评郑丽文访陆输诚、访美受挫与驱赶抗议者的威权嘴脸
特约评论：缪 青
导语
香港的沉沦，已经为台湾写下了一份血淋淋的政治警示录：在中共极权统治之下，没有独立主权作保障，所谓“高度自治”、所谓“和平共处”、所谓“制度承诺”，都不过是可以随时收回的政治恩赐。就在这样的历史背景下，中国国民党主席郑丽文却先赴北京面见中共党魁习近平，向北京递交政治投名状；继而又赴美国活动，在旧金山遭遇侨界冷遇，在洛杉矶面对民运人士抗议时，更放任乃至纵容现场人员强行驱赶抗议者，事后还为此辩护。郑丽文这一连串表演，已经不仅仅是个人失态或政党路线之争，而是赤裸裸暴露出国民党亲共路线的危险本质：它所兜售的所谓“和平”，并不是建立在民主、自由与主权之上的和平，而是要求台湾放下警惕、压低反抗、交出主体性的“投降式和平”。从香港看台湾，郑丽文的所作所为，正是在把台湾一步步推向“香港化”的险境。
一、香港已经把结局演示完毕：没有主权，所谓自由终究只是“恩准”
今天谈台湾前途，任何人都无法绕开香港的现实悲剧。
2020年《香港国安法》强行实施后，香港在极短时间内由一个拥有相对自由空间、法治传统和公民社会活力的国际城市，迅速沦为中共高压统治之下的政治禁区。反对派议员被清洗，立法会被重组为橡皮图章；媒体接连停刊，记者与评论人被捕入狱；公民团体纷纷解散，纪念六四、公开抗议、街头表达都被视作政治罪行。曾经写入国际文件、曾经被反复宣示的“港人治港”、“高度自治”、“五十年不变”，在中共绝对权力面前不过转瞬即碎。
香港的遭遇，已经把一个最朴素、也最残酷的政治常识昭示得明明白白：在没有独立主权作为最后屏障的前提下，任何自由、法治、自治和生活方式，都只是强权暂时允许存在的“特许品”，而不是人民自己真正拥有的权利。
香港之所以沦陷，不是因为它不够繁荣，不是因为它不够文明，也不是因为香港人没有为自由抗争，而是因为它从来没有掌握决定自己命运的主权。既然主权不在香港人民手中，那么北京在统战需要时可以承诺自治，在维稳需要时也可以立刻撕毁承诺；今天可以说“高度自治”，明天就可以以“国家安全”为名将一切自由连根拔起。香港最惨痛的教训就在于：在中共统治逻辑之下，任何权利如果不是建立在人民自己掌握主权的基础上，最终都只是一纸可以随时作废的许可证。
因此，香港已经彻底打破了那种幼稚而危险的幻想——仿佛只要不刺激中共、只要与北京“理性协商”、只要接受“一个中国”的政治前提，就能够换来和平、稳定和制度保障。香港用自己的命运证明：对中共退让，不会换来自由；向极权妥协，不会换来尊严；寄望于北京守信，只会换来更彻底的控制。
二、郑丽文赴京“朝拜”，不是和平交流，而是向中共递交政治投名状
正因为香港的结局如此清晰，郑丽文在此时此刻窜访北京、面见习近平，才显得格外刺眼，也格外危险。
国民党近年来不断以“和平”“交流”“降低战争风险”为口号，试图把对中共的让步包装成“务实”，把对主权的淡化包装成“理性”，把对北京的靠拢包装成“负责任的两岸政策”。然而，问题的核心并不在于“交流”二字，而在于：一个刚刚亲手毁灭香港自由、长期对台湾实施军事威胁、外交打压与认知作战的极权政权，究竟有什么资格向台湾谈和平？
郑丽文赴北京，绝不是在平等地位上与北京进行对话，而是在中共设定的政治舞台、政治语言和政治框架中接受统战安排。习近平接见她，不是为了尊重台湾民意，不是为了寻求真正的和平，而是为了向台湾、向美国、向国际社会制造一种假象：仿佛台湾的主要在野力量愿意接受中共的政治前提，愿意把台湾前途重新拉回到“一个中国”的叙事框架之中，愿意配合北京共同压制台湾主体意识的成长。
