——从“9•11”恐怖袭击二十五周年看自由与极权
文/贾嘉
2001年9月11日，世界改变了。
二十五年过去了，人们依然不会忘记那个早晨。
纪念“9•11”，首先是为了纪念那些无辜的遇难者。但如果纪念仅仅停留在鲜花、泪水和口号之中，那么历史带给我们的教训就可能被遗忘。
“9•11”之后，世界面对的不仅仅是恐怖主义，还有一个更加复杂、更加深刻的问题：当一个社会因为恐惧而不断追求安全时，我们究竟愿意为安全付出多少自由？
这是一个属于美国的问题，也是一个属于中国的问题，更是一个属于所有生活在现代政治体系中的人的问题。
一、恐怖主义制造恐惧，权力可能利用恐惧
恐怖主义最直接的目标是制造死亡，但它更深层的目的，是制造恐惧。恐惧可以改变人的行为。
一个害怕战争的人，可能愿意接受更多的军事管制；一个害怕犯罪的人，可能愿意接受无处不在的监控；一个害怕社会动荡的人，甚至可能愿意放弃表达意见的权利。
于是，“安全”便成为政治权力最容易获得合法性的理由之一。“为了国家安全。”“为了社会稳定。”“为了防止敌对势力破坏。”这些话，我们并不陌生。
问题在于，当“安全”成为一个可以无限扩张的概念时，究竟还有什么不能被纳入“安全”的范围？一个批评政府的人，是否威胁国家安全？一个要求新闻自由的人，是否破坏社会稳定？一个坚持独立宗教信仰的人，是否属于“危险组织”？一个拒绝保持沉默的人，是否就是所谓的“敌对势力”？
在民主制度之下，这些问题至少可以被公开讨论，可以通过法律、媒体和社会监督进行限制。而在一个缺乏权力制约的体制中，“国家安全”却可能成为一只无限伸长的手。它可以进入媒体，进入学校，进入宗教场所，进入互联网，甚至进入每一个普通人的私人生活。
最终，人们发现，自己也许获得了一个看似“稳定”的社会，却失去了一个能够自由呼吸的社会。
二、真正可怕的，不只是恐怖主义，还有“以安全之名”的无限权力。
“9•11”之后，美国也曾经因为反恐而扩大政府权力。机场安检更加严格，情报机构获得更多资源，政府加强了反恐体系。与此同时，美国社会内部也出现了巨大的争论：为了反恐，政府究竟可以走多远？至今，这些争论仍然存在。
但正是这种争论本身，体现了自由社会的重要价值。政府并不是永远正确的，总统不是永远正确的，情报机构不是永远正确的，甚至所谓的“国家利益”，也并非不能被质疑。
民主社会最宝贵的地方，并不是它从不犯错误，而是它允许人们指出错误：媒体可以调查政府，律师可以挑战政府，法院可以限制政府，普通公民可以批评政府，选民可以通过选票更换政府。这意味着，任何以“安全”为理由的权力，都必须接受追问。
然而，在一个权力高度集中的社会里，情况可能完全不同。那里没有真正独立的新闻媒体，没有不受政治干预的司法体系，也缺乏能够自由运作的公民社会。于是，“安全”不再是保护人民的工具，反而逐渐变成了控制人民的工具。
一个政府如果不允许人民批评它，却不断要求人民相信它；如果不允许社会监督它，却要求社会绝对服从它；如果把不同意见都视为威胁，那么它真正害怕的，也许并不是“危险”，而是人民拥有独立思考的能力。
三、“稳定”究竟是谁的稳定？
在中国政治语境中，“稳定”是一个被反复强调的词。没有人反对稳定。没有人希望战争、暴力和社会混乱。但是，我们必须追问：稳定究竟意味着什么？
如果一个社会没有公开的抗议，是因为所有人都满意吗？还是因为人们知道表达不满可能付出沉重的代价？如果一个国家的媒体每天都在歌颂繁荣，是因为没有问题存在吗？还是因为报道问题的人无法自由发声？如果人们在公共场合不讨论政治，是因为他们不关心国家的未来吗？还是因为他们知道，有些话不能说？
一个社会表面的安静，并不一定代表真正的和平。沉默也并不等于认同。历史上许多看似“稳定”的政权，在表面之下都积累着巨大的矛盾。由于缺乏公开表达和制度性的解决渠道，问题无法被及时发现，也无法被及时解决。最终，当压力突破临界点时，所谓的稳定可能在一夜之间瓦解。
真正健康的社会，不是没有声音，而是允许各种声音存在。真正牢固的稳定，也不是依靠恐惧和压制，而是建立在公平、法治、尊重和公民权利之上。
四、极权最害怕的，也许不是敌人，而是自由的人。
