作者：赵令军
编辑：王梦梦 责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：熊辩 翻译：吕峰

摘要

本文以黎智英拒绝离港、选择入狱的决定为核心，探讨在威权体制下“回归与坚守”这一看似非理性的选择所具有的道德与历史意义。通过对黎智英、纳瓦尔尼与金明日牧师的对照，文章指出：当语言被权力占用，人的身体与命运本身便成为无法抹去的证据。他们的牺牲未必立刻改变现实，却构成这个时代最沉重的见证。

在全球持续关注中，黎智英案终于进入关键审理阶段：

黎智英老先生被判“勾结外国势力、串谋刊印煽动刊物”等3项罪名，至此，已被关押了5年多，前后被审讯了共156天的黎先生，总算被中共强按了几个正式的罪名。黎先生坚持自己无罪，但《国安法》指定的3名法官，判定他有罪。

虽然最终量刑结果尚未公布，但外界普遍认为，仅“勾结外国势力、煽动颠覆”这一项指控，便足以判处无期徒刑。黎先生已年近八旬，长期监禁对其身体的摧残早已显现；在当下的政治现实下，人们几乎看不到他重获自由的可能。

而黎老先生，显然已经做好坦然面对任何结果的准备！

事实上，这正是他的选择！

在当代政治迫害史中，有一种选择反复出现，却始终令人心惊：

明知面临牢狱之灾，甚至死亡，仍然选择坚守或回归。

黎智英先生，正是做出这种选择的人。

作为香港最具国际知名度的传媒人之一，他并非无路可退。他是非常成功的企业家，拥有巨额财富，并持有英国护照，离开香港，对他而言并不困难，继续在海外发声，也完全可行。但在香港自由迅速坠落的关键时刻，他婉拒了好友的劝说，依然选择留下，并最终被捕入狱。

在被关押前夕，他于九龙家中接受 BBC 记者采访。当记者试图询问——或者说，提醒他，是留在香港还是迁往他处生活时，他不等问题说完，便平静地回答：

在狱中。

他说：

现在在这里，我是平静地活着；在狱中，我是有意义地活着。

那不是一句即兴的话，那是一个睿智的长者对自己未来走向的清楚认知。

“有意义的活着”，不是激情的宣言，而是一条清醒而孤独的归途。

这条路，通往牢狱，通往审判，也通往历史。

选择，并非源于误判，也不是情绪化的冲动，而是一种清醒而沉重的判断。

一、为什么不走？

在威权体制下，“离开”往往被视为理性之举。

安全、自由、持续发声——这些理由看似无可反驳。

但问题在于：

当所有有能力、有影响力的人都选择离开，留下来的人将面对什么？

留下来的，不仅是风险，更是被迫承担“失败者”“被抛弃者”的身份。

而权力，也正是通过这种方式，完成对社会的清空。

黎智英拒绝让这种逻辑成立，他说：我不能离开。一旦离开，即会影响苹果日报的信誉，也会影响民主运动的团结。这件事，必须由我来承担责任！

他的留下，意味着一种立场：

不是因为走不了，而是拒绝让“离开”成为唯一正确的选择。

二、当身体成为证据

在极权环境中，语言最容易被扭曲和掏空。

“法治”、“秩序”、“稳定”、“国家安全”这些词汇被反复使用，却不断被重新定义，最终服务于独裁专制本身。

当语言失去可信度，人的遭遇，就成了最后的证据。

黎智英的被捕，清楚地表明：

所谓“依法治港”，并非法律对权力的约束，而是权力对法律的占用。

他的审判，也以最直观的方式证明：

那个曾以法治与自由著称的百年香港，在被中共统治仅二十余年后，迅速陨落——经济凋敝、法治崩塌、自由消亡，使得中共对于香港自由、繁荣状况的一切辩解，在世界舆论面前显得愈发苍白。

三、相似的归途：纳瓦尔尼先生与金明日牧师

他们来自不同国家、不同信仰，却做出了同一种选择。

俄罗斯反对派领袖阿列克谢·纳瓦尔尼，在中毒并成功治疗后，本来可以选择在德国陪伴家人并用另一种方式抗争的，但依然返回俄罗斯。他十分清楚，等待他的将是监禁，甚至更糟的结局。但他仍然选择回去。

