Reading ‘IFCSS Memo & Reflection’

Nicolas

March 30, 2007

　

Editor's note, the writer was emotional in writing the following notes, as he/she stated. We put everything here just to give a complete picture of IFCSS's history.

　

------------------------------------------------------------------


Part I

　

Recently, I found some interesting articles on www.ifcss.net and would like to make some remarks.

First of all, the fight over leadership in the 6th IFCSS Congress was built around rumors, misunderstandings, and exaggerations.

会前，有传言说中共使馆 动员了不少从不参加学自联活动的联谊会报名出席，而骆宁、刘承延就是中共属意 的正、副主席候选人。一 些邢铮的支持者把骆宁说成是“亲共派”，让人联想起民联里“抓特务”的失误。(于大海)
学自联所受的内伤，首先来自竞选一方对学自联及其历史的全盘否定。(李靖泓)

There’s no hard evidence that one side was supported by Chinese Embassy, and wanted to deny the past and history IFCSS totally. Even outsiders did not like it.

现在你们输了，看样子还特输不起，嘴里头还嘟嘟囔囔的，什么“学自联变色 ”啊，什么“民主的失败”啊，有那么严重吗？ 你们说对方是共产党，对方赶紧否认。其实共产党怎么了？不是民主吗？共产 党也可以来竞选嘛。中国驻美大使竞选学自联主席，你们有没有那个雅量接受？你 们要连这个雅量都没有，还不如把自个的组织解散了，一个个入共产党去算了。反 革命分子干了五届了，人家共产党干一届不行吗？(图　雅)

In fact, one side wanted to

“将学自联的权力夺回到广大同学手中来。” (李靖泓)

The reason is that if you want to over politicize a student organization, then

然而另一方面，學自聯的一些人熱心于政治活動，無視大部分留美學人的意愿与需求，在人權、自由等方面喜歡做些花樣文章。如在最惠國待遇等問題上一再忽視民意，最后主席竟擅自參加絕食，要求美國總統取消中國的最惠國待遇，与廣大留美學人的意愿背道而馳。筆者曾打電話動員一學校組織參加六大，其學生會主席答复是學自聯是一政治組織，我們無意參加它的活動。几年來參同人數愈益減少，在留美學人中的認同程度已非常低。這些是學自聯致命的弱點。學自聯的力量來源于廣大同學的認同与參与，若丟掉這些，就形同虛設了。學自聯領導層的排斥不同意見之態度亦使學自聯許多積极份子与之分手。(胡森)
最后，谈谈所谓“素质”问题。在海外，由于大家互相接触、直接竞争的机会不 多，民联、民阵中一直有些人自恃过高、自我陶醉，生活在幻觉之中。在学自联里 ，这种人似乎更多。他们以精英自居，自我封闭，待人轻狂，不愿做基层学生组织 的工作，却又认为有资格主导学自联的发展。他们眼光短浅，把一些鸡毛蒜皮的琐 事通通拿来当做“历史事件”，结果是抓了芝麻，丢了西瓜。这次竞选，对其中的 一些人来说，是一次应当吸取的教训。(于大海)

As a result,

从第七届起，“鹰派”便失掉了对手，进一步又失掉了全部草根，致使全 美学自联从一个号称代表八万中国学生学者的群众组织蜕变为一个“十几个人，七八条枪”的团队。至此，曾经济济一堂的全美学自联也就剩下一个空洞的旗号，落 花流水，全然失去了当年的风采。(陶业) 

There’re at least two reasons that one side disappeared right before the so called 7th IFCSS Congress. First, some of activists wanted to heat up ‘democracy’ discussion or issue label for those they could not understand and listen, and consequently alienate ordinary CSS,

当大会在华盛顿举行时，他们再次相见后的头一句话就是：“我没有背叛”。(晋 言)

Second, right before so called 7th IFCSS Congress, Council member Lu Wenhe wanted to hijack HQ, break up established tradition and authorized bylaw that HQ, Council, and Supervisory Committee were all have certain privileges (he was using legal arguments from one attorney of Arent Fox to defend its legitimacy), long before they actually changed bylaw and implemented it at the so called 8th IFCSS Congress that