说穿了，郑丽文此行的真正功能，不是替台湾争取和平，而是替中共的对台统战输送合法性；不是替台湾守住安全，而是在替北京修补“一国两制”彻底破产后的政治叙事裂缝。她向习近平递上的，不只是一个国民党主席的“善意”，而是一份明明白白的政治投名状：即台湾内部依然有人愿意在香港血迹未干之际，继续为中共“和平统一”的骗局背书，继续协助北京削弱台湾社会的警惕、瓦解台湾人民的防卫意志。
这种行为，已经不能用“路线分歧”轻描淡写带过。因为在香港已经沦陷、台海威胁日益升级的现实下，任何主动向中共输诚、替中共话术背书的举动，客观上都是在伤害台湾的民主安全，侵蚀台湾的主权防线。
三、旧金山洪门拒绝出席，不是礼数问题，而是对亲共路线的公开切割
郑丽文赴美后，旧金山洪门组织拒绝出席其见面会，引发舆论关注。若从浅层看，这似乎只是侨界活动中的礼节争议或沟通问题；但若放在郑丽文先赴北京、后赴美国的完整脉络中观察，就会明白，这绝非简单的人情冷暖，而是一种清晰的政治表态。
洪门及其相关侨团，在海外华人政治史中具有特殊的象征意义。其历史传统与反清、共和、辛亥革命及中华民国海外支持网络有着密切关联。也正因此，当这样一类带有强烈传统“中华民国派”色彩的侨界力量，都不愿为郑丽文站台，不愿出席其见面会时，这本身就已经说明：郑丽文这条路线，已经让越来越多的海外华人看清其危险性。
问题不在于国民党可不可以与中国大陆交流，而在于郑丽文在香港沦陷之后、在习近平不断加大对台军事与政治压力之际，依然选择主动赴京“朝拜”，并将自己包装成所谓“和平使者”。在这样的背景下，旧金山侨界对她保持距离，恰恰说明海外华人中仍有许多人清醒地意识到：今天任何替中共“和平统一”叙事背书的政治人物，实际上都在帮助中共削弱台湾主体意识，削弱国际社会对台湾的支持，削弱台湾人民保卫自由生活方式的意志。
因此，旧金山洪门拒绝出席，绝不只是一个面子问题，而是一种公开的政治切割：即使在海外传统侨界内部，也并非所有人都愿意为这种亲共、媚共、投共的路线背书，更不愿意成为中共对台统战链条上的一环。
四、洛杉矶驱赶抗议者，撕下了郑丽文“和平”伪装下的威权面具
如果说赴京面习暴露的是郑丽文的政治立场，那么洛杉矶抗议风波则暴露了她更深层的政治本质——那就是对民主社会中异议权利的蔑视，以及对威权政治逻辑的本能亲近。
在民主社会，政治人物面对抗议、质问与批评，本是再正常不过的事情。尤其对于一个刚刚与习近平会面的台湾在野党主席而言，海外民运人士、反共侨胞和关心台湾前途的人，对她提出质疑、在公开场合表达抗议，不仅正当，而且必要。因为这不是私人恩怨，而是攸关台湾命运、华人民主运动与中共统战渗透的重大公共议题。民众有权追问：香港已经变成今天这样，郑丽文凭什么还要向中共输诚？习近平已经把“一国两制”撕得粉碎，郑丽文凭什么还要兜售“和平幻觉”？
然而，郑丽文一方面对这些质问，采取的却不是公开回应，不是据理辩论，而是驱赶、隔离、压制，任由乃至纵容现场人员将抗议者强行排除出场。更恶劣的是，事后她并未表示歉意，反而为这种做法辩护，仿佛只要打着“维持秩序”的旗号，就可以合理化对反对声音的驱逐。
问题正在这里：这绝不只是一次活动现场的失控，而是一次政治本能的暴露。
因为这种逻辑与香港这些年所经历的一切，实在太相似了。香港的自由不是一天失去的，而是在一次又一次“为了秩序”“为了稳定”“为了国家安全”的名义之下，被一点点剥夺、压缩、封堵。先把抗议者说成“闹事者”，再把异议者说成“破坏稳定者”，最后再把压制包装成“必要管理”，把驱逐合理化为“维持秩序”。当一位自称“和平”的台湾政治人物，面对抗议时首先想到的不是保障对方说话的权利，而是如何让对方闭嘴、离场、消失，这就已经不是简单的个人修养问题，而是一种与威权政治高度兼容的思维方式。
