作者：张致君
距离郑丽文“美中台和平繁荣访问”已经过去半月有余。网络上余波未尽，观察了这些日子的社会反应，我着手写下这篇见闻录。
郑丽文此次访美，本来想展现的是“和平对话”“美中台繁荣”的路线包装。但在纽约和洛杉矶，两场来自中国大陆人士的当面呛声，让这趟访问暴露出另一个尖锐的问题：最不相信中共承诺的，恰恰是那些真正从中国大陆走出来、亲身经历过中共统治的人。
2026年6月8日晚，郑丽文在纽约亚洲协会与中国问题专家夏伟、罗素对谈。她谈到所谓“郑习会”，并称在会面中得到习近平承诺，只要“两岸同属一中，一切好商量”。但就在观众自由提问环节，一名自称来自中国大陆的异议人士站起来发言。他脱下外套，露出写有“拥抱共产党，台湾变香港”的衬衫，质问郑丽文为何主张削弱台湾国防能力，并提醒在场者：一个民主台湾，注定是独裁中国的眼中钉。郑丽文在这场问答交流中，并未做出任何反应，神色慌张。抗议者话未说完，就被安保人员带离会场。
这个场面刺眼，不只是因为有人在郑丽文面前喊出了“不要相信共产党”的声音，更因为这个声音不是来自台湾政党斗争的惯用标签，而是来自中国大陆异议者的政治经验。对很多台湾政客而言，“和平”“对话”“交流”是可以包装的政治语言；但对从大陆出来的异议人士而言，中共不是抽象概念，是一套真实运作的恐惧机器。它监控、威胁、打压异见、在海外延伸影响，他们往往比任何人都更清楚。
这位抗议者的逻辑很直接：如果台湾可以证明华人社会能够拥有选票、自由媒体、政党轮替和公民权利，那么中共长期灌输的“民主不适合中国人”就会被现实击穿。台湾的存在本身就会让中国大陆人民看到“华人社会也可以民主”的可能性，因此中共政权不会容忍一个自由民主的台湾长期存在。
这也是郑丽文在纽约被呛的核心意义。
她谈“只要同属一中，一切好商量”；大陆异议者则提醒她，在中共逻辑里，“一中”不是平等谈判的起点，而是吞并和控制的前提。
她强调“对话”；大陆异议者强调“对方是谁”。
她把问题包装成两岸沟通障碍；抗议者则把问题还原成自由制度与独裁制度的冲突。
郑丽文在法拉盛出席侨界活动时，场外出现投影抗议。抗议者把讽刺图像投射到建筑外墙上，图像描绘郑丽文手持卷轴，将台湾地图交向一只大手。参与者称，这种表达是为了批评郑丽文近期政治主张，认为她像是在向北京递“投名状”。这场投影抗议被描述为低冲突、非接触的公共艺术行动引起台湾社会关注。
如果说纽约亚洲协会的呛声是正面质问，法拉盛的投影是象征性的政治审判。
投影没有冲撞，没有肢体对抗，把一个强烈意象打在墙上：台湾是否正在被政治人物当作筹码、礼物，甚至投名状交给北京？ 如果说，郑丽文对待这两场抗议者的直面抗议表现和平。那么6月14日，郑丽文在洛杉矶发表“美中台和平繁荣之旅”专题演讲时的表现却是真正撕下了她伪善的嘴脸。
作为《北京之春》记者，我全程在现场采访，亲历了郑丽文洛杉矶座谈会，谨将所见所闻记录如下：
在得知郑丽文即将于洛杉矶举办座谈会后，记者提前数日通过主办方公开的报名渠道申请入场。然而，报名系统早已显示“名额已满”。随后，记者分别联系了活动举办方的两位负责人，并以不同媒体身份提出采访申请。有趣的是，其中一位负责人当场表示欢迎采访，另一位则称需待内部会议讨论后再作回复。最终，两家媒体均获准进入会场采访，其中包括《北京之春》《在野党》。
6月14日上午，记者在活动开始前凭官方发放的橙色手环及采访证进入会场，媒体人员均需登记身份后方可入场。
上午10时，会议进入预定开始时间。然而，记者观察到，会场仍有约三分之一的座位空置，而主持人却宣称本次活动“座无虚席”，这一说法与现场实际情况明显不符。
会场大屏幕随后显示了会议须知，其中一条规定尤为引人注目：“禁止在会场内展示任何横幅。”由于郑丽文迟到，整场座谈会延后约30分钟才正式开始。
在郑丽文抵达前，主办方首先宣布，本场活动不设现场自由提问，所有问题均须提前写在纸条上，由主办方筛选后再交由郑丽文回答。然而，当郑丽文正式入场后，她本人却公开表示：“今天任何问题都可以自由提问，我都会一一回答。”但最终实际执行的仍然是事先筛选问题的方式，并未开放自由提问。现场被选中的问题，大多围绕如何协助大陆台商发展等议题，与外界普遍关注的政治敏感问题形成鲜明对比。
就在记者试图寻找提问机会时，现场一位抗议人士因不满主办方限制提问、引导议题方向，突然起身发言：“中国国民党是中国的政党，为什么国民党不帮助中国人民实现民主？”话音未落，即遭到现场工作人员及主办方人员强行驱离。
