英语有一句玩笑话，叫做“Ready! Aim! Shoot … at the foot.”一个不确切的中文翻译是“搬起石头砸自己的脚。”用这个话来描述中国驻洛杉矶领事馆的一些所作所为，很确切。
最近，一个朋友抹不开面子，在洛杉矶侨联新春联欢会上买了一桌。然后就把我拉去充数。这是一个很怪的聚会。大家都西装革履（我不知道，所以便装前往）。然后几十个组织的会长，一批一批地讲废话、套话，一批一批地正襟拍照。看起来，很是滑稽。
侨联总会长是张素久（张治中女儿）。此人七十多岁，屁股长期坐在洛杉矶，全职经营她的权力。很多年前，因为我看到很多想找雇员的校友找不到人，想找工作的校友找不到工作，所以我想让清华校友会，像哈佛校友会、南加大校友会那样，将找雇员的校友和找工作的校友联系起来，帮助双方。一开始，大家都很愿意，结果就把我和另一个人选成南加州清华校友会理事。我们花了很多时间，准备南加州清华校友会理事会，结果十几个理事，只有两个现身。一问才知道，这些理事从来不参加任何会议，所以任何决议都是绝对不可能被通过的。
我随即傻呵呵地提出，不干事的理事需要让路。我可以负责出头找愿意服务的人来当理事。这一下子，可捅了马蜂窝了。校友会的“老人儿”一开始说要查我的历史。查了一通，没发现什么，就要追查我后面的黑手。查来查去没发现什么黑手，就发email给所有的人，说我从来没有被选为理事（他们完全不顾一个星期之前，他们已经发email给所有校友恭喜我被选为理事）。理事会里面张素久的走卒竟和我一起加入理事会的那个朋友说，“张老师一听到郑朴捷的名字就浑身发抖。”她一个七十多岁的老太太，不在家里颐养天年，而我想干一点点好事（一点点其它校友会都在做的好事），就会把她搞得浑身发抖呢？那时我才明白为什么为什么清华校友会有着那种岂有此理的组织结构。张素久搞了那么大一批完全不做事的“理事”，所以她才可以大权在握，指鹿为马，出尔反尔，操控选举，独裁独断。以一付统战的恶嘴脸，依靠领事馆的钱，在洛杉矶替中国政府丢人现眼。
他们依靠领事馆的钱，扼杀其他真正想干事的组织（特别是针对新移民的侨团）。我的一个朋友因为看不起张素久的所作所为，成立了一个橙县清华校友会。结果，因为绝大多数清华校友不明白这里的就里，所以我这个朋友始终无法有所作为。
领事馆的工作方式，是让每个组织者写报告，从领事馆领取工作经费，然后去发展。因此形成了一个群魔乱舞的局面。鸭鸭乌站满一台人，全是某某侨社的社长，一个副社长们都没有。（不知道领事馆调查过没有，多少这样社团有做事的副社长，还不要说理事，更不要说社员。）张素久的这种以虚人充数，从领馆冒领军饷的做法，不知道是不是从她爸爸那里学来的，但是看着一片一片西装革履的“社长”们，我敢打赌她不是唯一的用这一招来忽悠领事馆的。
可悲的是有些涉世不深的年轻人，竟然也在这个圈子里混。他们不知道，在美国，这是死胡同。移民在美国的唯一出路，是在年轻时掌握一技之长，然后为这个社会做出实质贡献，堂堂正正地做人。要我这个朋友买一桌的那个年轻人，曾经开着一个宝时捷（Porsche）到他那里上班。一星期以后，这个年轻人说他要介绍一个朋友来上班，结果他的朋友开着一辆更大的宝时捷。这些人的钱，显然是家里的。他们拿着家里的钱，在领事馆资助的侨团里面混，自然不会长什么真正见识。他们远在中国的父母，以为他们二十几岁，就当上了什么什么侨社的会长，如此了得，很可能会愿意资助他们继续在美国虚度时光，自绝前程。
在洛杉矶，原本有着各种侨团成长的沃土，领事馆的这种做法，搞得满地侨团，乌烟瘴气，良莠不分。结果很多人不愿意趟这个浑水。洛杉矶社区的新移民都有一种缺乏组织的感觉。目前，我的事务所正在招人。因为这位听到我的名字就浑身发抖的“张老师”的阻挠，我无法通过清华校友会或者什么别的机构进行这个事。在洛杉矶毕业的人，可以通过USC等校友会找人；像我这样的东岸毕业的人，最后恐怕只好到报纸去登征人广告了。
中国驻洛杉矶领事馆，就是这样地，花了不少钱，养起了一批张素久。像张素久这样七、八十岁的人也就算了。他们用领馆的钱吸引进来的那些不明真相的二十多岁的人的美国前途，很可能会毁在他们的手中。唯一的结果就是纠集出了一屋子西装革履，说话不着调，不真正地为什么人服务的“社长”。
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
最近治安状况下降，让我们共同复习自卫常识
最近，因为经济的原因，治安状况有所下降。虽然一个block里面有时竟有两辆警车，治安还是问题。我去年就在家门口被几个老墨袭击过，幸好没有出事。一般来说，这种人身攻击对女性的威胁超过男性。本文介绍几个自卫的常识，每过一段时间，我们都应该复习一下：
1、你身体最强的部位，是肘部。在近距离的时候，用肘部攻击对方。
2、如果有人向你要你的钱包，不要递给他。把钱包扔向一边，然后以最快速度向另外一边跑。（向你要钱包的罪犯，对你的钱包比对你更有兴趣。）
3、如果你被扔进一个汽车的后箱，用脚踢车灯部位，把车灯踢掉以后，把手伸出去挥手。（开车的人看不到，其他人都会看到你在挥手。）
4、上车以后，立刻锁上车门，把车开走。（罪犯经常会在附近观察，看到你坐在车里吃东西、喝水、做事，就可能拉开车门，坐在司机边上，拿枪指着你，要求你如此这般。）
如果有人进车拿枪指着你，千万不要驶离停车场。系上安全带，把车从车位倒出来，然后立刻全力把油门踩到底，几秒以后车速就会相当高，不要转向，直接撞到面前的物体上。撞车以后，气囊会保护你。气囊放气后，立刻跑离现场。（如果罪犯在后座，或者他没有系安全带，他受的伤，会远远超过你。在这种情况下，你宁愿冒这个风险，也不愿意去一个没人的地方，任人宰割。）
5、在停车场，要注意以下几件事：
a、开车门之前，看看周围，看看车里的前座和后座。
b、如果你的车的右面停着一个大面包车，从右面进入车，锁上门，然后挪到左边。（连续杀人犯的惯用伎俩是在你进车的时候，把你抓到面包车里。）
c、如果在你的车子的左边车的右座上，坐着一个男的，从右门进入。
处理b和c情况的一个更安全的办法，是立刻离开，然后请商店的保安或警察陪你上车。
6、使用电梯，不要用楼梯，特别是夜里。（楼梯是作案的最佳地点。）
7、如果罪犯手里有枪，只要你不在他的控制之下，快速跑开。只有4%的罪犯会开枪。而且，在开枪时，通常不会打到致命器官，所以跑开时，不要跑直线。
8、很多罪犯假装可怜（如一瘸一拐，拄拐杖），先获得你的同情，然后请你扶他去他的车子，然后控制你。Ted Bundy（著名连环杀手）就很喜欢用这种办法。
9、如果你听到一个小孩在门外哭，千万不要开门。你听到的可能是录音。打电话给警察，请他们来处理。
10、如果你发现你的草坪水龙头，突然全部在喷水，不要出去察看是什么问题。
11、如果有可疑的生人出现家周围、邻居家，或者有奇怪的车子停在家周围，立刻打电话给警察。这些人可能在考察地形。
1、你身体最强的部位，是肘部。在近距离的时候，用肘部攻击对方。
2、如果有人向你要你的钱包，不要递给他。把钱包扔向一边，然后以最快速度向另外一边跑。（向你要钱包的罪犯，对你的钱包比对你更有兴趣。）
3、如果你被扔进一个汽车的后箱，用脚踢车灯部位，把车灯踢掉以后，把手伸出去挥手。（开车的人看不到，其他人都会看到你在挥手。）
4、上车以后，立刻锁上车门，把车开走。（罪犯经常会在附近观察，看到你坐在车里吃东西、喝水、做事，就可能拉开车门，坐在司机边上，拿枪指着你，要求你如此这般。）
如果有人进车拿枪指着你，千万不要驶离停车场。系上安全带，把车从车位倒出来，然后立刻全力把油门踩到底，几秒以后车速就会相当高，不要转向，直接撞到面前的物体上。撞车以后，气囊会保护你。气囊放气后，立刻跑离现场。（如果罪犯在后座，或者他没有系安全带，他受的伤，会远远超过你。在这种情况下，你宁愿冒这个风险，也不愿意去一个没人的地方，任人宰割。）
5、在停车场，要注意以下几件事：
a、开车门之前，看看周围，看看车里的前座和后座。
b、如果你的车的右面停着一个大面包车，从右面进入车，锁上门，然后挪到左边。（连续杀人犯的惯用伎俩是在你进车的时候，把你抓到面包车里。）
c、如果在你的车子的左边车的右座上，坐着一个男的，从右门进入。
处理b和c情况的一个更安全的办法，是立刻离开，然后请商店的保安或警察陪你上车。
6、使用电梯，不要用楼梯，特别是夜里。（楼梯是作案的最佳地点。）
7、如果罪犯手里有枪，只要你不在他的控制之下，快速跑开。只有4%的罪犯会开枪。而且，在开枪时，通常不会打到致命器官，所以跑开时，不要跑直线。
8、很多罪犯假装可怜（如一瘸一拐，拄拐杖），先获得你的同情，然后请你扶他去他的车子，然后控制你。Ted Bundy（著名连环杀手）就很喜欢用这种办法。
9、如果你听到一个小孩在门外哭，千万不要开门。你听到的可能是录音。打电话给警察，请他们来处理。
10、如果你发现你的草坪水龙头，突然全部在喷水，不要出去察看是什么问题。
11、如果有可疑的生人出现家周围、邻居家，或者有奇怪的车子停在家周围，立刻打电话给警察。这些人可能在考察地形。
Sunday, February 14, 2010
风萧萧兮易水寒， 壮士一去兮不复还
上中小学的时候，经常见到“前赴后继”这个词。无非就是共产党前赴后继打败国民党之类。大学毕业，来了美国，也就和这个词拜拜了。六四，是一群不懂事的学生和一个宦气太重的总书记的一次遭遇，谈不上壮烈（自然浪费了一个大好机会）。这之后，就是小冲突。最近，这种小冲突密集了起来。
当局2009年底判刘晓波11年徒刑，自知是冒天下之大不韪，所以在西方度假期间进行。我当时在外地度假，了解这件事，就是看到一个清华同学发来的email，email本身是日语的，文章很短，但措辞激烈（附在本文后面）。
刘晓波的《零八宪章》（附在本文后面）我早就听说，因为它很短，里面只包括例如言论自由、结社自由、宗教自由、司法独立、民主政治等等内容，没有超出美国的《独立宣言》和《宪法》，所以我并没有太多的关注。刘晓波的问题，是他想在中国推行这些中国以外的人都熟视无睹的原则。
当时看这条日语短讯时，我的身心立刻从度假的松弛状况紧了起来，我随即立刻停止阅读，三、四个小时之后，方才再次放松下来。
即便如此，刘晓波2009年底被判刑以后，海外还是一片哗然。大家不明白，时至今日，这个世界上居然还有国家，以言论罪（或者按照判决书上说的：“颠覆国家政权罪”；或者是依照中华人民共和国宪法第一条第一款：“我说你有罪你就有罪”）判人11年徒刑。刘晓波上次被关押的时候，当局故意把他和肺结核病人关在一起，迫使他患上肺结核，结果他的肺给切掉了一大部分。今年他五十四岁了，身体并不好。这次被关押，还不知会造成何种后果。
2010年2月12日，《零八宪章》的另一个署名人冯正虎，经过八次回国被拒入境（包括四次在上海被海关赶回日本）后，终于回到上海。（冯是2009年2月15日开始，被拘押41天后，于4月初被逼往日本探亲。冯于6月7日开始致力于回国。）
旅居新西兰的贾甲，上海作家李剑虹等越来越多海外中国人也频频闯关，以图从中国内部争取公民权利。
刘晓波被判刑之后，让我注意到的一条消息是捷克剧作家、前总统哈韦尔（Václav Havel）亲自到中国驻捷克大使馆递一封给胡锦涛的信，要求释放刘晓波。
1990年Havel访问美国，随访的人（像很多当时来自东欧人一样）和我们说，他们的斗争的原动力，就是天安门的大学生，因为他们从那些大学生的行为中，他们看到了他们自己胜利的希望。Havel那次来美国，在国会作了一个很长的讲话。这个讲话所表达的，就是将理想变为现实（transform those words into deeds）的可行性。我度假回来后，把Havel二十年前让我激动不已的那个讲话（全文转载于后）又翻出来读了一遍。刘晓波的这种置自己的生命于不顾，致力把文字（《零八宪章》）变成现实的精神，和冯正虎这种明知山有虎，偏向虎山行的精神，让当局闻风丧胆。一个堂而皇之、号称自己空前强大的中国，竟然四次把自己的公民从上海机场赶回日本。
风萧萧兮易水寒， 壮士一去兮不复还。
A Joint Session of the U.S. Congress
Washington, D.C., February 21, 1990
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Dear Mr. President,
Dear senators and members of the House,
Ladies and gentlemen:
My advisors have advised me, on this important occasion, to speak in Czech. I don't know why. Perhaps they wanted you to enjoy the sound of my mother tongue.
