身着黑色“Stand with Hong Kong”党员李艺在总结发言中动情展望了未来。她强调，民主事业从来不是一代人就能够完成的使命，而是一场需要薪火相传、代代接续的长期奋斗。正因为如此，青年一代的觉醒与参与，决定着未来中国能否真正走向自由、法治与宪政民主。她特别鼓励年轻人勇敢接过追求民主与宪政的接力棒，不论身处世界任何角落，都不要放弃对自由、人权与尊严的向往，更不要因为现实的压力而选择沉默与遗忘。她呼吁身处自由世界的年轻一代珍惜自由社会所赋予的权利与空间，通过学习、交流与行动，将民主、人权与法治的理念不断传播下去，让更多人理解自由的价值，并为未来中国的和平转型积蓄力量。
The Hawaii Chapter of the China Democratic Party Holds a Commemoration for the 37th Anniversary of “June 4th”
Contributor: Meng Jiahhu
Abstract: On May 30, 2026, on the eve of the 37th anniversary of “June 4th,” the Hawaii Chapter of the China Democratic Party held a commemoration at Chinatown Cultural Plaza in Honolulu. Through moments of silence, speeches, and the distribution of leaflets, attendees paid tribute to the victims of the June 4th incident and expressed their commitment to the values of democracy, freedom, and human rights.
On May 30, 2026, as the 37th anniversary of the June 4th Tiananmen Square incident approached, the Hawaii Chapter of the China Democratic Party held a solemn commemorative event at Chinatown Cultural Plaza in Honolulu. Party members and their families gathered under Hawaii’s warm sunshine. Through impassioned speeches and the distribution of leaflets, they collectively honored the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for democracy and freedom, conveying the unquenchable flame of liberty to the international community.
Before the event began, all attendees stood solemnly before the Sun Yat-sen statue at the Cultural Plaza, holding aloft a white banner reading “Commemorating the 37th Anniversary of June 4th,” and observed a minute of silence in memory of the victims of the June 4th incident.
All attendees observe a minute of silence for the victims of the June 4th incident
During the event, four representatives delivered inspiring speeches. Zhang Xiaoju, Deputy Secretary-General of the Bay Area Party Branch, wearing a black T-shirt emblazoned with “Never Forget June 4th,” spoke with conviction: “For 37 years, the Chinese Communist regime has gone to great lengths to erase that blood-stained history. But history will not be severed by suppression, nor will the truth be obliterated by silence!” He pointed out that neither the tight media blackout, nor the brutal suppression of eyewitnesses, nor the “brainwashing” education aimed at making the younger generation forget, can stop people’s yearning for freedom, dignity, and justice.
Zhang Xiaoju specifically mentioned that the Hong Kong Alliance’s decades-long steadfast commitment had made the candlelight vigil at Victoria Park an eternal memory and a symbol of resistance in the Chinese world. However, with the implementation of Hong Kong’s National Security Law, the Alliance was forced to disband, and figures such as Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung have been imprisoned. This massive upheaval has made it even clearer to the world that not only has the June 4th incident not been vindicated, but the space for Hong Kong within the free world has been further eroded—a cruel reality. He urged: “Today, our persistence in commemorating ‘June 4th’ is not only about safeguarding historical truth, but also about defending the baseline of human civilization and conscience! Only by remembering the pain and facing history head-on can Chinese society achieve reconciliation and progress, and only then can China truly move toward constitutional democracy!” After his speech, he led the attendees in chanting:
Never forget the June 4th massacre, end one-party dictatorship! Never Forget, Never Forgive!
Zhang Xiaoju distributes June 4th informational leaflets to passersby
Wang Lihua, Deputy Director of the Hawaii Chapter, analyzed the current international geopolitical landscape. He pointed out that following the “June 4th” massacre, China has not only failed to offer any apology or expression of remorse to the victims and their families, but 37 years later, the regime has become even more authoritarian, with the suppression of human rights and freedoms growing increasingly systematic and comprehensive. The only difference is that the high-pressure rule of that era has now been compounded by high-tech digital totalitarian measures such as big data surveillance, facial recognition, internet censorship, and AI tracking, bringing social control to an unprecedented level.
