Update: at the end of this articles you will find also the original emails written by Peter Warr to the IWuF TC and the IWuF EB. Peter wants you to have all information so that you can see the whole picture.
Dear readers of my blog. This entry is a special one as I didn’t write it myself. My friend for a long time, Peter Warr, Vice Chairman of the IWuF Technical Committee asked me to help him with publishing the following as he is not so familiar with Social Media. Peter Warr is one of the few westerners that was involved in the IWuF since this Federation started. Since 1995 he is the Vice Chairman of the Technical Committee. Like many others Peter felt that something is going into the wrong direction the past few years and he tried to change that. Like some of us he also had to learn that the governing body of the IWuF, the Executive Board is not interested in changing something. Unlike me or others he decided to make some of the correspondence with the EB public so everybody can learn what kind of people are governing or beloved sport. As Peter doesn’t have a blog himself I’m giving him some space here to share his views with the community.
My name is Peter Warr I have been an international IWUF Judge since 1988 (31 years) and Vice Chairman of the IWUF Technical Committee since its inception in 1995 (6 full terms) I have officiated at all WWC, Combat Games IFSU Universaide games etc and all Technical Committee meetings.
I would like to bring information to all the Wushu Community that the IWUF is being controlled by one person that is ignoring the the process and working procedures of the Technical Committee functions according to the IWUF Constitution and the Judges Management Policy that have been sanctioned by the Congress.
Please take the time to read the letter sent to me from the Executive Vice President as a character assassination on the longest serving member who has spent a major part of his life promoting Wushu and dedicated to the IWUF.
Emails between Peter Warr and Anthony Goh
Please find my response to your email below in red if you read carefully you will see I did not make any Claims, Accusations, Challenges, Attacks or Violations. Just the Facts
I am aware that you had sent out emails to EB & TC members during the last couple of months. Some of them I received personally, some I received from third parties.
I must point out that many of your claims and accusations regarding the TC, Secretariat, EB and myself were incorrect, groundless and misleading. I would like to clarify some of the relevant topics you raised.
Is Chen Guorong still active as the Chair of TC?
The Answer is Yes.
- Gurong had closely guided Xiaobing and Ethan Xu in preparing the regulations for the 15th WWC and 8th WKFC, as well as both sets of traditional and 2019 except taolu rules. Without his support, involvement and guidance, finalizing these documents would not have been possible.
- Chen Guorong has been in essence inactive since his removal from the CWA to his new position. Following this move it was very slow and difficult to get any feedback from him regarding TC work.
1.2 The New Taolu rules were basically 95% complete at the end of last year. The only sections that were changed, were the ones pertaining to the EB decisions in Macau, and these points were never discussed with the TC prior to the EB meeting nor was there any feedback from the TC regarding implications and effects such changes might have on Wushu itself presented to the EB. In addition, the TC meeting minutes from 2018 clearly stated that the decisions made by the TC were to finalize and implement the rules for Shanghai first and following this to start work on the Traditional rules, a task that was allocated to Byron and Jin Xiaobin. Byron was excluded from this process by the secretariat. Further, as we don’t have judges courses on these traditional rules this year, the implementation of them in Emei this year is not an IWUF initiative, but as it was in the past, a CWA initiative with their judges doing all the judging. This in fact was a point of contention by the TC for the past few years and the goal was to compile a new set of traditional rules, following TC meetings, investigation and research and not simply implement the CWA rules which are problematic in themselves. This process was not allowed to occur. As stated within the Technical Committee Working Guidelines:
The TC is responsible for the deliberation and decisions regarding the following major aspects:
9.2 The revision of competition rules and judging methods, competition regulations and the judges’ management policy.
2.Guorong does not respond with emails is due to his lack of command of English language and he has always work through the Technical Manager/Assistant of the Secretariat, especially when communicating with TC members. This is how he worked when Byron was the Technical manager, and Ethan followed the same working format. I also have reasons to believe that in the past, Wang Yulong conducted business in the same manner. This working format was not a problem for so many years and work were delivered accordingly without any complaint. Why is it suddenly a serious problem now, and that he has to be replaced by you as the chair, as you proposed now?