这次会议最显著的变化是，修改了学自联原有的模仿国家形态的“三权分立(总部、理事会和监事会)”结构，而改成“两会制 衡(理事会和监事会)”的结构，以精简机构，提高效率。(陈奎德)

Lastly, but not least, you cannot place labels on someone if you do not know and fully understand the whole situation,

“鸽派”在自己这派处于上升时期退出全美学自联，固然是懦夫行为(是否有其他背景不得而知)；但是“鹰派”对“鸽派”的挤压力度超出了“鸽派”继续保留在 全美学自联框架内所能承受的力度。(陶业)

(I would like to keep anonymous since I have no time to answer more questions or commit to senseless fight with so called ‘democracy fighters’. However, I did have lengthy conversations with someone who actually participated in the whole process around and after 6th IFCSS Congress, the last legitimate organization meeting of IFCSS.)

　

Part II

　

For more than ten years, I never read or discussed any topics related to IFCSS. It’s a dream, a nightmare, a disaster, a tragedy, and a ruin for me and my friends.

Ten years ago, we tried to confer matters such as follows

无疑，作为海外中国留学生的主要利益群体，现在面临着生存与发展的问题。如果既想坚持学自联创立时的基本宗旨(宪章)，同时，又就事论事，照顾新时期留学生的基本利益，则它需协调的基本任务大体有四：
   1) 帮助海外留学生在海外学习、工作和发展，谋求某些共同有关的整体权益。
   2) 加强留学生与国内的学术交流，帮助海外留学生回中国寻求工作和发展。
   3) 帮助中国进一步向世界开放，逐步纳入世界文明体系。
   4) 帮助中国经济、政治制度转型和社会转型。
    这是学自联面对的新挑战。
   　而如何处理与北京政府的关系，这是考验学自联智慧的关键。
    如果学自联能独立，理性，坦率，公开，不承认隶属关系，不刻意回避北京官员，不卑不亢，直言不讳，创建一种崭新的同北京的关系。这也许对国内团体也可能产生影响和示范。(陈奎德)

 

综合而言，我却认为全美学自联的定位应是，海外华人最大规模最有影响力的独立自治组织。 “独立自治”是全美学自联的最大特点，也是学自联名字所彰显的。从第一届开始，全美学自联就独立於美国政治力量，也独立於台湾政治力量，更独立於中共。 正是在“独立自治”下，十几万留学生可以不同的方式，却是一种协调的结奏，去推动中国的进步.  (罗艾)

 

However, is it possible? NO, absolutely no! You could not be independent from super leftists, from mega conservatives, or from communist party, even though it is what I stand for in IFCSS. If you did, and discuss issues outline above, you would be called all kind of names -- betrayal, infidelity, treachery, disloyalty, and so on. Just keep reading.

  

·         现在，很多当年的学自联的积极分子，在美国各界事业有成，他们虽然不再经常参加民运活动，
但其心未变，用当年中共的话来说，就是“他们人还在，心不死”。当大会在华盛顿举行时，他们
再次相见后的头一句话就是：“我没有背叛”。能在十二年后说出这句话来，实在不容易。对于参
加反抗中共独裁政权的海外流亡人士来讲，我们要面对中共的迫害、内部的纠纷，更残酷的还有历史
的淘汰。试想：如果我们在海外再流亡二十年，不就是注定要客死异乡了吗？很多人无法承受这些
压力，而离开了民运的队伍。就拿九年前华盛顿大会的那些出头露面的人物来看，有多少人已经背
叛了自己的理念投靠了中共？有多少人悄然离开的民运？还有多少人在继续奋战？从这一点来说，
我们今天依然在民运中摸爬滚打的人，就应该亲如一家。(晋 言)


 


Let’s go back a few more years, is there a game rule?