Wang Lihua stated that to this day, China remains one of the countries with the most severe human rights situations in the world, with large numbers of dissidents, human rights lawyers, religious groups, and ethnic minorities continuing to face suppression. However, he also emphasized that the course of history never remains forever in darkness. The tide of democracy may ebb and flow, and the path toward freedom, human rights, and universal values may be fraught with difficulties, but humanity’s yearning for dignity and justice is ultimately unstoppable. He called upon compatriots both at home and abroad—especially democrats facing oppression and adversity—to strengthen their resolve, support one another, and continue speaking out for truth, freedom, and the democratization of China’s future!
Lü Bin, a member of the Hawaii Party branch, noted in his remarks that against a backdrop of intensifying social stability maintenance measures and the ever-expanding reach of digital surveillance, freedom of speech, freedom of religious belief, and basic civil rights continue to be suppressed, and many dissidents and rights advocates remain in dire straits. He called on the international community to not only focus on economic cooperation and trade relations but also to maintain continuous attention and oversight regarding human rights issues. He urged the community to take concrete actions to promote the implementation of fundamental human rights protections, ensuring that freedom and dignity become the common bottom line upheld by the international community.
Party member Li Yi, wearing a black “Stand with Hong Kong” shirt, offered an emotional outlook on the future in her concluding remarks. She emphasized that the cause of democracy is never a mission that can be accomplished by a single generation, but rather a long-term struggle that requires the torch to be passed down and carried forward from one generation to the next. Precisely for this reason, the awakening and participation of the younger generation will determine whether China can truly move toward freedom, the rule of law, and constitutional democracy in the future. She particularly encouraged young people to bravely take up the baton of pursuing democracy and constitutional governance. No matter where they are in the world, she urged them not to abandon their aspirations for freedom, human rights, and dignity, and certainly not to choose silence and oblivion because of the pressures of reality. She called on the younger generation in the free world to cherish the rights and space afforded by a free society, and through learning, exchange, and action, to continuously spread the ideals of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, so that more people may understand the value of freedom and build momentum for a peaceful transition in China’s future.
To help more international friends understand this history, participants actively distributed carefully prepared English-language leaflets to passersby at the scene. The leaflets provided a detailed account of the timeline, background, and far-reaching impact of the June 4th incident; many tourists stopped to read them and engage in conversation with the members.
Meng Jiahhu, Director of the Hawaii Chapter of the China Democratic Party, reaffirmed the chapter’s commitment to advancing China’s democratization process until justice is ultimately realized and glory is restored to the people.
Amid a passionate and stirring atmosphere, the event concluded successfully with a march around Cultural Square led by Wang Lihua, Deputy Director of the Hawaii Chapter.
Event Participants: Wang Lihua, Zhang Xiaoju, Meng Jiahu, Li Yi, Lü Bin, Wu Xiong, Long Junhong, Que Meijiao
Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing
First, I would like to thank Sister Sheng Xue for everything she has done for Dong Guangping, and I stand in solidarity with Mr. Dong Guangping!
In 2026, a piece of news once again pierced the hearts of countless people.
Dong Guangping, a 68-year-old recipient of the 13th Oscar Freedom and Human Rights Award, boarded a makeshift rubber dinghy and drifted for more than 30 hours across the vast ocean, traversing over 300 kilometers before finally reaching the coast of Taean, South Korea.
While people his age were strolling in parks, doting on their grandchildren, and enjoying the joys of family life, this septuagenarian staked his life against the raging waves, all for the sake of two words: freedom.
This was not an adventure, nor was it an attempt to “smuggle across the border for profit.” It was a tragic escape driven to the brink by an authoritarian regime.
Dong Guangping is no ordinary man. For his steadfast pursuit of freedom and human rights, he has long suffered brutal repression at the hands of the Chinese Communist authorities: he has been detained, placed under surveillance, and repeatedly summoned for questioning, his normal life completely stripped away. Even so, the authorities refuse to leave him alone. In the eyes of a totalitarian regime, anyone who dares to speak the truth is a threat that must be eliminated.
He lived in constant fear: his phone was tapped, friends vanished without a trace, the door could be knocked on at any moment in the dead of night, and he never knew when he might be thrown back into prison. Day after day, year after year, this fear tightened around his throat like invisible shackles.
He finally realized: a land without freedom, no matter how prosperous, is merely a larger cage; a life without dignity, no matter how “stable,” is nothing but a slow execution.