令人遗憾的是，在整个过程中，郑丽文始终继续进行演讲，并未就现场发生的冲突或强制驱离行为作出任何制止或回应。作为中国国民党的重要政治人物，其面对突发公共事件时的处理方式，以及对不同声音的态度，难免令人对其政治素养与公共危机处理能力产生质疑。
更具争议的是，现场冲突进一步升级。记者目击，两名抗议人士在混乱中受到不同程度的人身攻击。其中，抗议者董明被参会人员推倒在地后，头部又遭到脚踢；另一名抗议者乐在霖则遭强行捂嘴并控制，随后被警方带离现场。警方调取现场监控及视频资料后，确认相关情况，当场释放了抗议人士。
与此同时，会场外亦聚集了大量示威民众，他们高举“相信共产党，没有好下场”“台湾变香港，走进火葬场”等标语，高喊口号，表达对郑丽文相关立场及此次活动的不满，使整场座谈会始终笼罩在激烈的争议氛围之中。
记者在会后特意搜索报道显示，其中世界日报等提到会议设有自由问答环节是极其不准确的，而报道中说“洛杉矶现场主办方称相关人士多次打断活动，因此被劝离，双方随后发生拉扯。“也是不准确的。
洛杉矶这一幕，使郑丽文访美争议从“政治立场”进一步变成“言论空间”的问题。一个主张和平对话的政治人物，在海外面对不同意见时，现场却出现抗议者被拖走、拉扯、殴打、受伤指控等场面。即使各方在不同媒体中的报道对细节说法不同，但这个画面本身已经足够讽刺：如果连美国土地上的公开质疑都难以被完整听完，那么所谓“与中共和平对话”的空间，究竟是建立在真实包容上，还是建立在选择性听取声音上？
美国行这次出现的大陆人反对声音正是来自于自己的政治创伤与历史经验。
这也正是郑丽文阵营最难回避的地方。
过去，亲近北京路线的政治人物把反对者扣上“台独”“绿营”“反中”的帽子，好像只要把批评者归类为台湾内部政治敌人，就能避开问题本身。
但这一次，站出来呛声的大陆人打破了这个叙事。他们不是“不懂中国”的人，恰恰相反，他们太懂中国共产党。他们不是因为台湾选举利益而反对中共，而是因为自己或身边人亲身经历过中共统治的代价。
这些大陆抗议者的出现，也让海外华人社会的政治裂痕浮出水面。一边是部分由被统战的侨界人士欢迎郑丽文，支持她强调两岸交流；另一边是中国民运人士、异议者、台湾本土派和反共人士，他们坚决认为这种交流会被中共利用，成为统战延伸的舞台。
陆委会副主委梁文杰在回应郑丽文访美争议时也表示，中共势力已渗入美国侨界，并将此视为重要警示现象。其中还提到郑丽文访美期间出席侨宴，被传有中共统战官员出席，引发关注。
当然，任何政治人物都有表达路线的自由。
郑丽文可以主张对话，可以批评军事对抗，也可以认为两岸需要恢复交流。但问题在于，当一个政治人物公开要求台湾人相信中共承诺时，她就必须回答那些从中共体制下逃出来的人提出的问题：你凭什么相信？你凭什么认为“同属一中”之后还会有对等空间？你凭什么把一个独裁政权的口头承诺，放在台湾人民的安全与自由之前？
纽约的演讲者、法拉盛的投影者、洛杉矶场内外的抗议者，他们真正呛的不是郑丽文个人，而是一整套对中共过度天真的政治话术。
他们呛的是“和平”二字被滥用，呛的是“对话”被包装成单方面退让，呛的是“交流”变成统战的合法外衣。
他们用自己的方式提醒台湾社会：面对中共，最危险的不是战争意识，而是失去警觉；最昂贵的不是防卫成本，而是误信承诺之后要付出的自由代价。
美国行，郑丽文被大陆人呛声，真正形成了一种反差：她想告诉美国和侨界，她能与北京沟通；大陆异议者却告诉台湾人，北京从来不是一个可以用善意幻想来约束的政权。
她强调“不要战争”；抗议者强调“不要被骗”。她说“和平繁荣”；抗议者说“相信共产党没有好下场”。
这场访美风波最后留下的，不只是几段现场冲突视频，也不只是支持者与反对者之间的口水战。它留下的是一个台湾必须认真面对的问题：那些真正从中国大陆走出来的人，一再用自己的经验警告台湾不要误信共产党时，台湾政治人物还有没有资格把这种警告轻描淡写地说成“杂音”？
一个来自大陆的异议者，在美国公开场合都必须用被拖离现场的方式才能让一句话被听见，那么这句话本身就更值得被记住。
因为它不是表演，而是幸存者的提醒；不是单纯呛声，而是从专制现实里带出来的警报。
郑丽文访美期间被呛，表面上是活动插曲，实际上是华人社会对中共认知的一次公开碰撞。
纽约和洛杉矶的声音共同说明：真正懂中共的人，绝对不会站在“相信中共”的那一边。
编辑：黄吉洲 校对：周敏 翻译：戈冰