The last time they arrested me, on October 27 of last year, I didn't know whether it was for two days or two years. Exactly one month later, when rock musician Michael Kocab told me that I would probably be proposed as a presidential candidate, I thought it was one of his usual jokes.
On the 10th of December 1989, when my actor friend Jiri Bartoska, in the name of the Civic Forum, nominated me as a candidate for the office of the president of the republic, I thought it was out of the question that the Parliament we had inherited from the previous regime would elect me.
Twelve days later, when I was unanimously elected president of my country, I had no idea that in two months I would be speaking in front of this famous and powerful assembly, and that I would be heard by millions of people who have never heard of me and that hundreds of politicians and political scientists would study every word I say.
When they arrested me on October 27, I was living in a country ruled by the most conservative Communist government in Europe, and our society slumbered beneath the pall of a totalitarian system. Today, less than four months later, I am speaking to you as the representative of a country which has complete freedom of speech, which is preparing for free elections, and which seeks to establish a prosperous market economy and its own foreign policy.
It is all very extraordinary indeed.
But I have not come here to speak about myself or my feelings, or merely to talk about my own country. I have used this small example of something I know well to illustrate something general and important.
We are living in extraordinary times. The human face of the world is changing so rapidly that none of the familiar political speedometers are adequate.
We playwrights, who have to cram a whole human life or an entire historical era into a two-hour play, can scarcely understand this rapidity ourselves. And if it gives us trouble, think of the trouble it must give to political scientists, who spend their whole lives studying the realm of the probable and have even less experience with the realm of the improbable than playwrights.
Let me try to explain why I think the velocity of the changes in my country, in Central and Eastern Europe, and of course in the Soviet Union itself, has made such a significant impression on the world today, and why it concerns the fate of us all, including Americans. I would like to look at this, first from the political point of view and then from a point of view we might call philosophical.
Twice in this century, the world has been threatened by a catastrophe. Twice this catastrophe was born in Europe, and twice Americans, along with others, were called upon to save Europe, the whole world and yourselves. The first rescue provided significant help to Czechs and Slovaks.
Thanks to the great support of your President Wilson, our first President, Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, was able to found a modern independent state. He founded it, as you know, on the same principles on which the United States of America had been founded, as Masaryk's manuscripts held by the Library of Congress testify.
At the same time, the United States made enormous strides. It became the most powerful nation on earth, and it understood the responsibility that flowed from this. Proof of this are the hundreds of thousands of your young citizens who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe, and the graves of American airmen and soldiers on Czechoslovak soil.
But something else was happening as well: The Soviet Union appeared, grew, and transformed the enormous sacrifices of its people suffering under totalitarian rule into a strength that, after World War II, made it the second most powerful nation in the world. It was a country that rightly gave people nightmares, because no one knew what would happen and when to worsen the mood of its rulers, and what country it would decide to conquer and drag into its sphere of influence, as it is called in political language.
All of this taught us to see the world in bipolar terms, as two enormous forces, one a defender of freedom, the other a source of nightmares. Europe became the point of friction between these two powers, and thus it turned into a single enormous arsenal divided into two parts. In this process, one half of the arsenal became part of that nightmarish power, while the other the free part bordering on the ocean and having no wish to be driven into it, was compelled, together with you, to build a complicated security system, to which we probably owe the fact that we still exist.
So you may have contributed to the salvation of us Europeans, of the world and thus of yourselves for a third time: You have helped us to survive until today without a hot war this time, merely a cold one.
And now the totalitarian system in the Soviet Union and in most of its satellites is breaking down, and our nations are looking for a way to democracy and independence. The first act in this remarkable drama began when Mr. Gorbachev and those around him, faced with the sad reality in their country, initiated the policy of "perestroika." Apparently they too had no idea what they were setting in motion or how rapidly events would unfold. We knew a great deal about the enormous number of growing problems that slumbered beneath the honeyed, unchanging mask of socialism. But I don't think any of us knew how little it would take for these problems to manifest themselves in all their enormity, and for the longings of these nations to emerge in all their strength. The mask fell away so rapidly that, in the flood of work, we have had literally no time even to be astonished.
What does all this mean for the world in the long run? Obviously a number of things. This is, I am firmly convinced, a historically irreversible process, and as a result Europe will begin again to seek its own identity without being compelled to be a divided armoury any longer. Perhaps this will create the hope that sooner or later your young men will no longer have to stand on guard for freedom in Europe or come to our rescue, because Europe will at last be able to stand guard over itself.
But that is still not the most important thing. The main thing is, it seems to me, that these revolutionary changes will enable us to escape from the rather antiquated straitjacket of this bipolar view of the world, and to enter at last into an era of multipolarity. That is, into an era in which all of us, large and small, former slaves and former masters, will be able to create what your great President Lincoln called "the family of man". Can you imagine what a relief this would be to that part of the world which for some reason is called the Third World, even though it is the largest?
I don't think it's appropriate simply to generalize, so let me be specific:
1) As you certainly know, most of the big wars and other European conflagrations over the centuries have traditionally begun and ended on the territory of modern Czechoslovakia, or else they were somehow related to that area. Let the Second World War stand as the most recent example. This is understandable. Whether we like it or not, we are located in the very heart of Europe, and thanks to this, we have no view of the sea, and no real navy. I mention this because political stability in our country has traditionally been important for the whole of Europe. This is still true today. Our government of national understanding, our present Federal Assembly, the other bodies of the state, and I myself, will personally guarantee this stability until we hold free elections, planned for June.
We understand the terribly complex reasons, domestic political reasons above all, why the Soviet Union cannot withdraw its troops from our territory as quickly as they arrived in 1968. We understand that the arsenals built there over the past twenty years cannot be dismantled and removed overnight. Nevertheless, in our bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union, we would like to have as many Soviet units as possible moved out of our country before the elections, in the interests of political stability. The more successful our negotiations, the more those who are elected will be able to guarantee political stability in our country even after the elections.
2) I often hear the question: How can the United States of America help us today? My reply is as paradoxical as the whole of my life has been: You can help us most of all if you help the Soviet Union on its irreversible, but immensely complicated, road to democracy. It is far more complicated than the road open to its former European satellites. You yourselves probably know best how to support, as rapidly as possible, the non-violent evolution of this enormous, multi-national body politic toward democracy and autonomy for all of its peoples. Therefore, it is not fitting for me to offer you any advice. I can only say that the sooner, the more quickly, and the more peacefully the Soviet Union begins to move along the road toward genuine political pluralism, respect for the rights of nations to their own integrity and to a working that is a market economy, the better it will be, not just for Czechs and Slovaks, but for the whole world. And the sooner you yourselves will be able to reduce the burden of the military budget born by the American people. To put it metaphorically, the millions you give to the East today soon will return to you in the form of billions in savings.
3) It is not true that the Czech writer Vaclav Havel wishes to dissolve the Warsaw Pact tomorrow and then NATO the day after that, as some eager journalists have written. Vaclav Havel merely thinks what he has already said here, that American soldiers shouldn't have to be separated from their mothers for another hundred years just because Europe is incapable of being a guarantor of world peace, which it ought to be, to make at least some amends for having given the world two world wars.
Sooner or later Europe must recover and come into its own, and decide for itself how many of those soldiers it needs, so that its own security, and all the wider implications of security, may radiate peace into the whole world. Vaclav Havel cannot make decisions about things it is not proper for him to decide. He is merely putting in a good word for genuine peace, and for achieving it quickly.
4) Czechoslovakia thinks that the planned summit of countries participating in the Helsinki process should take place soon, and that in addition to what it wants to accomplish, it should aim to hold the so-called Helsinki II conference earlier than 1992, as originally planned. Above all, we feel it could be something far more significant than has so far seemed possible. We think that Helsinki II should become something equivalent to a European peace conference, which has not yet been held; one that would finally put a formal end to the Second World War and all its unhappy consequences. Such a conference would officially bring a future democratic Germany, in the process of unifying itself, into a new pan-European structure which could decide about its own security system. This would naturally require some connection with that part of the globe we might label the "Helsinki" part, stretching westward from Vladivostok and all the way to Alaska. The borders of the European states, which by the way should become gradually less important, should finally be legally guaranteed by a common, regular treaty. It should be more than obvious that the basis for such a treaty would have to be general respect for human rights, genuine political pluralism and genuinely free elections.
5) Naturally, we welcome the initiative of President Bush, which was essentially accepted by Mr. Gorbachev as well, according to which the number of American and Soviet troops in Europe should be radically reduced. It is a magnificent shot in the arm for the Vienna disarmament talks and creates favourable conditions not only for our own efforts to achieve the quickest possible departure of Soviet troops from Czechoslovakia, but, indirectly as well, for our own intention to make considerable cuts in the Czechoslovak army, which is disproportionately large in relation to our population. If Czechoslovakia were forced to defend itself against anyone, which we hope will not happen, then it would be capable of doing so with a considerably smaller army, because this time its defence would be not only after decades but even centuries supported by the common and indivisible will of both of its nations and its leadership. Our freedom, independence and our newborn democracy have been purchased at great cost, and we will not surrender them. For the sake of order, I should add that whatever steps we take are not intended to complicate the Vienna disarmament talks, but on the contrary, to facilitate them.
6) Czechoslovakia is returning to Europe. In the general interest and its own interest as well, it wants to coordinate this return both political and economic with the other returnees, which means, above all, with its neighbours the Poles and the Hungarians. We are doing what we can to coordinate these returns. And at the same time, we are doing what we can so that Europe will be capable of really accepting us, its wayward children, which means that it may open itself to us and may begin to transform its structures which are formally European but de facto Western European in that direction, but in such a way that it will not be to its detriment but rather to its advantage.
7) I have already said this in our Parliament, and I would like to repeat it here, in this Congress, which is architecturally far more attractive: For many years, Czechoslovakia as someone's meaningless satellite has refused to face up honestly to its co-responsibility for the world. It has a lot to make up for. If I dwell on this and so many important things here, it is only because I feel along with my fellow citizens a sense of culpability for our former reprehensible passivity and a rather ordinary sense of indebtedness.
8) Last but not least, we are of course delighted that your country is so readily lending its support to our fresh efforts to renew democracy. Both our peoples were deeply moved by the generous offers made a few days ago in Prague at the Charles University, one of the oldest in Europe, by your secretary of state, Mr. James Baker. We are ready to sit down and talk about them.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I've only been president for two months, and I haven't attended any schools for presidents. My only school was life itself. Therefore, I don't want to burden you any longer with my political thoughts, but instead I will move on to an area that is more familiar to me, to what I would call the philosophical aspect of those changes that still concern everyone, although they are taking place in our corner of the world.
As long as people are people, democracy in the full sense of the word will always be no more than an ideal; one may approach it as one would a horizon, in ways that may be better or worse, but it can never be fully attained. In this sense you are also merely approaching democracy. You have thousands of problems of all kinds, as other countries do. But you have one great advantage: You have been approaching democracy uninterruptedly for more than 200 years, and your journey toward that horizon has never been disrupted by a totalitarian system. Czechs and Slovaks, despite their humanistic traditions that go back to the first millennium, have approached democracy for a mere twenty years, between the two world wars, and now for three and a half months since the 17th of November of last year.
The advantage that you have over us is obvious at once.
The Communist type of totalitarian system has left both our nations, Czechs and Slovaks as it has all the nations of the Soviet Union, and the other countries the Soviet Union subjugated in its time a legacy of countless dead, an infinite spectrum of human suffering, profound economic decline, and above all enormous human humiliation. It has brought us horrors that fortunately you have not known.
At the same time, however unintentionally, of course it has given us something positive: a special capacity to look, from time to time, somewhat further than someone who has not undergone this bitter experience. A person who cannot move and live a normal life because he is pinned under a boulder has more time to think about his hopes than someone who is not trapped in this way.
What I am trying to say is this: We must all learn many things from you, from how to educate our offspring, how to elect our representatives, all the way to how to organize our economic life so that it will lead to prosperity and not poverty. But it doesn't have to be merely assistance from the well-educated, the powerful and the wealthy to someone who has nothing to offer in return.
We too can offer something to you: our experience and the knowledge that has come from it.
This is a subject for books, many of which have already been written and many of which have yet to be written. I shall therefore limit myself to a single idea.
The specific experience I'm talking about has given me one great certainty: Consciousness precedes Being, and not the other way around, as Marxists claim.
For this reason, the salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human humbleness and in human responsibility.
Without a global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness, nothing will change for the better in the sphere of our Being as humans, and the catastrophe toward which this world is headed, whether it be ecological, social, demographic or a general breakdown of civilization, will be unavoidable. If we are no longer threatened by world war or by the danger that the absurd mountains of accumulated nuclear weapons might blow up the world, this does not mean that we have definitively won. We are in fact far from definite victory.
We are still a long way from that "family of man;" in fact, we seem to be receding from the ideal rather than drawing closer to it. Interests of all kinds: personal, selfish, state, national, group and, if you like, company interests still considerably outweigh genuinely common and global interests. We are still under the sway of the destructive and thoroughly vain belief that man is the pinnacle of creation, and not just a part of it, and that therefore everything is permitted. There are still many who say they are concerned not for themselves but for the cause, while they are demonstrably out for themselves and not for the cause at all. We are still destroying the planet that was entrusted to us, and its environment. We still close our eyes to the growing social, ethnic and cultural conflicts in the world. From time to time we say that the anonymous megamachinery we have created for ourselves no longer serves us but rather has enslaved us, yet we still fail to do anything about it.
In other words, we still don't know how to put morality ahead of politics, science and economics. We are still incapable of understanding that the only genuine backbone of all our actions if they are to be moral is responsibility. Responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my firm, my success. Responsibility to the order of Being, where all our actions are indelibly recorded and where, and only where, they will be properly judged.
The interpreter or mediator between us and this higher authority is what is traditionally referred to as human conscience.
If I subordinate my political behaviour to this imperative, I can't go far wrong. If on the contrary I were not guided by this voice, not even ten presidential schools with 2,000 of the best political scientists in the world could help me.
This is why I ultimately decided after resisting for a long time to accept the burden of political responsibility.
I'm not the first nor will I be the last intellectual to do this. On the contrary, my feeling is that there will be more and more of them all the time. If the hope of the world lies in human consciousness, then it is obvious that intellectuals cannot go on forever avoiding their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distastes for politics under an alleged need to be independent.
It is easy to have independence in your programme and then leave others to carry out that programme. If everyone thought that way, soon no one would be independent.
I think that Americans should understand this way of thinking. Wasn't it the best minds of your country, people you could call intellectuals, who wrote your famous Declaration of Independence, your Bill of Rights and your Constitution and who above all took upon themselves the practical responsibility for putting them into practice? The worker from Branik in Prague, whom your president referred to in his State of the Union message this year, is far from being the only person in Czechoslovakia, let alone in the world, to be inspired by those great documents. They inspire us all. They inspire us despite the fact that they are over 200 years old. They inspire us to be citizens.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed," it was a simple and important act of the human spirit.
What gave meaning to that act, however, was the fact that the author backed it up with his life. It was not just his words, it was his deeds as well.
I will end where I began. History has accelerated. I believe that once again, it will be the human spirit that will notice this acceleration, give it a name, and transform those words into deeds.
零八宪章
一、前言
今年是中国立宪百年，《世界人权宣言》公布60周年，“民主墙”诞生30周年，中国政府签署《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》10周年。在经历了长期的人权灾难和艰难曲折的抗争历程之后，觉醒的中国公民日渐清楚地认识到，自由、平等、人权是人类共同的普世价值；民主、共和、宪政是现代政治的基本制度架构。抽离了这些普世价值和基本政制架构的“现代化”，是剥夺人的权利、腐蚀人性、摧毁人的尊严的灾难过程。21世纪的中国将走向何方，是继续这种威权统治下的 “现代化”，还是认同普世价值、融入主流文明、建立民主政体？这是一个不容回避的抉择。
19世纪中期的历史巨变，暴露了中国传统专制制度的腐朽，揭开了中华大地上“数千年未有之大变局”的序幕。洋务运动追求器物层面的进良，甲午战败再次暴露了体制的过时；戊戌变法触及到制度层面的革新，终因顽固派的残酷镇压而归于失败；辛亥革命在表面上埋葬了延续2000多年的皇权制度，建立了亚洲第一个共和国。囿于当时内忧外患的特定历史条件，共和政体只是昙花一现，专制主义旋即卷土重来。器物模仿和制度更新的失败，推动国人深入到对文化病根的反思，遂有以“科学与民主”为旗帜的“五四”新文化运动，因内战频仍和外敌入侵，中国政治民主化历程被迫中断。抗日战争胜利后的中国再次开启了宪政历程，然而国共内战的结果使中国陷入了现代极权主义的深渊。1949年建立的“新中国”，名义上是“人民共和国”，实质上是“党天下”。执政党垄断了所有政治、经济和社会资源，制造了反右、大跃进、文革、六四、打压民间宗教活动与维权运动等一系列人权灾难，致使数千万人失去生命，国民和国家都付出了极为惨重的代价。
二十世纪后期的“改革开放”，使中国摆脱了毛泽东时代的普遍贫困和绝对极权，民间财富和民众生活水平有了大幅度提高，个人的经济自由和社会权利得到部分恢复，公民社会开始生长，民间对人权和政治自由的呼声日益高涨。执政者也在进行走向市场化和私有化的经济改革的同时，开始了从拒绝人权到逐渐承认人权的转变。中国政府于1997年、1998年分别签署了两个重要的国际人权公约，全国人大于2004年通过修宪把“尊重和保障人权”写进宪法，今年又承诺制订和推行《国家人权行动计划》。但是，这些政治进步迄今为止大多停留在纸面上；有法律而无法治，有宪法而无宪政，仍然是有目共睹的政治现实。执政集团继续坚持维系威权统治，排拒政治变革，由此导致官场腐败，法治难立，人权不彰，道德沦丧，社会两极分化，经济畸形发展，自然环境和人文环境遭到双重破坏，公民的自由、财产和追求幸福的权利得不到制度化的保障，各种社会矛盾不断积累，不满情绪持续高涨，特别是官民对立激化和群体事件激增，正在显示着灾难性的失控趋势，现行体制的落伍已经到了非改不可的地步。
二、我们的基本理念
当此决定中国未来命运的历史关头，有必要反思百年来的现代化历程，重申如下基本理念：
自由：自由是普世价值的核心之所在。言论、出版、信仰、集会、结社、迁徙、罢工和游行示威等权利都是自由的具体体现。自由不昌，则无现代文明可言。
人权：人权不是国家的赐予，而是每个人与生俱来就享有的权利。保障人权，既是政府的首要目标和公共权力合法性的基础，也是“以人为本”的内在要求。中国的历次政治灾难都与执政当局对人权的无视密切相关。人是国家的主体，国家服务于人民，政府为人民而存在。
平等：每一个个体的人，不论社会地位、职业、性别、经济状况、种族、肤色、宗教或政治信仰，其人格、尊严、自由都是平等的。必须落实法律面前人人平等的原则，落实公民的社会、经济、文化、政治权利平等的原则。
共和：共和就是“大家共治，和平共生”，就是分权制衡与利益平衡，就是多种利益成分、不同社会集团、多元文化与信仰追求的群体，在平等参与、公平竞争、共同议政的基础上，以和平的方式处理公共事务。
民主：最基本的涵义是主权在民和民选政府。民主具有如下基本特点：（1）政权的合法性来自人民，政治权力来源于人民；（2）政治统治经过人民选择，（3）公民享有真正的选举权，各级政府的主要政务官员必须通过定期的竞选产生。（4）尊重多数人的决定，同时保护少数人的基本人权。一句话，民主使政府成为“民有，民治，民享”的现代公器。
宪政：宪政是通过法律规定和法治来保障宪法确定的公民基本自由和权利的原则，限制并划定政府权力和行为的边界，并提供相应的制度设施。
在中国，帝国皇权的时代早已一去不复返了；在世界范围内，威权体制也日近黄昏；公民应该成为真正的国家主人。祛除依赖“明君”、“清官”的臣民意识，张扬权利为本、参与为责的公民意识，实践自由，躬行民主，尊奉法治，才是中国的根本出路。
三、我们的基本主张
藉此，我们本着负责任与建设性的公民精神对国家政制、公民权利与社会发展诸方面提出如下具体主张：
1、修改宪法：根据前述价值理念修改宪法，删除现行宪法中不符合主权在民原则的条文，使宪法真正成为人权的保证书和公共权力的许可状，成为任何个人、团体和党派不得违反的可以实施的最高法律，为中国民主化奠定法权基础。
2、分权制衡：构建分权制衡的现代政府，保证立法、司法、行政三权分立。确立法定行政和责任政府的原则，防止行政权力过分扩张；政府应对纳税人负责；在中央和地方之间建立分权与制衡制度，中央权力须由宪法明确界定授权，地方实行充分自治。
3、立法民主：各级立法机构由直选产生，立法秉持公平正义原则，实行立法民主。
4、司法独立：司法应超越党派、不受任何干预，实行司法独立，保障司法公正；设立宪法法院，建立违宪审查制度，维护宪法权威。尽早撤销严重危害国家法治的各级党的政法委员会，避免公器私用。
5、公器公用：实现军队国家化，军人应效忠于宪法，效忠于国家，政党组织应从军队中退出，提高军队职业化水平。包括警察在内的所有公务员应保持政治中立。消除公务员录用的党派歧视，应不分党派平等录用。
6、人权保障：切实保障人权，维护人的尊严。设立对最高民意机关负责的人权委员会，防止政府滥用公权侵犯人权，尤其要保障公民的人身自由，任何人不受非法逮捕、拘禁、传讯、审问、处罚，废除劳动教养制度。
7、公职选举：全面推行民主选举制度，落实一人一票的平等选举权。各级行政首长的直接选举应制度化地逐步推行。定期自由竞争选举和公民参选法定公共职务是不可剥夺的基本人权。
8、城乡平等：废除现行的城乡二元户籍制度，落实公民一律平等的宪法权利，保障公民的自由迁徙权。
9、结社自由：保障公民的结社自由权，将现行的社团登记审批制改为备案制。开放党禁，以宪法和法律规范政党行为，取消一党垄断执政特权，确立政党活动自由和公平竞争的原则，实现政党政治正常化和法制化。
10、集会自由：和平集会、游行、示威和表达自由，是宪法规定的公民基本自由，不应受到执政党和政府的非法干预与违宪限制。
11、言论自由：落实言论自由、出版自由和学术自由，保障公民的知情权和监督权。制订《新闻法》和《出版法》，开放报禁，废除现行《刑法》中的“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”条款，杜绝以言治罪。
12、宗教自由：保障宗教自由与信仰自由，实行政教分离，宗教信仰活动不受政府干预。审查并撤销限制或剥夺公民宗教自由的行政法规、行政规章和地方性法规；禁止以行政立法管理宗教活动。废除宗教团体（包括宗教活动场所）必经登记始获合法地位的事先许可制度，代之以无须任何审查的备案制。
13、公民教育：取消服务于一党统治、带有浓厚意识形态色彩的政治教育与政治考试，推广以普世价值和公民权利为本的公民教育，确立公民意识，倡导服务社会的公民美德。
14、财产保护：确立和保护私有财产权利，实行自由、开放的市场经济制度，保障创业自由，消除行政垄断；设立对最高民意机关负责的国有资产管理委员会，合法有序地展开产权改革，明晰产权归属和责任者；开展新土地运动，推进土地私有化，切实保障公民尤其是农民的土地所有权。
15、财税改革：确立民主财政和保障纳税人的权利。建立权责明确的公共财政制度构架和运行机制，建立各级政府合理有效的财政分权体系；对赋税制度进行重大改革，以降低税率、简化税制、公平税负。非经社会公共选择过程，民意机关决议，行政部门不得随意加税、开征新税。通过产权改革，引进多元市场主体和竞争机制，降低金融准入门槛，为发展民间金融创造条件，使金融体系充分发挥活力。
16、社会保障：建立覆盖全体国民的社会保障体制，使国民在教育、医疗、养老和就业等方面得到最基本的保障。
17、环境保护：保护生态环境，提倡可持续发展，为子孙后代和全人类负责；明确落实国家和各级官员必须为此承担的相应责任；发挥民间组织在环境保护中的参与和监督作用。
18、联邦共和：以平等、公正的态度参与维持地区和平与发展，塑造一个负责任的大国形象。维护香港、澳门的自由制度。在自由民主的前提下，通过平等谈判与合作互动的方式寻求海峡两岸和解方案。以大智慧探索各民族共同繁荣的可能途径和制度设计，在民主宪政的架构下建立中华联邦共和国。
19、转型正义：为历次政治运动中遭受政治迫害的人士及其家属，恢复名誉，给予国家赔偿；释放所有政治犯和良心犯，释放所有因信仰而获罪的人员；成立真相调查委员会，查清历史事件的真相，厘清责任，伸张正义；在此基础上寻求社会和解。
四、结语
中国作为世界大国，作为联合国安理会五个常任理事国之一和人权理事会的成员，理应为人类和平事业与人权进步做出自身的贡献。但令人遗憾的是，在当今世界的所有大国里，唯独中国还处在威权主义政治生态中，并由此造成连绵不断的人权灾难和社会危机，束缚了中华民族的自身发展，制约了人类文明的进步——这种局面必须改变！政治民主化变革不能再拖延下去。
为此，我们本着勇于践行的公民精神，公布《零八宪章》。我们希望所有具有同样危机感、责任感和使命感的中国公民，不分朝野，不论身份，求同存异，积极参与到公民运动中来，共同推动中国社会的伟大变革，以期早日建成一个自由、民主、宪政的国家，实现国人百余年来锲而不舍的追求与梦想。
民主活動家に懲役１１年判決 米政府は懸念
12月25日21時41分配信 日本テレビ
中国で共産党一党独裁への反対を訴えて逮捕・起訴された著名な民主活動家に対し、北京の裁判所は２５日、懲役１１年の判決を下した。判決を受け、アメリカ政府は深い懸念を示すとともに中国政府に即時釈放などを求めたが、中国政府は強く反発している。
欧米各国の大使館員が訪れる中で行われたのは、中国の民主活動家のリーダー的存在である劉暁波さんの判決公判。劉さんは８９年の天安門事件に参加した後、繰り返し投獄されながらも、共産党一党独裁への反対や民主化を訴え続けてきた。しかし、建国６０周年を迎えた今年、国家政権転覆扇動罪で逮捕・起訴された。
法廷で、劉さんは「憲法で認められた言論の自由に基づくもので、犯罪には当たらない」と訴えたが、北京の裁判所は「言論の自由を逸脱する行為だ」として懲役１１年の判決を下した。
判決後に劉さんと面会した妻・劉霞さんは「夫は『言論のせいで犯罪者になるのは、自分が最後であってほしい』と。１１年後は、夫は６５歳です。夫が耐えるなら私は待ちます」と話した。
当局2009年底判刘晓波11年徒刑，自知是冒天下之大不韪，所以在西方度假期间进行。我当时在外地度假，了解这件事，就是看到一个清华同学发来的email，email本身是日语的，文章很短，但措辞激烈（附在本文后面）。
刘晓波的《零八宪章》（附在本文后面）我早就听说，因为它很短，里面只包括例如言论自由、结社自由、宗教自由、司法独立、民主政治等等内容，没有超出美国的《独立宣言》和《宪法》，所以我并没有太多的关注。刘晓波的问题，是他想在中国推行这些中国以外的人都熟视无睹的原则。
当时看这条日语短讯时，我的身心立刻从度假的松弛状况紧了起来，我随即立刻停止阅读，三、四个小时之后，方才再次放松下来。
即便如此，刘晓波2009年底被判刑以后，海外还是一片哗然。大家不明白，时至今日，这个世界上居然还有国家，以言论罪（或者按照判决书上说的：“颠覆国家政权罪”；或者是依照中华人民共和国宪法第一条第一款：“我说你有罪你就有罪”）判人11年徒刑。刘晓波上次被关押的时候，当局故意把他和肺结核病人关在一起，迫使他患上肺结核，结果他的肺给切掉了一大部分。今年他五十四岁了，身体并不好。这次被关押，还不知会造成何种后果。
2010年2月12日，《零八宪章》的另一个署名人冯正虎，经过八次回国被拒入境（包括四次在上海被海关赶回日本）后，终于回到上海。（冯是2009年2月15日开始，被拘押41天后，于4月初被逼往日本探亲。冯于6月7日开始致力于回国。）
旅居新西兰的贾甲，上海作家李剑虹等越来越多海外中国人也频频闯关，以图从中国内部争取公民权利。
刘晓波被判刑之后，让我注意到的一条消息是捷克剧作家、前总统哈韦尔（Václav Havel）亲自到中国驻捷克大使馆递一封给胡锦涛的信，要求释放刘晓波。
1990年Havel访问美国，随访的人（像很多当时来自东欧人一样）和我们说，他们的斗争的原动力，就是天安门的大学生，因为他们从那些大学生的行为中，他们看到了他们自己胜利的希望。Havel那次来美国，在国会作了一个很长的讲话。这个讲话所表达的，就是将理想变为现实（transform those words into deeds）的可行性。我度假回来后，把Havel二十年前让我激动不已的那个讲话（全文转载于后）又翻出来读了一遍。刘晓波的这种置自己的生命于不顾，致力把文字（《零八宪章》）变成现实的精神，和冯正虎这种明知山有虎，偏向虎山行的精神，让当局闻风丧胆。一个堂而皇之、号称自己空前强大的中国，竟然四次把自己的公民从上海机场赶回日本。
风萧萧兮易水寒， 壮士一去兮不复还。
A Joint Session of the U.S. Congress
Washington, D.C., February 21, 1990
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Dear Mr. President,
Dear senators and members of the House,
Ladies and gentlemen:
My advisors have advised me, on this important occasion, to speak in Czech. I don't know why. Perhaps they wanted you to enjoy the sound of my mother tongue.
The last time they arrested me, on October 27 of last year, I didn't know whether it was for two days or two years. Exactly one month later, when rock musician Michael Kocab told me that I would probably be proposed as a presidential candidate, I thought it was one of his usual jokes.
On the 10th of December 1989, when my actor friend Jiri Bartoska, in the name of the Civic Forum, nominated me as a candidate for the office of the president of the republic, I thought it was out of the question that the Parliament we had inherited from the previous regime would elect me.
