The first group of mainland Chinese students visiting Taiwan
In December 1988, an exciting and inspiring event occurred across the Taiwan Strait: mainland China and Taiwan, separated for forty years, finally opened a new chapter in people-to-people exchanges. This was the first group of mainland students to visit Taiwan. The list of candidates for this batch of mainland students is: Qian Yingyi (PhD candidate in Economics, Harvard University), Pei Minxin (PhD candidate in Political Science, Harvard University), Wu Mouren (PhD candidate in Analytic Philosophy of Language and Language, City University of New York), Xu Bangtai (graduate student in East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley), and Xu Chenggang (PhD candidate in Economics, Harvard University).
Therequest for mainland Chinese students to visit Taiwan was first proposed by Qian Yingyi, a Harvard student, in an interview with United Daily News. Shortly after, Zheng Xinyuan, director of the Kuomintang Maritime Workers’ Union, stated that the ROC government is considering inviting international students to visit Taiwan. In June 1988, Ma Shuli, chairman of the “Three Principles of the People United China Grand Alliance,” who contributed most actively to this trip, invited six legislators and professors including Zhao Shaokang and Li Shengfeng to visit the U.S. and held discussions with mainland Chinese students from various U.S. countries, further encouraging their willingness to visit Taiwan.
The visit to Taiwan will begin on December 20 and end on December 29, lasting ten days. The itinerary will be arranged by the Taiwanese civil group “Unity and Self-Strengthening Association,” including group and individual visits. The expenses for the visit to Taiwan are tentatively set to be borne by mainland Chinese students themselves. However, later on, as a considerable number of foundations and civil organizations actively expressed their support, they also accepted these financial sponsorships.
Regarding mainland Chinese students visiting Taiwan, the U.S. government is optimistic and has stated that there will be no difficulties regarding visa issues for returning to the U.S.
Thefirst group of mainland students to visit Taiwan was also recognized by the Chinese mainland government. He Long, Counselor in charge of international student affairs at the Chinese Consulate in New York, expressed support for mainland students visiting Taiwan. The policies of international students visiting Taiwan do not conflict with cross-strait policies, and that cross-strait people-to-people exchanges are beneficial and beneficial to both sides. After these students return to the mainland from Taiwan, they will not be affected by this incident.
On the mainland, China News Service and People’s Daily also published brief reports, and China News Service also released a list of five international students.
Major Chinese-language newspapers in the United States, such as World Journal, China Daily, and Overseas Chinese Daily News, have all given positive and supportive evaluations of the first batch of mainland students studying in Taiwan.
Xu Bangtai, one of the mainland students visiting Taiwan, later served as director of the Democratic Alliance Alliance. In 1977, he was admitted to the Journalism Department of Fudan University in Shanghai. While studying, he organized the student organization “Siwu Journalism Society” and was elected president. In Fudan University’s “University Student” magazine, he published articles such as “Socialist Newspaper Democracy and the News Law” and “Enacting a News Law Is Not a Fanciful Idea,” advocating press freedom. In 1979, Xu Bangtai used the magazine “College Student” to distribute 500 questionnaires to students. The survey showed that two-thirds of Fudan University students did not believe in communism, and more than half believed privilege was the biggest social issue in mainland China. This action was also the first public opinion poll with real content conducted in mainland China, which provoked official outrage and prevented the release of the survey results. In the early 1980s, the Communist Party, which had never held direct elections before, decided to pilot democratic elections in districts and counties. A student from the Fudan journalism department saw this as a rare and valuable opportunity to promote political democratization, so they nominated Xu Bangtai to run for Baoshan County People’s Representative in Shanghai. In fact, Xu Bangtai was already a Communist Party member. Under the social conditions of mainland China, being a Communist Party member was expected to obey the Party’s arrangements. This time, his candidacy as a popular candidate naturally caused displeasure within the Party organization. In May 1980, he became a representative of Baoshan County, Shanghai, becoming the first elected representative in mainland China. Later, the CCP officially rejected the 1980s election campaign, believing that the candidates were all “misbehaving” people, and Xu Bangtai thus got into trouble. The school’s Party Committee set up a special task force to review his “problems.” He was labeled a liberalizer and expelled from the party. After graduating from university, he searched everywhere for a job, but as soon as he saw the file, no one dared to ask for it. In the end, he was “taken in” by a watch factory. Unable to realize his ambitions, Xu Bangtai began applying to study in the United States. In 1985, he was finally approved and began a new life across the Pacific.