一个真正自由的人，会思考，会怀疑，会提出问题，会要求权力解释自己的行为。因此，任何希望实现全面控制的权力，都必然对独立的个人保持警惕。它希望人们只接受一种声音，希望媒体只传播一种叙事，希望学校只教授一种历史，希望人民只有一种爱国方式。当一个国家只能存在一种正确的思想时，思想本身其实已经死亡。
一个健康的国家，不应该害怕不同意见。恰恰相反，不同意见可以帮助一个国家发现自身的问题。批评并不等于背叛；反对政府并不等于反对国家；要求民主并不等于破坏稳定；维护人权更不应该被视为敌对行为。
国家属于人民，而不是属于某一个政党。政府应该服务人民，而不是要求人民无条件地服从政府。
这么一个看似简单的常识，在许多国家却仍然需要不断普及。
五、9•11之后，我们更应该珍惜自由
二十五年过去，世界并没有变得更加安全。战争仍然存在，极端主义仍然存在，新的冲突不断出现。
与此同时，人工智能、大数据、人脸识别和数字监控等新技术，也使政府拥有了前所未有的社会管理能力。
技术本身并没有善恶。问题在于：谁掌握技术？谁监督掌握技术的人？如果没有权力制约，那么原本用于保护社会的技术，同样可能成为监控社会的工具。
一个人去了哪里，见了谁，说了什么，读了什么，甚至表达过什么样的政治观点，都可能被记录、分析和保存。 当一个社会逐渐习惯“被看见”，它最终可能忘记什么是真正的私人空间。当人们因为担心后果而开始自我审查，权力甚至不再需要直接禁止什么。因为恐惧已经进入了每个人的内心。这或许是现代社会最值得警惕的危险之一。
六、纪念9•11，是为了拒绝恐惧统治我们的生活
“9•11”是一场恐怖主义制造的灾难。但是，如果二十五年之后，我们仍然没有理解恐惧与权力之间的关系，那么我们对这场灾难的纪念就仍然不够完整。
恐怖主义试图用暴力让人们失去安全感。而任何不受制约的权力，也可能利用这种不安全感，让人们主动交出自由。因此，我们必须始终保持警惕。面对恐怖主义，我们当然需要安全。面对战争和犯罪，我们当然需要秩序。但是，安全不能成为无限权力的通行证，稳定不能成为压制自由的理由，国家利益也不能成为侵犯人权的借口。
任何政府，无论它拥有多么崇高的口号，都必须受到监督。任何权力，无论它以什么名义出现，都必须存在边界。因为历史一再告诉我们：当人民为了安全而完全放弃自由时，最终可能既失去自由，也未必真正获得安全。
二十五年后的今天，当我们再次纪念“9•11”，不只是纪念那些无辜逝去的生命，也是在纪念人类在灾难面前所表现出的勇气。
更重要的是，我们应该重新确认一个简单而坚定的信念：恐惧不能成为奴役自由的理由。稳定不能成为剥夺权利的借口。国家不能高于人民，权力更不能高于法律。
一个真正强大的国家，不是让人民害怕它的政府。而是让人民相信：即使面临危险，他们依然拥有说话的权利；即使批评政府，他们依然能够受到法律保护；即使面对强权，他们依然不必放弃作为一个人的尊严。
这，或许才是“9•11”留给二十一世纪最重要的政治启示。
愿逝者安息。愿恐惧不再成为权力扩张的借口。愿自由与尊严，永远不会在人类追求安全的过程中被遗忘。
七、对于中国人而言，“自由”从来不是遥远的话题
今天，当我们在美国纪念“9•11”时，对于许多来自中国的海外人士而言，这场灾难所引发的关于自由、安全与权力的讨论，并非遥远的政治话题。因为我们曾经生活在一个将“稳定”置于极其重要位置的社会。
我们理解秩序的重要，也理解国家安全的意义。但是，正因为如此，我们更应该警惕：当“安全”“稳定”成为不可质疑的政治语言时，普通人的自由究竟还剩下多少空间？
一个国家可以强大，但强大不能成为拒绝监督的理由。一个政府可以强调安全，但安全不应成为限制自由的借口。一个政党可以长期执政，但长期执政也不意味着永远正确。真正的国家认同，不应建立在对某个政党无条件的服从之上。
中国是中国人民的中国，而不是任何一个政治集团的私有财产。爱自己的国家，也不意味着必须赞美所有的政府政策。批评执政者，并不等于背叛民族。要求民主、自由、人权与法治，也绝不是所谓“敌对势力”的阴谋。恰恰相反，一个真正关心中国未来的人，应该有勇气面对现实，指出问题，并为改变问题而努力。
八、“在野”的意义：让不同的声音继续存在
《在野党》杂志的存在，本身就是一种声音。“在野”并不意味着为了反对而反对，更不意味着制造仇恨。