And so, at the age of 68, he made a decision—to flee.
He knew full well: a rubber dinghy is as fragile as a falling leaf in the face of the ocean; giant waves in the dark of night could swallow him at any moment; after more than thirty hours adrift, his strength could give out at any moment; the odds of death were extremely high.
Yet he set out without hesitation.
For him, remaining on that land was more terrifying than death itself.
What truly shook the world was not merely the escape itself, but the fact that a man nearing seventy still harbored an almost obsessive longing for freedom. What does this tell us?
Freedom is human nature.
No matter how much totalitarianism brainwashes people, blocks information, or instills terror, it cannot completely extinguish the deep-seated yearning for freedom in the human soul. If a 68-year-old man is willing to risk his life, how could young people truly accept being locked in a cage forever?
Dong Guangping’s rubber dinghy was small, yet it carried the last shred of dignity for a Chinese man. It was not an ordinary voyage, but a desperate, last-ditch struggle by an elderly man, rowing toward the light with all his remaining strength. It tore through the darkness, sending a cry to the world:
In today’s China, there are still those who would rather die than yield; there are still those who value freedom more than life itself; there are still those who are denouncing that system through their actions—
What truly drives people to despair is never poverty, but the lack of freedom; what truly compels people to flee at the risk of their lives is never their homeland, but oppression.
When a 68-year-old man drifts for more than thirty hours on the bone-chilling open sea, solely to escape dictatorship, this in itself is the heaviest, most ruthless indictment of that regime.
Dong Guangping succeeded. Through his actions, he tells us: no matter how dark the night, it cannot stop a heart yearning for dawn.
So, when a 68-year-old man is willing to risk his life for freedom, how should we—who still have a voice and the ability to act—confront the cowardice within our own hearts?
Editor: Zhang Yu Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing
Are the Chinese People Still Slaves to the Chinese Communist Party?
—Written on the Eve of the 37th Anniversary of “June 4th”
Author: Lu Qiankun, Vice Chairman of the Southern U.S. Branch of the China Democratic Party
Living overseas these past years, people often ask me, “Are the Chinese people slaves to the Chinese Communist Party?” Every time I hear this question, it pains me deeply. Because when I think about it carefully, although the statement is harsh, it is not entirely without basis. In many ways, the Chinese people do indeed seem to be under the long-term control of a massive and ruthless political machine, living without dignity, without a sense of security, and without true freedom.
The Chinese are among the hardest-working and most resilient people in the world. Countless Chinese work tirelessly from dawn to dusk, scrimping and saving their entire lives, all to provide their families with a stable life. Yet why, even today, do so many Chinese still live with such a heavy burden and such deep oppression? Why is it that an ordinary Chinese person, even after decades of hard work, still dares not speak the truth, dares not openly express their thoughts, and dares not truly possess an independent personality?
The reason is actually not complicated. It is because the Chinese people have never been the true masters of this country. The entity that truly controls this country is the Chinese Communist Party. And the CCP has never been a modern political party in the conventional sense; it is more like a totalitarian interest group built on violence, lies, and fear.
To this day, many people still fail to truly see the true nature of the CCP. From its very inception, it has been steeped in the characteristics of thuggish politics. It seized power through the barrel of a gun, fomented hatred through class struggle, and maintains its rule by constantly instilling fear. One thing it excels at is holding the entire nation hostage, only to then tell the people: “Without the Communist Party, China would descend into chaos.”
This logic is, in essence, no different from that of a kidnapper. A kidnapper points a gun at a hostage’s head and says, “Without my protection, you will die”; the CCP, meanwhile, has long used the slogan “stability trumps all” to trap 1.4 billion Chinese people in a massive political cage.
For decades, the Chinese people have in fact lived in a state of being controlled, managed, and exploited. The Communist Party controls land, the media, education, the judiciary, the internet, and the financial system—and even attempts to control people’s minds. Starting in elementary school, Chinese children are indoctrinated with so-called “love-the-Party education.” The Party deliberately conflates “the nation,” “the people,” and “the Party,” as if opposing the Communist Party were tantamount to opposing China itself.
But the question is: When has the Communist Party ever truly represented the Chinese people?
Do the Chinese people have the right to freely elect their government? Do they have the right to openly criticize the government? Do they have the right to determine the future direction of the nation? Everyone knows the answer.