2. Your last sentence is misleading and inaccurate I have never proposed to become the Chairman.
The reason the TC has 2 members from China in the first place is indeed because of the previous chairmen’s lack of English language skills. In the beginning, the 2nd TC member from China was simply an assistant to the chairman, not a full member. Hence, if Chen Guorong has an English language problem, then Jin Xiaobin should be assisting him with the communications etc. and Jin Xiaobing indeed does have some English language ability. Byron, who did this in the past, starting in 2011 prior to the establishment of the IWUF secretariat, did so precisely because he was a TC member, and has not only the language proficiency in Chinese and English, but also has the technical competency for this, traits that Ethan does not have. Further, it is not productive, nor in line with the principles of democracy and transparency, to have 2 voting members in the TC coming from one country, and that the secretariat only consults with the members of a single country, namely China, for technical issues. Since 2015, the technical committee has worked in a more open, democratic and inclusive manner, and this is why I raised this issue, as going back to how things were done in the past during previous terms is counterproductive and moves things in the wrong direction. As stated within the Technical Committee Working Guidelines:
The TC will work as a unified group. Following discussions and deliberation by all the TC members, decisions will be made through the principle of majority rule.
In general, when making decisions on important issues, there should be thorough collective investigation and deliberation from all TC members, with careful consideration given to all relevant risks involved. All decisions made should be based on the general consensus of the TC members.
- Ethan had mentioned numerous times in his emails to TC members, that the rules and regulations were developed/revised under the guidance of Mr. Chen Guorong. Why were these messages being ignored?
- we had no word from either of them, and with the blatant errors technical and otherwise, as well as the sudden changes and problems within the compiled documents themselves, concerns were legitimately raised. Furthermore, seeing as the original documents were mostly compiled by Byron, who is still a TC member and in Beijing, wouldn’t it have made more sense to work with him as well on these documents? Why was this not done?
4.You wrote directly to EB Members and proposed to replace Guorong with yourself. a) is this the correct protocol? b) did you discuss this with Guorong about this, since he is still the Chair of TC? c) did you discuss this with TC members and obtain majority consensus, or is it just you & Byron’s idea? It appear to me that, while the motive is very clear, but the process and logic are very messy, and inappropriate.
- Your first sentence again misleading and inaccurate.
Numerous emails were sent to the TC regarding the Chairman’s absence, and he received these emails as well. None of which were addressed or responded to, which leads one to the conclusion that the chairman is MIA. With that being the case, the function of the vice-chairman is indeed that, to act as the chairman in his absence. There are two vice-chairmen, and I did not Propose that I should be the replacement; you are making assumptions in this regard. Further, I raised other queries regarding key TC tasks and functions that require finalizing for the 2019 period numerous times, as well as with regards to the TC meeting which is where amendments to rules take place:
Technical Committee Working Guidelines
…. Amendments to competition rules, the judges’ management policy, and other major decisions may only be made through meetings at which a minimum of two-thirds of the TC members are present…..
All my emails and queries were ignored by the Chairman and the secretariat. Hence as the vice-chairman it is my responsibility to ensure that the TC conducts its tasks as required and I then took it further and notified the EB.
- Whom does TC report to?
- The TC reports to the Executive Board, not the other way around. Let me refresh your memory,that the chair of the TC reports to the EB during its annual meetings and not the chair of the EB report to the TC, this has been done year after year, for more than 20 years. This is a simple way to understand how business is conducted for a long time even if you choose to ignore the existing rules listed below in #2
- The TC does indeed report to the EB, not the Secretariat. Have all our comments and recommendation been disseminated to the EB? Has the TC had a chance to voice its opinions and concerns to the changes made to the rules before this occurred? It is the EB’s responsibility to fully hear the recommendations and opinions of the Technical Committee, who is mandated to deal with technical matters within the IWUF, prior to making a decision in order for the correct decisions to be made. Prior to the EB making decisions on technical matters in Macau last year, the TC was not even informed of nor given the opportunity to discuss these proposed changes and neither was the EB afforded the benefit of hearing from the technical committee as a whole regarding these proposed changes. Instead, the proposals were pushed through the EB meeting, and the TC heard about them after the fact, much to our surprise. Surely the EB would like to hear from the technical committee in order to understand the ramifications and consequences of a technical decision they will make prior to doing so.