An Account of Cheng Li-wun’s Discussion Forum in Los Angeles During Her Visit to the United States
By Chang Chih-chun
More than half a month has already passed since Cheng Li-wun’s “US-China-Taiwan Peace and Prosperity Visit.” The aftershocks on the internet have not yet subsided. Having observed the social responses over these past days, I am setting pen to paper to write this account.
Cheng Li-wun’s current visit to the United States was originally intended to showcase a strategic packaging of “peaceful dialogue” and “US-China-Taiwan prosperity.” However, in New York and Los Angeles, two instances of face-to-face heckling by individuals from Mainland China caused this visit to expose another sharp issue: those who least believe the Chinese Communist Party’s promises are precisely those who actually came out of Mainland China and personally experienced CCP rule.
On the evening of June 8, 2026, Cheng Li-wun engaged in a dialogue with China experts Orville Schell and Daniel Russel at the Asia Society in New York. She spoke about the so-called “Cheng-Xi Meeting” and claimed that during the meeting she received a promise from Xi Jinping that as long as “both sides of the strait belong to one China, everything is negotiable.” Yet, right during the audience Q&A session, a dissident claiming to be from Mainland China stood up to speak. He took off his jacket, revealing a shirt emblazoned with the words “Embrace the Communist Party, Taiwan Becomes Hong Kong,” questioned Cheng Li-wun on why she advocates weakening Taiwan’s national defense capabilities, and reminded those present: a democratic Taiwan is destined to be a thorn in the side of an authoritarian China. During this Q&A exchange, Cheng Li-wun did not make any response whatsoever, looking flustered. Before the protester could finish his words, he was escorted out of the venue by security personnel.
