昨天，我剛翻完谷歌董事會執行主席Schmidt推銷他當CEO時谷歌的運作，特別是2009-10年穀歌在中國業務的政策變換的書[1]。其中他提到Chinese dissidents的Gmail電郵被來自中國的黑客侵入，但沒有提及我在2008、09年股東大會的發言和抗議，以及2010年的股東大會提案[2]。當時谷歌的三巨頭中，年輕的兩個創始人中，一人堅持“Don’t be evil”的原則不惜撤出中國、另一人猶豫未表態，而老練的Schmidt反對撤出中國。不管我的股東提案對最終的撤離中國決策產生了多大的壓力作用，我很慶幸及時經歷了這個人權原則與商業利潤較量的過程。

我又收到一百年前安那祺主義者Alexander Berkman編輯發行的The Blast的復版[3]。我把他作為企業治理的榜樣和先驅，希望所有商學院的學生都應該知道Berkman的貢獻[4]。晚上，聽了奧巴馬總統的富有熱情的國情咨文，想到政府也有不錯的政策和充滿理想的官員，但需要我們公民幫助，共同努力實施社會的進步，在微信上留言：“Berkman為了教育卡內基，替天行道、以身試法，被判刑22年，迫使美國的資本階級開始‘行善’。我在與公司的董事會或官員會見時，常常想到如何比Berkman更有效改進企業治理。聽到奧巴馬的演講，想到更應該幫助政府的政策改善”。但如何以最小的代價能夠同時幫助世界頭三號經濟大國美中日和主導全球化進程的跨國企業改善政策呢？

早在去年4月30日，我致函IBM公司秘書長，提案成立公共政策委員會。原文不長，援引如下，付加適量漢譯。

Shareholder Proposal on Establishing a Public Policy Committee

Resolved: shareholders recommend that International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) establish a Public Policy Committee to assist the Board of Directors in overseeing IBM's policies and practice that relate to public issues including human rights, corporate social responsibility, supplier chain management, charitable giving, political activities and expenditures, government regulations, and especially international relations that may affect IBM's operations, performance, reputation, and shareholders’ value.

Supporting Statement支持陳述

IBM currently has four board committees: Audit Committee, Directors and Corporate Governance Committee, Executive Compensation and Management Resources Committee, and Executive Committee, but without a committee to legitimately and ethically deal with public issues, especially international affairs, affecting our business沒有一個委員會正當、符合道德地處理特別是國際事務等公共問題.  According to our 2013 annual report, IBM has 32% ($31,628m/$97,800m) revenue in Europe/Middle East/Africa, 23% ($22,923/$97,800m) revenue in Pacific Asia23%收入在亞太; “Within the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China,  ... The company continues to see good opportunity in all regions over the long term and is continuing to invest in these key markets.” (p.40); “During 2013, performance in China was impacted by the process surrounding the implementation of a broad governmental economic reform plan公司在中國的業績受到實施廣泛政府經濟計劃的過程的影響.”(p.41).  IBM is truly a leading international business corporation in the world不愧是領導性國際商業公司.

The globalization has made the world increasingly connected and complicated全球化使世界更加聯繫和複雜起來.  For example, the U.S.-Japan Joint Statement on April 25, 2014 includes such dangerous contents as例如，2014年4月25日的美日聯合聲明包括以下的危險內容: "These commitments extend to all the territories under the administration of Japan, including the Senkaku Islands這些條約的義務延展到所有日本行政管轄下的地域，包括尖閣諸島." "The United States welcomes and supports Japan’s consideration of the matter of exercising the right of collective self-defense美國歡迎和支持日本考慮實行集團自衛權."  The Japanese government has misled the U.S. under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaties to crash with the rising power of a nationalistic China since Japan utilized China’s 1989 Tiananmen Tragedy to abandon Japan’s peace constitution (the cornerstone of Asia’s peace after WWII) towards rearmament, militarization and fascism日本政府利用1989年中國的天安門悲劇放棄日本的和平憲法（戰後亞洲的和平基礎）、在美日安保條約下誤導美國與崛起的民族主義的中國衝突.  Although the Japanese government signed the G-7 Summit declaration in 1989 to protect Chinese students, I, as a graduate student in Osaka University organizing Chinese democratic and human rights activities in Japan, was persecuted because I refused to collaborate with the Japanese government to betray my fellow Chinese students日本政府雖然在西方七國首腦會議上簽署了保護中國留學生的宣言，但卻迫害我這樣的不肯與日本政府交易的在日中國留學生.  Please refer to Japan’s second largest newspaper Asahi’s interviews with me on February 10, 1990, October 20, 1992 and June 8, 2009, and my article “The Betrayal of Democracy: Tiananmen's Shadow over Japan,” Historia Actual Online, 2004, Issue 4 Volume 2.

