23-Nov-07 Odense

给对关注京不特的在独立中文笔会的休眠会员身份的人们的一个解说：

To those who Jimbut’s dormant membership of ICPC may concern][Note1]:

自从2002年起我就是独立中文笔会的会员；作为独立中文笔会的会员，鉴于笔会秘书处对于秘书处自己所制订的笔会运行规则和笔会中心之会员大会议事规则的一再违犯，现在我宣告自己成为一个休眠会员。

I have been the member of ICPC (The Independent Chinese PEN Center) since 2002, and now I declare myself as a dormant member of ICPC, because of the secretariat’s reiterating violation of the rules and regulations for the function and general election meeting of ICPC, which is written by the secretariat itself.

讨论：涉及到对入会申请的判定中所使用的审查、笔会章程和立足于政治意识形态的判断

Discussion about censorship against member-application, PEN’s charter and political-ideological judgement

所有这一切是独立中文笔会在msn的社区中开始的(PenChinese@groups.msn.com)。

All started in the forum of ICPC at msn (PenChinese@groups.msn.com).

在独立中文笔会中，一些讨论持续了一两年了，比如说去年的关于“罢免余杰副会长职务”和“开除高寒”的提案。由于我自己忙于自己的翻译工作，我一般不关注社区的讨论，直到三个月前一个具体的讨论话题才将我卷了进去，——据我的记忆，那是2007年八月十日。

There has been some discussions in ICPC for years, for example from last year the discussions about the resolutions of “demanding that the board-member Yu Jie should be dismissed from the vice-chairman post” and of “expelling the normal member of ICPC Gao Han from ICPC”. Since I was busy in my translation, I did not pay much attention to the discussion till 3 months ago, when a certain discussion involved me in it anyway, - as I remember, it was from the 10^th August 2007.

这讨论是关于中国异议类戏剧艺术家张广天先生的入会申请。张广天先生是一个中国和世界上言论自由的表演者和支持者。我是介绍推荐张广天先生入会的人员之一。事实上，张广天先生在两年前就已经被批准入会了，而现在他是中文独立笔会的会员。但是对我来说，这样一些讨论则是在这样一种前提下导致了我的介入：当时的笔会理事和副会长余杰先生宣称他那时曾反对张广天入会、并且劝说其他理事拒绝张广天的入会申请（虽然没有成功）、并且他将总是会尽自己的最大努力去阻止类似于张广天的人们成为笔会会员。余杰先生的论证依据是：张广天是毛主义者，因此张广天反对言论自由；而余杰先生指控张广天是毛主义者的推断则是立足于这样的事实材料：张广天作为艺术家在他的艺术作品和遭遇表演中使用毛泽东和切·格瓦拉作为象征和标示。余杰先生在他的论述中认为在对入会申请的核批处理中，他的审查意识能够保证独立笔会的纯洁性。

It was about the Chinese dissident and dramatic artist Mr. Zhang Guangtian’s application of “joining ICPC and becoming a member of PEN”. Mr. Zhang Guangtian is a performer and advocate for freedom of expression in China and on earth. I am one of those who introduced and recommended Zhang Guangtian into ICPC. Actually, the application for Mr. Zhang Guangtian’s admission to ICPC was granted two years ago, and Zhang Guangtian is now a member of ICPC.

But the discussions for me broke out when the board-member and vice-chairman of ICPC, Mr. Yu Jie, proclaimed that he was against this admission, that he had persuaded the other board-members to refuse Zhang Guangtian’s application (although failed), and that he would always do his best to prevent people like Zhang Guangtian from being member of PEN. Mr. Yu Jie’s argument was that “Zhang Guangtian is a Maoist, and therefore Zhang Guangtian is against freedom of expression”, and Mr. Yu Jie’s justification for his allegation was that Zhang as an artist had made use of the symbols and icons of Mao Zedong and Che Guevara in his art works and happenings. Mr. Yu Jie meant in some of his arguments, that his sense of censorship under treatment of the applications would ensure ICPC’s cleanness.

在我看见了余杰先生的断言、他的论述和指控之后，我回答，对于余杰作为个人表达自己的一种态度，我不想说什么，因为那是他的言论上的权利和自由。但是，如果这一类事情作为独立笔会的决定而发生，如果理事会以类似于余杰先生所给出理由为依据来拒绝类似于张广天的人们成为笔会会员，那么，作为笔会的成员，我将抗议。

When I learned Mr. Yu Jie’s proclaimation, his arguments and allegations, I answered that I would say nothing about Mr. Yu Jie’s utterance as an attitude of a private person, because it was Mr. Yu Jie right and freedom of speech. But if such things happened as a decision of ICPC, that the board rejected people like Mr. Zhang Guangtian on account of this kind of reasons from Mr. Yu Jie, then, I as a member of PEN would protest.

然后，我得到了秘书长张裕先生的回应，他告诉我说张广天在从严审查的前提下可能会被遭到拒绝，尽管他自己从不认为否决张广天入会是一个好主意——因为张广天成为笔会成员对独立中文笔会有好处；按照独立中文笔会会长刘晓波和秘书长的说法，张广天成为笔会会员是一个正面的事实。就这样，现在张广天是一个笔会成员。

Then I got a response from the general secretary, Mr. Zhang Yu, and he told me that Zhang Guangtian might be rejected if the board tightened the standard of censorship, although he himself never meant that it would be a good idea to reject Zhang Guangtian, - because it benefited ICPC when Zhang Guangtian became a member of PEN; according to the chairman of ICPC, Mr. Liu Xiaobo and the general secretary, Mr. Zhang Yu, it was a positive fact that ICPC had members like Mr. Zhang Guangtian. Well, Mr. Zhang Guangtian is a member now.

但是对于我，张广天先生应当是能够入会的，这不是一个“有益于笔会”的问题，而是根据笔会的章程和规则，张广天是完全有资格成为笔会会员的。这是一个原则的问题，而不是一个功利的问题。于是我又写道：

But for me, it should not be out of a kind of profitableness that Mr. Zhang Guangtian might get admission to be a member of ICPC, but rather according to the PEN-charter and rules, that Mr. Zhang Guangtian are entirely qualified to be a member of PEN. This is a question of principle, but not profit-seeking. So I wrote again:

“张广天在从严审查的前提下可能不够入会资格/条件，因此可能否定他入会。那么在理事会做出这个决定后，我作为推荐者会员当然有权利质疑，要求给出理由。如果这样理由是和笔会原则相悖的话，那么，就凭这一点，作为笔会会员对这个决定本身就有质疑的权利。如果理事会因为会员的质疑而使得自己的决定不再与笔会原则相悖，那么，作为会员我当然也不会说什么。但是如果理事会继续坚持与笔会原则相悖，那么，作为会员就有权指控理事会失去功能，要求重组理事会。当然这样一个方案可能成功，也可能不成功。”

It might be that Zhang Guangtian would be judged as not qualified to be a member of PEN if the board tightened the standard of censorship, so he could be rejected. If such decision was made by the board, I as a member naturally would have right to question and to demand the grounds for such decision in that case. If the grounds contradicted the principle of PEN, then on the basis of this contradiction, I as a member of PEN would have right to question the validity of the board’s decision. If the board modified the decision and adjusted it in conformity with the principle of PEN, I as a member would not dispute this further. But if the board insisted the decision against the principle of PEN, I as a member would be entitled to accuse the board of malfunction and demand a reconstitution of the board. Of course, such a resolution could probably be passed, but also could probably be failed.[Note2]

我强调了理事会没有运用与笔会宗旨相悖的政治审查来保证笔会的“纯洁性”的独断权利。比如说，如果独立中文笔会理事会的一个理事信仰新保守主义的意识形态，我作为独立笔会成员当然尊重他的这种个人信仰；但是作为一个理事，他必须杜绝让自己的政治意识形态来干涉笔会的正常运作而制造笔会的运作故障。

I maintained that the board had no absolute right to use the political censorship which contradicted the principle of PEN to ensure its “cleanness”. For instance, if an ICPC-board member believed in the ideology of the neo-conservatism, then I as a member of ICPC would of course respect his personal belief; but as a board-member, he should keep his political ideology away from interfering PEN’s function and causing malfunction.

于是，我得到了秘书长张裕的回答。他解释道，在对入会申请的核批处理中，审查总是合理的，甚至如果理事会依据于一些理事的与笔会章程有悖的政治意识形态信仰而从严审查也是这样；他提及了罗曼·罗的笔会会籍的案例（法国笔会因为罗的和平主义态度和作品而拒绝了罗曼·罗，而英国笔会则将罗接受为荣誉会员），以此来为“理事会有时可以做出与笔会的原始元素相悖的决定”作合法化辩解。我回答道，作为会员我维护一个合格的申请者的权利而抵制这一类审查，——这一类基于一些理事的与笔会章程有悖的政治意识形态信仰而做出的审查，不管这里牵涉到的是罗曼·罗还是张广天。介于张裕先生与我之间的这场讨论并没有达成我们两种立场间的一致和理解。但不管怎么说，这只是一场介于两个独立中文笔会会员间的讨论而已。

So, I got answers from the general secretary, Mr. Zhang Yu. He explained that the censorship under treatment of the applications was always justifiable, even if the board tightened the standard of censorship on the basis of some board-member’s political-ideological belief which differed from PEN’s principle; and he mentioned the case of Romain Rolland’s membership of PEN (that the French PEN-center rejected Romain Rolland because of his pacifistic attitude and writing, while English Center took him as its honorary member) to legitimate that the board sometimes might make decisions which were in conflict with “PEN’s original element”. I replied, that I as a member would defend the qualified applicants right to be a member against such kinds of censorship, the censorship on the basis of some board-member’s political-ideological belief which differs from PEN’s principle, no matter it was a Romain Rolland or a Zhang Guangtian. The discussion between Mr. Zhang Yu and me did not end at a consensus or understanding between us. Anyway, it was just only a discussion between two ICPC-members.

与此同时，当时的副会长余杰先生强调他总是会尽自己的最大努力去阻止类似于张广天的人们成为笔会会员，并且他总是会尽自己的最大努力在对入会申请的核批处理中以审查来确保独立笔会的纯洁性。我对余杰先生的回应就是，我无法信任余杰先生有能力作为一个合格的理事，并且只要余杰先生继续尽自己的最大努力来保证这审查，那么我将尽自己的最大努力来阻止余杰先生的政治意识形态信仰为独立笔会的运作带来故障。

Meanwhile, the vice-chairman Mr. Yu Jie emphasized that he would always do his best to prevent people like Zhang Guangtian from being member of PEN and that he would always do his best to use censorship under treatment of the applications to ensure ICPC’s cleanness. My response to Mr. Yu Jie was that I declared that I could not trust Mr. Yu Jie’s ability to be a qualified board-member; and that While Mr. Yu Jie did his best to ensure this censorship, I would try my best to prevent Mr. Yu Jie’s political-ideological belief from bringing ICPC into malfunction.

我难道应当去为一个我从不曾说过“同意”的决定承担责任？

Should I be responsible for a decision which I had never said “agree” to?

正当我处于对入会申请的核批处理中的意识形态审查的讨论时，我接收到独立笔会理事会的公告，宣布笔会成员高寒被开除出会。

While I still carried the discussion about the ideological censorship under treatment of the applications, I received the announcement of ICPC-board’s decision, that the normal member of ICPC Gao Han was expelled from ICPC.

在之前，正如我自己，高寒先生也是笔会成员；我从来就不喜欢高寒先生。我想，如果我的猜测是正确的话，他也不曾喜欢我，——简言之，我们间并不存在个人意义上的会友之情。在高寒先生在社区中与那些提出“开除高寒”的提案的人们进行辩论时，我对他们的讨论是不感兴趣的，既然他从来就不是我的朋友而我自己也没有那么多时间去关注；我一贯相信个体人的人格自律，因此我认为他应当自己去驳斥那些要开除他的人们。在总体上，我的态度就是：作为笔会会员，只要一个人没有犯罪也没有反对言论自由，那么他就不应当被开除。但是，在开除高寒的公告在社区出现时，我也并不说什么，既然我尊重高寒先生有着为自己辩护的自律。但是，我在之后发现，高寒先生被封出了社区，这样他无法为自己在社区里作辩解。那么，由于从来没有人来让我对这一提案投票，由于我从来就不曾对这一开除案表示过同意，那么我这时就不得不做出表示对独立笔会理事会所作的这个决定保持距离——这个决定与我无关。至少，尽管我不喜欢这个人，我必须在“开除这个人”的决定上洗我的手、撇清我的干系，“开除这个既不是犯罪者也不是反言论自由者的人的会籍，干系不在我，你们自己承当吧”[Note3]。——于是我向社区发送出一个个人声明并强调了我的立场——我与“开除高寒”的决定彻底无关。这声明发送于2007年九月九日。

Mr. Gao Han was a member of ICPC as myself, and I never have had a liking for him. I think, if I am right, that he never have had a liking for me either, - shortly, we did not have much fellow-feeling to each other although we were in the same ICPC. When Mr. Gao Han argued against the people who proposed the resolution “expelling the normal member of ICPC Gao Han from ICPC” in the forum, I was not interested, since I did not have much time whereas he has never been a personal friend of mine; and I always believe in the personal autonomy of the individuals, so I thought that he should carry his argument by himself against his adversaries who wanted to dispossess him the membership. My attitude by and large is that as member of PEN, nobody should be expelled from PEN as long as she or he is not criminal or against freedom of expression. But when the announcement of expelling Gao Han came, I did not say anything about it either, since I respected Mr. Gao Han’s autonomy to defend himself. But then it appeared that Mr. Gao Han was also expelled from forum, so he could not express his defence. Well, since I was never asked to vote on this resolution, and since I am not a one who gave or gives his consent to this expelling, I had to show my dissociation from this decision made by the board of ICPC. At least, even when I did not like the person, I should wash my hands of the decision to expel this person, “I am innocent of the banishment of this person who has not been charged for being criminal or against the freedom of expression: see ye to it.”[Note4]  -  So I sent a personal statement to the forum and stated my position – I had totally nothing to do with the “expelling Gao Han” decision[Note5]. The statement was sent in the 9^th December 2007.

于是，秘书长张裕先生非常迅速地以一种非常繁复的语言回应道：

So the general secretary, Mr. Zhang Yu, responded very quickly but in a kind of intricate language:

你既然有反对意见，在争议近两年来、启动开除决议一年内、或哪怕是保留会籍的一个多月中，为何不能提出来？那是否意味着高寒其实并不真在你“反对开除会员”的原则考虑之中？

在程序结束前后提出反对意见，除非有时间上难以做到的原因，根本差别至少以下两点必居其一：

1）根本就不在乎或相信程序本身，或至少在这个问题上“程序先于是非”；

2）否则，就是并不真希望自己的反对意见对程序结果产生正面影响，因此做法是与反对意见“自相矛盾”的。比如，你说你是一般地“反对开除会员”，但你在程序结束后才提出来，等于就将高寒排除在“会员”的程序范围外了，因此“反对开除高寒”的表白又是将他放在程序内的，可见两者是自相矛盾的。

“Since you have an attitude against expelling Gao Han, why didn’t you set forth your opinion in these two years discussion, or you could say it in the one year’s period after the expelling resolution was started or even in the last period little more than one month when his membership was still remained? Does this mean that you actually did not include Gao Han in the categories your “against expelling member” principle applies to?

Except the problem of timing, the differences between that you contradict the board’s decision before and after the procedure would at least be one of the two down here:

1. You did not care about the procedure at all, or at least “procedure before judgment” relating to this issue,

2. Otherwise, you did not really hope that your attitude should have influence upon the result of the procedure, therefore what you were doing contradict your attitude. For instance you said that you generally were “against expelling any member”, but you said it after the procedure was finished, - it is equal to that you excluded Gao Han out of where the procedure for “a member” covers, therefore the expression of “against expelling Gao Han” is in turn including him into the procedure, so it is clear that the two thing are in self-contradiction.”[Note6]

我无法明白在张裕先生的回复和我的声明之间的逻辑关联是什么。但是我可以看出一点：他试图说服我去相信要么我对我态度的表达是无效的、要么我“在某种真正的意义上”是同意“开除高寒”的决定的。如果我把这一回复当作是独立笔会秘书处的声明，那么我真的会非常愤怒，——从一个会员这里巧取豪夺出一个“同意”来，这决不是什么正当的做法。中国俗语里有很多描述这一类的贬义词。

I could not understand what the logical coherence was between Mr. Zhang Yu’s response and my statement. But one thing is that I could see: He was trying to persuade me to believe, that either my expression of my attitude was invalid or in some kind of “real sense” I was actually agreeing with this “expelling Gao Han” decision. If I took this response as an official statement from the general secretary of ICPC, I would be really angry, - to wring consent out of a member in such cunning way, this is not decent! And in Chinese there are ugly words for it[Note7].

但不管怎么说，我把张裕先生的回应作为某个对关联无知的会员对另一个会员的声明的回应。好吧，那只好随他的便，即使他要去游说彼拉多成为那些犹太众氓中的一员，他也有权去表达他想表达的东西。

事实上，我与“开除高寒”的决定彻底没有关系；并且我相信独立中文笔会的大多数会员与“开除高寒”的决定彻底没有关系，这一决定是独立中文笔会的理事会所作出的。（有些东西是难说，既然这个决定没有经过会员们的投票。有十二个会员联名要求开除高寒。）

Anyway, I considered Mr. Zhang Yu’s response only as a certain ignorant ICPC-member’s response to another member’s statement. So well, even if he would try to persuade Pilate to become one of those among the Jewish masses, he might have his right to express what he wanted.

As a matter of fact, I have and had totally nothing to do with the “expelling Gao Han” decision; and I believe that the most of ICPC-members have and had nothing to do with the “expelling Gao Han” decision, which was made by ICPC’s board (Somehow it is difficult to say, since there has not been voting on this resolution. There were 12 members who demanded to expel Mr. Gao Han.)

双重标准，是作为个人判断还是作为独立笔会的一种运作方式？

Double standard as a kind of personal judgment or as a kind of method in ICPC-function?.

与秘书长张裕在“开除高寒”决定上的回应构成鲜明对照的是他呼吁会员们去停止对“不信任理事余杰”投票提案。

我支持“不信任理事余杰”投票提案，并且如果有可能投票，我将对“不信任理事余杰”提案投支持票，——我无法信任余杰先生有能力作为一个合格的理事，只要余杰先生坚持声称他要尽自己的最大努力去阻止类似于张广天的人们成为笔会会员并且他总是会尽自己的最大努力在对入会申请的核批处理中以审查来确保独立笔会的纯洁性。并且只要余杰先生继续将自己的政治意识形态置于笔会原则之上，那么我将尽自己的最大努力来阻止余杰先生的政治意识形态信仰为独立笔会的运作带来故障，而具体的行动就是：向余杰先生投不信任票。

What formed a sharp contrast to the general secretary Mr. Zhang Yu’s response in regard to “expelling Gao Han” decision was his appealing to the ICPC-members to stop the vote on the voting-suggestion of the resolution of “not trusting Board-member Mr. Yu Jie”.

I supported the voting-suggestion of the resolution of “not trusting Board-member Mr. Yu Jie”, and I would have voted yes on the resolution if it had been brought out to voting procedure, - I cannot trust Mr. Yu Jie as a qualified Board-member, as long as he insists that he would always do his best to prevent people like Zhang Guangtian from being member of PEN and that he would always do his best to use censorship under treatment of the applications to ensure ICPC’s cleanness. While Mr. Yu Jie places his political ideology above the PEN principles, I would try my best to prevent Mr. Yu Jie’s political-ideological belief from bringing ICPC into malfunction, and the concrete action would have been: to vote “non-trusting” to Mr. Yu Jie.

不管怎么说，关于高寒先生和余杰先生的这些提案与2006年夏天的余杰王怡在白宫与美国总统乔治W布什的会面时排斥郭飞雄的事件有关，因此我不想在此更进一步深入。（如果人们想要进入这个问题，可以自己去古狗查）。

Anyway, the cases of Mr. Gao Han and Mr. Yu Jie have a large part to do with the events from Summer 2006, that Mr. Yu Jie and Wang Yi excluded Mr. Guo Feixiong from their meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush in White House, so I do not want to go into further details in my description here. (You can google it with words "Yu Jie Wang Yi Whitehouse Guo Feixiong", then you can find more information about those events).

在独立中文笔会的第三次会员大会上，秘书处和大会主席刘晓波停止了对“不信任余杰”提案的投票；那是在十月十二日。与“开除高寒”的案子相比，会长刘晓波与秘书长张裕的态度完全有着另一种标准。

独立笔会的理事会和秘书长在处理和判断这些案子时的双重标准，这是我在社区中所看见的，使得我产生了怀疑；我开始怀疑理事会和秘书长在为笔会工作时是否有能力公正地作出判断。从这一刻开始，我开始去留意理事会和秘书处的工作程序，因为我无法再信任它们了。

In the 3^rd general election meeting of ICPC, the secretariat and the Chairman Mr. Liu Xiaobo stopped the voting of the resolution “non-trusting to Mr. Yu Jie”[Note8]; it was in the 12^th October 2007. In comparing with the case of “expelling Gao Han”, the the Chairman Mr. Liu Xiaobo and the general secretary Mr. Zhang Yu’s attitude had totally another standard.

The double standard in treating and judging these cases by the board and the general secretary of ICPC, which appeared in forum, aroused my suspicion; I came to doubt the board and the general secretary’s abilities to keep the quality or condition of being correct in judgment when they worked for ICPC. From this point I began to watch the procedures in the works of the board and the secretariat, because I could no longer trust them.

秘书处对规则章程的违犯

The secretariat’s violation of the rules and regulations

对于秘书长张裕先生的信任匮乏或者说可信度问题马上就被新的事件确证。独立中文笔会会员阿海在2007年十月三十日的声明揭示出了张裕先生对规则章程的违犯，主要的问题有：张裕先生在他不得沾手的地方擅自滥用了权力（比如说，尽管按规则他不得插手数票，但他却汇总数票）；在点票程序中有许多可疑和自相矛盾的地方（比如说，通过秘书长张裕的点票，突然有十六个未作登记的“投票者”出现在投票过程中并且被接受为有效票，尽管大会要求有效的投票者必须报名并在大会之前得以登记）。

The want of confidence or the problem of credibility in the general secretary Mr. Zhang Yu was confirmed very soon by the new events. The statement of ICPC-member Ahai 30^th October 2007, “Statement: to urge the general election meeting investigate the abnormal and irregular phenomena under the voting of the board-members”[Note9], exposed Mr. Zhang Yu’s violation of the rules and regulations, and the main problems were: Mr. Zhang Yu excised his power in the area where he was not allowed to have admission (for instance, Mr. Zhang Yu took over vote’s final counting in defiance the rule that he should not involved in counting); there are a lot of doubtful and self-contradictory points around the counting procedure (for instance, 16 unregistered “voter” suddenly appeared in procedure and accepted by the general secretary Mr. Zhang Yu’s counted results, while the meeting demanded that the valid voters should notify themselves and should be registered before the meeting).

作为对阿海先生的声明的回应，我也向独立中文笔会的社区发送了一个声明。那是在十月三十日：

As a response to Mr. Ahai’s statement, I also sent a statement to ICPC’s forum, and it was from 30^th October 2007 (the notes in square-parenthesis is by Jimbut):

我这一阶段在独立笔会社区中与中文独立笔会秘书长张裕打了比较多的交道，我发现张裕与会员讨论时候的方式是：对那些反对自己以及反对自己所辩护的人的会员，张裕使用的是自己所说的规则；对自己以及对自己所辩护的人，张裕使用的是对规则的解释；对那些反对自己以及反对自己所辩护的人的会员，张裕使用的是道德要求；而对自己以及对自己所辩护的人，张裕使用的是所谓“审美”的解说。如果张裕作为一个秘书长在这样处理会务的话，我也会向笔会和所有相关各界作出表示，无论会内有没有这个程序，我个人已经对这个秘书长投出了不信任票了。但是，我在上面所说的关联中只是把张裕当成一个普通会员，这样一来，我一直没有正式投出对独立笔会秘书长张裕的不信任票。
……我却在网上又看见了阿海的这个关于张裕又一次滥用规则的帖子。我能说什么呢？独立笔会的运作机构和会员大会有着这样一个秘书长，如果我让自己认可这个有着这样的运作机构的笔会是自己所选择的笔会，那我无疑是在对我自己的智力进行侮辱。但是，我确实是中文独立笔会的会员，我也知道自己不退会就意味要妥协。那么我既不退会又不想认可这个有张裕作为秘书长的笔会是我所在的笔会，我想我能做的就是让自己在中文独立笔会中正式缺席。在国际笔会年度大会中，人们常常用到这样的一个词dormant——“休眠”——来描述一些笔会中心的状态。那么我现在就正式使用这个词来描述我在中文独立笔会中的状态吧：只要张裕继续是秘书长，不管是会员大会还是独立笔会秘书处的秘书长，那么我作为中文独立笔会就宣告自己休眠……

“In this period I have had lots of public communications [correspondences in ICPC-forum] with the general secretary Zhang Yu. I can see that the way Zhang Yu discusses issues with ICPC-members is: to the members who are against Zhang Yu or against those whom Zhang Yu wants to advocate, Zhang Yu applies his so-called rules; to himself and to those whom Zhang Yu wants to advocate, Zhang Yu applies the liberal interpretation of these rules; on the members who are against Zhang Yu or against those whom Zhang Yu wants to advocate, Zhang Yu makes moral demands; for himself and to those whom Zhang Yu wants to advocate, Zhang Yu makes so-called “esthetical” explanations. If I saw that Zhang Yu as the general secretary managed ICPC’s matter in this way, then I would have already declared to PEN and the relevant circles that I had sent a vote of non-confidence to Zhang Yu, no matter whether there had been a process about this in PEN or not. But in the mentioned public communications I only considered Zhang Yu as a normal member of PEN, so I in fact did not vote non-confidence against the ICPC’s general secretary Zhang Yu.

…

…But then I saw Ahai’s statement and his report about Zhang Yu’s violation of the rules and regulations again. What can I say to this? ICPC’s functional structure and general election meeting have had a such general secretary, so, if I acknowledged that the PEN-center with this functional structure was the PEN-center that I have chosen as mine, it would undoubtedly mean that I was insulting my own intelligence. But ICPC is indeed my PEN-center, and I know, it means that I have to compromise if I do not resign from the ICPC. Since I will neither resign my membership nor acknowledge that the PEN-center with Zhang Yu as general secretary was the PEN-center that I have chosen as mine, I think then, the only thing I can do is to let myself be absent in ICPC. In International PEN’s annual congress, people often use such a word – “dormant” to describe some PEN-center’s condition. Thus I formally use this word to describe my own state in ICPC: as long as Zhang Yu still is general secretary of ICPC, I as a member of ICPC declare myself as a dormant member…”[Note10]

独立中文笔会的秘书长坚持自己对规则章程的违犯并且一如既往。于是我现在就是独立中文笔会的休眠会员

The general secretary of ICPC stands on his violation of the rules and regulations and continues to do what he always does. So I am now a dormant member in ICPC.

在会员大会之后，独立中文笔会的运作结构中有了一个真空时期，会员们想要知道新的秘书长是谁。同时张裕继续向社区发送他的各种解说。比如说，现在对于他，规则中本原的“秘书长‘筹备会员大会’和‘筹备选举工作’”被解说为 “秘书长负责……选举工作”。

After the general election meeting, there has been a vacuum-period for ICPC’s functional structure, and the members waited to see, who the new general secretary of ICPC would be. Meanwhile Zhang Yu sent some interpretations of the rules to the forum again. For instance, now for him, the original article of the rules, that the general secretary’s responsibilities is to prepare the general election meeting and the voting, is interpreted as, that the general secretary’s responsibilities is to operate and administrate the general election meeting and the voting.

一些成员抗议了，但是他们继续面对张裕先生在对规则的解说上的自由发挥。现在的问题就成为，只要张裕先生和那些张裕先生想要辩护的人们想要在独立笔会中违犯规则地行事，那么张裕先生就总是能够通过改变外延操纵曲解规则章程的内涵。于是，独立中文笔会会员盛雪女士提出了一个提案来质疑张裕先生对解说权的滥用。在十一月十四日被发送到社区，文字如下：

Several members protested, but they always met Mr. Zhang Yu’s liberal interpretation of the rules. Now the problem became, that Mr. Zhang Yu was able to manipulate the rules and regulations connotation by changing their denotation as soon as he and those whom he wanted to advocate wanted do the irregular things in ICPC. Then, the ICPC member Ms. Sheng Xue proposed a resolution to question Mr. Zhang Yu’s abuse of his interpretation. It was posted in 14^th November 2007. Here is the resolution (the notes in square-parenthesis is by Jimbut):

敬请笔会相关常设机构按照规定，给出时间，帮助将以下提案提交会员联署并促成表决（包括明确告知会员该怎么做）。以解决笔会目前就一系列问题的误解和争端。因为，如果没有稳固坚实的依据，没有公认信服的原则，没有有效可靠的裁决机制，验票的意义又何在呢。

提案：

 笔会兼第三届选举大会秘书长认为，秘书长当然有权查看会员在选举中都投了谁的票。大会主席则“也可能”有权查看会员在 选举中都投了谁的票。证据如下：

 “关于谁能看到（会员都投了谁的票），我记得我当时说的是：根据议事规则，当然有我，但也可能有大会主席，如果他要核查，当然是有权知道的。”

在遇到质疑时，秘书长擅自对笔会章程进行了修改。证据如下：

 1）这使原条文有了“筹备会员大会”和“筹备选举工作”是规定为秘书长一人职责的涵义，其语文表达很别扭；......其实正确的行文显然是：“秘书长负责执行理事会批准的预算和工作计划”，“秘书长负责……筹备会员大会”，和“秘书长负责……选举工作”。这样以上所有的问题都解决了。

请认同秘书长以上说法和做法的投赞成票，不认同的投反对票，没有立场或不明白的投无所谓。

提案人：盛雪

“I request the relevant functional organ of ICPC to help me to bring this resolution to the members of ICPC, give them the necessary time according to the regulations and let them vote (incl. an instruction that tells the members how to do) for solving the problems caused by misunderstanding and disagreement inside the present ICPC. The reason therefore is: if there is no fundamental justification, no common acknowledged principles and no valid functions for judgments and decisions, what is then the point of verifying vote-results?

Resolution:

The general secretary of ICPC and its 3^rd general election meeting has set forth his opinion that the general secretary was naturally legitimized to see whom the members voted to, and that the chairman of the general election meeting ‘probably also’ was legitimized to see whom the members voted to. Evidence for the statement above is [Zhang Yu’s text]:

‘The questions relating to who may see (whom the members voted to), I remember what I said at that time was: according to the regulations, it of course must be me, but probably also the chairman of the general election meeting, - if he wants to check, he is of course legitimized to know.’

Then, when it was questioned, the general secretary presumed on his position by juggling the regulations of ICPC. Evidence for the statement above is [Zhang Yu’s text]:

‘1) There are words like “to prepare the general election meeting” and “to prepare the voting” in the original text of the article, it means that they are exclusively the general secretary’s responsibilities; the writing in this way is very uneasy; … obviously the correct description is: “the general secretary are responsible for executing the budgets and working-plans approved by the board”, “the general secretary are responsible for …preparing the general election meeting” and “the general secretary are responsible for… the voting”. So all the mentioned problems are solved.’

Those, who are agree with what the general secretary said and did above, please vote Yes; those, who are not agree with what the general secretary said and did above, please vote No; those, who does not have opinion or has not understood, please vote ‘Not Care’.

Resolutioner: Sheng Xue”[Note11]

新的理事会被选举出来了，虽然存在着信任问题，如果盛雪女士的提案能够被发送到会员们那里得到表决，那么独立笔会的会员们能够明确地看出问题在哪里并且也许就能够纠正错误和故障。

但是，这故障在独立笔会中再次取胜。盛雪女士的提案没有提交会员表决，相反新理事会再次任命了张裕先生为秘书长。这一公告在十一月十七日由张裕先生发送出来。

The new board was elected although it had a problem of confidence, and if Ms. Sheng Xue’s resolution was brought to the members and voted on, then the members of ICPC could see the problem clearly and probably correct the mistakes and malfunctions.

But once more, the malfunction in the ICPC obtained its victory. Instead of bringing Ms. Sheng Xue’s resolution to members, the new board appointed Mr. Zhang Yu as the general secretary of ICPC again. It was announced by Mr. Zhang Yu the 17^th November 2007.

从2007年八月十日到十一月十七日，对于我来说这是一个搞明白独立中文笔会理事会和秘书处内部是怎么一回事的快速过程。

作为一个中文独立笔会的会员，我和一些其他会员一样，试图改变这样的事实，然而，既然对章程和规则的违犯现在可以通过对章程和规则的操纵曲解来得以合法化，那么我就没有什么必要通过自己在独立中文笔会中的在场来侮辱自己的理智。我洗手撇清，——只要秘书处对规则章程的违犯继续以这样的方式进行着，我就宣布自己为独立中文笔会的休眠会员。

From the 10^th August 2007 to 17^th November 2007, - for me, it has been a quick process of realizing what has been going on inside the board and secretariat of ICPC.

As a member of ICPC, I have protested, I have tried to bring some changes, so have some other members done as well, but since the violation of rules and regulations is now legitimized by the manipulation of the rules and regulations, then I should not insult my own intelligence by being present in ICPC. I wash my hands, - I declare myself as a dormant member of ICPC, as long as the secretariat’s reiterating violation of the rules and regulations continues.

国际笔会会员：京不特

The member of Pen International: Jimbut