真正的“在野”，意味着在主流权力之外，依然有人愿意思考、质疑和发声。当一种声音试图垄断真理时，“在野”的声音提醒人们：真理不应该由权力垄断。当批评被视为危险时，“在野”的声音提醒人们：批评是社会进步不可缺少的力量。当人们被要求保持沉默时，“在野”的声音告诉人们：沉默并不是唯一的选择。民主社会之所以能够保持活力，正是因为它允许“在野”。有执政者，也有反对者；有多数意见，也有少数声音；有权力，也有监督。
没有永远正确的政府，也没有不需要监督的权力。一个真正成熟的国家，不应该害怕反对派。恰恰相反，敢于允许不同政治力量公开竞争，才是一个国家政治成熟的重要标志。
九、海外中国人的责任：不仅仅是离开，更是记住
对于生活在海外的中国人来说，离开一个熟悉的环境，也许意味着获得新的生活。但自由从来不应该只是个人的幸运。当我们生活在一个可以自由阅读、自由讨论、自由批评政府的社会时，我们更应该理解，这些权利并非从天而降。它们来自无数人的争取，也来自一代又一代人对于权力的监督。因此，海外中国人的责任，也不仅仅是过好自己的生活。
我们可以有不同的政治观点，可以选择不同的行动方式，甚至可以对未来持有不同的判断。但至少，我们不应该忘记：在世界上仍然有许多人，因为表达自己的观点而受到压制；因为坚持自己的信仰而失去自由；因为追求民主和人权而被迫离开故乡。海外的意义，或许正在于此。
当一个人摆脱了恐惧，他便有机会重新学习如何自由地思考。而当越来越多的人愿意独立思考、公开讨论，并且尊重与自己不同的观点时，自由的种子便不会轻易消失。
结语：不要让恐惧成为我们的主人
二十五年前，恐怖分子用飞机撞向了纽约最具象征意义的建筑之一。它试图摧毁的不只是钢筋水泥，更是人们对于安全与未来的信心。
二十五年之后，我们再次回望“9•11”，也应该问自己：面对恐惧，我们是否愿意放弃自由？面对强权，我们是否还敢提出问题？面对不公，我们是否愿意保持发声？
历史告诉我们，任何自由都可能失去。当人们因为恐惧而放弃发声，当社会因为所谓的“稳定”而拒绝不同意见，当权力不再受到监督，自由便会一点一点地消失。这也是为什么我们需要媒体，需要独立思想，需要公民社会，更需要不同政治力量的存在。
“在野”不是为了制造分裂，而是为了防止权力失去制衡。反对并不等于仇恨，批评也并不意味着背叛。
一个国家真正的未来，不属于那些要求人民永远沉默的人，而属于那些即使面对压力，依然相信自由、坚持真相、守护人的尊严的人。
纪念“9•11”，是为了纪念逝者。也是为了提醒生者：不要因为恐惧而交出自由，不要因为强权而放弃思考，不要因为现实艰难而放弃对民主的期待。对于每一个仍然关心中国未来的人来说，这或许正是我们继续发声、继续思考、继续坚持的意义。因为自由不会自动到来。民主也不会从天而降。它需要有人记住，有人传播，有人争取。
而这，也许正是“在野”的真正意义。
编辑：胡景 校对：周敏 翻译：戈冰
When “Security” Becomes the Justification for Power
—Reflecting on Freedom and Totalitarianism on the 25th Anniversary of the “9/11” Terrorist Attacks
By Jia Jia
Abstract: Commemorating the September 11 terrorist attacks allows us to reflect on today’s world—particularly China—and how, while fighting terrorism, to limit the unchecked expansion and abuse of public power that erodes individual freedom. When individual freedom is severely eroded, it is precisely when a new form of totalitarianism emerges. The purpose of the state’s existence is to protect individual freedom, not to restrict it.