 


·        代表大会讨论报告、提案，选举领导机构，都有议事规则。这些议事规则是从罗伯特议事规则演化
出来的。我还是第一次听说有一个Robert's Rules of Order。据说是一本很厚的书。有人向我作了简
单的介绍，确实是有关会议民主的极好的总结。可见，中国大陆的知识分子，至少是我自己，虽然敢于
站出来反对不民主，对于什么是民主依然孤陋寡闻。大会的一位代表对Robert's Rules of Order很有
研究，遇到议事规则方面的疑问，就请他上台解释一番。这是切实有效的学习。按议事规则讨论问题，
非常麻烦。因为程序动议可以优先，就有无数的程序动议；因为老是有不同意见，又有无数的表决。
会议的参加者非常紧张，不象大陆的人民 代表大会很轻松，可以打磕睡。我和我的朋友方励之教授
（他说，他很喜欢学自联这个组织，所以有请必到）坐在一起听会，深有感触，于是窃窃私语，议论
起来。 民主是很麻烦的，独裁最方便。独裁的麻烦是在后头，决定问题方便，贯彻执行麻烦。民主的
过程，什么样的意见都有，有过之，也有不及，有精辟的，也有荒唐 的；但最后某些意见互相抵消、
某些意见形成合力，总是产生多数人能够接受的决议。民主不一定产生最好的东西，但肯定能消除最坏
的东西。民主似乎缺乏效率， 但可以避免偏差。即使有了偏差，民主自身可以纠正。独裁的偏差，自身
无法纠正；一直偏下去，只有等到寿终正寝或被人打倒才算了事。(郭罗基) 


 

Yes, Mr. Guo and Mr. Fang liked what they saw in the 5th IFCSS Congress. However, did they know what happened after the 6th IFCSS Congress? Apparently, not much. Is there a playable rule right before the so called 7th IFCSS Congress? NO, because Lu Wenhe, a Council member utilized an attorney from Arent Fox, who carried out a vendetta against IFCSS officers, trumped all possible rules or opportunities, including rich conventions and bylaw of IFCSS. He and others did not give democracy a chance, and we could not play at a legitimate IFCSS caucus at all. 

·        总部是由全美学自联代表大会选举出来的。哪一派执掌总部，体现当时的民意。但是，无论两派在代
表大会，或理事会，或监委会如何面红耳赤，争执不下，只要是 参加了“游戏”，就必须服从“游戏规则”，
服从程序正义。一旦形成决议，便必须付诸执行。玩“游戏”要有能力，服从程序要有素质，尊重决议要有
雅量。双方 都明白必要的妥协是把游戏继续玩下去的必要条件。除第一届当时“鹰派”和“鸽派”之泾渭
尚不分明之外 ，第二，四，五届总部由“鹰派”执掌，第三，六两届总部由“鸽派”执掌。不论谁在台上
谁在台下，都得服从代表大会决议，服从理事会决议。输而不服的，下次 代表大会再来较量。历年的理事
会，“鹰派”理事占多数，因而受“鹰派”控制。“鸽派”即便掌握了总部，仍然受制于理事会。第六届
“鸽派”总部多次拒不执行理事会决议，因而主 席遭到理事会弹劾。这些本来都是正常程序的一部分。由於
“鸽派”在第六届总部的经历，第六届之后，“鸽派”便从全美学自联全线撤出，并拒绝参加第七届全美学
自联代表大会。“游戏”是要有对手才能“玩”起来的，没有了对手，也就没有了“游戏”。程序的正义是
对参与程序的各方而言的，只有一方参与的程序，程序就成了形式，也就无所谓正义了。正象中国人大和政协
那样，装模作样地也玩玩程序，却毫无正义可言。(陶业)

 

Where were you when things happened? Are you playing Monday morning quarterback? Too late! And you are not qualified to play dolls so that you can label anyone you like or do not like.

　

Part III

　

A democratic institution could be built up brick by brick. It’s an augmenting and an adaptive process. A constitution is a corner stone for the institution, and every member should pay unconditional respect. Member should play any rules established and change rules only when there’s a meeting where amendments could be discussed and passed. In other words, it should be a step by step evolution.

If one member or a group of member do not like what they observe, and want to drastically change situation without legislative procedure, they will lead to an anti-democratic movement or a debacle, even though they may claim they wish to have a more democratic institution. It’s an ironic logic, but true. Accordingly, they become a tyrant, not a guardian of democracy.

Let’ look at China’s history. I understand that there’s no democratic institution in China’s history. However, there’s an institution for each period. And changes happened when someone was using violent power to substitute the institution with a variation. No one ever learned how to change an institution in an adaptive way in China’s history. This is true to communist party and her agent red guard. (To a less degree, this is also true for Taiwanese legislature while you can always watch fist fight as one kind of entertainment.)

Let’s also look at some Asian countries. For example, in Thailand, military generals could change any situation with a coup when they do not want to follow a legislative path, even though they could have kind of democratic institution in between.

So, a tyrant is a tyrant. It does not matter whether institution is a democratic one or not. If any one does not propose changes on an open stage and passed through institutional channels, he will become a dictator, an oppressor.

On the other hand, we know some US Senators may play brinkmanship. Yet, every one honors the institution. They put institutions’ interest over their individual interest, not the other way around. That’s why they play gentlemen’s game, not dictator’s game.

More than ten years ago, a group of activists were at advent juncture of internet age using emails and web site to connect grass root Chinese Students & Scholars organizations. Nevertheless, there’s rival group who did not like open discussion happened around them. How they deal with it? They fell back to tyrant’s mode, and used millions of junk email spam to silence an open, healthy, democratic discussion.

As the time progress, IFCSS Council member Lu Wenhe and Supervisory Committee member Luo Li-Shi felt they did not like and could not control what’s going on after the 6th IFCSS Congress, they secretly contacted an attorney from Arent Fox, who sensed humiliation and disrespect by some treatment of IFCSS officers (which was subjective and without supporting evidence) agreed to take the case pro-bono to carry out a vendetta, to circumvent legislative process and essentially split the institution.

(At that time, there’s no fight or compromise could be done inside the institution. Instead, one was forced to fight outside the institution, not based on bylaw, but based on an arcane system. This was where litigant coming who became a menace, a bully to those who had not fully grasp unfathomable legal usages. It’s a sad and an unfair game, which could be easily lost through procedural maneuver not merit of arguments.)

They have no confidence in democratic institution, lost faith in Chinese Students & Scholars, usurped evolutionary structure of IFCSS, and destroyed the institution. They became someone against democracy and democratic logic. They became a tyrant and a dictator.

I understand that the institution is a guest entity under US law, and must follow commercial code as registered. However, we all swore that we’ll follow the bylaw which specified separation of power among HQ, Council, and Supervisory Committee. Therefore, we should work through legislative process to resolve any differences, while not to use legal code to forcefully wipe out an institution. A nuclear option should only be exercised if sufficient evidence was collected that an illegal activity had been committed (which is not the case when Lu and Luo carelessly and impatiently declared nuclear explosion.)

Looking back, if Mr. Lu and Mr. Luo wish to become a guardian of democratic institution, they should keep an open mind, communicate, and understand what IFCSS officers trying to say and do, compromise and resolve issues through normal channels.

One who displays lamb skin may carry a shark’s heart. A tyrant would never call himself a tyrant.

　

Part IV

　

There’re at least two fights related to books of IFCSS. The basic questions were where the money went. The first one happened during the 5th term of IFCSS. At that time, many of us asked the same question when there supposed to be tons of money left related to (June 4th) green card application packages.

It resulted in an audit. Jeff Lin, an accountant, presented the audit report in Arlington, VA. (However, I do not think IFCSS should choose Jeff Lin because he has certain dealings with the organization before and after the audit, and was not totally independent. Only an independent CPA could issue audit report according to AICPA.)

At that time, Changsheng Lin, a conservative figure, was President of IFCSS. On the other hand, moderate controlled Council, while Luo Ning, a moderate leader, was rumored for coordinating many of fights between Council and HQ. Yet, the Council and Supervisory Committee never resorted to legal actions, though there’re some suspicions as to where the money went. 