- TC Working guidelines, chapter 1, article 3.1: follow the leadership of IWUF, and ensure the implementation of resolutions of the IWUF Executive Board b) Chapter 1, article 3.4: adhere to the leadership of EB and perform duties in accordance with principles of unity, conforming to EB’s decisions c) chapter 3, article 14: implement the directives and decisions made by the EB & respect their authority d) Chapter 4, article 25: The TC member maybe held personally accountable in the following instances: (article 26.1) Non-compliance with the EB orders and decisions (article 26.2) violation of decision making protocols, or inaccurate implementation of such resulting in negative effects (article 26.3) not performing required tasks conscientiously which results in the TC functioning ineffectively
- The quoted articles of the TC working guidelines do have some important underlying factors that need to be understood. As the Technical Committee is appointed due to their technical competence and experience, they are the people most suited to dealing with technical matters and this function is mandated within the constitution. The EB, while having the authority to make decisions, is expected to do so through due diligence prior to such. The IWUF members entrust the EB with this responsibility. With that, when dealing with technical matters, the EB should fully investigate, listen to and comprehend the opinions of the technical committee members prior to such steps being taken. As you can see from point one above, this didn’t occur. And this is why these issued were raised by me. Let’s also not forget, speaking about precedent, that a technical committee member, who was appointed as an independent judge at two IWUF events last year by the TC, was unilaterally removed from said positions, without the knowledge or confirmation from the TC or the EB, and not in line with the protocols established within the Technical Committee Working Guidelines, the Judges’ Management Policy and the IWUF constitution.
- In addition, according to the Judges Management Policy, which was approved during the March,2018 TC meeting, in Chapter 2 (Technical Committee), article 4: “…..the TC works under the leadership and supervision of the IWUf President and EB, and reports to the Executive Vice President and Secretary General.” This is not happening.
- The TC indeed would like to report all these issues to the president AND the secretary-general. But as it is at the moment, there is a bottleneck called the secretariat that is deciding what goes through and what doesn’t.
4.You complained that the technical decisions made by the EB in Macau last August were in violations of protocol. This is completely wrong and misleading, as the opposite is correct. The TC supposed to implement the decisions made by the EB. Your challenge is a serious violation of the established rules and an obstruction of administration. These new technical rules were unanimously approved by the EB to improve our technical/competition management, and should be implemented accordingly. It is also worth mentioning that most of the recent key systemic technical improvements were made by EB members
- As per points 1 and 2 above, the EB makes decision following due diligence, and the person or persons who did not allow this to occur are actually in violation and an obstruction. As mentioned, the EB was not given the opportunity to hear the opinions of the TC members, and even more alarming, the TC wasn’t even informed of these beforehand. If you think that the EB does not need to hear the opinions of the TC regarding technical decisions it plans to make, then why do we have a TC in the first place? Are you insinuating that the EB is more technically competent than the TC? This is not a challenge. I have merely reported what occurred, and the EB should be made aware of it, as some of the EB members have already stated previously they were not aware of these underlying factors.
5.Obviously, after 30 years, you only understand a paragraph of the whole IWUF constitution, the part that states the function of the TC, and you have not read or comprehend the complete constitution to understand the organizational structure of the IWUF (there must be a difference between 30 years of accumulated experience and 30 times one-year experience). And you obviously have no idea about how our federation, like most organizations, is hierarchically structured and you interpreted it selectively and wishfully, resulting in misleading yourself. Subsequently, you tried to mislead others.
- As clearly described above, I have taken into consideration not only the constitution but also the TC working guidelines and judges management policies fully. As I stated, I did not act as a challenge to the hierarchical structure of the IWUF, but rather due to the underlying issues that have occurred in contrast to the ideals of good practices when wielding such authority. Your accusation that I deliberately tried to mislead others is not accurate as the points in this response illustrate. It is also quite saddening to have you personally insult with a character assassination a committee member who has served the IWUF since its inception.
- You also challenged that when Mr. Zhang Qiuping and myself called for a team leaders’ meeting(non-technical) during the World Taijiquan Championships in Burgas last year, a meeting called to straight out some of the irregularities & confusions in the management of the competition, and you claimed that both of us should not conduct the meeting without the consent and presence of TC members. The arrogance expressed was shocking to all of us. What was on your mind when you think our action required your approval? And that our action was in violation of your so-called protocol, democracy, etc.?
- Unfortunately your account of what occurred in Bulgaria is not accurate and misleading. As you may have forgotten, a team from Great Britain participated in that event, and it was from the team leader of this team and other team leaders/coaches that I was informed that a technical meeting for coaches and athletes had been called by yourself and Mr. Zhang Qiuping. Once again, it was the fact that there was no communication regarding any of this was between yourself and any of the TC members present. We were receiving questions from teams asking what the meeting was about, and we had no idea there was even going to be a meeting. Further, during the meeting, it was reported that you discussed certain technical issues and then had blamed the TC for some issues. Is this a responsible manner to conduct yourselves? There was no mention that you need the TC’s consent from me, this is inaccurate.
- It is hard for me to understand, and I know I am not alone, that how do you get the idea that the TC is some kind of an ultimate supreme division of the IWUF that you and Byron are in charge of,and that EB members need to follow your instructions, otherwise it is a violation of your“protocol?”
- Your comment here is also inaccurate, and an unjustified attack, as I have clearly illustrated above. At no point was the idea of “supreme authority” pushed, forward, again please read the points above. What you and possibly others find “hard to understand” would have easily been cleared up through communication, and that is the crux of the problem, this is being obstructed. It’s disappointing that you are trying to deliberately portray people and facts negatively.
8.You keep claiming that you are the TC, how many members are you really representing when you make such claims, is it the only two of you? If it is the only two of you, how can you continue to claim that you are the TC when you are neither the chair and nor representing the majority of the members? Let alone if none of process required to make such a representation is followed.
- Once again, your first sentence is inaccurate and misleading, in line with the TC working Guidelines, the TC is a democratic body which includes 11 members. The chairman doesn’t have the right to represent the committee as whole alone without the involvement of the other members.
The TC will work as a unified group. Following discussions and deliberation by all the TC members, decisions will be made through the principle of majority rule.
When making decisions, the TC should conform to the principles of collective decision making through a democratic process, with each member openly expressing his or her ideas.
What I have raised is to highlight the fact that the processes of democracy and communication from all the members have been removed at their fundamental and crucial levels. If the processes occurred as they have been for the past couple of years, we would indeed know what the majority of the committee decides upon. It’s important that the message is paid attention to, not the messenger.
- You attacked your colleagues who remain in silence. Don’t they have the right to remain silent,not to take sides, or to stay out of non-constructive arguments?
- The highlighting of the fact that members of the TC remain silent is not an attack, but rather a fact. We were sent amended rules, new proposed rules, and new regulations by email in order to comment/vote. The vast majority of the TC members did not comment at all, some didn’t even vote. As you saw from the numerous documents sent by TC members Michal Ignatowicz and Byron Jacobs, there was a vast number of errors, problems and technical complications within the compiled documents, and in general they were the only people who highlighted and corrected these. If, as you say, the TC members are keeping silent to focus “constructive” discussion, please do let me know what, if not actual technical discussions, is considered constructive within their mandate as TC members? Could it be that their silence is due to the issues I raised above? A silent committee is not a productive committee.
- You constant and invincible confusion between democracy and chain of command within an organization is bewildering to us.
- My response in this letter clearly clarifies what I am referring to.
- How were the 15th WWC and the 8th WKFC Regulations and relevant competition rules developed and compiled?
- Since December 2018, Ethan Xu has worked very closely with Chen Gurong and Jin Xiaobing in developing these documents. Ethan could not have done it himself as he has no previous knowledge about these documents. Again, this is the same work pattern as in the past years that the Secretariat Technical staff work with the chair of TC before distributing the documents to TC members for comments and suggestions. There is no fundamental changes as to how things are conduct today.
- Once again, the work pattern of the past was based upon the fact that the person within the secretariat doing this work was also a TC member. As I stated above, over the past few years we have always had meetings and deliberated on proposed changes and new rules. The TC Meeting minute from the 2018 meeting also clearly show how this was conducted (attached), and further shows our decisions regarding some of the documents that the secretariat compiled. Such action should not be done through consultation only with the TC members from China. Compilation is as important as approval, and the initial steps that lay the foundation of the documents are agreed upon at formal meetings. Important issues like amendment to rules and compilation of new rules need to be done at official meetings following thorough discussion by the TC in order for the best outcome. There is a fundamental difference with what occurred this year, which I queried numerous times without any response.
2.I have called for an early release of championships regulations for several years to no avail, and we have stressed again & again the importance of releasing these regulations by the end of the year prior to the year the event would be held. The Secretariat has a duty to produce these documents timely to ensure the smooth operation of our events. If you think, whether or not your thinking is correct, that you or the TC should develop these regulations in stead of the Secretariat,where were the regulations at the end of last year? When these regulations were sent to the TC for review, it was just more than a couple of months before the registration deadline of the 8th WKFC. If you say the regulations should, and only be produced by the TC, where were your regulations then?
- The delay of the release of the documents in the past is an issue that you should address to the chairman. However, regulations include two crucial aspects, technical regulations and organizational regulations. The technical aspects of a competition and therefore the listed technical requirements included within regulations are clearly something that falls solely within the jurisdiction of the TC, and this cannot be done by the secretariat. Organizational details pertaining to an event are to be compiled by the secretariat. I’m sure this clarifies why the TC’s involvement prior to the finalization of regulations is important, and how these technical details are to be discussed and deliberated upon by the TC in full.
- I have called for the release of the IWUF’s own traditional competition rules for the last 3 years to no avail. And this topic was also discussed during the TC’s meeting held in March 2018. By December 2018, the Secretariat has no choice but to have Ethan work with Guorong and Jin Xiaobin to draft these rules. Jin Xiaobin worked very hard before the Chinese New Year, to provide the complete draft based on the CWA’s rules that was used in previous traditional championships and the inputs/decisions made in March 2018 TC Meeting, and that was the copy that Ethan worked on and then translated. Again, this information was completed only a couple of months prior to the event’s registration deadline. Instead of on working on the improvements, you & your associate were just whining and attacking on our staff blatantly. If you did not want others to take over the job, where was your work? This is the same work format our technical documents were compiled in the past -the Technical Department developed & complied the draft with the chair of the TC and forwarded to TC members for review/approval afterwards.
- The technical committee has raised the issue of the traditional championships rules for years, and this has been a crucial topic within the technical committee as many of its members felt that the rules implemented and the competition format as well as the technical officials, all coming from the CWA, has been problematic. This was discussed during the TC meeting in 2018, and there was a resolution that Byron Jacobs, Michal Ignatowicz, Lu Xiaolin and Jin Xiaobin would research and investigate this issue, which would then be discussed at the upcoming TC meeting in 2019. The focus of the TC was to finalize the new rules to be implemented in Shanghai as a priority before the investigation into the traditional rules begun. Furthermore, as there are no IWUF judges courses during the 2019 period, there is no way to implement new rules during this event officially, and as all the technical officials are appointed from the CWA, rushing this through is odd. The TC also had objections to the CWA traditional rules, as the goal was to unify a judging method to be in line with the new wushu taolu rules as far as possible. The TC was not afforded the opportunity to correctly and responsibly perform the required investigation and deliberation on such an important topic, and instead a set of rules was rushed through, in spite of the TCs decisions during the meeting held in 2018. This is not as you say “how things were done in the past” and this has been highlighted numerous times in my response here. The finalized document had numerous problems and you have decided to say that the TC members stating the above and pointing these out are “whining”. This is counterproductive and fails to identify the highlighted problem. Furthermore, these rules are being implemented in Emei this year without any officially appointed TC members involvement and evaluation.