郑丽文在洛杉矶驱赶抗议者，驱赶的不是几个让她难堪的反对者，而是台湾民主最宝贵的东西——异议的权利、公开批评的权利、在权势面前不沉默的权利。一个面对习近平可以笑脸相迎、面对抗议民众却冷酷驱赶的人，口中的“和平”到底是为谁服务，答案已经不言自明。
郑丽文见面会暴力驱赶抗议者现场（图片来自网络）
五、从香港看台湾：台湾独立的正当性，首先是捍卫自由与生存的正当性
也正因为如此，今天再谈台湾独立的正当性，已经不能停留在传统统独论战的层次，而必须回到一个更根本、更现实的问题：台湾为什么必须坚持主权独立？
答案并不抽象。因为只有独立主权，台湾人民才能继续掌握自己的命运，继续以自己的选票决定谁来执政，继续以自己的法律保障新闻自由、司法独立、公民抗议和社会多元。台湾经过数十年的民主化进程，已经形成一个由2300万人民共同授权、自我治理的民主共同体。台湾政府的合法性来自人民，而不是来自北京的恩准；台湾制度的运作来自台湾社会内部的宪政秩序，而不是来自某个中央政权的“特别许可”。这一点，与香港有着根本区别。
香港的自由，是北京“允许存在”的自由，所以北京可以随时收回；台湾的民主，则是台湾人民自己流血流汗争取而来的民主，所以台湾绝不能把它交还给一个从未尊重自由、从未尊重人权、从未尊重人民授权的极权政权。香港的崩塌，恰恰从反面证明了台湾独立主权的现实必要性：主权不是抽象名词，不是象征姿态，而是2300万台湾人民免于沦为第二个香港的最后防火墙。
从国际法与现实政治的角度看，台湾早已具备固定领土、常住人民、有效政府与对外交往能力等国家构成要素。台湾之所以必须坚持主权独立，不是为了追求一个虚幻名号，而是为了守住最具体的日常自由：记者能否继续报道真相，人民能否公开批评执政者，法官能否依法律而非政治命令判案，公民能否上街抗议而不被以“维持秩序”为名拖走。说到底，主权从来不是遥远的政治口号，它关乎的是一个社会明天还能不能自由呼吸、还能不能有尊严地活着。
六、结语：香港的答案已经写明，台湾绝不能重蹈覆辙
郑丽文赴京，是向中共输诚；郑丽文赴美受挫，是其亲共路线遭遇的必然后果；郑丽文驱赶抗议者，则更把她“和平叙事”背后的威权底色暴露得一览无余。她所鼓吹的，不是建立在民主、自由与主权基础上的和平，而是一种要求台湾先放下戒心、先放弃主体性、先压制反共声音、最后再接受中共政治安排的“投降式和平”。
然而，香港已经把这种道路的终点演示得清清楚楚：凡是没有主权保障的自由，最终都会沦为恩赐；凡是建立在对极权幻想之上的和平，最终都会变成更彻底的奴役。
今天台湾最不需要的，就是再去相信“只要与北京谈、只要不刺激中共、只要淡化主权就能换来安全”的陈词滥调。台湾真正需要的，是从香港的伤口中读懂现实：主权不是可有可无的口号，而是台湾民主最后的防线；独立不是抽象的姿态，而是防止台湾沦为第二个香港的唯一保障。
因此，郑丽文所代表的路线，绝不只是国民党内部的一种政策选择，而是关乎台湾是否继续作为一个自由民主共同体存在下去的根本问题。面对中共，任何以“和平”为名、以“交流”为饰、以压制异议为手段、以淡化主权为目标的政治路线，都必须被严厉揭露、坚决拒绝。
香港已经失守，台湾没有资格再犯同样的错误。 台湾的道路，绝不能通向香港；台湾的未来，更不能交到习近平和郑丽文们手中。
中国民主党旧金山宣传部部长
《北京之春》《在野党》旧金山记者站站长
缪青 撰文于旧金山 06/20/2026
编辑：黄吉洲 校对：王滨 翻译：周敏
The Warning of Hong Kong Is Not Far Off; How Can Taiwan Allow Itself to Destroy Its Own Great Wall?