Another mainland student from the Taiwan Democratic League, Wu Mouren, had a much smoother experience compared to Xu Bangtai’s turbulent and difficult journey. Although he was less involved in many political movements in mainland China, his feelings for the Communist Party surpassed those of many who had been hurt. As a young man, Wu Mou was deeply concerned with politics. When relatives and elders discussed political issues, he would always sit quietly and listen attentively. For bizarre and bizarre social phenomena, he always asks “why,” and deeply reflects on and analyzes them. He had the habit of keeping a diary, recording many serious reflections and anger at social injustices. At twenty-one, he was admitted to the Institute of Philosophy at Fudan University in Shanghai, becoming the youngest graduate student. Later, in the United States, he resolutely joined the China Democratic League. He believes that mainland China’s problems are political, not economic. The vigorous reforms carried out on the mainland have always been kept within the framework of the Communist Party, so they have little impact on the mainland. He said, “Some people are reluctant to talk about political reform, using the excuse of fearing social unrest. In fact, the existence of authoritarian regimes is the most destabilizing factor in the mainland!” ”
These five mainland Chinese students arrived at Taiwan’s Chiang Kai-shek Airport on December 20. Their visit brought immense excitement and excitement to Taiwan’s isolated society across the strait. In an editorial on December 20, the China Times stated: “The separation across the strait is a historical tragedy. For the older generation, regardless of province or origin, they feel great sorrow over the past separations between family members and the pain of homesickness…… However, for the new generation on both sides, there is a sense of unfamiliarity and less longing between them. Coupled with differences in political, economic, and social systems across the strait, the new generation has varying understandings of politics, social experiences, and economic observations. Therefore, today, the new generation of mainland students studying abroad are taking the lead, visiting Taiwan first. From the perspective of cross-strait exchanges, its significance is especially significant. ”
As soon as they stepped out of the plane, they felt the fiery enthusiasm of the Taiwanese people, surrounded by countless reporters, with flashlights flashing nonstop. That evening, the “United and Self-Strengthening Association” hosted a banquet to entertain them, attended by the association’s chairman Chen Baochuan, Red Cross president Xu Heng, China Human Rights Association chairman Hang Liwu, and Taipei City Councilor Yu Muming. The atmosphere was very harmonious and both host and guests enjoyed themselves.
Starting from the 21st, the five international students began their intense activities of visits, visits, and field assessments, first visiting universities such as National Taiwan University and National Chengchi University. Taiwanese newspapers described the grand visit as follows: “As soon as the five mainland students arrived in a special car at the NTU administration building, the NTU Graduate Student Association responsible for reception immediately followed the plan, ‘two officials protecting one person,’ and engaged in a ‘defense battle’ with a large group of cameras and reporters.” After arriving at the Student Activity Center, the entire two-story building was packed with NTU students eager to see ‘mainland Chinese people.’ On the 23rd, they visited Xiulang Primary School and were warmly welcomed by the students. The news that day also wrote: “…… During the classroom tour, Pei Minxin was inspired to go on stage and act as a ‘substitute teacher’ for five minutes, teaching students the differences between simplified and traditional characters, which greatly sparked the children’s interest. Qian Yingyi also asked the children in class: ‘A horse falls into an eleven foot pit. Each time it can jump two feet high, how many times can it jump out of the pit?’ The children answered in unison, ‘We will never be able to jump out!’ Everyone present laughed heartily, and Xu Bangtai gave a thumbs up, saying, ‘Taiwanese elementary school students are no joke!’ “Another interesting news story: on December 20th, five international students visited NTHU. “They arrived at the entrance of the female student dormitory at National Taiwan University and didn’t understand why there was a sign saying ‘No Male Guests Allowed’?” Qian Yingyi said in confusion, ‘In mainland China, male guests are not allowed, and men can visit anytime without any precautions.’ Driven by curiosity, he requested to visit the girls’ dormitory…… Of course, there was no prior notice. A girl watching TV in the lounge was startled when she saw five older boys and more than sixty reporters break in. She hurriedly and cautiously asked, ‘Who are you?’ Once you ask why, the girls’ enthusiasm naturally shines through, welcoming the uninvited guests. After gently knocking on the door, they also admired the ‘boudoir,’ became especially interested in the colorful clothes drying area in the dormitory, and took out their cameras to take photos. ”
Thefive mainland students eager to see and understand this visit to Taiwan are how Taiwan has implemented democracy since the “lifting of restrictions,” and whether it can achieve its goals. What difficulties and obstacles did they encounter? What lessons will this bring to the future of mainland society? Wu Mou said: “The five of us are independent intellectuals. We deeply hope to see the real Taiwan and speak our conscience and what we truly want to say.” With this goal in mind, they visited universities, research institutes, rural areas, factories, museums, journalism and academic institutions, the Legislative Yuan, senior political figures, and DPP members. Although the time was short, it encompassed industry, agriculture, commerce, academia, and politics.