This scene was glaringly conspicuous, not just because someone shouted the voice of “do not believe the Communist Party” right in front of Cheng Li-wun, but even more so because this voice did not come from the customary labeling found in Taiwan’s partisan struggles; rather, it came from the political experience of a Mainland Chinese dissident. To many Taiwanese politicians, “peace,” “dialogue,” and “exchange” are political rhetoric that can be packaged; but to dissidents who have come out of the Mainland, the CCP is not an abstract concept—it is a genuinely functioning machine of fear. It monitors, threatens, suppresses dissent, and extends its influence overseas, which they often understand more clearly than anyone else.
This protester’s logic is very direct: if Taiwan can prove that a Chinese-majority society can possess ballots, a free press, rotation of political parties, and civil rights, then the long-standing CCP indoctrination that “democracy is unsuitable for Chinese people” will be pierced by reality. The very existence of Taiwan allows the people of Mainland China to see the possibility that “a Chinese-majority society can also be democratic”; therefore, the CCP regime will not tolerate the long-term existence of a free and democratic Taiwan.
This is also the core significance of Cheng Li-wun being heckled in New York.
She talks about “as long as both sides belong to one China, everything is negotiable”; the Mainland dissident, meanwhile, reminds her that in the CCP’s logic, “one China” is not a starting point for equal negotiations, but a prerequisite for annexation and control.
She emphasizes “dialogue”; the Mainland dissident emphasizes “who the other party is.”
She packages the issue as an obstacle to cross-strait communication; the protester, meanwhile, restores the issue to its true form: a conflict between a free system and an authoritarian system.
When Cheng Li-wun attended an overseas Chinese community event in Flushing, a projection protest appeared outside the venue. Protesters projected satirical images onto the exterior wall of the building, depicting Cheng Li-wun holding a scroll and handing a map of Taiwan over to a giant hand. Participants stated that this expression was meant to criticize Cheng Li-wun’s recent political propositions, viewing her actions as akin to presenting a “pledge of loyalty” (Toumingzhuang) to Beijing. Described as a low-conflict, non-contact public art action, this projection protest caught the attention of Taiwanese society.
If the heckling at the Asia Society in New York was a head-on questioning, the projection in Flushing was a symbolic political trial.
The projection involved no clashing and no physical confrontation, yet it projected a powerful image onto the wall: Is Taiwan being handed over to Beijing by politicians as a bargaining chip, a gift, or even a pledge of loyalty? If it can be said that Cheng Li-wun behaved peacefully when facing the direct protests of these two groups of protesters, then on June 14, when Cheng Li-wun delivered a keynote speech on her “US-China-Taiwan Peace and Prosperity Visit” in Los Angeles, her performance truly ripped away her hypocritical facade.
As a reporter for Beijing Spring, I covered the entire event on-site and personally experienced Cheng Li-wun’s Los Angeles discussion forum. I hereby record what I saw and heard as follows:
Upon learning that Cheng Li-wun was about to hold a discussion forum in Los Angeles, this reporter applied for admission several days in advance through the registration channels made public by the organizers. However, the registration system had already shown “capacity reached” early on. Subsequently, this reporter contacted two responsible individuals from the hosting organization separately and submitted interview applications under different media identities. Interestingly, one of the coordinators expressed a welcome to the interview on the spot, while the other stated that a response could only be given after internal meeting discussions. Ultimately, both media outlets were granted permission to enter the venue for interviews, including Beijing Spring and The Opposition Party.
On the morning of June 14, this reporter entered the venue before the event started, using the officially issued orange wristband and press pass. All media personnel were required to register their identities before entering.
At 10:00 AM, the meeting reached its scheduled start time. However, this reporter observed that about one-third of the seats in the venue remained vacant, yet the host declared that the event was “completely full with no empty seats”—a statement that was clearly at odds with the actual situation on-site.
The large screen in the venue subsequently displayed the meeting guidelines, among which one regulation was particularly conspicuous: “Displaying any banners inside the venue is prohibited.” Due to Cheng Li-wun’s late arrival, the entire discussion forum was delayed by approximately 30 minutes before officially beginning.
Before Cheng Li-wun arrived, the organizers first announced that this event would not feature an on-site open Q&A session; all questions had to be written on slips of paper in advance, and would be handed to Cheng Li-wun to answer only after being screened by the organizers. However, once Cheng Li-wun officially entered the room, she personally stated publicly: “Any question can be asked freely today, and I will answer them one by one.” Yet, what was actually executed in the end remained the method of screening questions in advance, and no open Q&A was allowed. The questions selected on-site mostly revolved around topics such as how to assist Taiwanese businessmen in Mainland China with their development, forming a stark contrast with the politically sensitive issues that attract widespread public concern.
Just as this reporter was trying to find an opportunity to ask a question, a protester at the venue—dissatisfied with the organizers’ restriction on questions and steering of the topic direction—suddenly stood up to speak: “The Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) is a political party of China. Why doesn’t the Kuomintang help the Chinese people achieve democracy?” Before the words could fully leave his mouth, he was forcefully expelled by the on-site staff and organizers.
Regrettably, throughout this entire process, Cheng Li-wun consistently continued with her speech, making no attempt to stop the actions or respond to the conflict and forced expulsion taking place on-site. As an important political figure of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang), her approach to handling an unexpected public incident, as well as her attitude toward differing voices, inevitably leads one to question her political acumen and public crisis management capabilities.
Even more controversially, the conflict at the venue escalated further. This reporter witnessed that two protesters were subjected to varying degrees of physical assault amidst the chaos. Among them, after the protester Dong Ming was pushed to the ground by an attendee, his head was kicked; another protester, Le Zailin, was forcefully muzzled and restrained, and subsequently escorted away from the scene by the police. After reviewing the on-site surveillance and video materials, the police confirmed the relevant circumstances and released the protesters on the spot.
At the same time, a large number of demonstrating citizens gathered outside the venue. Holding high slogans such as “Believe the Communist Party, Meet a Miserable End” and “Taiwan Becomes Hong Kong, Walk into the Crematorium,” they shouted catchphrases to express their dissatisfaction with Cheng Li-wun’s relevant stance and this event, leaving the entire discussion forum continuously enveloped in an atmosphere of intense controversy.
Reports searched by this reporter after the meeting showed that mentions by outlets such as the World Journal claiming the meeting included an open Q&A session are extremely inaccurate, and the report stating that “the Los Angeles on-site organizers claimed relevant individuals repeatedly interrupted the event and were therefore advised to leave, following which both sides engaged in pulling and dragging” is also inaccurate.
This scene in Los Angeles turned the controversy surrounding Cheng Li-wun’s US visit from an issue of “political stance” into an issue of “space for free speech.” A political figure who advocates peaceful dialogue faced differing opinions overseas, yet the scene manifested in protesters being dragged away, pulled, assaulted, and making allegations of injuries. Even if the reports from various parties in different media outlets differ in their accounts of the details, this picture itself is already ironic enough: if even open questioning on American soil can hardly be fully listened to, then is the space for so-called “peaceful dialogue with the CCP” built upon true tolerance, or is it built upon selectively listening to voices?
The opposing voices from Mainlanders that emerged during this US trip come precisely from their own political trauma and historical experience.
This is also exactly what Cheng Li-wun’s camp finds most difficult to evade.
In the past, political figures leaning toward the Beijing line branded opponents with labels like “Taiwan independence,” “the Green Camp,” or “anti-China,” as if merely categorizing critics as domestic political enemies within Taiwan could bypass the issue itself.