The second one happened during the 6th term of IFCSS. At that time, Luo Ning became President of IFCSS, where Lu Wenhe, a conservative, became Council member, and Luo Li-Shi, an annoying figure, remained Supervisory member. The same question was where the money went. This time it’s about commission of health insurance sales.

The money was deposited in a bank, no one spend a dime without proper procedure. However, because of miscommunication and misunderstanding, no one asked for an audit or review (a lesser accounting procedure compared to audit). Instead, combined with other mysterious factors, Mr. Lu and Mr. Luo was seeking outside legal help in secret, which was matched by the same eagerness of an attorney from Arent Fox if not more as a personal grudge against IFCSS officers, to topple the institution.

Different approach leads to different result. A compromised way guides through election, and the institution was still standing. We had a legitimate elected 6th term IFCSS working with various CSS local organizations. On the other hand, an outright confrontational style, mixed with rumors, miscommunication, and misunderstanding, paves a way though chaos, confusion, and totally ruin.

Mr. Lu did not consult with HQ on many of executive procedures and Council resolutions, and Mr. Luo did not know there was a negotiation going on between HQ and Mr. Lu, though an unsuccessful try. Their only measure was to impeach or to file lawsuit. How can you compromise and survive if you wave impeachment and legal actions as the only option? I do not need to answer the question. A truncated IFCSS history will tell you what happened next.

 

 Part V

　

I know I am emotional, because my friends and I treat the organization as a baby and a treasure. We intentionally avoid every opportunity to talk about what happened then and thereafter. Here, I have no intension to break my silence by offering a full account of our side of history. Yet, I do want to point out a few things.

Now IFCSS, a respectful name is in disrepair. Its web site is inactive [   http://www.whois.ws/whois-org/ip-address/ifcss.org/ ]. Someone moved the domain to www.ifcss-us.org. Why? What’s wrong with www.ifcss.org, a place where we used to deposit rich historical documents and communication records? And the time is (forever?) freezes at Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:49 PM [if you visit www.ifcss-us.org today, March 31, 2007 or see exhibit A].

Let’s examine the ‘official’ website again. There’s no link for News Digest, EventCalender, Grassroots, and Volunteering, though these items are all listed on the menu. It can only means that they lost touch with ordinary CSS, while play only rights (human rights) card.  

Personally, I do not think IFCSS should get involved with Falun Gong [exhibit B]. Falun Gong is a joke and a cult. Its practice may provide you certain medical benefit. Yet, its theoretical foundation is a totally shame. Its founder has no scientific and philosophical knowledge. You can treat it as a Cultural Revolution (CR) document without knowing the person who wrote it ten years after CR. I understand that there’re might be some persecution involved and there might be some better way to deal with a cult. Nevertheless, just like most favored nation discussion, I think IFCSS should stay out of the fight.

Let’s go to next item. Why you stopped health insurance [exhibit C]? If you can negotiate a good package, it could provide benefit to ordinary CSS and financial support for organizational operation. And you stopped it at 2001 anyway?

Lastly, but not least, this is a group people who claimed that we want to totally deny rich history of IFCSS. However, did you pay any respect to what happened in the past? Apparently no, you cannot even spell 6th term IFCSS officers’ name [exhibit D, please see 6th IFCSS Congress material and Yu Dahai’s article for correct spelling], and you did not even bother to add Council member’s name, including one of your own, Mr. Lu Wenhe. Who is denying history here?

I could not go on. It’s a disgrace that you put your personal interest over that of institution, and assist a litigant to destroy organizational history.

(A foot note, you did not win court case by merit of arguments. You won by default. It means the litigant out maneuvered his opponents through arcane procedural rules. In other words, the court case means nothing in terms of who was right or who was wrong, a procedural rule prevented my friend present his case.)

　

----------------------------------------------------------------

　

Dear Editor:　

As someone involved with IFCSS in the past, I feel that I have an obligation to tell the public something. Since I am emotional when deal with the topic ten years after, I may not express every bit of my feeling properly.

Thanks!

Nocolas

　

----------------------------------------------------------------