Commenting on Zheng Liwen’s Visit to the Mainland to Express Loyalty, Setbacks in Her US Visit, and Her Authoritarian Face in Expelling Protesters
Special Commentary: Miao Qing
Lead-in
The sinking of Hong Kong has already written a bloody political warning record for Taiwan: under the totalitarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), without the guarantee of independent sovereignty, the so-called “high autonomy,” so-called “peaceful coexistence,” and so-called “institutional commitments” are all nothing more than political favors that can be taken back at any time. Right against this historical background, Kuomintang Chairperson Zheng Liwen first went to Beijing to meet CCP leader Xi Jinping, submitting a political toumingzhuang (pledge of loyalty/submission) to Beijing; subsequently, she went to the United States for activities, encountering a cold reception from overseas Chinese circles in San Francisco, and when facing protests by democracy movement activists in Los Angeles, she went so far as to permit and even connive at on-site personnel forcibly expelling protesters, and even defended this practice afterward.
This series of performances by Zheng Liwen is no longer merely a personal loss of composure or a struggle over party lines, but nakedly exposes the dangerous nature of the Kuomintang’s pro-communist line: the so-called “peace” it peddles is not a peace built upon democracy, freedom, and sovereignty, but a “surrender-style peace” that demands Taiwan lower its vigilance, suppress resistance, and hand over its subjectivity. Looking at Taiwan from Hong Kong, Zheng Liwen’s actions are precisely pushing Taiwan step by step into the dangerous situation of “Hong Kong-ization.”
I. Hong Kong Has Already Finished Demonstrating the Outcome: Without Sovereignty, So-called Freedom Is Ultimately Merely “Gracious Permission”
Today, when talking about Taiwan’s future, no one can bypass the realistic tragedy of Hong Kong.
After the forceful implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law in 2020, Hong Kong, within an extremely short period, rapidly degenerated from an international city possessing relatively free space, rule of law tradition, and civil society vitality into a political forbidden zone under the high-pressure rule of the CCP. Opposition lawmakers were purged, the Legislative Council was reorganized into a rubber stamp; media outlets shut down one after another, journalists and commentators were arrested and imprisoned; civil groups disbanded one after another, and commemorating June Fourth, public protests, and street expressions were all regarded as political crimes. “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong,” “high autonomy,” and “remaining unchanged for fifty years,” which were once written into international documents and repeatedly declared, were nothing more than shattered in an instant before the absolute power of the CCP.
Hong Kong’s encounter has made a most simple and also most cruel political common sense clear and plain: under the premise of having no independent sovereignty as the final barrier, any freedom, rule of law, autonomy, and way of life are merely “licensed goods” temporarily permitted to exist by the powerful, rather than rights truly owned by the people themselves.
The reason why Hong Kong fell was not because it was not prosperous enough, not because it was not civilized enough, and nor because Hong Kong people did not fight for freedom, but because it never mastered the sovereignty to decide its own destiny. Since sovereignty was not in the hands of the Hong Kong people, Beijing can promise autonomy when united front work is needed, and can also immediately tear up the promise when stability maintenance is needed; today it can say “high autonomy,” and tomorrow it can pull up all freedoms by the roots in the name of “国家安全” (national security). The most painful lesson of Hong Kong lies in: under the CCP’s logic of governance, if any right is not built on the foundation of the people themselves mastering sovereignty, it will ultimately only be a permit that can be invalidated at any time.
Therefore, Hong Kong has completely shattered that naive and dangerous illusion—as if as long as one does not stimulate the CCP, as long as one “rationally negotiates” with Beijing, and as long as one accepts the political prerequisite of “One China,” one can exchange it for peace, stability, and institutional guarantees. Hong Kong has proved with its own destiny: yielding to the CCP will not exchange for freedom; compromising with totalitarianism will not exchange for dignity; placing hopes on Beijing keeping its word will only exchange for more thorough control.
II. Zheng Liwen’s Journey to Beijing to “Worship” Is Not a Peaceful Exchange, but Submitting a Political Pledge of Loyalty to the CCP
Precisely because Hong Kong’s outcome is so clear, Zheng Liwen’s sneaking visit to Beijing and meeting with Xi Jinping at this very moment appears exceptionally eyesore-inducing and exceptionally dangerous.
In recent years, the Kuomintang has continuously used “peace,” “exchange,” and “reducing the risk of war” as slogans, attempting to package concessions to the CCP as “pragmatism,” package the dilution of sovereignty as “rationality,” and package leaning toward Beijing as a “responsible cross-strait policy.” However, the core of the problem does not lie in the word “exchange,” but lies in: what qualification on earth does a totalitarian regime, which just personally destroyed Hong Kong’s freedom and has long implemented military threats, diplomatic suppression, and cognitive warfare against Taiwan, have to talk about peace with Taiwan?
Zheng Liwen’s journey to Beijing is absolutely not conducting a dialogue with Beijing on an equal status, but is accepting united front arrangements within the political stage, political language, and political framework set by the CCP. Xi Jinping receiving her is not out of respect for Taiwan’s public opinion, and not to seek true peace, but to manufacture an illusion for Taiwan, the United States, and the international community: as if Taiwan’s main opposition force is willing to accept the CCP’s political prerequisites, willing to pull Taiwan’s future back into the narrative framework of “One China,” and willing to cooperate with Beijing to jointly suppress the growth of Taiwan’s subjective consciousness.
To put it bluntly, the true function of Zheng Liwen’s trip is not to strive for peace on behalf of Taiwan, but to supply legitimacy to the CCP’s united front work against Taiwan; it is not to hold the line of safety for Taiwan, but to repair the political narrative cracks after the complete bankruptcy of “One Country, Two Systems” on behalf of Beijing. What she handed to Xi Jinping was not merely the “goodwill” of a Kuomintang chairperson, but a clear and plain political pledge of loyalty (toumingzhuang): that is, there are still people inside Taiwan who are willing to continue endorsing the CCP’s “peaceful reunification” scam while the bloodstains of Hong Kong are not yet dry, and continue assisting Beijing to weaken the vigilance of Taiwanese society and disintegrate the defense will of the Taiwanese people.
This kind of behavior can no longer be lightly brushed aside as a “line divergence.” Because under the reality that Hong Kong has already fallen and the Taiwan Strait threat is escalating day by day, any action of actively expressing loyalty to the CCP and endorsing the CCP’s discourse is objectively harming Taiwan’s democratic security and eroding Taiwan’s sovereignty defense line.
III. The San Francisco Hung Moon’s Refusal to Attend Is Not a Matter of Courtesy, but a Public Severance from the Pro-Communist Line
After Zheng Liwen arrived in the US, the San Francisco Hung Moon organization’s refusal to attend her meeting triggered public opinion attention. If looked at from a shallow layer, this seems to be merely a courtesy controversy or communication issue in overseas Chinese community activities; but if placed within the complete context of Zheng Liwen first going to Beijing and then going to the US to observe, one will understand that this is absolutely not simple human warmth or coldness, but a clear political statement.
The Hung Moon and its related overseas Chinese groups hold special symbolic significance in the political history of overseas Chinese. Its historical tradition is closely connected with anti-Qing, republicanism, the 1911 Revolution, and the overseas support network of the Republic of China. Precisely because of this, when this category of overseas Chinese community forces carrying a strong traditional “Republic of China faction” color is unwilling to stand platform for Zheng Liwen and unwilling to attend her meeting, this itself has already explained: this line of Zheng Liwen’s has already made more and more overseas Chinese see through its danger.
The problem does not lie in whether the Kuomintang can exchange with mainland China, but lies in the fact that Zheng Liwen, after the fall of Hong Kong and at a time when Xi Jinping is continuously increasing military and political pressure on Taiwan, still chose to actively go to Beijing to “worship” and package herself as a so-called “messenger of peace.” Under such a background, the San Francisco overseas Chinese circle keeping their distance from her precisely explains that among overseas Chinese, there are still many people who soberly realize: today, any political figure who endorses the CCP’s “peaceful reunification” narrative is actually helping the CCP weaken Taiwan’s subjective consciousness, weaken international society’s support for Taiwan, and weaken the Taiwanese people’s will to defend their free way of life.
Therefore, the San Francisco Hung Moon’s refusal to attend is absolutely not just a matter of face, but a public political severance: even inside the traditional overseas Chinese circles, it is not the case that everyone is willing to endorse this kind of pro-communist, communist-flattering, and communist-submitting line, much less willing to become a link in the CCP’s united front chain against Taiwan.
IV. The Expulsion of Protesters in Los Angeles Tore Off the Authoritarian Mask Under Zheng Liwen’s Disguise of “Peace”
If it is said that going to Beijing to face Xi exposed Zheng Liwen’s political stance, then the protest turmoil in Los Angeles exposed her deeper political nature—that is, contempt for the right to dissent in a democratic society, and an instinctive closeness to the logic of authoritarian politics.
In a democratic society, political figures facing protests, questioning, and criticism is originally a most normal thing. Especially for a Taiwanese opposition party chairperson who just met with Xi Jinping, overseas democracy movement activists, anti-communist overseas Chinese, and people who care about Taiwan’s future raised doubts to her and expressed protests in public venues, which was not only legitimate but also necessary. Because this is not a personal grievance, but a major public issue vital to Taiwan’s fate, the Chinese democracy movement, and the CCP’s united front penetration. The masses have the right to press questions: Hong Kong has already become like this today, on what grounds does Zheng Liwen still want to express loyalty to the CCP? Xi Jinping has already torn “One Country, Two Systems” completely to shreds, on what grounds does Zheng Liwen still want to peddle the “hallucination of peace”?
However, toward these questionings, what Zheng Liwen adopted was instead not public response, not arguing based on reason, but expulsion, isolation, and suppression, allowing and even conniving at on-site personnel forcibly excluding protesters from the venue. What is even worse is that afterward she did not express apologies, but instead defended this kind of practice, as if as long as one holds high the banner of “maintaining order,” one can rationalize the eviction of opposing voices.
The problem is precisely here: this is absolutely not just a single out-of-control event at an activity scene, but an exposure of political instinct.
Because this kind of logic is truly too similar to everything Hong Kong has experienced over these years. Hong Kong’s freedom was not lost in one day, but was bit by bit deprived, compressed, and blocked under the name of “for order,” “for stability,” and “for national security” time and time again. First describing protesters as “troublemakers,” then describing dissenters as “stability destroyers,” and finally packaging suppression as “necessary management” and rationalizing eviction as “maintaining order.” When a Taiwanese political figure who claims “peace,” when facing protests, first thinks not of protecting the other party’s right to speak, but how to make the other party shut up, leave the venue, and disappear, this is already not a simple problem of personal cultivation, but a way of thinking highly compatible with authoritarian politics.
Zheng Liwen expelling protesters in Los Angeles did not expel a few opponents who made her embarrassed, but expelled the most precious thing of Taiwan’s democracy—the right to dissent, the right to publicly criticize, and the right not to remain silent before power. For a person who can greet Xi Jinping with a smiling face but coldly expel protesting citizens when facing them, whom on earth does the “peace” in her mouth serve? The answer is already self-evident.
Scene of violent expulsion of protesters at the Zheng Liwen meeting (Image from the internet)
V. Looking at Taiwan from Hong Kong: The Legitimacy of Taiwan’s Independence Is, First of All, the Legitimacy of Defending Freedom and Survival
Also precisely because of this, talking about the legitimacy of Taiwan’s independence today can no longer stay at the level of the traditional unification-independence debate, but must return to a more fundamental and more realistic question: Why must Taiwan insist on sovereign independence?
