马云处理支付宝所有权转移的做法。在跨时两天的交流中，马云指责胡舒立在对基本事实不了解的情况下就开始评论了，并且说支付宝的问题涉及的不止是商业利益。
以下是他们二人火爆交流的节选，大部分是以短信形式进行的。
马云：你有空来杭州看看吧。那么多年，你知道我在做啥吗？呵呵……说实在你不了解我。也不了解互联网对未来真正的意义。大姐，有空来看看。我不好政治那口，我既讨厌左也反感右，我只做自己认为对的事。
胡舒立：是呀，我一直欣赏你这一点。但这回确实很着急。我当然知道你本人不政治，我是说对这事的判断，不必太政治化吧？
马云：（央行）我估计是因为安全考虑。我第一次对国家央行有对未来国家安全考虑而敬重。现代支付是跨越了银行和信用卡支付的新一次金融洗牌，我们集团做的比欧美各国都现先进。
我也急但我必须为未来急。今天的事我两三年前就急过了。我更急的是未来……
呵呵，千万别政治化，这是我们市场经济的原则。但假如我把支付宝今天弄瘫痪了，大姐我不仅仅是公司倒闭而是进监狱。
胡舒立：有这么严重？你控制公司呀。
马云：唉！！你有空来看看吧。你用的是层次不同的说法，就象我说你们评论者把事说的那么大那么严重和歪曲一样。每个人都认为自己做的和说的是对的，但我们都不愿意多花时间去听去学习……
在随后在阿里巴巴总部所在城市杭州举行的新闻发布会上，马云继续向雅虎创始人杨志远和软库首席执行长孙正义(Masayoshi Son)发起攻击，指责他们使用“拖延战术”。
马云说，作为股东，他们做的对。但作为董事，他们都做错了。
雅虎和软库共持有阿里巴巴集团70%以上的股权。杨志远和孙正义都是阿里巴巴集团董事会成员。
无论支付宝的股权结构是否涉及“国家安全”问题，马云对必须转移支付宝所有权的坚持并非争论的焦点。阿里巴巴和雅虎似乎就如下问题取得了一致意见，即为了获得“支付业务许可证”必须转移支付宝的所有权（支付宝于今年5月获得许可证）。
但马云没有解释的是支付宝的所有权转移为何没有经过董事会的批准？另外，这种行为是否违背了三家公司于2005年签订的原始合同？原始合同明确规定，任何涉及阿里巴巴集团各项资产（包括附属企业）且规模在1,000万美元以上的所有权转移必须获得公司董事会或股东的批准。
针对这些问题，马云和《新世纪》周刊总编辑胡舒立进行了交谈，但马云只说“可悲的是我们已经不相信自己国人企业会比人家更懂法和契约精神了”。
阿里巴巴集团此前曾表示，有关转移支付宝的问题已多次在董事会上讨论，2009年7月董事会就得知支付宝被转移一事。但雅虎坚持说自己是在今年3月31日才得知此事的。
信息的缺乏不可避免地导致对事件真相的各种猜测。有些猜测听来似乎很有道理，而有些猜测就朝着“阴谋论”的方向发展了。
雅虎和阿里巴巴似乎已为一份旨在让两家公司解决支付宝争议的协议制定了基本框架，但这份协议仍需软库的签字才能最终生效。截至目前，软库在此事上一直令人好奇地保持沉默，这不禁令外界猜测这家日本电信业巨头公司是否打算在最终决定上挑战阿里巴巴。
无论发生哪种情况，除非阿里巴巴决定公布“基本事实”并回答那些尖锐的问题，否则外界对马云的批评还将继续。
For more than a month, Alibaba Group founder Jack Ma has been besiegedby demands that he explain how his company had decided to transferownership of its online payments unit to a new entity under his control,apparently without the go-ahead from principal shareholders Yahoo andSoftbank Corp. This week he seemed eager to respond to those demands a 'after a fashion.
In a text-message exchange with the chiefeditor of Chinese business magazine Caixin published on Monday and in apress conference a day later, Mr. Ma offered a lengthy defense ofAlibaba's divesting itself of the payment unit, Alipay, which thecompany had earlier said was necessary to comply with a Chinese centralbank rule prohibiting foreign ownership of an online payment company.
The takeaway: A lot of sound and fury, none of which is likely to silence his critics.
Accordingto Caixin, Mr. Ma contacted top editor Hu Shuli on Sunday in responseto a Caixin editorial titled 'Why Jack Ma is Wrong,' in which Ms. Hucriticized the executive's handling of the Alipay transfer. In aconversation that spread over two days, Mr. Ma accused Ms. Hu of passingjudgment on the matter 'without knowing the basic facts' and said theAlipay issue involved 'more than just commercial interests.'
A sampling of the testy exchange, most of which was in the form of text messages:
(See the full transcript in English and Chinese):
Atthe subsequent press conference, held in Alibaba's home city ofHangzhou, Mr. Ma went on the offensive against Yahoo founder Jerry Yangand Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son, accusing them of engaging in 'stallingtactics.'
'As shareholders, they were right,' Mr. Ma said. 'But as directors, they were both wrong.'
Yahooand Softbank together own more than 70% of Alibaba Group. Mssrs. Yangand Son both sit on Alibaba Group's board of directors.
Whetheror not there are national security implications to Alipay's ownershipstructure, Mr. Ma's insistence on the need to transfer ownership is notreally at issue. Alibaba Group and Yahoo appear to agree that thetransfer needed to take place in order to obtain proper licensing forthe unit (licensing Alipay obtained at the end of May).
What Mr.Ma did not address is why the transfer took place without boardapproval, and whether it was in line with the companies' originalcontract in 2005, which stipulates that any transaction worth more than$10 million that involves the transfer of assets, includingsubsidiaries, of Alibaba Group? must be approved by the company's boardor shareholders.
Responding to those questions in hisconversation with Caixin's Ms. Hu, Mr. Ma said only: 'It's a shame thatpeople don't believe Chinese entrepreneurs can honor the spirit ofcontracts, even now, with a better understanding of the law thanforeigners.'
Alibaba Group has previously said that the transferof Alipay had been discussed at numerous board meetings and that theboard had been informed of the transfer in July of 2009. Yahoo maintainsit was not made aware of the move until March 31 of this year.
Thelack of information has inevitably lead to speculation about whatreally happened, some of it plausible-sounding and some of it clearlycreeping down the path toward conspiracy theory.
Yahoo andAlibaba Group appear to have developed the outlines of an agreement thatwould allow the companies to resolve the Alipay mess, but thatagreement would require a sign-off from Softbank. Softbank has remainedcuriously quiet on the matter so far, leading some to wonder whether theJapanese telecoms giant plans to challenge Alibaba on the decision.
Ineither case, until Alibaba decides to offer up the 'basic facts' andanswer the hard questions, Mr. Ma can expect the criticism to continue.
Josh Chin