4.The Secretariat’s role is to see that all administrative work are performed timely, efficiently and professionally. This is our mission to our members. It is not about taking over someone else’s job, instead it is all about getting the job done. TC is a key component for technical and competition operations, but it is not an independent branch outside of the federation, and has no right to supersede the EB & Secretariat’s decision and directives, especially when it is all about getting the work done.
- Once again, no mention was made of “superseding the EB” or being independent of the IWUF. What is being highlighted is that the TC has not been afforded the chance to correctly and responsibly perform its tasks regarding technical matters; instead these are being done without the full involvement of the TC at critical stages within such an important process.
- The traditional rules were based on the CWA traditional rules. In the past, the TC implemented the CWA rules for so many years without any complaints. Now that the rules have been officially adopted for IWUF, why is it a problem now? Is it simply because getting the job done has created the feeling that someone has “moved your cheese?” If so, why didn’t you accomplish it during the last 3 years?
- As stated above, there were numerous complaints about the CWA implemented traditional rules, hence the decision made by the TC to investigate this matter. Your reference to “cheese” is neither valid nor relevant.
You inability or refusal to comprehend the root of the problems, and/or common sense required to understand how business should be conducted is something you have to deal with on your own. No one is obligation to educate you, especially when encountered with such strong resistance. Ego simply is, not a good substitute for reasoning power. You have to be responsible for your own actions and the consequences that follow. Enough is enough.
I have explained clearly above about the root of the problems also the procedures of how the TC works.
After being in the TC for so many years I am well educated in the workings of the IWUF/CWA, that’s why I sent the emails to highlight these issues.
Ego and resistance have nothing to with stating the facts of what was happening.
While I appreciate the amount of attention afforded to me, I have no intention to solicit more of it with this letter. The purpose of this email is to clarify the misconceptions and wrongful accusations, and to provide the other side of the story. Therefore, this maybe the only letter you will receive from me regarding this matter.
My response above clearly states that I did not Attack, Challenge, make Claims, Accusations and Violations as your email insinuates, it is a personal attack on me with a character assassination rather than dealing with the true facts. If there had been correspondence to my first email sent to the TC 7 months ago and the secretariat 5 months ago then many of these issues could have been resolved.
Vice Chairman IWUF Technical Committee
Subject: IWUF Constitution Judges Management Policy, Protocol and Proceedures
Dear Executive Members
Since Chairman’s Chen move to a new position towards the end of last year the IWUF TC have not been involved with the rules and regulations for the preparation of 15th WWC and the 8th WKFC.
The additions of the creative category at the 15th WWC, changing/manipulation of Taolu rules which the TC have been working on for the last three years have been done under the direction of Anthony Goh and the Secretariat, then sent to the TC for approval? This is not in line with the protocol and procedures set out within the IWUF constitution.
Only 3 members of the TC made any constructive feedback about the Rule/Regulations Presented.
Both sets of rules were riddled with mistakes and omissions of which Michal and Byron sent corrections of which only a selected sample were corrected.
My point is that according to the IWUF Constitution and Judges Management Policy as it is at present, It is the TC members remit to deal with all Technical matters within the Rules and Regulations, appointment of C/ Referees H/Judges Independent judges. Not the Secretariat?
Please see email below.
Look Forward to a response?
Vice Chairman IWUF Technical Committee (1995)
Email sent to TC members 14/3/2019
Dear Chairman Chen TC Colleagues
Will there be a full Technical Committee meeting held this year to discuss these updated rules and appointment of independent judges, chief referees, head judges etc?
As the Constitution /Judges Management Policy states at present that in Article 26 that it is the function of the TC to appoint the Independent Judges, Article 27 Jury of Appeals, Chief Referees, Head Judges?
Look Forward to your Reply