The answer is not abstract. Because only with independent sovereignty can the Taiwanese people continue to master their own destiny, continue to decide who governs with their own votes, and continue to protect press freedom, judicial independence, civic protest, and social pluralism with their own laws. After decades of democratization process, Taiwan has already formed a democratic community authorized jointly by 23 million people and self-governing. The legitimacy of the Taiwan government comes from the people, not from Beijing’s gracious permission; the operation of Taiwan’s system comes from the constitutional order inside Taiwan society, not from the “special permission” of some central regime. This point has a fundamental difference from Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s freedom is a freedom “permitted to exist” by Beijing, so Beijing can take it back at any time; Taiwan’s democracy, however, is a democracy strived for by the Taiwanese people themselves through sweating and bleeding, so Taiwan absolutely cannot hand it back to a totalitarian regime that has never respected freedom, never respected human rights, and never respected the authorization of the people. The collapse of Hong Kong precisely proves from the negative side the realistic necessity of Taiwan’s independent sovereignty: sovereignty is not an abstract noun, not a symbolic posture, but the final firewall for 23 million Taiwanese people to avoid degenerating into a second Hong Kong.
From the perspective of international law and realistic politics, Taiwan has long possessed the constituent elements of a state, such as fixed territory, permanent population, effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The reason why Taiwan must insist on sovereign independence is not to pursue an illusionary title, but to hold the line for the most concrete daily freedom: whether journalists can continue to report the truth, whether the people can publicly criticize those in power, whether judges can adjudicate cases according to law rather than political orders, and whether citizens can go onto the streets to protest without being dragged away under the name of “maintaining order.” To put it down to the bottom line, sovereignty is never a distant political slogan; what it concerns is whether a society can still breathe freely tomorrow and whether it can still live with dignity.
VI. Conclusion: Hong Kong’s Answer Has Already Been Written Clearly; Taiwan Absolutely Cannot Repeat the Same Mistake
Zheng Liwen going to Beijing is expressing loyalty to the CCP; Zheng Liwen encountering setbacks in her US visit is the inevitable consequence suffered by her pro-communist line; Zheng Liwen expelling protesters, furthermore, exposes the authoritarian background color behind her “peace narrative” completely and thoroughly. What she advocates is not a peace built upon the foundation of democracy, freedom, and sovereignty, but a “surrender-style peace” that demands Taiwan first lay down its guard, first give up its subjectivity, first suppress anti-communist voices, and finally accept the CCP’s political arrangements.
However, Hong Kong has already demonstrated the end point of this kind of road clearly and plainly: any freedom without the guarantee of sovereignty will ultimately degenerate into a favor; any peace built upon illusions toward totalitarianism will ultimately turn into more thorough servitude.
What Taiwan needs least today is to go and believe again the clichés of “as long as we talk with Beijing, as long as we do not stimulate the CCP, and as long as we dilute sovereignty, we can exchange it for safety.” What Taiwan truly needs is to read and understand reality from the wounds of Hong Kong: sovereignty is not an optional slogan, but the final line of defense for Taiwan’s democracy; independence is not an abstract posture, but the sole guarantee to prevent Taiwan from degenerating into a second Hong Kong.
Therefore, the line represented by Zheng Liwen is absolutely not just a policy choice inside the Kuomintang, but a fundamental issue concerning whether Taiwan continues to exist as a free and democratic community. Facing the CCP, any political line that takes “peace” as its name, takes “exchange” as its decoration, takes suppressing dissent as its means, and takes diluting sovereignty as its goal must be severely exposed and resolutely rejected.
Hong Kong has already fallen; Taiwan has no qualification to make the same mistake again. Taiwan’s road must absolutely not lead to Hong Kong; Taiwan’s future, even more so, cannot be handed into the hands of the likes of Xi Jinping and Zheng Liwen.
Director of the Publicity Department of the China Democracy Party in San Francisco Chief of the San Francisco Reporter Station of Beijing Spring and The Opposition Party Written by Miao Qing in San Francisco, 06/20/2026
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Zhou Min