因为他明白：如果反对只能在流亡中存在，那么权力就已经赢得了道德优势。

他的死亡，彻底暴露了俄罗斯政治体制的真实面目。

而在中国，金明日牧师所面对的，则是另一种形式的压迫。他原本可以选择在美国做牧师，家人也在身边陪伴，过着优渥的生活。

但他依然选择了宗教自由被严格控制、甚至被摧毁的中国，冒着随时被抓的危险，继续牧养、讲道、见证。

金牧师的选择并非出于政治动员，而是源自信仰本身；被捕后，面对来访者，他说：以前看到其他的牧师或传道人被捕，他无能为力，很是纠结；现在自己被抓，反而觉得很坦然了。

以生命实践信仰，以大无畏的牺牲，深刻诠释“为真理而死”境界。

他们都明白：

真理若只能在安全之地被宣讲，便失去了超越性。

四、他们的牺牲是否“值得”？

这是一个无法回避的问题。

从现实结果看，他们的选择并未带来立刻的改变：

香港未能因此恢复自由！

俄罗斯未能因此走向民主！

中国的宗教与言论空间依然严重受限！

如果仅以短期成效衡量，这些牺牲似乎“并不划算”。

历史也从来不只由结果构成。

但他们发出的光芒，会引领很多人走出黑暗！

五、不可被抹去的意义

威权最渴望塑造的，是一种顺从的共识：

低头是理性，沉默是成熟，活着比尊严重要。

而黎智英、纳瓦尔尼、金明日牧师的存在，使这种叙事在道德上彻底破产。

他们并未诉诸暴力，也未谋取私利，

他们只是拒绝配合谎言，坚持真理。

正因为如此，他们无法被彻底抹黑，也无法被轻易遗忘。

结语：归途之上的人

他们并不要求后来者复制他们的道路，因为牺牲从来不是义务。

但正是因为有人愿意承担最沉重的代价，

后来的人，才仍然拥有选择是否站立的自由。

归途之上，有人离开，有人沉默，也有人回去。

黎智英等伟大的殉道者们，选择了回归和坚守。

而这种选择本身，

已经成为这个时代最清晰、也最沉重的注脚。

赵令军（Frank），2025年12月20日星期六，加拿大

On the Road Home — In Tribute to Mr. Jimmy Lai

Author: Zhao Lingjun
Editor: Wang Mengmeng Managing Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Lyu Feng

AbstractCentered on Jimmy Lai’s decision to refuse departure from Hong Kong and instead accept imprisonment, this article examines the moral and historical significance of what appears, under authoritarian rule, to be an irrational choice of “return and steadfastness.” Through a comparative reflection on Jimmy Lai, Alexei Navalny, and Pastor Kim Myung-il, the article argues that when language is monopolized by power, the human body and one’s fate themselves become indelible evidence. Their sacrifices may not immediately alter reality, yet they constitute the heaviest testimony of our time.

Amid sustained global attention, the Jimmy Lai case has finally entered a critical stage of adjudication.Mr. Lai has been convicted on three charges, including “collusion with foreign forces” and “conspiracy to publish seditious materials.” Having been detained for more than five years and subjected to a total of 156 days of hearings, Mr. Lai has at last been formally saddled with criminal charges imposed by the Chinese Communist Party. Mr. Lai maintains his innocence; however, the three judges designated under the National Security Law have found him guilty.

Although the final sentence has yet to be announced, it is widely believed that the charge of “collusion with foreign forces and incitement to subvert state power” alone is sufficient to warrant life imprisonment. Mr. Lai is approaching eighty years of age, and the physical toll of prolonged incarceration has already become evident. Under the present political reality, there is scarcely any prospect of his regaining freedom.

And yet Mr. Lai has clearly prepared himself to face any outcome with equanimity.

In truth, this has always been his choice.

In the history of contemporary political persecution, there is a choice that appears again and again, and yet never fails to unsettle the conscience:knowing full well that imprisonment—or even death—lies ahead, one still chooses to remain, or to return.

Mr. Jimmy Lai is precisely someone who made such a choice.

As one of Hong Kong’s most internationally renowned media figures, he was by no means without an exit. He was a highly successful entrepreneur, possessed immense personal wealth, and held a British passport. Leaving Hong Kong would not have been difficult for him; continuing to speak out from overseas was entirely possible. Yet at the critical moment when Hong Kong’s freedoms were rapidly collapsing, he declined the advice of close friends, chose to stay, and was ultimately arrested and imprisoned.

On the eve of his detention, he gave an interview at his home in Kowloon to a BBC journalist. When the reporter attempted to ask—or rather, to remind him—whether he would remain in Hong Kong or move elsewhere to live, he answered calmly before the question was even finished:

“In prison.”

He said:

“Here, I am living calmly; in prison, I am living meaningfully.”

That was not a spontaneous remark. It was the clear self-understanding of a wise elder, fully aware of the path that lay ahead of him.

“To live meaningfully” was not a declaration of passion, but a lucid and solitary road of return.

That road leads to prison, to judgment, and also to history.

The choice did not arise from miscalculation, nor from emotional impulse, but from a sober and weighty judgment.

I. Why Not Leave?

Under authoritarian systems, “leaving” is often regarded as the rational choice.Safety, freedom, the ability to continue speaking out—these reasons appear unassailable.

But the real question is this:when all those with capacity and influence choose to leave, what remains for those who stay?

What is left behind is not only risk, but the forced burden of being labeled “losers” or “the abandoned.”Power completes the hollowing-out of society precisely through this mechanism.

Jimmy Lai refused to let such logic prevail. He said: I cannot leave. Once I leave, it would damage the credibility of Apple Daily and undermine the unity of the democratic movement. This responsibility must be borne by me.

His decision to stay signified a clear stance:not that he was unable to leave, but that he refused to allow “departure” to become the only legitimate choice.

II. When the Body Becomes Evidence

In totalitarian environments, language is the first thing to be distorted and emptied of meaning.Terms such as “rule of law,” “order,” “stability,” and “national security” are endlessly repeated, yet constantly redefined—until they ultimately serve dictatorship itself.

When language loses credibility, human experience becomes the final form of evidence.

Jimmy Lai’s arrest makes one thing unmistakably clear:the so-called “governing Hong Kong according to law” is not the law restraining power, but power commandeering the law.

His trial, in the most direct way possible, also demonstrates this reality:a Hong Kong that once prided itself on the rule of law and freedom has, in just over two decades of CCP rule, rapidly fallen—economic vitality eroded, the legal order collapsing, freedoms extinguished. As a result, all of the CCP’s justifications regarding Hong Kong’s freedom and prosperity appear increasingly hollow before global public opinion.

III. Parallel Roads of Return: Mr. Navalny and Pastor Kim Myung-il

They came from different countries and different faiths, yet they made the same choice.

Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader, after being poisoned and successfully treated, could have chosen to remain in Germany—staying with his family and continuing his struggle by other means. Yet he returned to Russia nonetheless. He knew perfectly well that what awaited him would be imprisonment, and possibly an even grimmer fate. Still, he chose to go back.

Because he understood this: if opposition can exist only in exile, then power has already secured the moral high ground.

His death ultimately laid bare the true nature of Russia’s political system.

In China, by contrast, Pastor Kim Myung-il confronted a different form of oppression. He could originally have chosen to remain in the United States, serve as a pastor there, live comfortably, and stay close to his family.

Yet he chose instead to return to China, where religious freedom is strictly controlled and even systematically dismantled. Fully aware of the constant risk of arrest, he continued to shepherd his congregation, preach, and bear witness.

Pastor Kim’s choice did not arise from political mobilization, but from faith itself. After his arrest, when speaking with visitors, he said that in the past, when he saw other pastors or preachers being detained, he felt powerless and deeply torn; now that he himself had been arrested, he instead felt a sense of calm.

By living out his faith with his own life—through fearless sacrifice—he gave profound expression to what it means to “die for the truth.”

They all understood this:if truth can be proclaimed only in places of safety, it loses its transcendence.

IV. Were Their Sacrifices “Worth It”?

This is a question that cannot be avoided.

Judged by immediate outcomes, their choices did not bring about instant change:Hong Kong did not regain its freedom.Russia did not move toward democracy.China’s space for religion and free expression remains severely constrained.

If measured solely by short-term effectiveness, these sacrifices might seem “not worth the cost.”

But history has never been composed of outcomes alone.The light they cast, however, will guide many out of darkness.

V. An Erasable Meaning That Cannot Be Erased

What authoritarian power most longs to manufacture is a consensus of submission:that lowering one’s head is rational,that silence is maturity,that survival matters more than dignity.

The very existence of Jimmy Lai, Alexei Navalny, and Pastor Kim Myung-il renders this narrative morally bankrupt.

They did not resort to violence, nor did they seek personal gain.They simply refused to cooperate with lies and insisted on truth.

For this very reason, they cannot be completely smeared—and they cannot be easily forgotten.

Conclusion: Those on the Road of Return

They do not ask those who come after them to replicate their path, for sacrifice has never been an obligation.Yet it is precisely because some are willing to bear the heaviest cost that those who follow still retain the freedom to choose whether to stand upright.

On the road of return, some depart, some fall silent, and others go back.

Jimmy Lai and other great martyrs chose return and steadfastness.And that choice itself has already become the clearest—and heaviest—annotation of our time.

Zhao Lingjun (Frank), Saturday, December 20, 2025, Canada