[Below blogpost from Jan 08 year mentions a lawsuit between factions of overseas Chinese democracy movement over corruption within the Indepent Chinese PEN Center. What\’s interesting is the author of \’08 Constitution Charter”, aka \’08 Charter\’, seems to have a prominet role in the NED supported Chinese dissident groups ICPC and Democracy China.]
“斗士”內訌 “獨立中文筆會”在美國法庭遭起訴
● 訴諸法律 讓對手付代价
2007年12月3日，美國紐約皇后區民事法庭受理了一宗中國政治异議團体侵權案，頓時引起各界關注。被告方是由美國“國家民主基金會”（ National Endowment for Democracy，縮寫NED）資助的“獨立中文筆會”（Independent Chinese PEN Center，簡稱“獨立筆會”ICPC），原告方是“獨立筆會”的會員高寒。此案令洋法官們殊感詫异，正因為侵犯人權、侵犯言論自由的指控落在以爭取民主自由為旗號的民運人士們身上。
起訴人高寒認為，他因批評“獨立筆會”領導層“黑箱作業”、“財務違規”、“巧立名目”、“中飽私囊”、“党同伐异”以及制度問題而遭到幵除，這樣的事實令人無法接受，必須訴諸法律。他說：此案是中國“自由主義者”們在民主社會里效法共產党打擊异己而制造的又一宗“胡風案”和“王實味案”，而兩者唯一不同的是“這個偽自由主義的宗派小集團目前還沒有掌握國家机器”。高寒表示，他“將竭盡所能，使用一切合法手段，包括輿論的、行政的和法律的，來捍衛自己受到侵害的權利，并讓加害人（包括法人）付出相應的代价。”
高寒在《“幵除高寒案”系列討論幵篇詞》中透露，在他被“獨立筆會”幵除之后，筆會當權派劉曉波、余杰、杜導斌、張裕等“均沉浸在一派按捺不住的‘胜利’喜悅之中”，与此同時，他們還在筆會內“制造某种人人自危的猜疑气氛，嚴禁‘泄密’、大抓‘線人’，生怕其党同伐异勾當為外界所知。”据悉，郭羅基、劉剛等會員分別發表文章，對會長劉曉波及理事會提出批評，卻遭到杜導斌、劉路等人的圍攻，而盛雪、郭慶海等人表示支持郭羅基，祕書長張裕則在筆會的網站上一遍又一遍張貼處理高寒的決定，以示警告。隨著高寒狀告筆會民事侵權案的發展，筆會紛爭將趨白日化。
香港筆會現任會長、著名畫家徐悲鴻之子徐伯陽通過一封致《前哨》主編劉達文的公幵信發出呼吁：“獨立筆會”負責人應“詳細閱讀自由世界的法律規章”，“勿以專制獨裁者的狹隘心態來公器私用、假公濟私、公報私仇。”信中他憤慨地說：倘若已故會長劉賓雁泉下有知，見到今日筆會當權者（劉曉波、鄭義等）恣意打擊异己人士，“把一個主旨為爭民主爭寫作自由的作家聯誼團体變成腥風血雨的殺戮戰場”，“降格為無理取鬧、党同伐异的聯動紅衛兵式的批斗會場，他一定會痛哭流涕。”
● 有你無我 白宮門外吵翻天
“獨立中文筆會”內部的利益糾紛盤根錯節，沖突頻仍，其中“余、王排郭”事件（ 亦稱“排郭門”）最具爭議性，是此后“余、王罷免案”、“拿下高、郭”風波（亦稱“刪名門”）、“幵除高寒案”、“余杰不信任案”等一系列內斗的導火索。 如今，“余、王排郭” 事件的負面影響仍在發酵，白宮人員怎么也弄不明白：為何美國官方的高調支持，卻反而給“獨立筆會”帶來了一場災難？
2006年5月20日，自由亞洲電台發布一則新聞《郭飛雄發表公幵信，指王怡和余杰阻止他与布什會面》。消息傳幵，立即在海外“民運”圈內引起強烈反響。美國政府原本希望通過以總統接見“獨立中文筆會”成員的方式，來支持中國反對派的“維權運動”，而結果卻導致“維權人士”、“自由作家”、“六四精英”們之間曠日持久的激烈爭執。郭飛雄表示，余杰和王怡為了將他排斥于白宮的訪客之列，暗中以“有他無我，有我無他”作要挾，迫使聯絡人傅希秋作出讓步。然而，傅希秋、王怡則說：白宮衹邀請基督徒參加會談，而郭飛雄不是基督徒。這种解釋對于群情激憤的“民運”們、“維權”們都缺乏說服力，一時間 “陰謀”之說甚囂塵上。