All
five international students have deep feelings about press freedom in Taiwan. Xu Bangtai said, “Taiwan’s news industry is very dynamic, which is completely different from the mainland.” Mainland news is under the control of the Communist Party and cannot cross the line. But Taiwan is not bound by anything. Taiwanese journalists are truly impressive, especially female journalists. Wu Mouren said, “During my visit to Taiwan, what impressed me most was the competition and vitality in Taiwan’s news industry. In a democratic society, press freedom and democratic politics are seen as two complementary and natural aspects, but under the mainland’s authoritarian system, the barrel of a gun and the pen have become two major tools for maintaining power. ”
After visiting major colleges and universities in Taiwan, they learned about the current development of student organizations and fully experienced the democratic atmosphere of campuses. Xu Bangtai said, “My impression of NTU is that social activities are quite active. I have received many student-run newspapers and periodicals, and I have seen many ‘big-character posters.’ During seminars, opinions differ, and some even argue in front of guests, which left a deep impression on me.” ”
During their visits to rural areas, they conducted in-depth investigations into Taiwan’s land reform model and compared it with those of mainland China. They say that land reform on the mainland means farmers “plant” their land, while in Taiwan, farmers “own” their land—a difference of just one word can make a huge difference. Pei Minxin and Qian Yingyi were deeply surprised that Taiwan’s land reform could be carried out peacefully and without bloodshed. They asked: Was there resistance from landlords at the start of the reform? How was it resolved? Xie Zhirong, head of academic affairs at the Land Reform Institute, gave them a detailed introduction. He said, “In the early days of Taiwan’s politics, those involved were all wealthy landlords who led by example and cooperated with government policies. At the same time, Taiwan adopted Japan’s method of compensating landlords by issuing cash, adopting 70% physical bonds combined with 30-40% large company stocks, so that landlords’ compensation was unaffected by inflation and effectively alleviated considerable resistance. All five international students exclaimed, “Such a good system—why wasn’t it implemented in mainland China before?” “When reviewing land reform in mainland China, Xu Bangtai believes: the mainland’s land reform has been quite a failure. If the Kuomintang lost the mainland due to land issues back then, it also created the Taiwan miracle through land reform. The Communist Party gained power through the calls of “cracking down on landlords” and “distributing land,” but the failure of land reform led to many problems.
The five international students deeply admired the economicmiracle Taiwan has created over the past forty years. Why is Taiwan’s economy so prosperous? They unanimously concluded that Taiwan’s free market economy was the main reason for the miracle.
In addition, the five international students deepened their understanding of Taiwan’s democratic politics. On the 23rd, they visited the Legislative Yuan. Unexpectedly, their arrival was met with “stray bullets” from some legislators. A DPP legislator accused the five international students of coming to Taiwan as being “toyed with like monkeys” by the ruling party, which angered the ruling party legislators, who all took the stage to speak and refute the DPP legislator’s views. In response, Wu Mou said: “I don’t feel like the ruling party is toying with me like a monkey.” “Several other students also said that everyone enjoys democratic rights. When we come to Taiwan, we can have basic rights to speak. If others disagree, they can criticize but should not be blamed.”
On the same day, they also met with Liu Kuocai, Acting President of the Legislative Yuan, and exchanged views on several issues. Xu Bangtai said, “It seems that serving as the speaker of a democratic society is not easy. This drew a bitter smile from Director Liu. Xu Bangtai said, “In mainland China, being a ‘people’s representative’ is recognized as the easiest job, a device that doesn’t require much thought.” In a democratic society, it is only then that I realize that being a councilor or speaker is the hardest and hardest to do. ”
Wu Mou-ren and Hsu Bang-tai also visited DPP Chairman Huang Hsin-chieh, and both sides exchanged views on political issues across the Taiwan Strait.
In short, during the ten-day visit to Taiwan, the five mainland students deeply felt that although Taiwan still has various shortcomings and shortcomings, the seeds of democracy have been sown and are beginning to thrive on this land. They hope that Taiwan’s experience will land on the mainland, thereby influencing the mainland and becoming a powerful catalyst for the mainland’s political system to evolve toward democracy.
In addition, these five mainland students participated in numerous symposiums, where they shared their views on cross-strait issues, democracy, unification, and economic reform in mainland China. They asked, under what conditions should the reunification of the mainland and Taiwan take place? First, politically, democracy should be adopted; economically, a market system should be adopted. Taiwan possesses both of these requirements; what the mainland does not possess is the mainland. Therefore, it is hoped that Taiwan can set an example politically and economically.
Time flies! In just ten days of visits, the time passed in the blink of an eye. At the moment of reluctant farewell, Wu Mouren wrote this poem in his diary:
Gathering ……
It’s just that in the course of life,
A destined union
Disperse ……
It’s just that in the course of life,
After their fate ended, they had no choice but to break up.
As long as people believe,
Gathering is not the beginning, parting is not the end
Then what truly deserves to be engraved in memory
It should be a kind of reluctance when gathered, and lingering when parting.
On December 29, five mainland Chinese students returned to the U.S. by plane.
Thevisit of five mainland students to Taiwan thus opened the door for mutual visits between civil organizations between the mainland and Taiwan. After that, many groups or individual mainland students visited Taiwan.
Regarding mainland students visiting Taiwan, a Taiwanese writer once gave a very apt metaphor, calling them “quiet sparks.” Yes, through interviews and practical assessments, mainland students have gained a deeper understanding of which of the two social systems is better or worse, and where are the root causes of mainland China’s problems? As Chinese people with a deep sense of crisis, what should we do? The spark quietly burns deep within their thoughts, and one day, it will burst forth, bringing the light of wisdom back to their homeland—mainland China.