On September 11, 2001, the world changed.
On that day, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, USA, collapsed in a terrorist attack, and nearly three thousand vibrant human lives vanished instantly. The raging flames, billowing smoke, and images of people fleeing in panic were broadcast around the globe via television signals.
Twenty-five years have passed, yet people still cannot forget that morning.
Commemorating “9/11” is, first and foremost, to remember those innocent victims. But if commemoration remains confined to flowers, tears, and slogans, then the lessons history has taught us may be forgotten.
In the aftermath of “9/11,” what the world faced was not merely terrorism, but a more complex and profound question: When a society continuously pursues security out of fear, how much freedom are we truly willing to sacrifice for that security?
This is a problem that belongs to the United States, it is a problem that belongs to China, and it is even more so a problem that belongs to everyone living in modern political systems.
I. Terrorism Manufactures Fear; Power May Utilize Fear
The most direct goal of terrorism is to cause death, but its deeper purpose is to manufacture fear. Fear can alter human behavior.
A person afraid of war may be willing to accept greater military control; a person afraid of crime may be willing to accept ubiquitous surveillance; a person afraid of social unrest may even be willing to surrender the right to express an opinion.
Thus, “security” becomes one of the reasons by which political power most easily gains legitimacy. “For national security.” “For social stability.” “To prevent sabotage by hostile forces.” We are all too familiar with these phrases.
The problem lies in this: when “security” becomes an infinitely elastic concept, what exactly is left that cannot be subsumed under its scope? Does a person who criticizes the government threaten national security? Does a person who demands freedom of the press undermine social stability? Does a person who persists in an independent religious faith belong to a “dangerous organization”? Does a person who refuses to keep silent constitute a so-called “hostile force”?
Under a democratic system, these issues can at least be publicly debated, and can be constrained through the law, the media, and societal oversight. Yet in a system that lacks checks on power, “national security” can become an infinitely extending hand. It can reach into the media, reach into schools, reach into places of worship, reach into the internet, and even reach into the private lives of every ordinary individual.
In the end, people discover that while they may have gained a society that appears “stable,” they have lost a society in which they can breathe freely.
II. What Is Truly Terrifying Is Not Merely Terrorism, but Unlimited Power “in the Name of Security”
In the aftermath of “9/11,” the United States also expanded government power in the name of counterterrorism. Airport security checkpoints became stricter, intelligence agencies were granted more resources, and the government strengthened its counterterrorism framework. Simultaneously, fierce debate erupted within American society: how far, exactly, can the government go for the sake of counterterrorism? To this day, these debates endure.
Yet it is precisely this debate itself that embodies the key value of a free society. The government is not always correct, the president is not always correct, the intelligence agencies are not always correct, and even the so-called “national interest” is by no means immune to challenge.
The most precious aspect of a democratic society is not that it never makes mistakes, but that it allows people to point those mistakes out: the media can investigate the government, lawyers can challenge the government, the courts can limit the government, ordinary citizens can criticize the government, and voters can change the government through the ballot box. This means that any power exercised under the rationale of “security” must submit to scrutiny.
However, in a society where power is highly concentrated, the situation can be entirely different. There, no genuinely independent news media exists, no judicial system free from political interference exists, and a civil society capable of operating freely is lacking. Consequently, “security” ceases to be a tool for protecting the people and instead gradually turns into a tool for controlling the people.
If a government does not allow the people to criticize it, yet constantly demands that the people trust it; if it does not allow society to exercise oversight over it, yet demands that society yield absolute obedience to it; if it regards differing opinions as threats, then what it truly fears may not be “danger,” but rather the people possessing the capacity for independent thought.
III. Whose “Stability” Is It, After All?
In the Chinese political discourse, “stability” is a repeatedly emphasized term. No one opposes stability. No one desires war, violence, or social chaos. However, we must press the question: what does stability actually signify?
If a society experiences no public protest, is it because everyone is satisfied? Or is it because people know that expressing dissatisfaction can carry a heavy price? If a country’s media sings praises of prosperity every day, is it because no problems exist? Or is it because those who report on problems cannot speak out freely? If people do not discuss politics in public spaces, is it because they do not care about the country’s future? Or is it because they know that certain things must not be said?
Superficial quietness in a society does not necessarily represent true peace. Silence, too, is not equivalent to consent. Throughout history, many regimes that appeared “stable” accumulated immense underlying contradictions beneath the surface. Due to the lack of open expression and institutional channels for resolution, problems could neither be identified in time nor resolved in time. In the end, when the pressure breaks through the critical threshold, so-called stability can crumble overnight.
A genuinely healthy society is not one devoid of voices, but one that allows all kinds of voices to exist. Truly solid stability is likewise not built on fear and suppression, but founded upon fairness, the rule of law, respect, and civil rights.
IV. What Totalitarianism Fears Most May Not Be Enemies, but Free Individuals
A truly free person will think, will doubt, will raise questions, and will demand that power account for its actions. Therefore, any power seeking to achieve total control must inevitably remain vigilant against independent individuals. It wants people to accept only one voice, wants the media to disseminate only one narrative, wants schools to teach only one history, and wants the populace to practice only one form of patriotism. When a country can tolerate only one correct ideology, thought itself has, in truth, already died.
A healthy country should not fear dissenting opinions. On the contrary, dissenting opinions can help a country uncover its own flaws. Criticism is not equivalent to betrayal; opposing the government is not equivalent to opposing the nation; demanding democracy is not equivalent to undermining stability; and defending human rights should be deemed a hostile act least of all.
The nation belongs to the people, not to any single political party. The government should serve the people, rather than demand unconditional obedience from them.
A piece of common sense that appears so self-evident still constantly needs to be popularized in many countries.
V. After 9/11, We Ought to Treasure Freedom All the More
Twenty-five years have elapsed, yet the world has not grown any safer. Wars persist, extremism persists, and new conflicts continually surface.
At the same time, new technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data, facial recognition, and digital surveillance have granted governments unprecedented capacity for social control.
Technology itself possesses neither good nor evil. The question lies in: who holds the technology? Who oversees those who hold the technology? Lacking checks on power, technology originally intended to protect society can just as easily turn into a tool for monitoring society.
Where a person went, whom they met, what they said, what they read, or even what political views they expressed can all be recorded, analyzed, and stored. When a society gradually grows accustomed to being “watched,” it may eventually forget what true private space is. When people begin to self-censor out of fear of repercussions, power no longer even needs to explicitly prohibit anything. For fear has already entered everyone’s heart. This is perhaps one of the dangers in modern society most worthy of vigilance.
VI. Commemorating 9/11 Is to Refuse to Let Fear Govern Our Lives
“9/11” was a catastrophe engineered by terrorism. However, if twenty-five years later we still fail to grasp the relationship between fear and power, then our commemoration of this tragedy remains far from complete.
Terrorism attempts to strip away people’s sense of security through violence. At the same time, any unchecked power may exploit this insecurity to induce people to voluntarily surrender their freedom. Therefore, we must remain vigilant at all times. In the face of terrorism, we certainly require security. In the face of war and crime, we certainly require order. However, security cannot become a blank check for unlimited power, stability cannot become a pretext for suppressing freedom, and national interests cannot become an excuse for violating human rights.
Any government, no matter how noble its slogans may be, must be subject to oversight. Any power, no matter what name it assumes, must have boundaries. For history has told us time and again: when the people completely abandon freedom for the sake of security, they may ultimately lose both freedom and fail to truly attain security.
Today, twenty-five years later, when we commemorate “9/11” once more, we do so not only to remember the innocent lives that were lost, but also to honor the courage demonstrated by humanity in the face of disaster.
More importantly, we ought to reaffirm a simple yet firm conviction: fear cannot become a justification for enslaving freedom. Stability cannot become an excuse for stripping away rights. The state cannot stand above the people, and power can least of all stand above the law.
A genuinely powerful country does not make its people fear its government. Rather, it makes its people trust that: even when facing danger, they still retain the right to speak; even when criticizing the government, they remain protected by the law; even when confronting tyrannical power, they need not relinquish their dignity as human beings.
This, perhaps, is the most vital political insight that “9/11” leaves behind for the twenty-first century.
May the deceased rest in peace. May fear no longer serve as a pretext for the expansion of power. May freedom and dignity never be forgotten in humanity’s pursuit of security.
VII. For Chinese People, “Freedom” Has Never Been a Distant Topic
Today, as we commemorate “9/11” in the United States, for many overseas individuals from China, the discussion concerning freedom, security, and power sparked by this catastrophe is by no means a distant political topic. For we once lived in a society that placed “stability” in a position of paramount importance.
We understand the importance of order, and we understand the significance of national security. Yet precisely because of this, we ought to be all the more vigilant: when “security” and “stability” become unquestionable political shorthand, how much room actually remains for the freedom of ordinary people?
A state can be powerful, but power cannot serve as a reason to refuse oversight. A government can emphasize security, but security should not serve as a pretext to restrict freedom. A political party can govern for a long term, but long-term governance does not imply being forever in the right. Genuine national identity should not be built upon unconditional obedience to any single political party.
China belongs to the Chinese people; it is not the private property of any political group. Loving one’s country does not mean one must praise every government policy. Criticizing the ruling authorities does not equal betraying the nation. Demanding democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law is by no means a conspiracy by so-called “hostile forces.” On the contrary, a person who truly cares about China’s future should possess the courage to face reality, point out problems, and strive to change them.
VIII. The Significance of Being “In Opposition”: Allowing Different Voices to Persist
The existence of Opposition Party magazine is itself a voice. Being “in opposition” does not mean opposing merely for the sake of opposition, much less generating hatred.
Genuine opposition means that outside mainstream power, there remain people willing to think, question, and speak out. When one voice attempts to monopolize truth, the voice of the opposition reminds people: truth should not be monopolized by power. When criticism is deemed dangerous, the voice of the opposition reminds people: criticism is an indispensable force for social progress. When people are required to remain silent, the voice of the opposition tells people: silence is not the only choice. The reason a democratic society can maintain its vitality is precisely that it permits opposition. There are those who govern, and there are those who oppose; there are majority opinions, and there are minority voices; there is power, and there is oversight.
There is no government that is forever right, nor is there power that needs no supervision. A genuinely mature state should not fear opposition. On the contrary, daring to allow different political forces to compete openly is the true sign of a nation’s political maturity.
IX. The Responsibility of Overseas Chinese: Not Merely Leaving, but Remembering
For Chinese people living overseas, leaving a familiar environment may mean gaining a new life. But freedom should never be merely a matter of personal good fortune. Living in a society where we can freely read, freely discuss, and freely criticize the government, we ought to understand all the more that these rights did not fall from the sky. They stem from the struggles of countless individuals and the oversight of power across generations. Therefore, the responsibility of overseas Chinese is not merely to live their own lives well.
We can hold different political views, choose different courses of action, and even maintain different judgments about the future. But at the very least, we should not forget: in this world, there are still many people who are suppressed for expressing their views, who lose their freedom for persisting in their beliefs, and who are forced to leave their homelands for pursuing democracy and human rights. Perhaps herein lies the significance of being overseas.
When a person breaks free from fear, they gain the opportunity to relearn how to think freely. And when more and more people are willing to think independently, discuss openly, and respect views different from their own, the seeds of freedom will not easily vanish.
Conclusion: Do Not Let Fear Become Our Master
Twenty-five years ago, terrorists flew airplanes into one of New York’s most symbolic structures. What they attempted to destroy was not merely steel and concrete, but humanity’s confidence in security and the future.
Twenty-five years later, as we look back on “9/11” once more, we should also ask ourselves: in the face of fear, are we willing to surrender freedom? In the face of tyrannical power, do we still dare to raise questions? In the face of injustice, are we willing to keep speaking out?
History teaches us that any freedom can be lost. When people give up speaking out due to fear, when society rejects dissenting opinions for the sake of so-called “stability,” and when power is no longer subject to oversight, freedom disappears bit by bit. This is precisely why we need the media, independent thought, civil society, and above all, the presence of different political forces.
Being “in opposition” is not meant to create division, but to prevent power from losing checks and balances. Opposition is not equivalent to hatred, nor does criticism signify betrayal.
The true future of a country does not belong to those who demand that the people remain forever silent; it belongs to those who, even under pressure, still believe in freedom, uphold the truth, and safeguard human dignity.
Commemorating “9/11” is to remember the deceased. It is also to remind the living: do not hand over freedom out of fear, do not abandon thinking in the face of power, and do not lose faith in democracy because reality is difficult. For everyone who still cares about China’s future, this perhaps is the very meaning of continuing to speak out, to think, and to persevere. For freedom does not arrive automatically. Nor does democracy fall from the sky. It requires people to remember it, to spread it, and to strive for it.
And this, perhaps, is the true meaning of being “in opposition.”
Editor: Hu Jing Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing
