Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:58:52 -0500 Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9407) [Special Notice From The Editor: Because of some technical difficulties we have been experiencing recently, this week's CCF is coming out almost two days behind the schedule. We sincerely appologize for the delay and appreciate your understanding. --CCF Editor] ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Friday, February 18, 1994 (Issue No. 9407) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is a journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion and debate on the issues related to our community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Table of Contents Author | # of Lines ============================================================================ 1. IFCSS's Today & Tomorrow (III) a. IFCSS's Membership Dues...................................Bai Yan 82 b. Personal Observation on IFCSS Working Meeting......Shen Shen Kong 60 c. Where does IFCSS stand now in its policy of exchange with China...............................Luo Ning 115 d. New Talk on Old Subject: My Words about the IFCSS on the CSPA....................Lai Anzhi 121 e. IFCSS's Educational Fund.................................A Reader 38 f. A Comment on IFCSS's Weekly Journal......................A Reader 13 2. Living in a Foreign Land a. Random Thought on Life Insurance......................Baiping Xie 92 ============================================================================ ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== From The Editor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IFCSS has just adjourned its working meeting at Washington, D.C.. Some reflections and observations are collected in this issue to make it a special edition of IFCSS's Today & Tomorrow (III). Any organization grows at trials-and-errors, therefore suggestions and criticism are the best inputs for improvement as evidenced by a group of authors below. It is time to move on. Life insurance is explored by Baiping Xie from a family's traumatic experience, which reveals a truism: When in Rome, Do as Roman Does. This issue of CCF is the first one in the year of Dog. In this new year, CCF will continue its discussion on the events and affairs related to the development of China and the Chinese Community as a whole. We continue to expect our readers joining our discussions. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. IFCSS's Today and Tomorrow 1a. IFCSS's Membership Dues....................................Bai Yan 82 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nonprofit organizations have several different sources of revenues, but virtually all have some forms of membership dues structure. For many nonprofit organizations, dues form the major source of operating revenue. In fact, for many nonprofit organizations, dues are the only thing that keeps them in business. IFCSS, also as a nonprofit organization, is unique in a sense that it never charges membership dues. During its five-year life span, donations from some patrons are the backbone revenues, which precludes IFCSS from establishing the dues structure. However, a mere reliance on donations not only fails to generate sufficient financial sources relative to the needs, but also constitutes uncertainties in projecting the future service orientation. Moreover, a lack of membership dues weakens the maintenance of nonprofit status with IRS, especially when it engages in generating "unrelated business income." This concern was addressed by Jeff Lin, a CPA working for IFCSS. Now, a need to create a system of membership fees becomes imperative, and a few basic questions must be faced regarding it: 1. Who are the members of IFCSS? 2. Are CSS going to be members? 3. What do members get for their dues money? 4. How can IFCSS make dues structure equitable? 1. Who are the members of IFCSS? It depends on how we define member--is member a person belonging to some association, society, or other such organizations only by psychological identification and self allegiance, or is member someone who has made a contribution to the organization in the form of membership dues? Apparently, IFCSS goes about its membership with the former. Therefore, its body of members is elastic, as it can be the entire CSS or only a few IFCSS activists. In fact, collectively the organization belongs to members as in the sense that corporation belongs to stockholders. Nonprofit organizations live or die on the basis of their membership. This is why nonprofit organizations desperately go around prospecting and recruiting. But, in the case of IFCSS, the source of its members (CSS) is always in constant flux. With no sign on or sign off, any CSS can be a member at any point of time. There is no way of knowing exactly IFCSS has how many members. IFCSS represents CSS literally in abstract and by chance. This much should be clear thus far: the nature of membership dues is about the means test, hence the establishment of fee collection system will exclude quite a number of CSS as members of IFCSS. 2. Are CSS going to be members? In a simple question, what are the advantages of belonging to an organiza- tion? This, when boiled down to the question of human motivations, is vigorously explained by scholars such as Mancur Olson. Olson argues that it is not rational for people to join an organization if they can benefit from its activities without having to pay dues or other cost. It means that, first, one's consumption of benefits does not reduce the benefits derived by all other because consumption is nonrival. Second, exclusion of consumption of benefits is either unfeasible or undesirable. As a result, external benefits, once provided for some who pay for them, create benefits to many who reap the reward as free riders. Consequently, there is no full compensation received in proportion to the benefits produced, and resources are hence misallocated. Since those who remain outside the group enjoy the benefits realized by group efforts and those who expect to receive selective benefits available only to members produce "spillover effect" to nonmembers, there is simply no incentive for CSS to be members. Unless the services provided by IFCSS are intended to be and physically possible to be exclusive, the majority of CSS would rather stay outside. 3. What do members get for their dues money? Ideally, this question should be answered by IFCSS. Anyway, membership cannot be sold unless the organization has value to its members. In my opinion, the process of assessing value of membership can be approached in three ways. First, membership fee is of entitlement to certain services. Second, it provides some benefits or privileges available only to members. Third, it functions to enhance group identity and unity. Indeed, a public awareness should be promoted at the same time, that is, members should not expect something for nothing nor expect everything in return merely for the payment of dues. 4. How can IFCSS make dues structure equitable? This question entails a preferential treatment with expect to different members. Is it equitable to charge a flat fee same for all members or different rates varied for each type of members as decided upon service needs and the take-home income? Should IFCSS charge CSS for membership without regard to faculty/student, family/bachelor, new/late comer status or charge them in accordance with some agreeable standards? Should membership fee a lump-sum payment for IFCSS as a whole or an itemized payments for each distinct service "club" such as medical insurance (maybe with some deduction in premium)?? Membership fee is an old idea but a new question confronting IFCSS at the present time. How to answer it is important not only to the IFCSS's income composition, but to the interest of CSS at large. A membership committee should be established with the actual function for studying and preparing the structure of membership dues. (From: 15-FEB-1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1b.Personal observation on IFCSS working meeting.......Shen Shen Kong 60 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IFCSS working meeting was held in Washington DC participated by HQ staff, council & SVC members, Working Committee chairs, project coordinators and invited gusts during Feb. 4-5, 1994. There were two main issues in this meeting except the council's 3rd conference. 1. On Saturday morning, IFCSS President Lin Changsheng briefed his experience during back-to-China tour and his plan followed by the short discussion. Although his report aroused the interest of participants, the planed extending discussion was canceled. 2. IFCSS finance. After bidding to professionalize the IFCSS accounting system, one Certified Public Accounting (CPA), the Jeff Lin, was hired by HQ for the compiling IFCSS financial statement. (Before the meeting, this CPA was rejected by council Finance Sub-committee (FC), not approved by the council either. As the watchdog of the council, FC REMINDED HQ that HQ must bear any subsequent responsibilities and consequences of both the IFCSS constitution and legality under US laws if she takes any action on CPA without the council's decision based on the recommendation by the FC.) Mr.Lin reported that the Jeff Lin compiled all IFCSS financial transaction and records since and including last term and part of this term from July 1 to Dec. 31, 1994. Mr. Lin gave very positive commendation on IFCSS financial affairs and operation as well as suggestions from professional level. The Jeff Lin's work was greatly appreciated by all attendants including FC members with warm applause. He pointed out several facts during the discussion: No "missing fund" was found existed in IFCSS's accounts. Shou1 Zhi1 Xiang1 Fu3. Great effort needed for fund raising. There are rooms for improvement in IFCSS's financial system. Many attendants felt deep relief for clarifying IFCSS financial situation and clearing the doubt and confusion on missing funds in IFCSS's accounting records, mentioned in FC's OPEN LETTER, by professional CPA. However, FC did not feel the same way. FC stated that this was just the beginning of the "Cha2 Zhang4" process, because the audit might be necessary even at the estimated cost of more than $5,000 before FC could reach final conclusion. Some people urged that council consider to take action for the damage control caused by FC's open letter. FC strongly objected this idea. The council did not show much enthusiasm on this issue. On Saturday afternoon and evening, the council held the 3rd conference. Several resolutions were adopted, most of them were financial issues. 3. On Sunday morning, the scheduled 8:30 am meeting did not started with the absence of most council members until near 10 o'clock. Nine Working Committee chairs and project coordinators reported their work followed by brief discussion with the presence of less 50% of council members. Most of FC members did not show up until last 15 minutes. The meeting was adjourned after President Lin made conclusion. This is just observation. No comment at this time. (From: 09-Feb-1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1c. Where does IFCSS stand now in its policy of exchange with China? --- Some reflections on the IFCSS RTM .................... Luo Ning 115 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The annual "Round Table Meeting (RTM)" of IFCSS was convened during the weekend of Feb 5-6, 1994, in Washington, DC. The tradition of RTM had been to invited all elected and appointed officers of IFCSS as well as some long time activists together once a year to discuss the important issues of the organization. This year only officers were officially invited, though as usual the meeting was open in the sense that any IFCSS activists could also attend its sessions if they would like to. There were three issues that their overwhelming importance were well- recognized: (1) To explore the channels of exchange with China; (2) To strengthen the grassroots foundation of IFCSS; (3) To reform/improve the structure of IFCSS, especially its financial management. As it turned out, most time, energy and attention of the participants of RTM had been focused on one aspect of issue (3), namely, how to evaluate the work of the Finance Committee (FC) of the Council in the last half year during which FC had been pushing for a more open and more professionalized financial management system. In this issue of CCF, Lu Ping has offered his observation of the meeting with some details of the proceedings on this subject. No doubt that more will be coming out, including the official release of documents by the IFCSS Headquarters (HQ). What I would like to focus on in this article is the issue (1). As mentioned in Lu Ping's article, the first topic in the agenda of RTM was the report of the IFCSS President Lin Changsheng on his recent trip to China. After his report, it was requested that a special session be added into the schedule so that a discussion could be devoted exclusively on Q/A about this subject. Unfortunately, this session did not materialize, and many questions remained in the minds of the participants as where IFCSS was standing now on this issue. The questions about Lin's visit to China are only part of a larger problem: After four and half year existence of IFCSS, during which confrontation between IFCSS and Chinese Government (CG) has characterized their interactions, where would IFCSS go as far as its relations with people, institutions and the government in China are concerned? There are several levels of considerations in this problem: (1) Should IFCSS take a more active and initiative approach to open up its road to China? It is apparent that a consensus has formed within IFCSS since its annual convention in Lexington, KY, last July, that the answer to this question is yes. Therefore, the controversy, if there is any, is not about whether or not IFCSS should go "for exchange", but how. (2) How to position the new "pro-exchange" approach properly within the context of IFCSS history? IFCSS has been one of the major groups of CSS which have been advocating for a better human rights condition in China, and willing to lobby for economic sanction measures taken by the US government in order to achieve this goal. Has this been out of IFCSS's agenda? If not, what are the current priorities of various goals of IFCSS? Although there are many IFCSS activists who have been working for years to promote the idea of exchange, many of them also believe that only when an organization is responsible to its past, could it be expected to be responsible to its future. Up to now, it is still not clear about what is the "official line of IFCSS" on this aspect. (3) What approaches to take in exploring the channels of exchange? Because of past confrontations between IFCSS and CG, it is no surprise that extra efforts and measures have to be taken in order to open up any channel of dialogue between them, and without basic acceptance of CG, any effort of IFCSS to explore exchange would be very hazardous and difficult. The HQ has initiated the contact to CG before the visit of President Jiang Zemin of China to Seattle, WA, last November to attend the APEC meeting by sending a letter from Lin Changsheng to China's Ambassador Li Daoyu to US. The HQ staff Liu Xiaozhu attended the press releases during the APEC meeting and asked Chinese officials, including Jiang, about CG's response to the four points raised in Lin's letter to Ambassador Li, but no answer was obtained. Lin Changsheng personally visited China last month and again presented letters containing the four points to the People's Congress, the State Council, and the "Zheng4 Xie2". The appraisals of IFCSS community toward this series of approaches have been mixed. Most controversies are about the appropriateness of Lin's visit to China. The questions include: What are the effects of this visit? Will it help or hinder further efforts of promoting exchange? Should Lin, the President of IFCSS, risk the delicate relationship between IFCSS and CG with his personal visit before its implications had been adequately assessed? Are the activities of Lin in China all compatible with each other? ...... There are more questions to be asked. These problems have become more acute because the fact that Lin did not inform the Council about his China visit prior to his trip. It is therefore unknown that what was his assessment of the trip in terms of possible gains and potential risks. (4) How should IFCSS make and implement its policy in promoting exchange? The secretive approach of the HQ has been the focus of many criticisms from all groups of inclinations in IFCSS. Because of the sensitivity of the issue of exchange with China, the problem has become more conspicuous. The question is: What is the alternative(s)? Or, is IFCSS, its current institutional set-up and the level of participation and commitment by its activists, up to the alternative(s)? If so, how to proceed from now on? There were so many questions which were brought to the RTM but didn't get an chance to be answered there. They have to be resolved soon, or IFCSS will be lost on its track in reorienting itself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1d. New Talk on Old Subject: My Words about the IFCSS on the CSPA .................... Lai Anzhi 121 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a reader of the CCF, I have seen unproportionally far more criticisms, some rather objectively and some rather far stretched, towards the IFCSS than positive remarks. Probably that's what is called the "public scrutiny". Here, I would like to say something also about the IFCSS, particularly about it's actions on the CSPA, somewhat differently from the general tune we see on the CCF. It is left to the readers' judgement whether I am myself objective or far stretching. After reading the article on CCF #9325 by Luo Ning, whom I usually regard quite objective, on the same subject, I feel that the picture shown by him was somehow away from reality; therefore, I would like to give the readers another angle to view the issue. A. Lobby or not? I also participated in the so-called Round Table Meeting (RTM) mentioned in Luo Ning's article. As far as I knew, the arguments on whether the IFCSS should lobby the CSPA (or the earlier J/F) types of bills exist from the birth of the IFCSS, some for and some against. It was not a surprise that these arguments were reflected in the RTM; rather, it would be a surprise if they were not. However, the leadership of the IFCSS (I think that I am qualified to assess on this for I happened to be the IFCSS 2nd term Council coordinator, the 3rd term IFCSS Newsletter editor and volunteered to do some work for the 4th term) never had the intention of not to lobby. On the contrary, the IFCSS had been CLOSELY monitoring the situation, CONSTANTLY evaluating and adjusting its strategy, and ACTIVELY working on ANY issue that was related to the matter. We have to understand that the IFCSS could not initiate anything on the Capitol Hill, therefore, it could only work on whatever came out on the Hill WHEN it did came out. Naturally, when the general CSS feel that something should be done, it may actually have nothing you can do. It has been a long standing problem for the IFCSS in explaining the situation to the public, but it does not mean that the IFCSS is not working. It was well known that the IFCSS organized one of the best massive campaigns in the US for the J/F bill. I do not remember how many days and nights I worked on the Capitol Hill for that matter, and I saw many many friends there, most of them were later labeled "radical fraction" in the IFCSS. However, no matter how successful that was regarded, looking back now, I must say that the IFCSS wasted some manpower and financial resources due to lack of experience, but still, it could hardly be better for the first time. When it came to the matter of the CSPA, the IFCSS was more mature than before; its leadership, closely seeking advice from the voluntary law firms that had worked for the IFCSS for a few years, had rather cool and realistic assessment of the whole situation. To many, it was probably out of imagination: the difficulty of the CSPA was not as great as the earlier J/F, thanks to the successful J/F lobby which provided a very good base for the CSPA. In order to make the best use of the very limited resources, and due to the subtlety of the matter on the Capital Hill, the IFCSS leadership, advised by it's lawyers, decided to push the whole thing ONLY "on the right spot and at the right time". This was probably why the general CSS did not see much action right after the 4th IFCSS convention, but to interpret (or imply) this period as an indication that the IFCSS leadership was not willing to do it is really a far stretched imagination to me. B. The driving force The article left the readers an impression that the IFCSS started working on this business out of a burst of fight with Zhao Haiqing for the fear of loosing public support. I feel that this is rather an unfair presentation. As I stated above, the IFCSS could only afford to act "on the right spot and at the right time" -- not like the previous J/F lobby when the IFCSS was relatively "rich" so that a little bit waste would not do too much harm to the organization. The moment that the IFCSS started to be felt working was just the right moment that all the IFCSS lawyers and friends in the Congress felt it was time for an all-out action, and the IFCSS so did with the support from the general CSS. By the way, a lot of work had to be done "under the table", if one will, to prepare for the later massive action. I say this because anyone who ever worked for the CSS on these matters would know it! It was again not fair to say that the IFCSS had done nothing before the massive move started. On the contrary, just because it did a lot of prior work, the later massive action was reasonably well organized and directed. It was just unfortunate that the dispute bursted out at that time, but I simply did not see any evidence that the driving force was the the fear of Zhao Haiqing's pulling away the support from the IFCSS. Then, what is the driving force behind this? Simple, 1) the interest of and the demand from the general CSS, and 2) the resolution passed in the 4th IFCSS Convention. C. Why the dispute? The dispute was centered on two issues: 1) should the committee led by ZHQ do things under the name of the IFCSS, which had a more fundamental implication -- should the IFCSS have a unified voice when lobbying? and 2) should the IFCSS have a "professionalized" relation with the "May Fourth Foundation" who did a lot of work for the previous J/F lobby but was not a foundation controlled by the IFCSS. Some may say that these disputes were mixed with the personal feelings (Ge4 Ren2 En1 Yuan4) between Geng Xiao and Zhao Haiqing, or between GX's "camp" and ZHQ's "camp". I have no decisive evidence to rule out (or rule in) this possibility. But, if one is fair enough, he should see the inevitability of this dispute for far more important reasons. The first issue really concerned the whole matter. Immediately, it caused a lot of confusions at the beginning on the Capital Hill and among the friends of the IFCSS. They often asked: "who is representing the IFCSS?". As the President of the IFCSS elected by its members, whoever at that position, no matter it was Geng Xiao or XYZ, would have to deal with it resolutely. Generally, it concerned the future of the IFCSS -- does the democratically elected IFCSS leadership have the right to manage its organization, and can the IFCSS keep its integrity as a credible entity in the US? It should be pointed out that it took tremendous courage for anyone to handle the issue. Why? because it could very possibly jeopardize the lobby if not handled with care -- in case the lobby failed, the President would have to bear with blames probably thousands of times greater than what we see nowadays on the CCF. For this reason, I would be very hesitating to it if I were the President for personal consideration -- who wants to be the Zui4 Ren2 who would figured pointed by all? But, the IFCSS leadership did it in an attempt to keep the integrity of the IFCSS for long term, and to clear the way of having the IFCSS' voice properly heard in the US government offices for immediate concern on the CSPA. I see this as the key reason, but if one maintains that it was personal dispute, I have nothing more to say because any dispute in the world can be interpreted as personal. The second issue had a long history. Since the beginning of the IFCSS, the "May Fourth Foundation" had been handling the financial matters for the lobby effort of the IFCSS, and I have to say that it did a lot of work for the IFCSS. However, the IFCSS was not as "professionalized" then as it is now. There were some unclear financial matters (I do not know any details), and some money were probably improperly used. On the other hand, the demand from the general CSS for professionalization of the IFCSS was high. The 3rd term Council handled the matter to fulfil its obligation of "professionalizing" the IFCSS and to resolve immediate problems, and a resolution was passed to officially terminate the relation between the Foundation and the IFCSS. I can not help thinking what this term of the Council would have done under the same circumstances. It would have probably adopted tougher-than-ever measures. I view the action very timely, necessary, and fortunate, otherwise, I am sure it would have caused much much more trouble now for the IFCSS with the current Council, which does not appear to me to be more efficient or professional than the past terms, but rather determined to pursue what it wants to do no matter what the others say. In any case, the CSPA is the past. To give the past a fair picture is what people should do now. I hope my effort can serve this purpose, however insignificant. Very often, when I am puzzled by something, I remind myself "view from a different angle". I hope I've provided a different angle for the readers to view this CSPA and it's key worker -- the IFCSS, which is accused of being run by a bunch of "power hungry radicals" who walked along the corridors, visited many many offices in those Congress buildings for the final passage of the CSPA, while many others simply do not know, and many others simply hate to know these FACTS because this bunch of "radicals" have been painted so disgusting to them. (From: 17-DEC-93) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1e. A Comment on the IFCSS's Weekly Journal....................A Reader 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have some suggestions on improving the writing style of the IFCSS HQ's weekly report. The lines beginning with * are quoted from the recent weekly report. * The HQ contacted five of senators' offices. which five? for what? * Liu Xiaozhu held discussion with E.B. Duarte, Director of * INS/EOFP, on CSPA. what discussion? * Liu Xiaozhu went to the State Department to meet with Diane Kelly * and Gary Williams of the China Desk. for what? * The HQ contacted four of Congressmen's offices. which four? what purpose? (From: 7-DEC-93) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 2. Living in a Foreign Land 2a. Random Thought About Life Insurance....................Baiping Xie 92 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, IFCSS forwarded a message to ask for help to an unexpected diseased professor's family: Pang, Mei and her baby son. It was a very tragic event no matter to his family or to the CSS community. While I felt terribly sorry for Mrs. Pang's loss, I was wondering about her desperate financial situation. I sent an inquiry both to IFCSS and to the message sender to ask them about the life insurance policy of this diseased professor (newly promoted to full professor? as I remember), and none of them gave me any reply . As most people know, a full professor must have a very decent life insurance policy. I was very puzzled why they ignored my suggestion of looking into his life insurance policy, instead, they are calling around asking these poor students to take care of the once well-to-do full professor's widow. It's very hard to believe that he didn't have any life insurance from his employer. If he did, then what happened with his life insurance? This is the first logic question I would like to raise here. Up to now, I still don't get any explanation from any side. Secondly, there is another moral issue involved here. If you belong to the well-to-do middle class in America, you should never expect anybody else to take care of your family in case you die unexpectedly. It's YOUR responsibility to make sure that your family are well taken care of no matter you are there or not. That's precisely why almost every middle class American is so 'STUPID' (that's what some of CSS 's opinion) to spend money buying life insurance. If you are a poor student making ends meet every day, nobody will blame you not buying a big life insurance for your family. But if you are a full professor, you'd better split a little money each month from your not-so-thin pay check to buy a reasonable amount of life insurance, instead of betting your family's survival after your unexpected death on those poor students' donation. It's neither moral nor dependable. This is a live and convincing example to show that one can never bet on one's life expectancy, one can never say that those fatal events only happen to somebody else, not on oneself. If it could happen to anybody else, then it could happen to you too. Most of us are scientists or engineers, we should have this common sense of probability. On the other hand, one's family won't and should not expect to get rich from one's unexpected death. Therefore, I don't think spending lot of money buying huge amount of life insurance is wise either. Unfortunately, 99% of life insurance agents are trying to force you to buy enormous life insurance policy. I was approached by an agent last year to propose a life insurance policy for my husband. The way she calculated it made me feel like I was such an absolutely useless idiot that both my son and I have to depend on my husband's life insurance for rest of our lives in case he dies unexpectedly! When we go out buy a life insurance, we should watch out this kind of trap. It should be YOU to tell the agent how much you need, not the other way around. If both you and your spouse have a regular job, then both of you should have a term life insurance from your employers, say a few ten thousands dollars each. Unless you have an enormous mortgage and car loan, this amount should be able to pay off a big portion of your loan, and your surviving spouse should be able to handle the remaining loan with his(her) own income. ALso most of us have over ten thousands dollars of saving. That should help your surviving family to deal with your final cost (funeral, get parents over here for your funeral, pay small debts, sale, moving, and the several months's living expenses during which your spouse can get over her (his) grievance and get on his(her) feet to move on again). But if you have children, then you'd better make sure your life insurance is enough to cover at least their college education cost. If your wife stays at home, then you'd better buy a bigger life insurance, at least enough to support her for couple of years so she can start a new life, getting remarried, starting a job, etc. For those students, there are a few among them doing extremely well in savings.They managed to save several ten thousands of dollars in two or three years. As a student, I think that fund is quite sufficient to be your life insurance. But when we just arrived at this strange land, most of us are penniless. This period is the most vulnerable time and needs life insurance the most. If IFCSS can arrange such a special life insurance policy for them with couple of dollars per month for several ten thousand dollars of benefit amount, that would be a real good thing to do. It should be a service rather than a profit making business for IFCSS. I don't see much profit in this kind of policy. After witnessed several tragic events among CSS community, I strongly believe life insurance isn't stupid at all. This is one way to show how much you really care about your family. I don't think IFCSS should encourage the mentality of unwilling to think and plan for one's unexpected death and the incredible risk-taking habit most of us have. Instead, IFCSS should take every opportunity to educate the CSS community about the importance of life insurance. Just some observations and personal opinions which I believe worthwhile to share with my country fellows. Hope this kind of tragedy won't happen to another professor (or professional)'s family again and the students won't be called upon to take care of another professor (professional)'s family again. (From: 14-FEB-94) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Bai Yan Executive Moderator: Changqing Yang + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to cnd.org[132.249.229.100]:pub/community/CCF + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++