The king’s turmoil was dismissed
However, just as the pro-democracy movement in mainland China and overseas was spreading like a spark, the “China Democratic League” went through another major twist—severe internal disputes eventually led to a “Wang (Bingzhang) recall incident,” plunging the Democratic League into crisis.
The “Wang’s Recall Incident” occurred during the “Tripartite Joint Conference” (i.e., headquarters, joint committee, and supervisory committee) held in January 1989, but the ice was frozen three feet deep, not a single day’s cold; the seeds of conflict were planted long ago. There are roughly three reasons for this:
1. For a long time, many members have held opinions about Wang Bingzhang’s leadership style, believing that his political operations lack democratization, transparency, and openness, and are especially dissatisfied with the “black-box operations” of the financial system during his tenure as chairman.
2. In personnel disputes, there was a struggle between the “Dao Xue” and “Dao Wang” factions. At the core of the Democratic League, in terms of ‘qualifications,’ probably only Xue Wei could match Wang Bingzhang. Wang Bingzhang’s membership card was number one, and Xue Wei’s was number two. But for some unknown reason, Xue Wei became the target Wang Bingzhang wanted to eliminate (even Xue Wei himself was unaware). After Hu Ping took over as chairman, Wang repeatedly requested Hu Ping and Ding Chu to specifically discuss Xue Wei’s suspicion of being a “Kuomintang spy,” demanding organizational punishment. However, his suggestions were not met with support from Hu Ping and Ding Chu. Afterwards, Lin Qiaoqing secretly talked with Xue Wei, hoping he would not participate in the “Four Major Conferences,” but Xue Wei refused. Finally, Vice Chairman Ke Lisi stepped forward and wrote a document demanding the handling of Xue Wei, containing many fabricated personal attack accusations. Xue Wei was finally enraged. He distributed evidence proving his innocence throughout the league and publicly countered Wang Bingzhang and Ke Lisi, turning their conflict into the direct trigger for the “Tripartite Joint Conference.”
Third, another reason is that Wang Bingzhang opened an insurance company and DW&C, a company specializing in political asylum, which caused dissatisfaction within the alliance. DW&C political asylum company, charging fees without hiring a lawyer; Meanwhile, insurance companies, under the banner of the pro-democracy movement, mobilized members to buy insurance but failed to pay the Democratic League at the original rate. Some suspected fraud and demanded investigations and liquidations of these two companies. The most active advocate was standing committee member Yu Cong, while Qian Da, Huang Ben, Mo Fengjie, Wu Fangcheng, and financial leaders Lin Xinsheng and Ding Chu also expressed support.
Of course, among them, there were also those who held a different view. Some tried to take a balanced stance, opposing Wang Bingzhang’s mystification of ‘despotism’ and Hu Ping’s ‘cancelism’ of neglecting organizational work. This view was represented by Standing Committee member Huyan Min.
Thus, a force opposing Wang Bingzhang was formed. The most conflicted was Chairman Hu Ping. He originally did not want to stir up trouble, but the internal disputes were so intense that a proper solution was needed. In the end, he made up his mind and agreed to the meeting. He set the purpose for the meeting as follows: to provide a legitimate channel to resolve disputes, exchange opinions, resolve misunderstandings, organize and distribute the meeting recordings throughout the league, allowing members to discern right from wrong, and not to draw conclusions or make organizational decisions regarding people or matters. At the same time, he felt it was not easy to gather the Standing Committee and Supervisory Committee members from all over the country, so he suggested adding two agenda items besides resolving internal conflicts: first, to summarize the work of the past year; second, to discuss the situation of the democratic movement and plan strategies for the coming year.
The meeting was originally scheduled for December 31, 1988, but was postponed to January 7, 1989 due to Wang Bingzhang’s family matters, at the editorial office of ‘China Spring’ in New York.
The meeting actually had no restrictions on participants. The “meeting notice” was tucked into the Democratic League’s internal publication “Democracy Movement Chronicle” and distributed to every liaison station. The only requirement was that, due to tight funding, anyone willing to attend had to pay out of pocket. There have also been some controversies regarding the attendees. First, Vice Chairman Ke Lisi did not attend, which was later promoted by some as a “conspiracy,” but in fact, it was not so. At the time, Coris was in France. Three days before the meeting, he called Ding Chu to request leave, saying: because of the many Christmas emails, he only received the letter in eleven days. Now, after booking a flight and facing a strike by airport workers, it was already too late. Another incident was that Chairman Hu Ping strongly advised Yang Huaian and Yang Manke not to attend the meeting. Because both had been “purged” by Wang Bingzhang, Hu Ping advised them not to come, but in good faith, he hoped the meeting would minimize the “firepower” of anti-Wang and prevent the situation from escalating or escalating conflicts. But Hu Ping paid the price for this. On the first day of the meeting, on the evening of January 7th, attendees gathered at Ding Chu’s home, mainly criticizing Hu Ping and asking why he transferred Ke Lisi away at this time. Why did he earn more than Wang Bingzhang? Why ……? Just then, Yang Manke arrived at Ding Chu’s home, and the issue centered on one main issue: why was Yang Manke not allowed to attend the meeting? Why strip him of his rights? Several cannons blasted Hu Ping into a state of distress. Yang Manke clearly didn’t want to argue about him any further, so he volunteered not to attend the meeting the next day to avoid causing trouble for Hu Ping.
The next day, the meeting officially began. More than thirty people attended, along with many New York members attending the meeting. The meeting was indeed full of tension, with two incidents occurring: first, Wu Fangcheng and Qian Da proposed revising the agenda, moving the original third item from “inquiry to headquarters” to the second item, placing it before “discussing the situation and planning strategy.” Hu Ping expressed opposition, which sparked debate and ultimately led to a vote, agreeing to Wu and Qian’s proposals. Another time was during a meeting, when Yang Manke suddenly appeared at the venue. Yu Cong and Wu Fangcheng insisted he had the right to attend, while Hu Ping hoped he would keep his promise from yesterday. Ding Chu proposed a vote, but Yang voluntarily left the venue before the vote. Other than that, almost no one violated the rules throughout the meeting; the only speech lasting longer than ten minutes was Wang Bingzhang’s defense of criticism (with the chairman’s approval). As for Wang Bingzhang’s criticism, overall, it falls into three aspects: first, problems in political operations; Second, financial issues; Third, the issue of two companies operating under the banner of the democracy movement. Just as the meeting was about to end, news suddenly arrived that three alliance members sent to the mainland to welcome Yang Wei’s release—Tang Guangzhong, Huang Ben, and Huang Han—had been detained by the Communist Party. For a time, public outrage erupted. Wu Fangcheng, Yu Cong, Tang Jie, and others immediately signed up, demanding to return to China to challenge themselves, determined to win the right to visit Yang Wei from the CCP. At 8 p.m., headquarters received another call from Huang Ben (who had already been released by the CCP) from Hong Kong, saying the CCP had arrested them because they had brought the “reactionary publications” of “China Spring” and Wang Bingzhang’s “reactionary letters” into the country. This time Hu Ping was angry, because he had repeatedly instructed that apart from welcoming Yang Wei out of prison, he must not do anything else that would give the CCP any “leverage.” The current complications were clearly all orchestrated by Wang Bingzhang behind his back. Under Hu Ping’s questioning, Wang Bingzhang had no choice but to admit it. This undoubtedly added fuel to the fire, pushing the “Reverse King” to another climax.
That night, all the attendees dispersed, leaving only Hu Ping and Yang Wei’s wife Che Shaoli, who called Yang Wei from the editorial office. Yang Wei did not leave on time (it was later confirmed that his release was delayed by several hours by the CCP), and his mother called back, saying: “According to the Central People’s Broadcasting Station, the people you sent were arrested because they carried the magazine ‘China Spring’ and a handwritten letter from Wang Bingzhang.” Please, think of Yang Wei and stop bringing any letters of condolence. Hu Ping was deeply troubled. He had considered all possible consequences of this operation, believing that no matter what actions the CCP takes, the Democratic League could earn moral points. But now, he did not expect that because Wang Bingzhang acted behind his back, not only did the Democratic League lose moral points, but Yang Wei and his family also fell into danger once again.
After finishing the call, Hu Ping and Che Shaoli went to Ding Chu’s home, where many attendees were gathered. As soon as they heard about the situation, it was as if an uproar erupted. They called Xue Wei, the director of the Supervisory Commission. Ten minutes later, Xue Wei arrived. As soon as he entered, he shouted angrily: “The Supervisory Committee wants to investigate and punish this matter. Treating the lives of alliance members as a game—how can we not deal with it seriously?” “People unanimously demanded that Wang Bingzhang be summoned for questioning. Twenty minutes later, Wang Bingzhang arrived. One “cannonball” after another fiercely fired at Wang Bingzhang, but Wang denied that the arrest of Tang Guangzhong and others was due to carrying “Chinese Spring” and his letter, which further angered everyone. Cheng Tiejun, Wu Fangcheng, and others drafted an impeachment proposal, on which fifteen people signed on the spot. Afterwards, Hu Ping and Yu Cong discussed with Wang Bingzhang for a long time, hoping he would follow the example of Zhuge Liang being demoted three ranks after losing Jieting, and resign voluntarily. This magnanimous approach not only helped quell members’ dissatisfaction but also promoted a spirit of responsibility and admitting mistakes. Wang Bingzhang pondered for a moment and agreed to go back and think it over, promising to give everyone an answer tomorrow.
At midnight the next day, Wang Bingzhang arrived at the editorial office. Everyone had already gathered there waiting for him. At the meeting, he said, “I got up in the morning and prayed to God. God gave me a revelation: I am now being framed by a group of petty people.” I am like being judged by petty people here; I would rather return to China and face the judgment of the CCP. With that, he turned and left. Wang Bingzhang’s remarks stunned everyone; many were furious, and Hu Ping, Yao Yueqian, Yang Nong, Guo Cheng, and others signed the impeachment letter. Lin Qiaoqing, Tang Jie, and others sympathized deeply with Wang Bingzhang, and Tang Jie even broke down in tears.
At this time, Hu Ping and Lin Qiaoqing went together to persuade Wang Bingzhang to resign. Wang Shuo thought it over and locked himself in an office. After a while, he came out and read out his three suggestions: First, he would no longer perform the duties of a standing committee member; 2. He will no longer participate in any activities of the Democratic League; 3. He did not participate in the “Four Congresses,” causing Wang Bingzhang’s name to automatically disappear from society. Ding Chu, Huyanmin, and others thought this plan was acceptable. But Wu Fangcheng, Yu Cong, Guo Cheng, and Lin Xinsheng disagreed, believing that since it was neither resigning nor fulfilling their duties, what did that mean? Is this to lay the groundwork for future reversals? Wang Bingzhang explained that he did not want this matter to cause a greater stir and was willing to make sacrifices for unity within the alliance. This remark annoyed Hu Ping, who asked Wang Bingzhang: ‘You always think about the bigger picture, as if you’re making great sacrifices for democracy.’ Does admitting mistakes mean you’re being wronged? The disciplinary action against you was not only about Yang Wei’s case; the impeachment was written but also involved “a series of errors,” including DW&C and the insurance company. Isn’t it very proactive that you can use this as a way to resign and take responsibility? He proposed first persuading the king to resign; if the king was unwilling, he would accept impeachment and go through the removal process. If the recall fails, it shows the Democratic League lacks a basic sense of right and wrong, and then he will withdraw from the alliance. After Hu Ping finished speaking, Wang Bingzhang left the stage without replying at all.
Since some members of the Democratic League Standing Committee and Supervisory Committee were not present at the time, it was decided to postpone the vote on the dismissal of the prince to within twenty days, that is, the deadline was January 29.
During these twenty days, fierce battles broke out betweenthe “dismissal of the king” and the “support of the prince,” with every member of the Standing Committee and supervisory committee members eligible to vote becoming targets of the contest.
According to the constitution of the All-China Democratic Federation, the removal of a standing committee member requires the approval of a majority vote of both the Standing Committee and the Supervisory Committee. Before January 14, the majority of the Supervisory Committee’s “dismiss Wang” votes had already formed. Among the seven members, Xue Wei, Wan Bao, Yang Xianzhi, and Tong Jing had voted in favor, while four standing committee members had voted in favor: Hu Ping, Yu Cong, Yao Yueqian, and Hu Yanmin.
Among the standing committee members, Sha Lin was on leave and couldn’t be reached. Ke Lisi and Lin Qiaoqing voted against the recall, leaving Zhang Xia with the most crucial vote. On the night of January 15, Zhang Xia called Xue Wei, director of the Control Commission, notifying him that she supported the recall, and since she was not in New York, the vote was sent later. Thus, the actual “dismissal of the prince case” had already taken shape.
But a day later, Zhang Xia suddenly changed his mind and proposed another suggestion: establish a neutral investigation team and then hold a vote to recall Wang.
Her proposal was rejected. Because people believe that during the election process, votes are sacred; once a vote is placed in the ballot box, it cannot be changed. As for Zhang Xia’s suggestion, there are still reasonable grounds, but it can only be done after completing the ‘recall of the king’ procedure.
On January 19, Zhang Xia called Hu Ping to announce her withdrawal from the alliance and said she should no longer count her votes toward the standing committee votes. As a result, the total votes for the Standing Committee became even, which was a major reason for the later bigger controversy.
At this point, many people turned back to try to persuade Wang Bingzhang to withdraw, but he firmly refused. The path to easing tensions between “supporting the king” and “dismissing the king” has been completely blocked.
Meanwhile, various Chinese-language newspapers in New York also engaged in a literary battle. The earliest article was written by Zhang Xia, who suggested forming a neutral investigation team to first look into Wang Bingzhang’s issues before proceeding with the recall procedure. This article was published in the January 16 issue of Times Weekly, and she attended a press conference to welcome Tang Guangzhong, who had been released from prison in Shanghai and then released back to New York. Tang Jie attended as a reporter for China Spring (and was appointed by China Spring), exposing the internal struggles within the China Democratic League. At the meeting, Tang Guangzhong also revealed a shocking “piece of news.” He said that when he was in Shanghai, Yang Wei’s relative personally told him that the CCP’s strategy toward the Democratic League was to “support Hu and overthrow the king,” causing an uproar throughout the hall. But a few days later, Yang Wei’s wife, Che Shaoli, issued a statement saying she had verified with Yang Wei’s relatives and that no one had ever said anything about “supporting Hu to overthrow the king.”
Since Tang Guangzhong’s press conference, the “support Wang” and “dismiss Wang” factions have shifted their literary battle to social news media, with the main battleground being New York’s East Coast Times, with some articles published in Times Weekly, Hong Kong’s Zhengming, and some Taiwanese newspapers and magazines. Moreover, the situation escalated, even resorting to personal attacks, with some articles and advertisements directly accusing someone of being a “CCP agent.” In response to this situation, Hu Ping called on the entire alliance, hoping both sides would stop attacking, and even if they wrote articles, they would sign their real names to show responsibility. But there was no response from the ‘pro-king’ faction. After January 29, the ‘Bao Wang’ faction unilaterally ceasefired to prevent further escalation.
On January 27, both sides resumed coordination actions. Standing Committee members Huyanmin and Wang Bingzhang held talks, and at noon on January 28, an agreement was reached: Wang Bingzhang would conduct a self-reflection and request suspension from his post. The plan was drafted by Huyan Min, and Hu Ping expressed his acceptance. However, afterwards, Wang did not follow the agreement and refused to hand over the self-criticism. On January 29, the deadline expired, and the Standing Committee of the Democratic League and the Supervisory Committee issued a notice to remove Wang Bingzhang. The Supervisory Committee passed with five votes in favor, one against, and one abstention; the Standing Committee also announced its passage with four votes in favor, three against, and one abstention.
After the announcement from the Democratic League’s supervisory committee and standing committee was released, it sparked strong backlash within the league. After the voting deadline, member Sha Lin came to New York to say he opposed the recall, and, together with Lin Qiaoqing, Yang Nong, Tang Jie, and others, published advertisements in the World Journal and the East Coast Times declaring the recall invalid. Their reasoning was: according to the recall law, the standing committee has only four votes, less than half. Thus, both sides engaged in another debate over the charter and procedures.
According to the Federation’s charter, the Supervisory Committee has the statutory right to interpret the charter. On January 30, the Democratic Alliance Supervisory Committee issued a notice announcing that Wang Bingzhang’s dismissal was in accordance with the regulations. The reasoning was: according to Article 22 of the Democratic League’s general charter, in a vote where both sides are evenly voted, the chairman’s vote has the right to vote. The general charter is the parent law, while the dismissal law is the subordinate law. In special circumstances where there are no explicit provisions, the subsidiary law should obey the parent law.
These two differing viewpoints caused a split within the NLD. Branches in Nebraska, Chicago, Hong Kong, and Australia issued statements declaring the recall invalid, while branches in Kentucky, Los Angeles, Washington, and Japan declared support for the resolution.
On February 4, the turmoil caused by the “dismissal of Wang” further shocked the Democratic League. That day was a Saturday. The New York branch of the Democratic League was originally scheduled to hold a New Year’s tea party at the editorial office to discuss the actions to be taken on the tenth anniversary of Wei Jingsheng’s arrest on March 29. At that time, the New York branch had no chairman; it was managed by standing committee member Huyan Min. A total of twenty-five members attended the meeting that day. At the start of the meeting, the topic shifted away from the pre-arranged agenda and shifted to the debate over Wang Bingzhang’s removal. At that time, Huyanmin was busy with work and handed the meeting over to Vice Chairman Liang Yun. However, as soon as he left, Lin Qiaoqing proposed a party branch re-election. In a rushed election, Li Da was elected chairman, Zheng Weimin and Tang Jie were elected vice chairmen, and then Zheng Weimin read out the pre-written “New York Branch Statement on the Invalidity of Removing Wang Bingzhang,” which was approved. On the eve of the Spring Festival, the ‘Supporting Wang’ faction took further action, taking advantage of Lin Qiaoqing’s status as the signatory of the headquarters rental contract to occupy the headquarters residence—including all the important confidential archives held at the headquarters at the time. On February 8, Wang Bingzhang appealed to the Supervisory Committee due to his dismissal. His actions were well received by headquarters, who saw his appeal as a sign of his willingness to return to rules and procedures to resolve disputes. The Supervisory Committee immediately formed a team composed of Qian Da, Huang Ben, Lin Xinsheng, and Chen Li to re-examine Wang Bingzhang’s issues and whether the procedure to remove Wang was legal. Meanwhile, some friendly figures in New York’s overseas Chinese community, such as Xu Songlin, Li Dongbo, and Liu Tiancai, also voluntarily and enthusiastically participated in coordination, aiming to resolve internal conflicts within the democracy movement.