Ordinary Chinese people can only live cautiously within this system. They study desperately as children, work tirelessly as adults, and then shoulder decades of mortgage debt. Many young people appear to live in big cities filled with skyscrapers, but in reality, they are like screws trapped in a massive machine, never daring to stop. A single instance of unemployment, illness, or an economic crisis can cause an ordinary family’s years of savings to collapse in an instant.
What is even more tragic is that many Chinese people have grown accustomed to this state of affairs. The first thing many parents teach their children from a young age is not “be a person of dignity,” but “never cross the government.” What this reflects, in reality, is the deep-seated fear instilled in an entire society by decades of oppressive rule.
The most insidious aspect of the Chinese Communist Party lies in the fact that while it oppresses the people, it constantly lulls them into complacency with slogans like “national rejuvenation” and “national strength.” It shouts “the people come first” day in and day out, yet those who truly enjoy privileges are always the so-called “Zhao family.”
Ordinary people work themselves to the bone, earning a few thousand yuan a month, while struggling with mortgage payments, tuition fees, and medical bills; while the red elite who hold power have long since transferred their families, assets, and wealth to Western countries. They shout “patriotism” on one hand, while on the other, they ensure their children hold foreign passports, live in mansions, and attend the world’s best schools.
It is always the ordinary Chinese people who remain in China, bearing the brunt of sky-high housing prices, high unemployment rates, and oppressive rule.
What is even more outrageous is that the wealth painstakingly created by the Chinese people has not truly been used for the benefit of the Chinese people themselves. In recent years, one of the CCP’s favorite pastimes has been to take the Chinese people’s money and “splash it around” all over the world. It provides massive aid to foreign governments, helps build infrastructure in other countries, and grants foreign students preferential treatment—often spending tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars at a time.
Yet at the same time, countless people within China are struggling to survive.
Many elderly people in rural areas receive only 100 to 200 yuan a month in pension; many ordinary families are instantly reduced to poverty by a single serious illness; a large number of young people face unemployment immediately after graduation; and countless ordinary people who worked their entire lives to buy a home end up with a construction project that never gets completed.
The Chinese people clearly live in what is called the “world’s second-largest economy,” yet they still lack a basic sense of security.
A truly great nation is not defined by the height of its skyscrapers, the speed of its high-speed trains, or the number of its warships. A truly great nation is one where people can live with dignity, freely express their thoughts, and no longer live in fear of authority.
Yet today’s China increasingly resembles a vast, tightly monitored space. From subway surveillance cameras to real-name registration for mobile phones, from internet censorship to facial recognition, society as a whole is being enveloped layer by layer by technology and power. Many Chinese people are forced to live as two separate personas: their true selves, and the version of themselves that is “permitted to exist.”
“June 4th” stands as the bloodiest testament to this system.
In 1989, tens of thousands of students and Beijing residents took to the streets. They protested corruption, demanded freedom and democracy, and hoped for a better China. They were not rioters; they simply hoped that China would not be ruled forever by a clique of red oligarchs.
But in the end, the Chinese Communist Party answered them with tanks and machine guns.
Thirty-seven years have passed, yet to this day, the CCP still dares not speak openly about “June 4th.” Because “June 4th” is a blood debt this regime can never wash away. It proves one thing: what the Communist Party fears most has never been foreign enemies, but the Chinese people themselves.
Today, more and more Chinese people are beginning to realize that the problem is not a single corrupt official or a single leader, but the system itself. From the very first day of its establishment, this system was not designed to grant freedom to the people, but to ensure the Communist Party’s eternal rule.
Within this system, the people are often merely objects to be mobilized, managed, and exploited. When economic development needs you, you are “the people”; when social stability demands your silence, you can instantly become a “foreign force.”
Therefore, China’s real problem has never been about reform or the lack thereof, but rather that this system—built upon violence, lies, and control—has already reached the end of its historical journey.
As I write these words, another anniversary of “June 4th” is approaching. Thirty-seven years have passed; if those young people who fell on Tiananmen Square back then were still alive today, they would be gray-haired.
But the one thing the Chinese Communist Party fears most has never changed.
That is: the day when the Chinese people no longer live in fear.
Because only when the people are no longer afraid will a China that truly belongs to the people—rather than to the ruling elite—ever have a chance to emerge.