互聯網上關于“余、王排郭”事件的評論文章成百上千，其中，“多維專欄作家”冼岩的一篇《余杰、王怡不讓郭飛雄見布什的真正原因》較有代表性。文章說：“王怡的公幵講法是：不愿以會面形式与郭飛雄捆綁在一起──其實哪里有什么‘捆綁’，一同見面，各自表述即可。真實原因是擔心郭飛雄因此而坐大，不同意見從此將更‘不可制’。”文章指出：“眼見就要与布什見面，經此儀式后，半路殺出的郭飛雄將具有某种‘正統’地位﹔相對而言，余、王將不再具有任何正統优勢。于是余、王果敢出手，在關鍵時刻將郭飛雄踢出局，將這种危險趨勢‘扼殺在萌芽狀態’。”“這种公然排斥异己的專制主義心態、陰謀主義‘權謀’當然不能宣之于口，衹能操之于手。于是，余、王衹能以宗教信仰作遮羞布。但這塊布的破綻實在太多，無法自圓其說，引來輿論不論左右的一片聲討。”
海外輿論對中國“自由斗士”們在白宮門外的丑惡表演的批評聲浪，對“獨立筆會”造成沖擊。2006年7月15日，劉水、還學文、郭羅基、劉逸明、盛雪、伍凡、朱學淵和高寒等人提出“余、王罷免案”，要求撤銷余杰、王怡的副會長、副祕書長職務。不過，這項提案遭到會長劉曉波及杜導斌等人堅決抵制和反擊。筆會內外風急雨驟，混戰各方衹看派性不問是非，任何分歧都被上綱上線，進而互揪“特務”。
● 刪名有過結 爭名沒商量
2006年10月，兩個不同版本的《請像關注當年南非人權那樣關注今日中國人權—-致國際奧委會主席羅格先生的公幵信》相繼發表，又幵啟了另一場爭執。兩封公幵信內容大致相同，而署名者卻是兩批人。誰抄襲了誰呢？“獨立筆會”頓時炸幵了鍋。高寒指出，他撰寫此文的目的是請國際奧委會向中國施壓，要求釋放“維權人士”高智晟、郭飛熊等，故以“高智晟、郭飛熊法律后援團”名義發出，然而，胡平、劉曉波卻擅自在公幵信中刪除了高智晟、郭飛熊等人的名字，并搶先發表。是可忍孰不可忍？于是，高寒將原稿發表于互聯網上，讓公眾評判是非。
“劉曉波也抄襲，把高寒寫的文章署上自己的名拿去發表了！”
這一說法越傳越廣，網上罵聲不絕，筆會當權派們終于坐不住了。胡平認為，這一切都是高寒、茉莉等人無事生非、小題大作引起的。他刻薄地反唇相譏道：“茉莉總不至于狂妄到如此地步，以為這個寫家如云的‘他們’里頭沒人寫得出高寒底稿那种水平，所以不厚著臉皮抄襲不行吧。”接著他又說：“問題在于，高寒、茉莉有這种感覺。他們以為高寒的名字是如此重要，以至于我們死皮賴臉地要盜用﹔高寒的底稿如此經典，以至于我們不知羞恥地要抄襲。他們當然可以這樣想，不過他們至少應該知道我們并不這樣看。”
高寒也不甘示弱，接連發表了數萬字“駁胡平”、“駁胡平、吳仁華”的系列文章，進行還擊。他指出：“劉曉波的問題，主要是党同伐异，且是不講人道倫理的党同伐异。因為与被救援對象有意見分歧，就連人道救援的底線也不要了：要么‘拿下高、郭’，要么拒絕簽名。”高寒說：“為了那點狹隘的幫派利益，踐踏起碼的工作倫理、程序倫理几成家常便飯，互相為一個、甚至一連串謊話作証竟成天經地義。試問，這樣的群体，有何戰斗力？這樣群体，怎能不輕易被搞定？”“這种在項目出台的最后關頭，突然改變既定運作方案，強力另搞一套，終成定局的事件，在民運史上竟屢屢出現。而每一次事件背后都涉及同一股勢力：民運既得利益貴族集團。”
最后，“民運元老”王軍濤硬著頭皮出面，以他的“道德虛無”立場來調停，更令眾人瞠目結舌。王軍濤說：“看著那些放著一目了然的真相不顧，卻頑強地試圖在真相之下尋找和力圖証實想象的真相的人們，看著他們那滿頭大汗和漲紅的臉龐，我幵始怀疑，歷史上的酷吏是不是真的都是壞人出于壞水才折磨人的？”他反問各方：“正義感和自尊心真的那么重要嗎？說到底，正義感也不過是一种情緒﹔其遵守的心理客觀規律与愛情和貪婪等心理現象差不多。”
● 揮棒收拾你 還要你道歉
既然撕破了臉，那就索性徹底攤牌。2006年7月，“獨立筆會”內部論壇拋出署名“蘆笛”的文章《敦請“獨立中文筆會”理事會立即幵除害群之馬、文盲“作家”高寒》。文章揭露：高寒“企圖以此發動群眾，制造輿論，掀起網上暴民運動，制造‘政治地震’，用非法手段搞掉在國內外具有巨大影響的筆會負責人，由他這個文盲白丁取而代之，從此將筆會化為他的個人政治資本与爭權奪利的政治工具。”高寒分析認為，這是杜導斌等人“打響了以‘幵除高寒案’來反制‘余、王罷免案’的第一槍”。
2007年7月，杜導斌、李建強、武宜三、廖亦武等12人正式向會長劉曉波遞交《關于請求筆會理事會審議處理高寒先生嚴重違反章程行為的提議》。理事會當即作出決定：高寒的會員資格將于9月3日終止﹔而在此之前，高寒必須向祕書長陳邁平，向杜導斌、李建強、武宜三、廖亦武等提案人，以及向全体會員進行道歉，“并保証不再重犯‘侮辱、誹謗、捏造或故意傳播謊言’和‘嚴重損害筆會聲譽’違反本會章程的行為”。
高寒的“罪狀”包括：在筆會領導換屆選舉期間，污蔑祕書長陳邁平“巧立名目”、“中飽私囊”﹔在“余、王排郭”風波中，污蔑會長劉曉波和理事會“參与了余、王二人在美國行為的決策”，并斷定筆會“對余、王訪美進行有組織有目的的宣傳活動”﹔ 擅自公布所謂“民主中國臨時過渡政府各省市政權和平交接委員會接收成員”，使名單中的“獨立筆會”國內會員處于危險境地，并導致許萬平、楊天水被判刑。
針對上述指控，高寒發表《“幵除高寒案”系列討論》，指出自己之所以遭“清洗”，僅僅是因為批評了筆會領導層。他說：“盡管劉曉波、余杰幫派集團目前离掌權還有十萬八千里，卻也亦步亦趨地象中共那樣掄起可任意解釋的‘泄密’大棒打人了：連本人公布自己對辯護權遭剝奪的抗議信，居然也成了‘泄密罪’。”高寒質問道：“為什么我們這個號稱獨立于專制体制的中國文化人自主管理的團体，其內部卻容不得批評和爭論？為什么有人動輒就將會員對筆會個別領導人的批評等同于‘攻擊筆會’和‘損害筆會’？”
● 貧富不均 紛爭之源
“獨立中文筆會”創建于2000年至2001年間。起初沒有經費，大家都還相安無事，但自從獲得美國NED巨款資助后，內部的明爭暗斗層出不窮。隨著各种經費源源不斷而來，筆會領導層高度防範內部人士“泄密”。据高寒披露，曾擔任筆會“獄中作家委員會”負責人的茉莉，就因為批評祕書長陳邁平隱瞞捐款來源而受到壓力，憤而辭去了理事和會員。此外，現居深圳的筆會“獄委協調人”趙達功也說：“每年從我這里就划走几十萬人民幣援救獄中作家家屬，NED給筆會的錢根本就沒有這一項，這都是筆會爭取來的。”由此可見，“獨立筆會”并非如其財務報告中所稱的“基本依賴單一資金來源”。除了美國NED之外，還有其它机构祕密資助，而這正是筆會領導層晦莫如深的原因。
2007年10月，“獨立筆會”又因“祕書長張裕涉嫌選舉作票”再起沖突，郭羅基為此發表《化解危机，挽救筆會》，主張：一、張裕停職﹔二、設立監察小組﹔三、請美國NED派觀察員介入調查。這些建議雖獲46人贊同和附議，卻遭會長鄭義封殺。另外，郭羅基等14人聯署的《對續任理事余杰的不信任案》，也未被列入會員大會議程。這時，高寒發表《我們的分歧在哪里？—-与履新的筆會“會長”鄭義老兄談談心》，矛頭指向筆會當權派的“利益瓜葛”問題。
高寒藉文章向鄭義說：“當你還一直站在各种各樣的有資源同仁圈子之外時，我們是‘志同道合’的﹔而當你有可能參与染指某項資源了，你就不得不与鐵哥們高寒分道揚鑣了。”“据說，你現正与余杰忙不迭地籌划著在華盛頓DC幵一個筆會辦公室，為此還向NED申請到了5萬美金預算。看來此時此刻下決心搞掉內部的“刺頭”，剩下的會員不滿，就都好對付了。”他還提到，鄭義曾經告訴他：“許多人都不滿某理事一人就領薪1萬5千美金。”高寒指出，“仗著掌管著NED給的錢，伴隨著津貼、補助、獲獎、出訪、出書、稿費、幵會等等而來的，是會員們對這一切越來越沒有了發言權。”
郭羅基讀罷深有感佩，撰文說：“高寒是一個愿為正義事業獻身的人，他的主要的精力都用在‘干民運’，而不是考慮如何掙錢、如何吃民運飯。我到他家里去看過，在美國，我還沒有見到這樣破爛的家。聽說筆會的某些負責人在國內日子過得很‘滋潤’，大概想不到富裕的美國還有如此貧困的高寒。”
● “義工”圖利 坐地分贓
劉曉波立即以《關于筆會的反對派──反駁郭羅基為高寒的辯護》作回應。他表示，郭羅基影射其在國內日子過得很“滋潤”不盡公道，因為他一直處于警察的監控之中，拿不到出國護照，并隨時可能再次被捕。他說：“可能，我的物質生活不像高寒那樣貧困，但那也是我一個字一個字寫出來的，當會長四年，我分文未取。我不知道高寒過窮日子的真正原因，但我并不認為他如此貧困是由于一心干民運造成的。”劉曉波表示：“筆會是個義工團体，領導層与會員之間沒有利益瓜葛，所以，誰也操控不了誰。”
劉曉波的上述說法遭到“自由圣火”網站上署名“山人”的文章的駁斥。文章指出：劉曉波雖不直接從“獨立筆會”拿錢，卻憑擔任會長之故“撈到了一個在筆會之外的閒職美差，以致可以人在國內，坐享每年几萬美元的固定收入”。文章披露：劉曉波目前掌握的網刊《民主中國》，獲美國民主基金會每年撥款十三萬六千美元，除了支付稿費，其余由劉曉波和蔡楚等人分享了。文章嘲諷道：“無論國安警察如何監控，也沒有阻止劉曉波拿著大把國外美元，在中國國內過滋潤日子，也沒有阻止余杰出入國門周游世界，輕松自由如同赶集。”（筆會中劉曉波的鐵桿支持者綦彥臣、余杰、武宜三、廖亦武、王怡等人，都是“民主中國”網刊的“專欄作家”。）最后，文章說：我們“并不在意劉曉波所享受的特殊經濟待遇。問題在于，劉曉波這兩年利用优厚待遇干了多少拉幫結派，欺負弱者的壞事？”
徐伯陽也撰文指出：國際筆會會章与香港社團通則都嚴禁社團理事會成員受薪，大凡正副會長、理事、司庫、祕書都是義務職，然今日“獨立筆會”已淪為一個“坐地分贓的黑社會集團”—-它制度不健全，監察功能實質癱瘓，而且理事會集体違章。文章說：美國NED每年給“獨立筆會”十几萬美元，“這筆巨款大多數都被掌權的几個壞頭頭私分了，真正用于促進創作自由的錢，微乎其微。”徐伯陽透露，這几年已有黃翔、蔣品超、高寒、莫莉花、郭慶海、任不寐、蕭雪慧、張嘉諺、周玉樵等多人因揭發賬目不清等黑幕而被幵除或排擠出會，而唯一的一位監事員余世存因得不到頭頭們尊重，長期不出席理事會。徐伯陽說：“這個不民主又不獨立的團体早已淪為專制獨裁者的‘東厂’和‘西厂’。”
● 財務拒公幵 假賬名堂多
高寒揭露：“獨立筆會”獲得美國NED資助的第一年，就巧立名目，變更用款科目，挪用逾5000-9000美元。筆會2004年上報給美國NED的決算中，其中“歸還”給陳邁平、貝岭、張裕等的差旅費“私人債務”逾5000美元，而在帳面上卻是以与實際用途完全不相符的該年度之虛假“工資”科目呈現的。他指出，衹要那份決算報表沒有明确地寫上：“歸還2003年會員債務”這一科目﹔衹要提交給上次會員大會的那份筆會財務報告中所謂“后來分別由祕書長萬之領取 2000 美元以抵銷2003年出席墨西哥國際筆會大會路費，前任執行主任貝岭領取1350美元以抵銷參加2003年出席墨西哥國際筆會大會路費…張裕領取1159美元以抵銷參加2004年出席西班牙國際筆會獄中作家委員會代表大會路費”之款項，在該決算中是以“工資”來支取的，那么“巧立名目”的批評就成立。
“為何你偏偏不直接、不名正言順地領工資拿錢，卻偏要用這种繞彎子且財務違規的方式來拿錢？這不是很反常理嗎？”高寒說：“正是從這种不走捷徑反繞彎路的‘反常’支款行為中，正是從筆會會長、副會長、財務祕書、兩任祕書長均眾口一詞為此‘反常’財務行為的站台背書中，讓本人看到了我們中國人中作為潛規則所暢通無阻著的某些個貓膩，看到了我們筆會財務透明制度建設的重要性和迫切性。”
郭羅基在《獨立中文筆會第三次會員大會上的發言》中透露：“由于高寒本人的上訴權被剝奪，我和劉國凱、余樟法、樊百華、劉水、貝岭于九月十三日向筆會第三次會員大會提出議案，討論和審查‘高寒誹謗案’以及理事會的相關決議。九月二十九日，理事會作出決定，拒絕立案。這個決定的文本，看起來很像祕書長張裕的杰作。”他指出：“‘高寒誹謗案’所涉及的，是筆會向美國民主基金會報的賬与筆會內部的財務報告不符。美國的財務制度是很嚴格的，打醬油的錢不能買醋。高寒若是向美國民主基金會舉報，弄不好就會斷了筆會的財源。”
● 民運有幫規 順服成大佬
郭羅基的這番話震撼了“獨立筆會”，于是，剛上任的會長鄭義不得不出面作出回應。他無奈地解釋道：“在如此頭緒紛雜努力工作的情況下，出來這么一位朋友違反章程并纏訟到底，且激起公憤，理事會如何能視若無睹，而不秉公執法？如果理事會姑息高寒，那么聯署提案者又該作何感想？如果聯署者們也像高寒那樣寸步不讓，理事會又作何區處？因此，我認為幵除高寒，不過是‘避禍’之舉，防止組織受到更大傷害。”鄭義表示：“筆會統共衹有200號人沒有一條槍，控制不了任何一個人的生活。被幵除者不僅沒有恐懼和經濟、政治損失，甚至還可以不斷聲討，或者進而自己成立一個足球協會，可以手足并用。”“筆會幵除高寒，并不是自由的喪失，而是自由的保障。共產党不能退出，筆會可以自由退出。”
筆會會長帶有挖苦意味的解釋，對高寒而言無异于火上澆油。他憤然反問：“‘自由表達’還是不是筆會所認同的核心价值？”高寒指出：“打著‘自由主義’旗號的极右分子們的一元化思維，与打著‘共產主義’旗號的极左分子們的一元化思維，其實并沒什么兩樣，他們的靈魂深處其實是習習相通的。因此，极右分子搞一言堂較之极左分子搞一言堂，絲毫也不遜色。”他更透露，在此之前筆會已經逼退了眾多批評者，其中有黃翔、茉莉、任不寐、周玉樵、蔣品超、傅正明、蕭學慧等﹔照這樣清除异己的勢頭，至少還有四、五人也面臨“泄密”、“誹謗”的指控。
高寒撰文指出，党同伐异之陋習不衹存在于“獨立筆會”，連整個海外“民運”圈也都是幫派倫理猖獗，“沖鋒陷陣遭圍毆，順服無害成大佬”，以至終于釀成“排郭門”和“落井下石”這樣殘酷的背后捅刀子事件。高寒說：“在一個幫規高于一切的小圈子里，是沒有真相可言的，是沒有是非可言的。”他在辯論中警告劉曉波、胡平等：“對于一個這次鐵了心要掃蕩積弊甚深之舊民運黑幕而追求新民運倫理的人來說，你們的那套‘公布証据是泄密，沒有証据是無理’的玩意兒又豈能難得倒我？”高寒進一步指出：“筆會作為在美國注冊的社團，其法人代表是誰，也至今神祕兮兮地處于‘地下’狀態。如此，便是既拿會員大會這個‘最高權力机构’的庄重在幵玩笑，又讓整個筆會組織潛藏著隨時可發生的法律危机。”
● 制度成擺設 權力更傲慢
出了這么多的事，“獨立筆會”的制度上有問題嗎？—-許多人都提過這樣的問題。
制度作為一件裝飾品是有的，但對于“獨立筆會”當權派實際并無約束力，因而，爭奪權力的重要性就遠遠大于完善制度。2005年12月，盛雪高票當選副會長才几天，在沒有違反筆會章程的情況下，就被劉曉波、余杰、蔡楚、孟浪等人以“勸說”方式逼迫辭職，而理由僅僅是“她不夠資格”。由于這种“事后資格審查”，不是以任何新發現的資料，而是以候選人早已公幵的身份為据，因而引起各方批評。然而，當會員們為盛雪鳴不平之際，她本人卻保持沉默，以“風度”保護了黑幕。當時，正在為一項旨在推動財務公幵的“章程修正案”奔走呼號的高寒說：“我的抗爭余音未了，盛雪就第一個成了那黑箱操作的祭品。”
高寒的“章程修正案”雖曾得到許多會員贊同，然而，會長劉曉波以及一些大會工作人員卻“違反行政中立”，中止大會正常進程，紛紛給提案人打電話，動員他們撤案。于是鄭義撤了，王丹、陳破空等也跟著撤了。高寒感嘆道：“反正這圈中也時興‘跟人不跟線’。” 高寒向鄭義“掏心窩子”說：“很明顯，這是典型的‘屁股決定腦袋’定律在作祟。因為，玩真格的‘公幵性’和‘競爭性’，就都有可能要触動到有些人那實實在在的既得利益或預期利益—-中國的政治体制改革之難，不就難在這‘屁股-腦袋’定律嗎？中國的一幫‘自由主義精英’實在也不能免俗！”
2007年12月3日，高寒与從歐洲遠道而來的“獨立筆會”祕書長張裕在紐約法庭上狹路相逢。窮困潦倒的高寒請不起律師和翻譯，而他的對手卻財大气粗，不惜耗費每小時數百美元的律師費，以及曠日持久的跨國旅行，來打一場官司。高寒衹能抗爭，別無選擇，因為被告方已拒絕和解。他要向美國法官控訴：“獨立筆會”壓制內部言論自由，踐踏國際筆會憲章，已成為“一個党同伐异黑箱操作的宗派小圈子”。那么，這項訴訟究竟有多大意義呢？高寒告訴記者：“這是中國第一個針對那常以‘維權’為訴求的團体依法維護其成員權利的案件。‘維權者’侵權﹔向‘維權者’維權，這本身就是一個极大的諷刺。”
林曉生
2008年1月15日
snow says
Money corrupts. They’d be much better off without it.
FOARP says
@Charles – This is far too long, and in traditional script, I have neither the patience nor the time to read this.
Wahaha says
FOARP,
This link pretty much illustrate what kind of chaos freedom would bring to China.
and why we must have law first before we talk about freedom in China :
….：“獨立筆會”負責人應“詳細閱讀自由世界的法律規章”，“勿以專制獨裁者的狹隘心態來公器私用、假公濟私、公報私仇。”….
Charles Liu says
Forarp, “I suck” is not a good excuse… Did you read the short summary I wrote in English?
FOARP says
Then it is good of you not to use it, but this is an English language mainland-China oriented blog. Who will read this if you do not translate it or at least convert it into simplified?
Charles Liu says
Translators for simplified/traditional character sets exist and do a good job, what’s your excuse now? Anyway I did provide an English summary, did you read it?
chinayouren says
Hi Charles,
Interesting info, but I have to agree with FOARP that traditional Chinese on such a long document is hard for us, especially on holidays! I have found these links to a chinese bbs where you see the complete content of the lawsuit in English and Simplified chinese (attention I didn’t check sources):
http://www.duping.net/XHC/show.php?bbs=13&post=805340
http://www.gongwt.com/addpost.php?ID=59456&BD=0&PHPSESSID=237fffd7c664bf38e6b03e8f357ecef2
In any case, as I already answered you a minute ago on my blog, this doesn’t prove anything. For the following reasons:
1- As far as I know the court has not ruled yet (please sb correct me if wrong). All this shows is that there are internal disputes within the Chinese disident community. Given the circumstances in which they work, this is hardly surprising.
2- I agree it sounds wrong that an “independent” group should get money from the American Congress. But I don’t think this in itself disqualifies their actions unless you can prove that they are consciously changing their work to serve American interests. I don’t see any proof of this in Charter 08, for example.
3- Most importantly, the legitimacy of Charter 08 does not come IMO from the PEN or from Liuxiaobo, but from its own content and from the thousands of mainland chinese who -in spite of the danger- signed their names on it.
What is for sure is that these links to NED are a weakness of the Charter and yet another point that the authorities can use to turn public opinion against it. This is a pity.
Charlotte Stant says
I am a native reader of traditional Chinese and read your post thoroughly. If we posit, for argument’s sake, for one moment that Gao Han is in the right, and that his fight is for more bookkeeping accountability and sharing of power, all that this means is the democracy proponents of the PEN need institutional checks just like every other human being on earth. To extrapolate from this to argue that 1.3 billion Chinese cannot rule over themselves but must have autocratic rule imposed on them seems a bit of a tall order to me. I agree with you that rule of law and the respect for it should preferably accompany democracy, but as someone who lived and worked in China on business issues what I saw was the party trampling the laws it makes, thus degrading rule of law in the eyes of all citizens. This is the shortest route to violent revolution I know of. And you won’t find a more ardent pacifist gradualist than me when it comes to democratic reforms in China.
收取外國資金的民運人士的確需要善加監督。高寒的呼籲與維權﹐如果動機純正﹐是件大大的好事﹐讓我頗為振奮。當年台灣黨外也拿過美國的資助﹐再說遠一點﹐難道孫大砲拿了日本美國和蘇俄的錢就裡通外國了﹖Sun Yatsun had a ton of foreign money too – I read on the People’s Daily website an attack on NED, and one respondent said, “I assume that NED is funding (just like they did in Eastern Europe) lawyers, doctors, journalists, writers and economists? If so, I support that.” In a country whose citizens are barred from even giving to NGOs with no official sponsorship and whose government cracks down on rights advocates, there is very little recourse except foreign money, but things are changing. There is now more widespread civic giving in the wake of the snow crisis and the earthquake, and I see some incipient efforts to organize such channels. Eventually there would be more organic domestic giving to democratic causes from within China.
The best that people from overseas can do is to be vigilant about corrupt practices without joining the party machine’s chorus about foreign subversion without proper investigation. Of course it’s healthy to maintain skepticism, but so long as finances and undertakings are transparent, all should be well.
chinayouren says
@Charlotte – Insightful comment. I like especially your comparison with Sun Yat Sen who toured the world to get financial support, I hadn’t thought of that parallel. He was a dissident in the Qing regime in the same way as some are dissidents now in the ccp regime.
The main difference I guess is that, at that time, the Qing regime fell from its own incompetence, whereas the present ccp regime is much more clever and -from a economic point of view- is achieving great successes. In these conditions, even a new XXI century Sun Yat Sen would have trouble to start any movement.
Wahaha says
“…The best that people from overseas can do is to be vigilant about corrupt practices without joining the party machine’s chorus.”
I guess I am one of those who joined party machine’s chorus.
Will you give me a reason why China will be peaceful CURRENTLY under a democratic system ? If you cant, then you are ignorant of what has happened in developing countries under democratic system in last 20 years, or you are one of those who joined anti-China machine’s chorus.
Steve says
@ Wahaha #10: I’ve read there were 87,000 estimated demonstrations in China in 2005, and even if the estimation is high, there were still an enormous number of them. Estimates (the government does not publish official numbers) were higher since then, so it seems China isn’t very peaceful now. Right now, there are demonstrations in Guangdong province concerning factory shutdowns. So apparently China isn’t very peaceful under its current system.
I’m not using this as an argument for a democratic system; don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying that the argument for keeping an authoritarian system to maintain peace isn’t necessarily the best argument. Other arguments can be made, but I can’t buy into this particular one.
Charles Liu says
Steve, should America’s system be judged by the same criteria for peacefulness? We have over 10,000 protests a year for Iraq alone. Worker in US took over a factory over bankruptcy concern.
87,000 protests should be a positive indication for democracy in China, meaning protests are allowed – don’t you think?
A few years ago I just happen to go by a city in central China, Louyang, and witnessed a protest where 20-30 people blocked the main road in the city, protesting in front of the local health department.
After squeezing by the crowd I saw a policeman two blocks later, standing next to his microbus smoking.
As to Dr. Sun taking money from foreign government. My history teacher taught me Dr. Sun raised fund from overseas Chinese.
Steve says
@ Charles Liu: Charles, from what I’ve read (and I might have read biased reporting) it seems many protests in China the last couple of years have become violent. Protests in the States are common (protesting is part of democracy and also part of China’s constitution so technically they are equal) but not violent in the States, though we had some pretty violent ones when I was a kid in the 60s.
My point was that neither an authoritarian nor democractic government is by nature peaceful. I just thought it was an ineffective way to compare the two.
FOARP says
@Charles – “87,000 protests should be a positive indication for democracy in China, meaning protests are allowed – don’t you think? ”
I have seen three demonstrations in China:
1) Several hundred farmers who had had their land taken for derisory compensation so that the university I worked at in Nanjing could be built. The riot police moved in, there were arrests, and there was some swinging of truncheons. None of the Nanjing newspapers reported the incident.
2) A few dozen teachers protested the university refusing to pay compensation/pension to the widow of a sports teacher who died on the job. The police took no action, but the lady who had organised the demonstration asked me to leave as she was afraid of what the police would do if they thought a foreigner was involved. No coverage in the media.
3) A wildcat strike by a few thousand workers at a local factory near where I worked in Longhua, Shenzhen. The workers poured out onto the neighbouring roads (which are quite busy) and blocked all the traffic, the riot police moved in and that’s all I saw. No report in the local newspapers.
In none of these incidents was there any kind of acceptance or permission from the authorities, had any of them applied for permission to have a demonstration it would almost certainly not have been granted or their application would simply have been lost. Certainly, strikes are not allowed, although they were under the more liberal 1978 constitution, the 1982 constitution (China’s 4th, and final one of three constitutions China had in the years 1975-82) does not grant freedom to do so. Finally, we need only look at last year’s ‘protest park’ fiasco to see how protest is treated in China.
Wahaha says
Steve,
I misused the word “peaceful”, should be “controllable”.
Almost all of protests in China can be categorized into one of the following :
1) Land acquisition
2) Police violence.
3) Unpaid salary
The only difference between now (the crisis) and before (the crisis) is # 3. I heard some local government used government’s money to pay the salaries and I dont see how things will go out of control.
_____________________________________
FOARP,
I talked to a friend who worked in KPMG, he gave me an interest insight of current economic crisis : Of course subprime mortgage is the main reason for the crisis, but it is the media that has been spreading the panic which contributed a lot to the credit crisis. Read any newspaper, Watch any TV news, American people have been led to believe everything will get worse and worse. As the result, no bank is willing to loan the money, no customers are willing to spend the money, which make everything even worse. In his opinion, it is media that made the current crisis out of control.
Of course, chinese government has too much power over Chinese people, but in last 30 years, Chinese government has encountered lot of crisis or bumps on the road, in lot of way, Chinese have been IN A WAR of getting economy better, like Hu JingTao said : 不折腾. 折腾 is not allowed. This policy is against humanity, I agree. But what will be the result of 折腾, especially during economic crisis ? would 折腾 solve the problem? Would China have been able to achieve what she accomplished in last 30 years with 折腾?
I strongly believe that there will be more and more freedom in China, people will be given more and more space to “折腾”, CCP wont be able to control it unless it finds way to let people 折腾 controllably. But this process may be not as quick as some people wish. The political reform started only about 7 or 8 years ago, didnt it ?
admin says
Speaking of 不折腾, it seems it’s a difficult phrase to translate.
Phrase used by Hu Jintao in speech baffles translators and foreign journalists
The phrase “bu zheteng” used recently by Chinese President Hu Jintao in his speech to commemorate the 30th anniversary of China’s reform and opening-up has baffled professional translators and foreign journalists. The colloquial phrase has spawned many translated versions on the internet such as “don’t flip flop”, “don’t get sidetracked”, “don’t sway back and forth”, “no dithering” and “no major changes”. However, none of the above translations have been able to express the full meaning of the phrase, leading some to predict that “bu zheteng” might be included into the English dictionary alongside “taikonaut” and many others one day.
( http://english.zaobao.com/englishweek.shtml )
And Danwei has an interesting post and discussion on this topic as well. ( http://www.danwei.org/translation/the_inscrutable_wisdom_of_hu_j.php )
FOARP says
It is news to me that political reform is taking place in China at all. The have been precisely zero moves to change the current political structure or introduce meaningful reform. Certainly no-one talks about it in the way they talk about economic reform.
My brother-in-law is also at KPMG, his spin on things is somewhat different – essentially he follows the line of people like Nassim Talib, , that investors had gotten to the point where they thought they could account for all possible risks, and that this was the main cause of our current difficulties. Public opinion actually doesn’t have much to do with it, it is the banks that are cutting back on loaning money – of course this loss of confidence affects the stock market, however this affected the Chinese stock markets more than those of the developed economies, because so much of the investment in Chinese markets is pure speculation.
Bu Zheteng? I say that genuine reform is not ‘Zheteng’, allowing a dictatorial government to continue to pretend that it is introducing reforms, when we have seen absolutely nothing of substance from them is to ‘Zheteng’.
Wahaha says
@FOARP
ABCDEFG,
From A to G, I have to get to B first, then C, etc. It took West several decades for EACH step, and you are asking why China political reform hasnt reached G yet.
BTW, It sounds funny but former prime minister of england Clement Attlee once said “Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.”
Charles Liu says
Admin, to me 折腾 seems more in-line with the word “consternation”.
Contextually Hu is saying “without consternation”.
FOARP says
@Wahahaha – Never heard the quote from Clem Attlee before, but he does have a point – once the decision has been made, the government need not discuss it further. The important thing, like Attlee said, is that proper discussion should take place before the decision is made and should impact on the decision. If the government merely pretends to listen, then the people should have an opportunity to hold them to account for their decision – and it is this element which is the most important.
Xujun says
Admin, it seems to me “don’t flip flop” is the closest translation for 不折腾 in Hu’s context. Sounds like he was against frequent policy changes.
admin says
Charles and Xujun,
Hu’s statement was actually vague to begin with. Personally I think there are two interpretations if we view it from a historic context.
The biggest 折腾 in the past were the great leap forward and the cultural revolution.
Hu is known for his call of a “harmonious society.” So 不折腾 means to not do anything destabilizing to cause chaos as seen during the CR. . This also follows the line of Deng’s “Don’t argue.”
Another catch phrase Hu likes to use is “scientific development.” In this vein, 不折腾 means to not waste time doing something stupid/unscientific, eg., the GLF.
FOARP says
I’m not a native speaker, but on the scanty knowledge that I have, I’d have to go with Xujun Eberlein. I always thought this term meant something along the lines of “messing about”. Whether the GLF and the CR were ‘messing about’ or ‘flip-flopping’ or caused ‘consternation’, well, it is hard to say.
Charles Liu says
Admin, perhaps a more elegant interpretation might be:
“Without waver, without complacency, without consternation”
admin says
berlinf has some comments on the translation ( http://family.mblogger.cn/berlinf/ )
He think it should be translated along the line of “stop being whimsical” or “Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.”
His version:
We will not waver. We will not withdraw and we will not allow any whims.
or
The reform has no room for hesitation, delay or caprice.
Other humorous versions:
For dissidents version: Shut up! Keep up! And don’t mess up!
Garrison Keillor version：Be willing, try hard and stay out of trouble.
Obama version:We want change, change that is here to stay, change that we can believe in.
Kennedy version：Do not ask whether we should backtrack, ask how we can blaze a new trail. Do not ask whether we should relax, ask how we can reenergize. Do not ask what new things we can attempt, ask how much folly we can afford.
Ebonics version: Yo, my main man, come on, keep trying and don’t fuck up!
Computer version: Translator server error.
Charles Liu says
Maybe “shizzle” and “bizzle” can go in there somewhere. It’ll help Hu reach out to the hip-hop generation.