Twelve days later, when I was unanimously elected president of my country, I had no idea that in two months I would be speaking in front of this famous and powerful assembly, and that I would be heard by millions of people who have never heard of me and that hundreds of politicians and political scientists would study every word I say.
When they arrested me on October 27, I was living in a country ruled by the most conservative Communist government in Europe, and our society slumbered beneath the pall of a totalitarian system. Today, less than four months later, I am speaking to you as the representative of a country which has complete freedom of speech, which is preparing for free elections, and which seeks to establish a prosperous market economy and its own foreign policy.
It is all very extraordinary indeed.
But I have not come here to speak about myself or my feelings, or merely to talk about my own country. I have used this small example of something I know well to illustrate something general and important.
We are living in extraordinary times. The human face of the world is changing so rapidly that none of the familiar political speedometers are adequate.
We playwrights, who have to cram a whole human life or an entire historical era into a two-hour play, can scarcely understand this rapidity ourselves. And if it gives us trouble, think of the trouble it must give to political scientists, who spend their whole lives studying the realm of the probable and have even less experience with the realm of the improbable than playwrights.
Let me try to explain why I think the velocity of the changes in my country, in Central and Eastern Europe, and of course in the Soviet Union itself, has made such a significant impression on the world today, and why it concerns the fate of us all, including Americans. I would like to look at this, first from the political point of view and then from a point of view we might call philosophical.
Twice in this century, the world has been threatened by a catastrophe. Twice this catastrophe was born in Europe, and twice Americans, along with others, were called upon to save Europe, the whole world and yourselves. The first rescue provided significant help to Czechs and Slovaks.
Thanks to the great support of your President Wilson, our first President, Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, was able to found a modern independent state. He founded it, as you know, on the same principles on which the United States of America had been founded, as Masaryk's manuscripts held by the Library of Congress testify.
At the same time, the United States made enormous strides. It became the most powerful nation on earth, and it understood the responsibility that flowed from this. Proof of this are the hundreds of thousands of your young citizens who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe, and the graves of American airmen and soldiers on Czechoslovak soil.
But something else was happening as well: The Soviet Union appeared, grew, and transformed the enormous sacrifices of its people suffering under totalitarian rule into a strength that, after World War II, made it the second most powerful nation in the world. It was a country that rightly gave people nightmares, because no one knew what would happen and when to worsen the mood of its rulers, and what country it would decide to conquer and drag into its sphere of influence, as it is called in political language.
All of this taught us to see the world in bipolar terms, as two enormous forces, one a defender of freedom, the other a source of nightmares. Europe became the point of friction between these two powers, and thus it turned into a single enormous arsenal divided into two parts. In this process, one half of the arsenal became part of that nightmarish power, while the other the free part bordering on the ocean and having no wish to be driven into it, was compelled, together with you, to build a complicated security system, to which we probably owe the fact that we still exist.
So you may have contributed to the salvation of us Europeans, of the world and thus of yourselves for a third time: You have helped us to survive until today without a hot war this time, merely a cold one.
And now the totalitarian system in the Soviet Union and in most of its satellites is breaking down, and our nations are looking for a way to democracy and independence. The first act in this remarkable drama began when Mr. Gorbachev and those around him, faced with the sad reality in their country, initiated the policy of "perestroika." Apparently they too had no idea what they were setting in motion or how rapidly events would unfold. We knew a great deal about the enormous number of growing problems that slumbered beneath the honeyed, unchanging mask of socialism. But I don't think any of us knew how little it would take for these problems to manifest themselves in all their enormity, and for the longings of these nations to emerge in all their strength. The mask fell away so rapidly that, in the flood of work, we have had literally no time even to be astonished.
What does all this mean for the world in the long run? Obviously a number of things. This is, I am firmly convinced, a historically irreversible process, and as a result Europe will begin again to seek its own identity without being compelled to be a divided armoury any longer. Perhaps this will create the hope that sooner or later your young men will no longer have to stand on guard for freedom in Europe or come to our rescue, because Europe will at last be able to stand guard over itself.
But that is still not the most important thing. The main thing is, it seems to me, that these revolutionary changes will enable us to escape from the rather antiquated straitjacket of this bipolar view of the world, and to enter at last into an era of multipolarity. That is, into an era in which all of us, large and small, former slaves and former masters, will be able to create what your great President Lincoln called "the family of man". Can you imagine what a relief this would be to that part of the world which for some reason is called the Third World, even though it is the largest?
I don't think it's appropriate simply to generalize, so let me be specific:
1) As you certainly know, most of the big wars and other European conflagrations over the centuries have traditionally begun and ended on the territory of modern Czechoslovakia, or else they were somehow related to that area. Let the Second World War stand as the most recent example. This is understandable. Whether we like it or not, we are located in the very heart of Europe, and thanks to this, we have no view of the sea, and no real navy. I mention this because political stability in our country has traditionally been important for the whole of Europe. This is still true today. Our government of national understanding, our present Federal Assembly, the other bodies of the state, and I myself, will personally guarantee this stability until we hold free elections, planned for June.
We understand the terribly complex reasons, domestic political reasons above all, why the Soviet Union cannot withdraw its troops from our territory as quickly as they arrived in 1968. We understand that the arsenals built there over the past twenty years cannot be dismantled and removed overnight. Nevertheless, in our bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union, we would like to have as many Soviet units as possible moved out of our country before the elections, in the interests of political stability. The more successful our negotiations, the more those who are elected will be able to guarantee political stability in our country even after the elections.
2) I often hear the question: How can the United States of America help us today? My reply is as paradoxical as the whole of my life has been: You can help us most of all if you help the Soviet Union on its irreversible, but immensely complicated, road to democracy. It is far more complicated than the road open to its former European satellites. You yourselves probably know best how to support, as rapidly as possible, the non-violent evolution of this enormous, multi-national body politic toward democracy and autonomy for all of its peoples. Therefore, it is not fitting for me to offer you any advice. I can only say that the sooner, the more quickly, and the more peacefully the Soviet Union begins to move along the road toward genuine political pluralism, respect for the rights of nations to their own integrity and to a working that is a market economy, the better it will be, not just for Czechs and Slovaks, but for the whole world. And the sooner you yourselves will be able to reduce the burden of the military budget born by the American people. To put it metaphorically, the millions you give to the East today soon will return to you in the form of billions in savings.
3) It is not true that the Czech writer Vaclav Havel wishes to dissolve the Warsaw Pact tomorrow and then NATO the day after that, as some eager journalists have written. Vaclav Havel merely thinks what he has already said here, that American soldiers shouldn't have to be separated from their mothers for another hundred years just because Europe is incapable of being a guarantor of world peace, which it ought to be, to make at least some amends for having given the world two world wars.
Sooner or later Europe must recover and come into its own, and decide for itself how many of those soldiers it needs, so that its own security, and all the wider implications of security, may radiate peace into the whole world. Vaclav Havel cannot make decisions about things it is not proper for him to decide. He is merely putting in a good word for genuine peace, and for achieving it quickly.
4) Czechoslovakia thinks that the planned summit of countries participating in the Helsinki process should take place soon, and that in addition to what it wants to accomplish, it should aim to hold the so-called Helsinki II conference earlier than 1992, as originally planned. Above all, we feel it could be something far more significant than has so far seemed possible. We think that Helsinki II should become something equivalent to a European peace conference, which has not yet been held; one that would finally put a formal end to the Second World War and all its unhappy consequences. Such a conference would officially bring a future democratic Germany, in the process of unifying itself, into a new pan-European structure which could decide about its own security system. This would naturally require some connection with that part of the globe we might label the "Helsinki" part, stretching westward from Vladivostok and all the way to Alaska. The borders of the European states, which by the way should become gradually less important, should finally be legally guaranteed by a common, regular treaty. It should be more than obvious that the basis for such a treaty would have to be general respect for human rights, genuine political pluralism and genuinely free elections.
5) Naturally, we welcome the initiative of President Bush, which was essentially accepted by Mr. Gorbachev as well, according to which the number of American and Soviet troops in Europe should be radically reduced. It is a magnificent shot in the arm for the Vienna disarmament talks and creates favourable conditions not only for our own efforts to achieve the quickest possible departure of Soviet troops from Czechoslovakia, but, indirectly as well, for our own intention to make considerable cuts in the Czechoslovak army, which is disproportionately large in relation to our population. If Czechoslovakia were forced to defend itself against anyone, which we hope will not happen, then it would be capable of doing so with a considerably smaller army, because this time its defence would be not only after decades but even centuries supported by the common and indivisible will of both of its nations and its leadership. Our freedom, independence and our newborn democracy have been purchased at great cost, and we will not surrender them. For the sake of order, I should add that whatever steps we take are not intended to complicate the Vienna disarmament talks, but on the contrary, to facilitate them.
6) Czechoslovakia is returning to Europe. In the general interest and its own interest as well, it wants to coordinate this return both political and economic with the other returnees, which means, above all, with its neighbours the Poles and the Hungarians. We are doing what we can to coordinate these returns. And at the same time, we are doing what we can so that Europe will be capable of really accepting us, its wayward children, which means that it may open itself to us and may begin to transform its structures which are formally European but de facto Western European in that direction, but in such a way that it will not be to its detriment but rather to its advantage.
7) I have already said this in our Parliament, and I would like to repeat it here, in this Congress, which is architecturally far more attractive: For many years, Czechoslovakia as someone's meaningless satellite has refused to face up honestly to its co-responsibility for the world. It has a lot to make up for. If I dwell on this and so many important things here, it is only because I feel along with my fellow citizens a sense of culpability for our former reprehensible passivity and a rather ordinary sense of indebtedness.
8) Last but not least, we are of course delighted that your country is so readily lending its support to our fresh efforts to renew democracy. Both our peoples were deeply moved by the generous offers made a few days ago in Prague at the Charles University, one of the oldest in Europe, by your secretary of state, Mr. James Baker. We are ready to sit down and talk about them.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I've only been president for two months, and I haven't attended any schools for presidents. My only school was life itself. Therefore, I don't want to burden you any longer with my political thoughts, but instead I will move on to an area that is more familiar to me, to what I would call the philosophical aspect of those changes that still concern everyone, although they are taking place in our corner of the world.
As long as people are people, democracy in the full sense of the word will always be no more than an ideal; one may approach it as one would a horizon, in ways that may be better or worse, but it can never be fully attained. In this sense you are also merely approaching democracy. You have thousands of problems of all kinds, as other countries do. But you have one great advantage: You have been approaching democracy uninterruptedly for more than 200 years, and your journey toward that horizon has never been disrupted by a totalitarian system. Czechs and Slovaks, despite their humanistic traditions that go back to the first millennium, have approached democracy for a mere twenty years, between the two world wars, and now for three and a half months since the 17th of November of last year.
The advantage that you have over us is obvious at once.
The Communist type of totalitarian system has left both our nations, Czechs and Slovaks as it has all the nations of the Soviet Union, and the other countries the Soviet Union subjugated in its time a legacy of countless dead, an infinite spectrum of human suffering, profound economic decline, and above all enormous human humiliation. It has brought us horrors that fortunately you have not known.
At the same time, however unintentionally, of course it has given us something positive: a special capacity to look, from time to time, somewhat further than someone who has not undergone this bitter experience. A person who cannot move and live a normal life because he is pinned under a boulder has more time to think about his hopes than someone who is not trapped in this way.
What I am trying to say is this: We must all learn many things from you, from how to educate our offspring, how to elect our representatives, all the way to how to organize our economic life so that it will lead to prosperity and not poverty. But it doesn't have to be merely assistance from the well-educated, the powerful and the wealthy to someone who has nothing to offer in return.
We too can offer something to you: our experience and the knowledge that has come from it.
This is a subject for books, many of which have already been written and many of which have yet to be written. I shall therefore limit myself to a single idea.
The specific experience I'm talking about has given me one great certainty: Consciousness precedes Being, and not the other way around, as Marxists claim.
For this reason, the salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human humbleness and in human responsibility.
Without a global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness, nothing will change for the better in the sphere of our Being as humans, and the catastrophe toward which this world is headed, whether it be ecological, social, demographic or a general breakdown of civilization, will be unavoidable. If we are no longer threatened by world war or by the danger that the absurd mountains of accumulated nuclear weapons might blow up the world, this does not mean that we have definitively won. We are in fact far from definite victory.
We are still a long way from that "family of man;" in fact, we seem to be receding from the ideal rather than drawing closer to it. Interests of all kinds: personal, selfish, state, national, group and, if you like, company interests still considerably outweigh genuinely common and global interests. We are still under the sway of the destructive and thoroughly vain belief that man is the pinnacle of creation, and not just a part of it, and that therefore everything is permitted. There are still many who say they are concerned not for themselves but for the cause, while they are demonstrably out for themselves and not for the cause at all. We are still destroying the planet that was entrusted to us, and its environment. We still close our eyes to the growing social, ethnic and cultural conflicts in the world. From time to time we say that the anonymous megamachinery we have created for ourselves no longer serves us but rather has enslaved us, yet we still fail to do anything about it.
In other words, we still don't know how to put morality ahead of politics, science and economics. We are still incapable of understanding that the only genuine backbone of all our actions if they are to be moral is responsibility. Responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my firm, my success. Responsibility to the order of Being, where all our actions are indelibly recorded and where, and only where, they will be properly judged.
The interpreter or mediator between us and this higher authority is what is traditionally referred to as human conscience.
If I subordinate my political behaviour to this imperative, I can't go far wrong. If on the contrary I were not guided by this voice, not even ten presidential schools with 2,000 of the best political scientists in the world could help me.
This is why I ultimately decided after resisting for a long time to accept the burden of political responsibility.
I'm not the first nor will I be the last intellectual to do this. On the contrary, my feeling is that there will be more and more of them all the time. If the hope of the world lies in human consciousness, then it is obvious that intellectuals cannot go on forever avoiding their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distastes for politics under an alleged need to be independent.
It is easy to have independence in your programme and then leave others to carry out that programme. If everyone thought that way, soon no one would be independent.
I think that Americans should understand this way of thinking. Wasn't it the best minds of your country, people you could call intellectuals, who wrote your famous Declaration of Independence, your Bill of Rights and your Constitution and who above all took upon themselves the practical responsibility for putting them into practice? The worker from Branik in Prague, whom your president referred to in his State of the Union message this year, is far from being the only person in Czechoslovakia, let alone in the world, to be inspired by those great documents. They inspire us all. They inspire us despite the fact that they are over 200 years old. They inspire us to be citizens.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed," it was a simple and important act of the human spirit.
What gave meaning to that act, however, was the fact that the author backed it up with his life. It was not just his words, it was his deeds as well.
I will end where I began. History has accelerated. I believe that once again, it will be the human spirit that will notice this acceleration, give it a name, and transform those words into deeds.
零八宪章
一、前言
今年是中国立宪百年，《世界人权宣言》公布60周年，“民主墙”诞生30周年，中国政府签署《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》10周年。在经历了长期的人权灾难和艰难曲折的抗争历程之后，觉醒的中国公民日渐清楚地认识到，自由、平等、人权是人类共同的普世价值；民主、共和、宪政是现代政治的基本制度架构。抽离了这些普世价值和基本政制架构的“现代化”，是剥夺人的权利、腐蚀人性、摧毁人的尊严的灾难过程。21世纪的中国将走向何方，是继续这种威权统治下的 “现代化”，还是认同普世价值、融入主流文明、建立民主政体？这是一个不容回避的抉择。
19世纪中期的历史巨变，暴露了中国传统专制制度的腐朽，揭开了中华大地上“数千年未有之大变局”的序幕。洋务运动追求器物层面的进良，甲午战败再次暴露了体制的过时；戊戌变法触及到制度层面的革新，终因顽固派的残酷镇压而归于失败；辛亥革命在表面上埋葬了延续2000多年的皇权制度，建立了亚洲第一个共和国。囿于当时内忧外患的特定历史条件，共和政体只是昙花一现，专制主义旋即卷土重来。器物模仿和制度更新的失败，推动国人深入到对文化病根的反思，遂有以“科学与民主”为旗帜的“五四”新文化运动，因内战频仍和外敌入侵，中国政治民主化历程被迫中断。抗日战争胜利后的中国再次开启了宪政历程，然而国共内战的结果使中国陷入了现代极权主义的深渊。1949年建立的“新中国”，名义上是“人民共和国”，实质上是“党天下”。执政党垄断了所有政治、经济和社会资源，制造了反右、大跃进、文革、六四、打压民间宗教活动与维权运动等一系列人权灾难，致使数千万人失去生命，国民和国家都付出了极为惨重的代价。
二十世纪后期的“改革开放”，使中国摆脱了毛泽东时代的普遍贫困和绝对极权，民间财富和民众生活水平有了大幅度提高，个人的经济自由和社会权利得到部分恢复，公民社会开始生长，民间对人权和政治自由的呼声日益高涨。执政者也在进行走向市场化和私有化的经济改革的同时，开始了从拒绝人权到逐渐承认人权的转变。中国政府于1997年、1998年分别签署了两个重要的国际人权公约，全国人大于2004年通过修宪把“尊重和保障人权”写进宪法，今年又承诺制订和推行《国家人权行动计划》。但是，这些政治进步迄今为止大多停留在纸面上；有法律而无法治，有宪法而无宪政，仍然是有目共睹的政治现实。执政集团继续坚持维系威权统治，排拒政治变革，由此导致官场腐败，法治难立，人权不彰，道德沦丧，社会两极分化，经济畸形发展，自然环境和人文环境遭到双重破坏，公民的自由、财产和追求幸福的权利得不到制度化的保障，各种社会矛盾不断积累，不满情绪持续高涨，特别是官民对立激化和群体事件激增，正在显示着灾难性的失控趋势，现行体制的落伍已经到了非改不可的地步。
二、我们的基本理念
当此决定中国未来命运的历史关头，有必要反思百年来的现代化历程，重申如下基本理念：
自由：自由是普世价值的核心之所在。言论、出版、信仰、集会、结社、迁徙、罢工和游行示威等权利都是自由的具体体现。自由不昌，则无现代文明可言。
人权：人权不是国家的赐予，而是每个人与生俱来就享有的权利。保障人权，既是政府的首要目标和公共权力合法性的基础，也是“以人为本”的内在要求。中国的历次政治灾难都与执政当局对人权的无视密切相关。人是国家的主体，国家服务于人民，政府为人民而存在。
平等：每一个个体的人，不论社会地位、职业、性别、经济状况、种族、肤色、宗教或政治信仰，其人格、尊严、自由都是平等的。必须落实法律面前人人平等的原则，落实公民的社会、经济、文化、政治权利平等的原则。
共和：共和就是“大家共治，和平共生”，就是分权制衡与利益平衡，就是多种利益成分、不同社会集团、多元文化与信仰追求的群体，在平等参与、公平竞争、共同议政的基础上，以和平的方式处理公共事务。
民主：最基本的涵义是主权在民和民选政府。民主具有如下基本特点：（1）政权的合法性来自人民，政治权力来源于人民；（2）政治统治经过人民选择，（3）公民享有真正的选举权，各级政府的主要政务官员必须通过定期的竞选产生。（4）尊重多数人的决定，同时保护少数人的基本人权。一句话，民主使政府成为“民有，民治，民享”的现代公器。
宪政：宪政是通过法律规定和法治来保障宪法确定的公民基本自由和权利的原则，限制并划定政府权力和行为的边界，并提供相应的制度设施。
在中国，帝国皇权的时代早已一去不复返了；在世界范围内，威权体制也日近黄昏；公民应该成为真正的国家主人。祛除依赖“明君”、“清官”的臣民意识，张扬权利为本、参与为责的公民意识，实践自由，躬行民主，尊奉法治，才是中国的根本出路。
三、我们的基本主张
藉此，我们本着负责任与建设性的公民精神对国家政制、公民权利与社会发展诸方面提出如下具体主张：
1、修改宪法：根据前述价值理念修改宪法，删除现行宪法中不符合主权在民原则的条文，使宪法真正成为人权的保证书和公共权力的许可状，成为任何个人、团体和党派不得违反的可以实施的最高法律，为中国民主化奠定法权基础。
2、分权制衡：构建分权制衡的现代政府，保证立法、司法、行政三权分立。确立法定行政和责任政府的原则，防止行政权力过分扩张；政府应对纳税人负责；在中央和地方之间建立分权与制衡制度，中央权力须由宪法明确界定授权，地方实行充分自治。
3、立法民主：各级立法机构由直选产生，立法秉持公平正义原则，实行立法民主。
4、司法独立：司法应超越党派、不受任何干预，实行司法独立，保障司法公正；设立宪法法院，建立违宪审查制度，维护宪法权威。尽早撤销严重危害国家法治的各级党的政法委员会，避免公器私用。
5、公器公用：实现军队国家化，军人应效忠于宪法，效忠于国家，政党组织应从军队中退出，提高军队职业化水平。包括警察在内的所有公务员应保持政治中立。消除公务员录用的党派歧视，应不分党派平等录用。
6、人权保障：切实保障人权，维护人的尊严。设立对最高民意机关负责的人权委员会，防止政府滥用公权侵犯人权，尤其要保障公民的人身自由，任何人不受非法逮捕、拘禁、传讯、审问、处罚，废除劳动教养制度。
7、公职选举：全面推行民主选举制度，落实一人一票的平等选举权。各级行政首长的直接选举应制度化地逐步推行。定期自由竞争选举和公民参选法定公共职务是不可剥夺的基本人权。
8、城乡平等：废除现行的城乡二元户籍制度，落实公民一律平等的宪法权利，保障公民的自由迁徙权。
9、结社自由：保障公民的结社自由权，将现行的社团登记审批制改为备案制。开放党禁，以宪法和法律规范政党行为，取消一党垄断执政特权，确立政党活动自由和公平竞争的原则，实现政党政治正常化和法制化。
10、集会自由：和平集会、游行、示威和表达自由，是宪法规定的公民基本自由，不应受到执政党和政府的非法干预与违宪限制。
11、言论自由：落实言论自由、出版自由和学术自由，保障公民的知情权和监督权。制订《新闻法》和《出版法》，开放报禁，废除现行《刑法》中的“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”条款，杜绝以言治罪。
12、宗教自由：保障宗教自由与信仰自由，实行政教分离，宗教信仰活动不受政府干预。审查并撤销限制或剥夺公民宗教自由的行政法规、行政规章和地方性法规；禁止以行政立法管理宗教活动。废除宗教团体（包括宗教活动场所）必经登记始获合法地位的事先许可制度，代之以无须任何审查的备案制。
13、公民教育：取消服务于一党统治、带有浓厚意识形态色彩的政治教育与政治考试，推广以普世价值和公民权利为本的公民教育，确立公民意识，倡导服务社会的公民美德。
14、财产保护：确立和保护私有财产权利，实行自由、开放的市场经济制度，保障创业自由，消除行政垄断；设立对最高民意机关负责的国有资产管理委员会，合法有序地展开产权改革，明晰产权归属和责任者；开展新土地运动，推进土地私有化，切实保障公民尤其是农民的土地所有权。
15、财税改革：确立民主财政和保障纳税人的权利。建立权责明确的公共财政制度构架和运行机制，建立各级政府合理有效的财政分权体系；对赋税制度进行重大改革，以降低税率、简化税制、公平税负。非经社会公共选择过程，民意机关决议，行政部门不得随意加税、开征新税。通过产权改革，引进多元市场主体和竞争机制，降低金融准入门槛，为发展民间金融创造条件，使金融体系充分发挥活力。
16、社会保障：建立覆盖全体国民的社会保障体制，使国民在教育、医疗、养老和就业等方面得到最基本的保障。
17、环境保护：保护生态环境，提倡可持续发展，为子孙后代和全人类负责；明确落实国家和各级官员必须为此承担的相应责任；发挥民间组织在环境保护中的参与和监督作用。
18、联邦共和：以平等、公正的态度参与维持地区和平与发展，塑造一个负责任的大国形象。维护香港、澳门的自由制度。在自由民主的前提下，通过平等谈判与合作互动的方式寻求海峡两岸和解方案。以大智慧探索各民族共同繁荣的可能途径和制度设计，在民主宪政的架构下建立中华联邦共和国。
19、转型正义：为历次政治运动中遭受政治迫害的人士及其家属，恢复名誉，给予国家赔偿；释放所有政治犯和良心犯，释放所有因信仰而获罪的人员；成立真相调查委员会，查清历史事件的真相，厘清责任，伸张正义；在此基础上寻求社会和解。
四、结语
中国作为世界大国，作为联合国安理会五个常任理事国之一和人权理事会的成员，理应为人类和平事业与人权进步做出自身的贡献。但令人遗憾的是，在当今世界的所有大国里，唯独中国还处在威权主义政治生态中，并由此造成连绵不断的人权灾难和社会危机，束缚了中华民族的自身发展，制约了人类文明的进步——这种局面必须改变！政治民主化变革不能再拖延下去。
为此，我们本着勇于践行的公民精神，公布《零八宪章》。我们希望所有具有同样危机感、责任感和使命感的中国公民，不分朝野，不论身份，求同存异，积极参与到公民运动中来，共同推动中国社会的伟大变革，以期早日建成一个自由、民主、宪政的国家，实现国人百余年来锲而不舍的追求与梦想。
民主活動家に懲役１１年判決 米政府は懸念
12月25日21時41分配信 日本テレビ
中国で共産党一党独裁への反対を訴えて逮捕・起訴された著名な民主活動家に対し、北京の裁判所は２５日、懲役１１年の判決を下した。判決を受け、アメリカ政府は深い懸念を示すとともに中国政府に即時釈放などを求めたが、中国政府は強く反発している。
欧米各国の大使館員が訪れる中で行われたのは、中国の民主活動家のリーダー的存在である劉暁波さんの判決公判。劉さんは８９年の天安門事件に参加した後、繰り返し投獄されながらも、共産党一党独裁への反対や民主化を訴え続けてきた。しかし、建国６０周年を迎えた今年、国家政権転覆扇動罪で逮捕・起訴された。
法廷で、劉さんは「憲法で認められた言論の自由に基づくもので、犯罪には当たらない」と訴えたが、北京の裁判所は「言論の自由を逸脱する行為だ」として懲役１１年の判決を下した。
判決後に劉さんと面会した妻・劉霞さんは「夫は『言論のせいで犯罪者になるのは、自分が最後であってほしい』と。１１年後は、夫は６５歳です。夫が耐えるなら私は待ちます」と話した。
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
EB-5投资移民中介可靠吗？
《在生意上合作，成功的基础是什么？》一文介绍了合作架构的重要性。《华人律师是不是都是骗子、饭桶》一文举了一个例子。本文再举一个例子。
因为我们受理投资移民业务，经常和这些项目的人有联系。他们经常给我们抱怨：来找他们的移民中介多如牛毛，完全应接不暇。在他们身上花了很多功夫以后，人就没影儿了。这些人代表中国大陆的移民中介。他们挑项目的原则只有一个：哪个项目给他们的回扣最多，他们就把客人介绍给哪个项目。有些投资项目，收取的费用远远高于三万元这个市场基本价，原因就是这些项目在三万元介绍费之外，还要给中介钱（一般行价是两、三万左右）。
中介向客户收取的手续费在明处，要得太多了，客户就会去找别的中介。但是，项目给中介提供的回扣，在暗处。投资者不知道。所以越多越好。这样的问题很明显：靠和中介玩猫腻招揽投资者的项目，与正正经经、一板一眼地，一是一、二是二地把注意力放在生意上的项目比，哪一个比较更可靠？找这样的中介协助投资移民，虽然不能说投资就一定赚不到钱，或者移民的过程一定会有问题，但是对于投资者来说，就有一个显然的利益一致性问题。中介要找的是高回扣，投资人找的是正正派派做生意的项目。中介为了忽悠投资者，就要避开这些矛盾。讲明了，就是靠误导、骗人。从这儿开始，这个关系靠得住吗？
当然，中介也分优良中差。如果中介从项目那里不拿钱，完全是从投资人那里拿钱，那就可以避开这个问题。但是，现在很多的项目，通过这些中介，开始了解中国国情（没回扣就没有投资者），知道no money, no honey（没回扣就没有投资者）这个具有中国特色的问题。在这种情况下，使用中国的移民中介，就会有一个合作结构性的问题。
解决这个问题的方式就是直接找美国律师代理。自然，美国律师有好有坏。但是，律师都是经过法学院、律师资格考试的一些明白人。他们之中的很多，是有正义感、有献身精神的人。而中介通常为了省钱，依靠由一些没有上过法学院，没有能力通过律师资格考试的非律师组成的所谓“移民事务中心”，或者更差的人来向移民局提出申请。（这也是前面说的利益不一致造成的另一个表象。）在美国好好做事的律师，只收投资者的钱，不收项目的钱；只代表投资人的利益，不代表项目的利益。因为项目的人知道我不要他们的钱，所以在和这些项目的交往中，经常会听到他们向我大发牢骚。
有钱来美国投资的人，应该是能够赚钱的人，也就是说即使他们不是分析利益一致性的专家，对这个概念也不会陌生；同时，对投资风险评估，也应有所了解。向哪个项目投资，一定要靠选择最好的商业计划、及优秀的管理人员。依靠项目提供的回扣多少来决定向哪个项目投资是一个荒唐的事情。
另外，依靠中介投资的一个很重要的问题是中介拒绝向投资者提供整套的法律文件，使得投资人不知道什么人在美国操作，在怎么操作。投资人一定要坚持索取整套法律文件。如果中介不给，那就违反了美国的法律。花钱雇个罪犯（或者说得委婉一些：找一个愿意犯罪的人）协助投资，自然是一个不明智的做法。
因为我们受理投资移民业务，经常和这些项目的人有联系。他们经常给我们抱怨：来找他们的移民中介多如牛毛，完全应接不暇。在他们身上花了很多功夫以后，人就没影儿了。这些人代表中国大陆的移民中介。他们挑项目的原则只有一个：哪个项目给他们的回扣最多，他们就把客人介绍给哪个项目。有些投资项目，收取的费用远远高于三万元这个市场基本价，原因就是这些项目在三万元介绍费之外，还要给中介钱（一般行价是两、三万左右）。
中介向客户收取的手续费在明处，要得太多了，客户就会去找别的中介。但是，项目给中介提供的回扣，在暗处。投资者不知道。所以越多越好。这样的问题很明显：靠和中介玩猫腻招揽投资者的项目，与正正经经、一板一眼地，一是一、二是二地把注意力放在生意上的项目比，哪一个比较更可靠？找这样的中介协助投资移民，虽然不能说投资就一定赚不到钱，或者移民的过程一定会有问题，但是对于投资者来说，就有一个显然的利益一致性问题。中介要找的是高回扣，投资人找的是正正派派做生意的项目。中介为了忽悠投资者，就要避开这些矛盾。讲明了，就是靠误导、骗人。从这儿开始，这个关系靠得住吗？
当然，中介也分优良中差。如果中介从项目那里不拿钱，完全是从投资人那里拿钱，那就可以避开这个问题。但是，现在很多的项目，通过这些中介，开始了解中国国情（没回扣就没有投资者），知道no money, no honey（没回扣就没有投资者）这个具有中国特色的问题。在这种情况下，使用中国的移民中介，就会有一个合作结构性的问题。
解决这个问题的方式就是直接找美国律师代理。自然，美国律师有好有坏。但是，律师都是经过法学院、律师资格考试的一些明白人。他们之中的很多，是有正义感、有献身精神的人。而中介通常为了省钱，依靠由一些没有上过法学院，没有能力通过律师资格考试的非律师组成的所谓“移民事务中心”，或者更差的人来向移民局提出申请。（这也是前面说的利益不一致造成的另一个表象。）在美国好好做事的律师，只收投资者的钱，不收项目的钱；只代表投资人的利益，不代表项目的利益。因为项目的人知道我不要他们的钱，所以在和这些项目的交往中，经常会听到他们向我大发牢骚。
有钱来美国投资的人，应该是能够赚钱的人，也就是说即使他们不是分析利益一致性的专家，对这个概念也不会陌生；同时，对投资风险评估，也应有所了解。向哪个项目投资，一定要靠选择最好的商业计划、及优秀的管理人员。依靠项目提供的回扣多少来决定向哪个项目投资是一个荒唐的事情。
另外，依靠中介投资的一个很重要的问题是中介拒绝向投资者提供整套的法律文件，使得投资人不知道什么人在美国操作，在怎么操作。投资人一定要坚持索取整套法律文件。如果中介不给，那就违反了美国的法律。花钱雇个罪犯（或者说得委婉一些：找一个愿意犯罪的人）协助投资，自然是一个不明智的做法。
Monday, February 8, 2010
怀念Howard Zinn
1月27日，Howard Zinn在洛杉矶去世了，享年87岁。Zinn和同日去世的J.D. Salinger都是我刚来美国的时候对我发生过重大影响的人，Salinger所反对的是那些面孔伪善的人。Zinn以《A People's History of the United States（美国的人民历史）》把在美国发生的那些见不得人的事情，全部攒到一起，加上相当激烈的评论，予以出版。他这次来洛杉矶，是要做一个题为“A Collection of Ideas... the People Speak（思想的集合...人民的声音）”的报告。
对于一个刚从中国出来的人，看《美国的人民历史》，就立刻会想，这个人是很反美的吧；很不爱（美）国的吧。如果中国有个人把发生在中国的那些丑事，添油加醋地写成一个集子，并将其出版，那是一个不可思议的事情。而在美国写这样书的人，居然会赢得美国人民的崇敬，各方对他的评论，也是嘉奖远多于批评。我喜欢上美国，是和Zinn、Salinger这样的人的影响分不开的。
Zinn是一个有话就说的典范。他的一句名言就是“You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train. （在一个行进中的火车上，你不可能保持什么中立。）”
最近在一次接受采访时，他说他愿意大家觉得他是给大家希望和力量的那个人（somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power that they didn't have before）。
Zinn的太太一年多前去世之后，他的身体一直不太好。结果，在27日洛杉矶一个旅馆游泳的时候，心脏病突发，竟然不治。
对于一个刚从中国出来的人，看《美国的人民历史》，就立刻会想，这个人是很反美的吧；很不爱（美）国的吧。如果中国有个人把发生在中国的那些丑事，添油加醋地写成一个集子，并将其出版，那是一个不可思议的事情。而在美国写这样书的人，居然会赢得美国人民的崇敬，各方对他的评论，也是嘉奖远多于批评。我喜欢上美国，是和Zinn、Salinger这样的人的影响分不开的。
Zinn是一个有话就说的典范。他的一句名言就是“You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train. （在一个行进中的火车上，你不可能保持什么中立。）”
最近在一次接受采访时，他说他愿意大家觉得他是给大家希望和力量的那个人（somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power that they didn't have before）。
Zinn的太太一年多前去世之后，他的身体一直不太好。结果，在27日洛杉矶一个旅馆游泳的时候，心脏病突发，竟然不治。
Thursday, February 4, 2010
华人律师是不是都是骗子、饭桶
在《在生意上合作，成功的基础是什么？》一文中，我们讨论了生意合作架构的重要性。一个好的架构，可以使各方的利益保持一致，这样合作就比较容易成功。这里我们举一个律师与客人之间合作的关系。
A先生投资移民来美国，开了一个生意。因为没有好律师的协助，与合作伙伴发生了矛盾，结果被人家告上法庭。他迷信白人律师，结果让朋友推荐了一个。两年下来，花了很多律师费，案子进行得乱七八糟。他的心理也是被人家告得七荤八素，恨不得放弃一切。后来经一个朋友介绍，他来找我。
我说：一个案子的进程，取决于很多因素。因为我不彻底了解案子，所以只能估计把案子做到底的费用是四万元（这只是他已经花掉的钱的几分之一）。我并且和他说，因为换律师，这里面包括我了解情况的费用。他说他要想想。
过了两天，他打电话过来，说：“我问过别的律师了，有人愿意三万元全包。如果你愿意以同样价格包我这个案子，我就把这个案子交给你。”我和他说，三万在某些情况下，的确足够。但是这很大程度上取决于案子的细节和对方采取的策略。在我把我为什么我不能以全包的方式收律师费的道理讲给他听了以后，他就以三万元把这个案子包给另一个律师去了。
我不能以全包的方式接这个案子的原因很简单：当A先生把三万元交给我了以后，我们两个人的利益立刻就对立起来了。这个道理可以用两个极端状况来解释。在一个极端之下，我花6万元，把他的官司打赢了。他自然讨了一个便宜，但是我亏了三万。我们的这个合作，以我输他赢结束。在另一个极端之下，我能做能不做的事情都不做，花一万元，把案子输了，导致A先生要赔偿对方。这样，我赢了两万，他输几十万。
一个合作，如果在刚刚开始的时候，双方的利益就相反，那么这个合作是很难成功。而且，A先生在这件事情上糊涂，接他的案子的律师在这点上可一点都不糊涂。他之所以接这个案子，脑子里算的恐怕是花一万赚三万的帐，而没有打算花六万亏三万。在中国社区里，很多律师处于吃不上饭的经济状况，你上来就给他三万，对于那些律师来说，不接这个他就傻了。接了以后，自然是尽量少做事情。把这个案子混过去就完了。这个A先生，本来就是因为对合作的机制糊里糊涂，然后才遇到问题。然后，找了一个全包的律师。虽然我们不能说他这个案子一定会输（因为对方可能也是一个混混律师），但是他这三万恐怕很难值当。
律师和客人的关系，有点像司令和参谋长的关系。英文里，律师（lawyer）除了叫做代理人（attorney）以外，还称为counsel（提供咨询者，即参谋）。在法庭上，律师都被称为counsel。如果参谋的利益和司令的利益相反的话，那么司令能得到多少高质量的服务？
在美国，比较一下不同的社区，很说明问题。在好的社区里，大家都比较能够分清好话坏话，在那里与人合作，不太会受骗。在差的社区里（其表象就是穷），情况就不一样了。从律师的角度来说，在那些社区里，不骗人就拿不到案子；从客人的角度来说，就是很容易上当受骗。我写这篇文章，就是因为和A先生的这种沟通，发生得太过频繁。一个社区的精神面貌，取决于有多少像A先生这样的人。A先生多了，就会出现问题，因为在那个社区里，像我这样的律师就会无法生存。取而代之的，自然是那种三万包办的律师。
当然，利益一致了，在合作过程中，可能还会出问题。A先生找的那个白人律师没有包他的案子，还不是把他搞得七荤八素的。但是，利益一致了，至少就给合作奠定了一个坚实的基础。在这个基础上，各方就可以在一个良好的环境下，解决问题，把合作搞成功。
一个社区的精神面貌，取决于社区里面每一个个体的精神面貌。如果大家都喜欢三万全包的律师，结果社区里面就会充斥这种三万全包的律师。反之，如果大家有能力认识到这些结构性的问题，那么这些三万律师就不能在华人社区立足。如果大家在各方面都能够意识到生意架构的重要性，那么整个华人社区就能够吸收各方面的有用人才，同时将各行各业的骗子、饭桶挤出去。
我们将在《投资移民中介可靠吗？》里进一步举例子解释这个问题。
A先生投资移民来美国，开了一个生意。因为没有好律师的协助，与合作伙伴发生了矛盾，结果被人家告上法庭。他迷信白人律师，结果让朋友推荐了一个。两年下来，花了很多律师费，案子进行得乱七八糟。他的心理也是被人家告得七荤八素，恨不得放弃一切。后来经一个朋友介绍，他来找我。
我说：一个案子的进程，取决于很多因素。因为我不彻底了解案子，所以只能估计把案子做到底的费用是四万元（这只是他已经花掉的钱的几分之一）。我并且和他说，因为换律师，这里面包括我了解情况的费用。他说他要想想。
过了两天，他打电话过来，说：“我问过别的律师了，有人愿意三万元全包。如果你愿意以同样价格包我这个案子，我就把这个案子交给你。”我和他说，三万在某些情况下，的确足够。但是这很大程度上取决于案子的细节和对方采取的策略。在我把我为什么我不能以全包的方式收律师费的道理讲给他听了以后，他就以三万元把这个案子包给另一个律师去了。
我不能以全包的方式接这个案子的原因很简单：当A先生把三万元交给我了以后，我们两个人的利益立刻就对立起来了。这个道理可以用两个极端状况来解释。在一个极端之下，我花6万元，把他的官司打赢了。他自然讨了一个便宜，但是我亏了三万。我们的这个合作，以我输他赢结束。在另一个极端之下，我能做能不做的事情都不做，花一万元，把案子输了，导致A先生要赔偿对方。这样，我赢了两万，他输几十万。
一个合作，如果在刚刚开始的时候，双方的利益就相反，那么这个合作是很难成功。而且，A先生在这件事情上糊涂，接他的案子的律师在这点上可一点都不糊涂。他之所以接这个案子，脑子里算的恐怕是花一万赚三万的帐，而没有打算花六万亏三万。在中国社区里，很多律师处于吃不上饭的经济状况，你上来就给他三万，对于那些律师来说，不接这个他就傻了。接了以后，自然是尽量少做事情。把这个案子混过去就完了。这个A先生，本来就是因为对合作的机制糊里糊涂，然后才遇到问题。然后，找了一个全包的律师。虽然我们不能说他这个案子一定会输（因为对方可能也是一个混混律师），但是他这三万恐怕很难值当。
律师和客人的关系，有点像司令和参谋长的关系。英文里，律师（lawyer）除了叫做代理人（attorney）以外，还称为counsel（提供咨询者，即参谋）。在法庭上，律师都被称为counsel。如果参谋的利益和司令的利益相反的话，那么司令能得到多少高质量的服务？
在美国，比较一下不同的社区，很说明问题。在好的社区里，大家都比较能够分清好话坏话，在那里与人合作，不太会受骗。在差的社区里（其表象就是穷），情况就不一样了。从律师的角度来说，在那些社区里，不骗人就拿不到案子；从客人的角度来说，就是很容易上当受骗。我写这篇文章，就是因为和A先生的这种沟通，发生得太过频繁。一个社区的精神面貌，取决于有多少像A先生这样的人。A先生多了，就会出现问题，因为在那个社区里，像我这样的律师就会无法生存。取而代之的，自然是那种三万包办的律师。
当然，利益一致了，在合作过程中，可能还会出问题。A先生找的那个白人律师没有包他的案子，还不是把他搞得七荤八素的。但是，利益一致了，至少就给合作奠定了一个坚实的基础。在这个基础上，各方就可以在一个良好的环境下，解决问题，把合作搞成功。
一个社区的精神面貌，取决于社区里面每一个个体的精神面貌。如果大家都喜欢三万全包的律师，结果社区里面就会充斥这种三万全包的律师。反之，如果大家有能力认识到这些结构性的问题，那么这些三万律师就不能在华人社区立足。如果大家在各方面都能够意识到生意架构的重要性，那么整个华人社区就能够吸收各方面的有用人才，同时将各行各业的骗子、饭桶挤出去。
我们将在《投资移民中介可靠吗？》里进一步举例子解释这个问题。
Monday, February 1, 2010
在生意上合作，成功的基础是什么？
做过生意的人都知道，一个人的力量是极其有限的。就是累死了，也做不了多少工作。想要干任何有规模的事情，就一定要依靠合作。很多人在合作的时候，知道在钱上不让自己吃亏，但是，保证自己不吃亏是不是合作就一定会成功呢？当然不是，生意合作成功的基础，是这个合作的结构。
让我们先举个例子，一个人干事业，一定要雇人。这里就有一个雇主与雇员合作的问题。所有当过老板的人都知道，每个月一开始，是老板给雇员打工，因为只有把老板把房租、雇员的工资、和其它开销挣出来之后，整个企业才开始为老板挣钱。最近，因为经济不景气，很多老板都有亏钱的经验。也就是说，老板打工一个月，没有把雇员的工资打出来，结果要从腰包里掏钱来付雇员的工资。没有钱了，只好减少工时，或者拖欠工资。
减少吃亏的最简捷办法，就是给雇员低工资。这样，老板就可以尽快挣到雇员的工资，好让雇员们真正地开始为老板打工。但是薪水太低了，在经济坏的时候，雇员自然没有什么办法，因为他们面前的选择是低薪或者事业。但是等经济好转的时候，低薪就会导致优秀雇员被竞争对手抢走。其实，雇员之中，也分创造工作机会的和消耗工作机会的。这一点，我当年开始为Fuji Film打工不久就体会到了这个区别。因为公司把我算作创造工作机会的人，所以公司公开鼓励我用各种办法增加收入（以避免工资过高引出问题）。有第一次我把一张大概一万元的月报销单给我老板签字的时候，我老板皱着眉头说，怎么就这么一点？你在这里赚钱了吗？我说当然没有。他就说，如果这里的三分之一不是你挣的钱的话，你的报销单就没有作对。
然后，他给我讲了一个故事：有一个人去得克萨斯州出差，他看到所有的人都戴牛仔帽，就买了一顶。第二天，他出门的时候，风把他的牛仔帽给吹到车外头去了。他就又买了一顶。月底，他给他的老板写报销单的时候，里面就有两顶牛仔帽。老板一看不高兴，就说公司为什么要给你买牛仔帽？他说：“那里的人都戴牛仔帽，所以这是工作需要。”老板说：“要说工作需要，也只需要一顶，怎么会需要两顶？”雇员讲了他丢第一顶的故事以后，老板就叫他重新填写报销单，把一顶去掉。过了一会儿，雇员拿着信报销单给老板签字。老板一看，帽子的确只有一顶了，但是报销的总数没变。老板就问：“其它那顶帽子呢？”雇员回答说：“这好像不是我需要解决的问题，是不是？”讲完这个故事以后，我的老板就说：“下个月我不想再看到这样的报销单。”
当时的问题是我在Fuji的工资，已经过线，不能再提了，但是一时公司还不愿意提我做经理。就当时的公司结构，公司也不可能给我公司的股份。在那种情况下，公司想出来的办法就是让我多报销一些花费，这样至少可以让我在出差的时候，过得舒服一点。
一般说来，解决雇主与主要雇员之间关系的最直接的办法就是给这些雇员公司的股份。对于大多数小生意来说，因为股份掌握在老板手中，给股份不是问题。问题是如何给。很多雇主，有运行企业（如卖货赚钱）的能力，但是并不了解很多资本方面的知识。所以不知道给股份怎么给，给多少。当雇员手中有了股份以后，如何处理分清分红和奖金，并通过掌握分红和奖金，来在最大限度上调动雇员的工作积极性。
当然，资本是一个大话题，不是这里可以解决的。而且，里面很多内容，需要创造性思维。最好的方式，因人而异，因公司的不同而不同，没有一定之规。而且，因为股份代表权利，这里面的作业，要非常谨慎。一般来说，需要有这方面经验的商业律师协助。
与雇员合作只是合作的一部分。而且对很多小企业来说，是比较小的一部分。企业的赚钱还是亏钱，有时会取决于合作企业的所做所为举个最简单的例子。如果一个企业把货发给另一个企业去卖，那个企业收上来前一后攥在自己手里，不付账，那么这个企业就需要通过法庭手续来解决问题。诉讼，任何人都知道，是非常贵的一个办法。
问题是，在这种情况发生之前，有没有什么办法，降低这种事情发生的机率？回答是：有。答案在于生意的结构上。
当我在做公司的技术开发部主任的时候，日常处理的事情之一，就是如何与其它科技公司合作，共同开发。这之中，就有可能我这边事情做好了，对方的开发没有做到家。在什么行动还没有开始的时候，各方就要想清楚，（1）如何避免这种情况，（2）这种情况发生之后，如何处理，这样才不会拖延大家的计划。这种事情的解决，需要大量的时间来想办法、磋商、讨价还价。为了建立一个好的合作架构，我们经常搞到晚上不能回家的地步。
有了一个很还的合作架构，一个合作项目可以在很多年后，商业的环境，甚至产品、服务，都已经完全不一样了以后，合作还在同一个架构之下顺利进行。如果一个架构没有搭好，合作会在几个月之内就出问题。如果一方利用架构中的问题没完没了地赚另一方的便宜，那结果很可能就闹到法庭上去，令大家都破财。
在美国，合作意向一般是由生意之间谈。在形成明显的意向以后，律师就要参与，开始建设这个合作的架构。有些生意，觉得这笔钱是可以省去的。结果，在握手的基础上，在良好的愿望基础之上，合作就糊里糊涂地开始。除了问题以后，大家意见就开始有分歧，草草达成的协议，有时就会变成万恶之源。（在协议如何把两方的利益对立起来方面，我们有一个很好的例子，就是企业和律师之间的合作架构问题。我们以后以专文讲述。）没有想好的协议，会很快将双方的利益对立起来。在双方没有长时期的合作的情况下，没有敲打过的协议，通常会给奸商一个可乘之机。中国人有一句老话：害人之心不能有，防人之心不可无。
一个站得住脚的合作架构，会以法律为基础，清楚地定义出各方的职责及权利。对于可以预见的问题，实现讨论出一个解决办法。用一个军事比喻，这就相当于订立作战计划。在有作战计划的时候，出了问题，很多事情就不必再想，直接将已经达成那个的协议付诸实施即可。这样，不光速度快，而且也会避免很多矛盾及摩擦。在事情还没有发生的时候，一般来说，大家更容易心平气和地讨论问题。出了事情，在讨价还价，有经验的人都知道，这时要花很多倍时间、精力的。
从另一个角度来说，仔细地把框架搭起来，大家都会知道这里面会出什么问题；问题一旦发生，解决方法是什么。这样，在合作开始的时候，双方都会对合作有一个比较清楚的了解。
况且，即便在一个很还的框架之下，合作中也会有各种各样的问题的。在出了问题以后，各方都要在自己的律师的参与下（因为这牵涉到一个已经签署的合同的执行，和这个合同定义的各方权利的问题），解决问题，使得合作可以在互利的基础上进行下去。这种成功的基础是在合作的情况下，大家可以取长补短，结果会比各自单打独斗要好很多。所以，只要一开始的架构好，遇到什么问题通常都可以解决。在美国，公司之间，公司和重要雇员之间，通常会有一些摩擦，经过律师的解决，一般都可以解决，不会发展到去法庭去讨个公道的地步。
从另一个角度讲，如果合同允许一方赚另一方很大便宜，这个便宜越大，赚便宜的那一方就越有动机依照原有的合同进行。在另一种情况下，如果一方违约，另一方不能有效地解决问题，就等于是鼓励违约方继续违约。这些都是法律问题。当律师出面解决的时候，各方都会依照法律讲道理。在一方，特别是当这一方是不懂美国法律的华人移民，或者是中国公司的时候，对于那些居心不良的人来说，就好像是说：“我第一不懂美国法律，第二不愿意请美国律师。如果什么地方你能从法律或者什么别的方面欺负我，就请随便欺负吧。”从合作角度来说，这是一个很不好的开端。
一个好的合作架构，可以让两个或更多个企业，互相之间，取长补短，共同进步。一个有问题的合作架构，会立刻把各方的利益对立起来，迫使各方在损害对方利益的前提下，争取自己的利益。但是，我们不应该因噎废食，因为蝲蝲蛄叫就不种地了。
总之，虽然建立一个完整的合作架构要花费时间和精力，但是在合作进程中，无论是公司之间，还是公司和驻要雇员之间，这个建立一个完善的合作架构这步不能跳过去。换句话说，为了长远的利益，这个钱不能省。
让我们先举个例子，一个人干事业，一定要雇人。这里就有一个雇主与雇员合作的问题。所有当过老板的人都知道，每个月一开始，是老板给雇员打工，因为只有把老板把房租、雇员的工资、和其它开销挣出来之后，整个企业才开始为老板挣钱。最近，因为经济不景气，很多老板都有亏钱的经验。也就是说，老板打工一个月，没有把雇员的工资打出来，结果要从腰包里掏钱来付雇员的工资。没有钱了，只好减少工时，或者拖欠工资。
减少吃亏的最简捷办法，就是给雇员低工资。这样，老板就可以尽快挣到雇员的工资，好让雇员们真正地开始为老板打工。但是薪水太低了，在经济坏的时候，雇员自然没有什么办法，因为他们面前的选择是低薪或者事业。但是等经济好转的时候，低薪就会导致优秀雇员被竞争对手抢走。其实，雇员之中，也分创造工作机会的和消耗工作机会的。这一点，我当年开始为Fuji Film打工不久就体会到了这个区别。因为公司把我算作创造工作机会的人，所以公司公开鼓励我用各种办法增加收入（以避免工资过高引出问题）。有第一次我把一张大概一万元的月报销单给我老板签字的时候，我老板皱着眉头说，怎么就这么一点？你在这里赚钱了吗？我说当然没有。他就说，如果这里的三分之一不是你挣的钱的话，你的报销单就没有作对。
然后，他给我讲了一个故事：有一个人去得克萨斯州出差，他看到所有的人都戴牛仔帽，就买了一顶。第二天，他出门的时候，风把他的牛仔帽给吹到车外头去了。他就又买了一顶。月底，他给他的老板写报销单的时候，里面就有两顶牛仔帽。老板一看不高兴，就说公司为什么要给你买牛仔帽？他说：“那里的人都戴牛仔帽，所以这是工作需要。”老板说：“要说工作需要，也只需要一顶，怎么会需要两顶？”雇员讲了他丢第一顶的故事以后，老板就叫他重新填写报销单，把一顶去掉。过了一会儿，雇员拿着信报销单给老板签字。老板一看，帽子的确只有一顶了，但是报销的总数没变。老板就问：“其它那顶帽子呢？”雇员回答说：“这好像不是我需要解决的问题，是不是？”讲完这个故事以后，我的老板就说：“下个月我不想再看到这样的报销单。”
当时的问题是我在Fuji的工资，已经过线，不能再提了，但是一时公司还不愿意提我做经理。就当时的公司结构，公司也不可能给我公司的股份。在那种情况下，公司想出来的办法就是让我多报销一些花费，这样至少可以让我在出差的时候，过得舒服一点。
一般说来，解决雇主与主要雇员之间关系的最直接的办法就是给这些雇员公司的股份。对于大多数小生意来说，因为股份掌握在老板手中，给股份不是问题。问题是如何给。很多雇主，有运行企业（如卖货赚钱）的能力，但是并不了解很多资本方面的知识。所以不知道给股份怎么给，给多少。当雇员手中有了股份以后，如何处理分清分红和奖金，并通过掌握分红和奖金，来在最大限度上调动雇员的工作积极性。
当然，资本是一个大话题，不是这里可以解决的。而且，里面很多内容，需要创造性思维。最好的方式，因人而异，因公司的不同而不同，没有一定之规。而且，因为股份代表权利，这里面的作业，要非常谨慎。一般来说，需要有这方面经验的商业律师协助。
与雇员合作只是合作的一部分。而且对很多小企业来说，是比较小的一部分。企业的赚钱还是亏钱，有时会取决于合作企业的所做所为举个最简单的例子。如果一个企业把货发给另一个企业去卖，那个企业收上来前一后攥在自己手里，不付账，那么这个企业就需要通过法庭手续来解决问题。诉讼，任何人都知道，是非常贵的一个办法。
问题是，在这种情况发生之前，有没有什么办法，降低这种事情发生的机率？回答是：有。答案在于生意的结构上。
当我在做公司的技术开发部主任的时候，日常处理的事情之一，就是如何与其它科技公司合作，共同开发。这之中，就有可能我这边事情做好了，对方的开发没有做到家。在什么行动还没有开始的时候，各方就要想清楚，（1）如何避免这种情况，（2）这种情况发生之后，如何处理，这样才不会拖延大家的计划。这种事情的解决，需要大量的时间来想办法、磋商、讨价还价。为了建立一个好的合作架构，我们经常搞到晚上不能回家的地步。
有了一个很还的合作架构，一个合作项目可以在很多年后，商业的环境，甚至产品、服务，都已经完全不一样了以后，合作还在同一个架构之下顺利进行。如果一个架构没有搭好，合作会在几个月之内就出问题。如果一方利用架构中的问题没完没了地赚另一方的便宜，那结果很可能就闹到法庭上去，令大家都破财。
在美国，合作意向一般是由生意之间谈。在形成明显的意向以后，律师就要参与，开始建设这个合作的架构。有些生意，觉得这笔钱是可以省去的。结果，在握手的基础上，在良好的愿望基础之上，合作就糊里糊涂地开始。除了问题以后，大家意见就开始有分歧，草草达成的协议，有时就会变成万恶之源。（在协议如何把两方的利益对立起来方面，我们有一个很好的例子，就是企业和律师之间的合作架构问题。我们以后以专文讲述。）没有想好的协议，会很快将双方的利益对立起来。在双方没有长时期的合作的情况下，没有敲打过的协议，通常会给奸商一个可乘之机。中国人有一句老话：害人之心不能有，防人之心不可无。
一个站得住脚的合作架构，会以法律为基础，清楚地定义出各方的职责及权利。对于可以预见的问题，实现讨论出一个解决办法。用一个军事比喻，这就相当于订立作战计划。在有作战计划的时候，出了问题，很多事情就不必再想，直接将已经达成那个的协议付诸实施即可。这样，不光速度快，而且也会避免很多矛盾及摩擦。在事情还没有发生的时候，一般来说，大家更容易心平气和地讨论问题。出了事情，在讨价还价，有经验的人都知道，这时要花很多倍时间、精力的。
从另一个角度来说，仔细地把框架搭起来，大家都会知道这里面会出什么问题；问题一旦发生，解决方法是什么。这样，在合作开始的时候，双方都会对合作有一个比较清楚的了解。
况且，即便在一个很还的框架之下，合作中也会有各种各样的问题的。在出了问题以后，各方都要在自己的律师的参与下（因为这牵涉到一个已经签署的合同的执行，和这个合同定义的各方权利的问题），解决问题，使得合作可以在互利的基础上进行下去。这种成功的基础是在合作的情况下，大家可以取长补短，结果会比各自单打独斗要好很多。所以，只要一开始的架构好，遇到什么问题通常都可以解决。在美国，公司之间，公司和重要雇员之间，通常会有一些摩擦，经过律师的解决，一般都可以解决，不会发展到去法庭去讨个公道的地步。
从另一个角度讲，如果合同允许一方赚另一方很大便宜，这个便宜越大，赚便宜的那一方就越有动机依照原有的合同进行。在另一种情况下，如果一方违约，另一方不能有效地解决问题，就等于是鼓励违约方继续违约。这些都是法律问题。当律师出面解决的时候，各方都会依照法律讲道理。在一方，特别是当这一方是不懂美国法律的华人移民，或者是中国公司的时候，对于那些居心不良的人来说，就好像是说：“我第一不懂美国法律，第二不愿意请美国律师。如果什么地方你能从法律或者什么别的方面欺负我，就请随便欺负吧。”从合作角度来说，这是一个很不好的开端。
一个好的合作架构，可以让两个或更多个企业，互相之间，取长补短，共同进步。一个有问题的合作架构，会立刻把各方的利益对立起来，迫使各方在损害对方利益的前提下，争取自己的利益。但是，我们不应该因噎废食，因为蝲蝲蛄叫就不种地了。
总之，虽然建立一个完整的合作架构要花费时间和精力，但是在合作进程中，无论是公司之间，还是公司和驻要雇员之间，这个建立一个完善的合作架构这步不能跳过去。换句话说，为了长远的利益，这个钱不能省。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)