But this time, the Mainlanders who stood up to heckle shattered this narrative. They are not people who “do not understand China”; on the very contrary, they understand the Chinese Communist Party all too well. They oppose the CCP not because of Taiwanese electoral interests, but because they or those around them have personally experienced the price of CCP rule.
The emergence of these Mainland protesters has also caused the political rifts within the overseas Chinese community to surface. On one side are members of the overseas Chinese community, partially influenced by United Front work, who welcome Cheng Li-wun and support her emphasis on cross-strait exchanges; on the other side are Chinese pro-democracy activists, dissidents, Taiwan localists, and anti-communist individuals who firmly believe that such exchanges will be exploited by the CCP, becoming a stage for the extension of United Front work.
In response to the controversy surrounding Cheng Li-wun’s visit to the United States Liang Wen-chieh, the Deputy Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council, also stated that CCP forces have already infiltrated the American overseas Chinese community, and regarded this as an important warning phenomenon. It was also mentioned that during Cheng Li-wun’s visit to the United States, she attended an overseas Chinese banquet where CCP United Front officials were rumored to be in attendance, drawing widespread attention.
Of course, any political figure has the freedom to express their strategic line.
Cheng Li-wun can advocate for dialogue, can criticize military confrontation, and can also believe that cross-strait exchanges need to be restored. But the problem lies in the fact that when a political figure publicly demands that Taiwanese people believe the promises of the CCP, she must answer the questions raised by those who escaped from under the CCP system: On what basis do you believe? On what basis do you think there will still be equal space after “both sides belong to one China”? On what basis do you place the verbal promises of an authoritarian regime ahead of the safety and freedom of the Taiwanese people?
The speakers in New York, the projectors in Flushing, and the protesters inside and outside the venue in Los Angeles—what they are truly heckling is not Cheng Li-wun as an individual, but an entire set of excessively naive political rhetoric regarding the CCP.
They are heckling the abuse of the word “peace”; they are heckling the packaging of “dialogue” into unilateral concessions; they are heckling “exchange” becoming a legitimate cloak for United Front work.
They are using their own way to remind Taiwanese society: in facing the CCP, the most dangerous thing is not the consciousness of war, but the loss of vigilance; the most expensive thing is not the cost of defense, but the price of freedom that must be paid after mistakenly believing promises.
During this trip to the United States, Cheng Li-wun being heckled by Mainlanders truly formed a contrast: she wanted to tell the United States and the overseas Chinese community that she can communicate with Beijing; yet Mainland dissidents told Taiwanese people that Beijing has never been a regime that can be constrained by illusions of goodwill.
She emphasizes “no war”; the protesters emphasize “do not be deceived.” She says “peace and prosperity”; the protesters say “believe the Communist Party, meet a miserable end.”
What this wave of controversy from the US visit ultimately leaves behind is not just a few videos of on-site conflicts, nor is it just a war of words between supporters and opponents. What it leaves behind is a question that Taiwan must seriously face: when those who actually came out of Mainland China repeatedly use their own experiences to warn Taiwan not to mistakenly believe the Communist Party, do Taiwanese politicians still have the right to downplay such warnings as mere “noise”?
When a dissident from the Mainland must resort to being dragged away from the venue just to make a single sentence heard in a public setting in the United States, then this sentence itself is all the more worthy of being remembered.
Because it is not a performance, but a survivor’s reminder; it is not a simple heckle, but an alarm brought out from the reality of autocracy.
Cheng Li-wun being heckled during her visit to the United States appears on the surface to be an interlude to the event, but in reality, it is a public collision of perceptions regarding the CCP within the Chinese-majority society.
The voices of New York and Los Angeles jointly demonstrate: “those who truly understand the CCP will absolutely never stand on the side of “believing the CCP.”
Editor: Huang Chi-chou Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing
