作者：吴字儒
当法律与良知冲突，我们这一代中国人应该选择什么？
一个人真正相信什么，往往不是在没有代价的时候看出来的。真正能够检验一个人信念的，是当自由、职业、前途、家庭，甚至漫长的牢狱生活摆在面前时，她还愿不愿意坚持。
读完邹幸彤的陈情书，我想到的并不只是香港，也不只是六四。我想到的是我们这一代中国人。尤其是那些曾经因为表达不同意见、质疑权力、追求民主和自由，而付出过代价的人。
我们这一代人可能没有经历林昭那个年代的政治风暴，也未必经历过上一代民运人士所经历的一切。但我们亲眼看到互联网时代的信息封锁、言论审查、权力缺乏监督，以及一个普通人因为表达政治观点而可能付出的代价。因此，我们越来越明白：真正值得思考的问题，并 不只是“今天谁被判刑”，而是为什么一个社会会走到这一步，以及未来怎样才能避免下一代继续重复这样的悲剧。
一、邹幸彤真正坚持的是什么？
邹幸彤面对法庭时，没有把自己的问题仅仅理解成一个普通的刑事案件。
她实际上提出了一个更加根本的问题：国家究竟属于谁？如果一个政党可以宣称自己代表人民，然后进一步要求人民必须拥护这个政党，那么人民究竟还是国家的主人吗？如果人民不能自由选择政府，不能公开批评政府，不能要求权力接受监督，那么“人民当家作主”究竟还剩下什么？
这正是“结束一党专政”这个政治诉求背后的核心问题。它并不意味着仇恨某一个普通人，也不意味着否定一个国家，更不意味着希望社会陷入混乱。恰恰相反，它所追求的是：让国家权力受到制度约束，让政府的合法性来自人民，让任何政党都不能凌驾于国家和法律之上。这也是为什么邹幸彤的文字如此有力量。她不是在要求人民服从另一种权力。她是在追问：为什么权力不能被人民监督？
二、我们这一代人真正担心的，不只是今天
上一代人经历的是政治运动、思想改造和信息封闭。我们这一代人面对的环境则更加复杂。科技进步让国家拥有了前所未有的治理能力。互联网可以连接每一个人，也可以监控每一个人。
人工智能可以帮助社会进步，也可能成为更强大的审查和控制工具。一个现代国家拥有越来越强大的行政、科技和数据能力，本来应该意味着人民得到更好的服务。但如果权力缺乏有效监督，那么，国家能力越强，权力失控以后造成的伤害也可能越大。所以，我们这一代异议人士真正担心的，并不仅仅是某一个人今天有没有自由。我们担心的是：如果一个国家的权力没有边界，那么下一代中国人是否仍然必须生活在恐惧之中？如果今天不能公开讨论六四，那么明天是否还会有其他历史不能讨论？如果今天不能批评政府，那么明天还有谁能够提醒政府犯错？如果一个人必须首先证明自己“政治正确”，才能获得完整的公民权利，那么这个社会距离真正的法治还有多远？
三、但改变中国，并不是简单地“换一个政府”
这是我们这一代异议人士必须认真思考的问题。
如果未来中国真的发生政治制度变化，仅仅把一个政党换成另一个政党，并不能保证中国就自动进入民主社会。民主不是换一个领导人。自由也不是换一个口号。
真正重要的是建立一套能够长期限制权力的制度。我们真正需要的，不是寻找一个“永远正确”的政党，而是建立一个没有任何政党能够永远正确、也没有任何政党能够永远拥有绝对权力的制度。因此，未来中国真正需要建立的，至少应该包括：
第一，权力来自人民。政府必须通过公开、公平、竞争性的选举获得授权。
第二，权力受到法律限制。任何政府、政党、官员都不能凌驾于法律之上。
第三，司法独立。法院不能成为任何政党的附属机构。
第四，新闻和言论自由。媒体不仅应该报道政府希望人民知道的事情，也必须能够报道人民需要知道的事情。
第五，公民拥有结社、集会、宗教和表达自由。不同意见不是国家的敌人，而是社会纠错机制的一部分。
第六，军队属于国家，而不是属于某一个政党。国家机器不能成为任何政治组织永久掌握权力的工具。
四、民主以后，怎样防止新的专制
这是比“结束一党专政”更加困难的问题。
因为人类历史已经无数次证明，推翻一个专制者并不等于消灭专制。如果制度没有改变，新的权力中心完全可能重新成为新的专制。所以，我们这一代人真正应该追求的，并不是“让好人永远掌权”，而应该是“即使坏人掌权，也没有办法轻易把国家变成他的私人机器”。这才是制度的意义。
民主真正伟大的地方，并不是它保证每一次选举都选出最好的人。而是它允许人民和平地把不合格的政府换掉。司法真正重要的地方，也不是法官永远不会犯错，而是法官不能因为政府不喜欢一个人的观点就惩罚这个人。
新闻自由也不意味着所有新闻都正确，而是允许不同观点同时存在，让事实能够在公开竞争中不断被检验。一个成熟的民主社会，不是没有错误，而是拥有纠正错误的机制。
五、普世价值不是西方的专利
自由、平等、尊严、法治、人权，并不是某一个国家发明出来以后专门出售给其他国家的制度产品。它们真正表达的是一个非常简单的道理：人首先是人，然后才是国家的公民。一个人的尊严，不应该因为他的国籍、政治观点、宗教信仰或者社会地位而被剥夺。一个政府存在的目的，也不是要求人民证明自己忠于政府。恰恰相反，政府之所以存在，是因为人民需要一个能够保护他们权利、维护公共秩序并接受监督的公共机构。
因此，未来中国真正需要改变的，不仅仅是政治制度，还包括我们每个人的政治文化。我们需要逐渐学会：可以不同意别人，但不必消灭别人；可以批评政府，但不必仇恨国家；可以竞争权力，但不能把政治对手变成敌人；可以争论历史，但不能因为别人记住历史而惩罚别人。民主最大的挑战，不是选举，而是学会与不同意见共存。
六、我们为什么仍然需要六四的记忆
一个没有办法面对自己历史的社会，很难真正建立成熟的未来。
纪念六四，不只是为了纪念过去。它更是在提醒后来的人：权力失去监督之后，会发生什么？当一个社会只能允许一种声音存在，当人民失去表达和选择的权利，当国家机器不再接受有效监督，最终受到伤害的并不只是某一个政治群体。而是整个社会。所以六四记忆的价值，不仅在于记住死难者。它还应该成为未来中国建立民主制度之后的一面镜子：提醒任何未来的政府——不要重蹈覆辙。
七、这也是我们这一代人的责任
我们未必能够亲眼看到理想中的中国。甚至可能有人会认为，这种改变距离今天非常遥远。但一个社会的改变，从来不是一天完成的。林昭没有看到她所期待的时代。许多八九民运参与者也没有看到。许多香港民主人士也可能不会看到。但是他们留下的疑问仍然存在。而我们这一代人所能做的，就是把这些疑问继续传递下去。
不是传递仇恨。不是传递暴力。不是简单地把一个政党换成另一个政党。而是传递一种更加成熟的政治理念：权力必须受到监督；政府必须接受人民授权；法律必须保护人的基本权利；不同意见应该被允许存在；国家不应该要求人民牺牲良知来证明忠诚。
八、邹幸彤留下的，不只是一份陈情书
邹幸彤的陈情书让我想到一句很简单的话：一个人可以被法律限制自由，但法律无法真正决定一个人的良知。邹幸彤选择承担她认为正确的事情所带来的代价。她本可以有另一种人生。可以做学者，可以做专业人士，可以拥有更加安全、平静的人生。
但她选择了另外一条路。所以我愿意称她为“当代林昭”。不是因为她们拥有完全相同的经历，而是因为她们身上都有一种共同的精神：宁可承担代价，也不愿意背叛自己的良知。而对于我们这一代中国人来说，真正重要的或许不是重复上一代人的悲壮，而是从他们的经历中找到答案：如何让下一代不必再成为林昭，不必再成为邹幸彤，不必再因为说出自己的想法而走进牢狱。
这才应该是我们追求民主的最终目的。不是为了复仇，不是为了制造新的敌人，而是为了建立一个这样的中国：政府可以被批评，权力可以被监督，人民可以自由选择，历史可以自由讨论，不同意见可以和平共存，每一个普通人都可以有尊严地生活。
民主的终点，不是让某一群人掌权。民主的终点，是让任何人掌权以后，都不能随意侵犯另一个人的自由。这也许才是我们这一代异议人士真正应该留下的答案。
烛光如海，人心成涛。
我们纪念过去，不是为了永远停留在过去。而是为了让未来不再重复过去。愿有一天，中国不再需要因为坚持良知而坐牢的人；愿有一天，追求民主不再是一种罪；愿有一天，自由、平等、法治与人的尊严，成为每一个中国人都能够真正享有、也愿意共同守护的普世价值。
良知无罪，自由不应该是罪，民主更不应该成为罪。
编辑：李晶 校对：程筱筱 翻译：沈美花
Chow Hang-tung — A Contemporary Lin Zhao
Author: Wu Ziru
When law conflicts with conscience, what choice should our generation of Chinese people make?
What a person truly believes in is rarely seen when there is no price to pay. The true test of a person’s conviction comes when freedom, career, future, family, and even long years in prison are placed before her, and she is still willing to persevere.
After reading Chow Hang-tung’s court statement, what came to my mind was not only Hong Kong, nor was it only June Fourth. I thought of our generation of Chinese people—especially those who have paid a price for expressing dissenting opinions, questioning power, and pursuing democracy and freedom.
Our generation may not have lived through the political storms of Lin Zhao’s era, nor have we necessarily experienced everything that the older generation of democracy activists went through. But we have witnessed firsthand the information blockades, speech censorship, lack of oversight on power in the internet era, as well as the price an ordinary person might pay simply for expressing a political view. Thus, we understand more and more clearly: the question truly worth pondering is not merely “who is sentenced today,” but why a society would reach this point, and how to avoid repeating such tragedies for the next generation in the future.
What is Chow Hang-tung truly standing for?
When facing the court, Chow Hang-tung did not view her situation as just an ordinary criminal case.
She actually raised a far more fundamental question: To whom does the nation truly belong? If a political party can claim that it represents the people and then demand that the people support this party, are the people still the masters of the country? If the people cannot freely choose their government, cannot publicly criticize the government, and cannot demand that power be subject to oversight, what is left of the concept that “the people are the masters of the country”?
This is precisely the core issue behind the political demand to “end one-party dictatorship.” It does not mean hating any ordinary individual, nor does it mean denying a nation, let alone wishing for society to fall into chaos. Quite the contrary, what it pursues is: placing institutional constraints on state power, ensuring that government legitimacy derives from the people, and preventing any political party from placing itself above the nation and the law. This is why Chow Hang-tung’s words carry such strength. She is not asking the people to submit to another form of power. She is asking: Why cannot power be supervised by the people?
II. What our generation truly fears is not just today
The previous generation experienced political movements, ideological remolding, and information isolation. The environment faced by our generation is far more complex. Technological progress has granted the state unprecedented governance capabilities. The internet can connect every individual, but it can also monitor every individual.
Artificial intelligence can help society progress, but it can also become a more powerful tool for censorship and control. A modern state possessing increasingly powerful administrative, technological, and data capabilities should originally mean better service for the people. However, if power lacks effective oversight, the stronger the state’s capability, the greater the harm when power spins out of control. Therefore, what dissidents of our generation truly fear is not merely whether a specific individual has freedom today. What we fear is: if state power has no boundaries, will the next generation of Chinese people still have to live in fear? If June Fourth cannot be publicly discussed today, will there be other historical events that cannot be discussed tomorrow? If government cannot be criticized today, who will be left to remind the government when it makes mistakes tomorrow? If a person must first prove themselves “politically correct” in order to obtain full civil rights, how far is this society from true rule of law?
III. But changing China is not simply about “changing a government”
This is a question that dissidents of our generation must seriously reflect upon.
If political structural changes do occur in China in the future, simply replacing one political party with another will not automatically ensure China enters a democratic society. Democracy is not about changing a leader; freedom is not about changing a slogan.
What is truly important is establishing a system capable of constraining power over the long term. What we truly need is not to search for an “always correct” political party, but to build a system where no political party can be forever correct, nor can any political party hold absolute power indefinitely. Therefore, what future China truly needs to establish must include at least:
First, power originates from the people. The government must obtain authorization through open, fair, and competitive elections.
Second, power is bounded by law. No government, political party, or official may stand above the law.
Third, judicial independence. The courts must not become subsidiary organs of any political party.
Fourth, freedom of the press and speech. Media should not only report what the government wants the people to know, but must also be able to report what the people need to know.
Fifth, citizens possess freedom of association, assembly, religion, and expression. Dissenting opinions are not enemies of the nation, but part of society’s self-correction mechanism.
Sixth, the military belongs to the nation, not to any single political party. State machinery cannot become a tool permanently held by any political organization.
IV. After democracy, how to prevent new forms of authoritarianism
This is an issue even more difficult than “ending one-party dictatorship.”
Because human history has proven countless times that overthrowing an autocrat is not equivalent to eliminating autocracy. If the system remains unchanged, new centers of power could completely re-emerge as new authoritarian structures. Therefore, what our generation should truly pursue is not “letting good people rule forever,” but rather “even if bad people come to power, they will have no way to easily turn the state into their private machine.” This is the significance of a system.
Where democracy is truly great is not that it guarantees every election yields the best person, but that it allows the people to peacefully replace an unfit government. Where independent justice is truly important is not that judges will never make mistakes, but that judges cannot punish a person simply because the government dislikes their views.
Freedom of the press does not mean all news is accurate, but rather that it permits different viewpoints to coexist, allowing facts to be continuously tested through open competition. A mature democratic society is not one without errors, but one that possesses mechanisms to correct errors.
V. Universal values are not a Western monopoly
Freedom, equality, dignity, rule of law, and human rights are not institutional products invented by one country to be sold exclusively to others. What they express is a very simple truth: a human being is first a human being, and then a citizen of a nation. A person’s dignity should not be stripped away because of their nationality, political views, religious beliefs, or social status. The purpose of a government’s existence is not to demand that people prove their loyalty to it. On the contrary, government exists because people need a public institution that can protect their rights, maintain public order, and accept oversight.
Therefore, what future China truly needs to change is not only its political system, but also the political culture within each of us. We must gradually learn: we can disagree with others without having to eliminate them; we can criticize the government without having to hate the country; we can compete for power without turning political rivals into enemies; we can debate history without punishing others for remembering it. The greatest challenge of democracy is not elections, but learning to coexist with different opinions.
VI. Why we still need the memory of June Fourth
A society incapable of facing its own history can hardly build a mature future.
Commemorating June Fourth is not just about remembering the past. It serves even more to remind those who come after: What happens when power loses oversight? When a society permits only one voice to exist, when the people lose the right to express and choose, and when the state machinery no longer accepts effective supervision, those harmed in the end are not merely a single political group, but society as a whole. Therefore, the value of the June Fourth memory lies not only in remembering the victims. It should also become a mirror for a future China after establishing a democratic system: reminding any future government never to repeat past mistakes.
VII. This is also the responsibility of our generation
We may not necessarily live to see our ideal China with our own eyes. Some may even believe that such change is extremely far from today. But the transformation of a society is never completed in a single day. Lin Zhao did not see the era she longed for. Many participants of the 1989 democracy movement did not see it either. Many Hong Kong democracy figures may not see it either. Yet the questions they left behind remain. What our generation can do is to continue passing these questions forward.
Not passing on hatred. Not passing on violence. Not simply replacing one political party with another. But passing on a more mature political concept: Power must be supervised; government must accept authorization from the people; law must protect human basic rights; dissenting opinions must be allowed to exist; and the state should not demand that people sacrifice their conscience to prove loyalty.
VIII. What Chow Hang-tung left behind is not just a court statement
Chow Hang-tung’s statement reminds me of a very simple sentence: A person can have their freedom restricted by law, but law cannot truly dictate a person’s conscience. Chow Hang-tung chose to bear the cost of doing what she believed to be right. She could have had a different life. She could have been an academic, a professional, and enjoyed a safer, more peaceful life.
Yet she chose another path. That is why I am willing to call her a “contemporary Lin Zhao.” Not because they shared identical experiences, but because they both possess a common spirit: preferring to bear the cost rather than betraying their conscience. For our generation of Chinese people, what is perhaps truly important is not repeating the tragic heroism of the previous generation, but finding answers from their experiences: How to ensure that the next generation no longer needs to become a Lin Zhao, no longer needs to become a Chow Hang-tung, and no longer needs to walk into prison simply for speaking their minds.
This should be the ultimate goal of our pursuit of democracy. Not for revenge, not to create new enemies, but to build a China where: government can be criticized, power can be supervised, people can freely choose, history can be freely discussed, differing opinions can coexist peacefully, and every ordinary person can live with dignity.
The endpoint of democracy is not to allow a certain group of people to hold power. The endpoint of democracy is to ensure that after anyone comes to power, they cannot arbitrarily infringe upon another person’s freedom. This may be the answer that our generation of dissidents truly ought to leave behind.
As candlelights form a sea, human hearts gather into waves.
We commemorate the past not to remain trapped in the past forever, but to ensure the future does not repeat the past. May there come a day when China no longer needs people who go to prison for adhering to conscience; may there come a day when the pursuit of democracy is no longer a crime; may there come a day when freedom, equality, rule of law, and human dignity become universal values that every Chinese person can truly enjoy and is willing to jointly safeguard.
Conscience is not a crime; freedom should not be a crime; democracy, even less so, should ever be a crime.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Shen Meihua