Partly to respond to my proposals, Microsoft established such a public policy committee in 2012.  It is also necessary for IBM to establish a Public Policy Committee.

我幾乎在今年的股東大會一年之前向公司提案，多少也期待公司會採取正確的步驟，與我直接聯繫，有足夠的時間商討改進公司的政策。但直到去年12月14日，我才接到律師行Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP的快件[5]，原來IBM高層把企業治理的業務也“外包”出去，僱傭這個律師行試圖把我的提案排除掉！我12月19日向美國證券交易委員會SEC發出電郵，反駁律師行的三大離譜的理由。

• If “implementation of the Proposal would cause the Company to violate federal laws, rules and regulations”, why Microsoft’s establishment of such a public policy committee in 2012 did not cause Microsoft “to violate federal laws, rules and regulations”?  Even though there is possibility that a new public policy committee may have some overlapping functions with existing committees (which exist even among existing committees), the Company can choose not to violate federal laws, rules and regulations即使新的公共政策委員會可能與既有的委員會部分功能重疊，公司可以選擇不違反聯邦法規, as Microsoft does.

• My Supporting Statement does not contain any false and misleading statements我的支持陳述沒有任何虛假和誤導陳述.  Because the Company refuses to communicate with shareholders, it is natural for shareholders to regard the Company “without a committee to legitimately and ethically deal with public issues, especially international affairs, affecting our business” from media coverage and other independent sources. If the Company ever contacted me, there is possibility to improve shareholders’ view. Again, I urge the Company to positively and constructively communicate with shareholders我再次要求公司與股東展開積極、建設性的交流. At least, there should be an email account to receive shareholders’ concerns, suggestions and proposals.

• My Supporting Statement used my personal unique case to inform the Company and shareholders of the public policy situation regardingJapanandChina, where the Company has heavy business我的支持陳述引用我的獨特經歷向股東們提示公司在那裡有大量業務的日本和中國的公共政策情況(as cited in my Supporting Statement). It is not “a personal grievance against the Japanese government,” 不是“個人對日本政府的控訴”and it never “wishes to further a personal interest.”也從未期望得到個人利益  The letter also doubted my statement of my life in Japan without checking the facts I listed in the Supporting Statement. I am always willing to provide any information, but the Company never contacted me. This is another indication how the Company mistreated shareholders.

今天，我收到SEC署名昨天2015年1月20日至律師行和我的電郵[6]，仔細閱讀之後，不由得欣慰美國的民主法規仍然有效。這封由SEC企業財務部門總律師辦公室的律師-顧問Jacqueline Kaufman回復的意見信全面反駁了Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP律師行排除我的提案的所有理由，三次重申”we do not believe that IBM may omit the proposal from its proxy materials” SEC不同意IBM可以把我的提案從股東大會資料中排除掉。

以下要看公司董事會如何發布反對聲明、以及為了拉攏多數股東反對我的提案而不得不在實質上採納一部分我的政策了。公司會不得不與我聯繫，但最後的戰場移到80天以內召開的IBM 2015年股東大會。

[趙京，中日美比較政策研究所，2015年1月21日]