On February 18, 19, and 20, the investigation team met with key members from both sides, drafted an investigation outline, and proposed that both sides make concessions, self-criticize their own mistakes, and admit their mistakes to the whole league. Wang Bingzhang immediately agreed. To heal the wounds, Hu Ping proposed establishing a “Democratic Strategy Research Group,” with Hu Ping as leader and Wang Bingzhang and Ding Chu as deputy leaders. At this time, an open letter signed by thirty-three people on mainland China demanded Wei Jingsheng’s release, marking the beginning of a new wave of democracy movement. In this encouraging situation, many members hoped the conflict would end soon. Guo Cheng, Li Da, and twenty-four other allies with differing views jointly called for an end to the civil war and to join the upsurge of mainland China’s democracy movement with a fighting spirit, receiving unanimous support. The situation seems to be improving. But little did they know, things were not as they were. As early as February 17, before the investigation team communicated and coordinated with key members from both sides, Vice Chairman Collis, who had just arrived in New York from Paris, privately withdrew most of the $75,000 deposit from “China Spring” under the pretext of “financial supervision.” On February 21, he withdrew the remaining $3,700 and closed the account. Lin Xinsheng, the manager of “China Spring” and the financial officer at headquarters, only learned of this news after making a deposit at the bank on the 22nd. For a time, public opinion was in an uproar. The situation that had gradually improved only to deteriorate again. On the 24th, Collis issued a statement offering three reasons for the withdrawal: 1. Headquarters misused money to fight a civil war; 2. Someone is suspected of absding with funds; 3. The headquarters’ operations have already been paralyzed, and this money will be used to hold the “Four Majors.” Ke Lisi deposited the withdrawn money into a private account and announced that Li Da, Tang Xing, and Xu Yiming from the “New York branch” would be members of the supervisory team managing the money. For a time, headquarters and China Spring magazine fell into an economic crisis again. Many branches mobilized to urgently raise funds, with the Los Angeles branch alone donating $2,500 to support headquarters and the magazine. Under these difficult conditions, the headquarters and editorial staff could only survive through volunteer work, overcoming various obstacles to keep the 71st issue of “China Spring” running as usual.
Immediately after, Wang Bingzhang notified the telephone company to cut off the editorial office of “China Spring”—because the phone had been installed in his name, cutting off communication between the Democratic League headquarters and its branches and branches, and the headquarters’ operations were nearly paralyzed.
After more than ten days of repeatednegotiations with no progress, Hu Ping finally lost patience and decided to remove Ke Lisi from his position as vice chairman. By majority vote of the Standing Committee members and the Supervisory Committee, he was removed from his position, and Ding Chu and Che Shaoli were appointed as Standing Committee members of the Democratic League. Finally, the Supervisory Committee passed the decision by majority to expel Wang Bingzhang and Ke Lisi from the alliance and filed a lawsuit in court regarding Ke Lisi’s transfer of public funds.
On March 9, Wang Bingzhang, Ke Lisi, and Li Da, Tang Xing, and Xu Yiming from the “Financial Supervision Team” each received subpoenas. Before this, the court had issued an injunction prohibiting Wang Bingzhang and others from operating under the name of the “China Democratic League.” After a ruling, Ke Lisi was required to return all the money within a set time and to convene the “Four Congresses” six months early.
On March 6, the ‘pro-king’ faction began issuing documents in the name of headquarters to convene the ‘Four Congresses,’ claiming to have gained the recognition of twenty-one committee members. On March 31, Wang Bingzhang, Ke Lisi, and others held a meeting. On April 1, the meeting was named the “China Democratic League Emergency Conference,” and on April 2, it was renamed the “China Democracy Party Founding Conference,” officially announcing the founding of the “China Democracy Party.”
During this period, there were some changes in personnel disputes. For example, Hu Yanmin, a member of the Democratic League Standing Committee, said that due to the representativeness of the “Emergency Meeting of the Democratic League,” he attended the meeting. A few days later, he submitted his resignation to Hu Ping, voluntarily resigning from his position as a standing committee member, which was approved by headquarters.
After the founding of the “China Democratic Party,” most members held dual identities. At the Fourth Congress of the Democratic League held on June 22, 1989, a resolution by Zhang Zhuozhi, Yu Cong, and others was passed by a vote of 69 to 11, separating the Democratic Party and the Democratic League organizationally. Those with dual organizational identities had to choose within three months either to leave the “Democratic League” for a member or to leave the “Democratic Party” while maintaining their membership.
Two years later, at the “Fifth National Congress of the Democratic League” held on June 1, 1991, another proposal was passed to terminate the split between the alliance parties (the Democratic League and the Democratic Party) in the opposite of the “Fourth Congress.” This proposal argued that the Four Congresses were a special historical product aimed at ending internal disputes, and that the “dismissal of Wang” had caused heavy wounds to the Democratic League. Now, time has healed this wound, and all members who left the Democratic League after the “Wang’s Recall Incident” and the “Four Congresses” are welcome to return to the League, upholding the spirit of “unity, solidarity, and reconciliation,” and to work together for China’s democratic cause. After the proposal passed, the hall erupted in prolonged enthusiastic applause. A burden that had weighed on the China Democratic League for over two years was finally resolved.
After this, many people returned to the unit, but regrettably, key members of the Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance such as Wang Bingzhang, Ke Lisi, Lin Qiaoqing, Sha Lin, and Zhang Xia never returned to the league due to the trauma caused by the “Wang recall controversy.” □