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing
Another Test of the Ability to Correct Structural Issues
By Chen Shuqing
Since ancient times, China has held the view that “to know shame is nearly the same as courage”—an evaluation of acknowledging, admitting, and correcting mistakes. The saying “Though Zhou is an ancient state, its destiny lies in renewal” also speaks to the principle of reform: eliminating evils to ensure survival. In reality, however, the reason why many endeavors to advance social civilization are “easier said than done” often lies in encountering intractable “structural” issues—or, to put it bluntly, “systemic” problems tied to entrenched vested interests. In a mature and well-functioning democratic society governed by the rule of law, the promotion of benefits and the elimination of evils are achieved dynamically within a framework of overall stability. In ancient China, when wise rulers and virtuous ministers emerged, the people could unite to painstakingly accomplish this through “legal reforms” and “modernization.” but in an era of power arrogance, insatiable greed, and the collapse of social trust—a time of societal decline—a “revolution” or “regime change” with immense costs becomes the only option. Those who fail to plan ahead will face immediate troubles; therefore, we need not fear that society is imperfect, nor that individuals, organizations, or institutions might make mistakes. The establishment and maintenance of the capacity to correct errors have become one of the most important markers of social governance capability.
I recall that when I was processing my retirement eligibility and having my pensionable service years verified, I repeatedly mentioned to the social security staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau the legally binding international conventions ratified by the state. Yet, all I received was a dismissive, flippant response: “You’re getting off track!” This incident had a profound impact on me. I realized that the greatest danger to the effective implementation of the law and the construction of a government governed by the rule of law is not that law enforcement officials lack legal knowledge, but rather that they arrogantly treat the unquestionable, self-perpetuating power they have grown accustomed to in their environment as an immutable ironclad rule. The isolated administrative incident that befell me, Chen Shuqing, reveals the disconnect and inconsistency between laws, regulations, rules, and policies of varying hierarchical weight and their implementation. This is not merely a structural problem; it also involves the cognitive inertia of all staff members in government agencies. The difficulty of the task is evident: to change this situation, a fundamental improvement cannot be achieved through the clash of just one or two cases. Yet, only through continuous confrontation can there be hope for change. Because administrative bad faith has unfortunately made me a repeated victim of corrupt governance, it has also given me the opportunity to become the “egg” challenging the “hardened stone” of such corruption. Let us allow the “egg to strike the stone” once more:
“Request to the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice for Guidance on the Revision of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358”
Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice:
Petitioner Chen Shuqing, male, a native of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Dongwuyuan, Daguan Garden, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City; ID No. 330106196509260073; Contact Number: 15958160478.
Petition:
Request that the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice provide guidance on the review and rectification of the “Document of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security—Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358—Reply Regarding Issues Concerning Basic Old-Age Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This Document Is Disclosed Upon Request)” (hereinafter referred to as “Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358”), dated September 30, 2010.
Reasons for the Request:
I. The matters requested fall within the scope of responsibilities of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice.
According to government information published on the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice website (https://sft.zj.gov.cn/首页 > Organizational Structure > Overview of Functions), the Department has a total of sixteen institutional functions. In addition to “(1) Conducting policy research on major issues related to comprehensively governing the province according to law, coordinating with relevant parties to propose medium- and long-term planning recommendations for comprehensively governing the province according to law, and overseeing the implementation of major policy decisions,” item (4) further stipulates “guiding the review and revision of administrative normative documents.”
II. This request is of direct personal interest to the petitioner.
If the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, is considered a party with a vested interest in this matter, it is more accurate to say that Chen Shuqing is a victim of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358. The specific circumstances are as follows:
On December 25, 2025, the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, reached the age of 60 years and 3 months, having actually contributed to the social insurance pool for 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum contribution period of 15 years. When processing retirement procedures in December 2025, staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau in Hangzhou cited Chen Shuqing’s 2007 conviction for incitement to subvert state power (sentenced to 4 years) and his 2016 conviction for subverting state power (sentenced to 10 years and 6 months) as grounds deducted the combined duration of these two prison terms from his social insurance contribution period. The remaining contribution period was just over 9 years, which fell short of the minimum requirement, and they refused to process the plaintiff’s retirement procedures.
After repeated negotiations, Chen Shuqing, dissatisfied with the vague verbal responses from staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau—who merely cited “relevant policies”—submitted a request for government information disclosure. On December 25, 2025, Chen Zupeng, a staff member of the bureau, issued to the plaintiff in his office the “Notice of Matters Handled by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center” (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice”), the “Notice of Decision,” and “Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358,” formally confirming in writing the decision to refuse to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures.
Article 1 of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 stipulates: In accordance with the “Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Zhejiang Province Regulations on Basic Old-Age Insurance for Employees,” and other relevant laws and regulations, individuals sentenced to detention, fixed-term imprisonment, or heavier penalties, or those subject to re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as “persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education”), may not participate in or continue to participate in the basic old-age insurance for employees as urban self-employed workers during the period of their detention, imprisonment, or re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as the “period of serving sentences or undergoing re-education”).
The Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau cited the provisions of the aforementioned Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 as one of the key grounds for its refusal to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures, as stated in the “Notice” and “Statement of Reasons.”
Chen Shuqing believed that the legal application underlying the aforementioned document was improper and that the policy lacked sufficient legal force, and therefore filed an application for administrative reconsideration regarding this matter on January 27, 2026. On February 5, Chen Shuqing applied for a concurrent review of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 as a normative document. On March 9, the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security issued the “Letter from the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Regarding Feedback on Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions on the Incidental Review of Zhejiang HRSS Document [2010] No. 358”), concluding that “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is a specific operational provision regarding the content of laws and regulations; it does not exceed or violate higher-level laws, and its content is lawful and valid”
The “Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou” (Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67), issued by the People’s Government of Gongshu District on April 30, 2026, upheld the aforementioned “Notice” issued by the respondent—the Gongshu District Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security—refusing to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures. The “Opinions on the Incidental Review and Handling of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security” were also enclosed. Chen Shuqing disagrees with this decision and has now filed an administrative lawsuit regarding this case with the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Court.
III. The “Opinions on the Incidental Review and Handling of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security” evades the core issues and fails to provide targeted responses or resolutions regarding the illegality of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, as raised by Chen Shuqing in his application for incidental review of normative documents during the administrative reconsideration process. Specifically, this includes:
(1) Pursuant to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—which entered into force after being signed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on October 27, 1997, and ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on February 28, 2001—which states: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, argues that “persons serving prison or re-education through labor sentences” do not cease to be “human beings” merely because they are serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labor, and thus do not forfeit the fundamental human right that “States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” Therefore, since Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358 conflicts with the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the conclusion in the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security [2010] No. 358 Supplementary Review and Disposition Opinion that “In summary, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is a specific operational provision regarding the content of laws and regulations, does not exceed or violate higher-level laws, and its content is lawful and valid” clearly disregards the provision of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Article 9: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” It should therefore be deemed unlawful and invalid. Consequently, it is recommended that the competent authorities promptly review and repeal such “administrative normative documents,” which are clearly outdated and unlawful in the current era.
(2) The petitioner has carefully reviewed the *Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China*, the *Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China*, and the *Zhejiang Province Regulations on Basic Old-Age Insurance for Employees*. None of the provisions in these two national laws and one local regulation contain the stipulation found in Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, which states: “Persons sentenced to detention, fixed-term imprisonment, or a more severe punishment, or those subject to re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as ‘persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education’), during their detention and while serving sentences in detention centers or undergoing re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘period of imprisonment or re-education’), may not participate in or continue to participate in the basic old-age insurance for employees as urban self-employed workers.” The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes that whether through abstract or specific administrative acts, if government agencies interpret or explain the law in a manner that goes beyond the explicit meaning of the written text to fabricate content out of thin air and claim that such content is based on the provisions of laws such as “X” or “Y,” this constitutes a serious violation of the law in itself. If this were permitted, the law—as one of the most important means of keeping government power in check—would become a mere formality; and if government agencies exploit their freedom from the constraints of legal text to engage in unfounded interpretations—including of policies—that can at any time restrict the rights and freedoms of the people, this not only fundamentally undermines and erodes the certainty of legal rules but also clearly runs counter to the original intent of a society governed by the rule of law, including the legislative purpose of “constraining power and safeguarding rights.”
The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes that if there are administrative measures that are genuinely necessary and reasonable, which are not explicitly provided for or are inadequately defined in current laws, should not, under any circumstances other than emergencies (such as war or natural disasters) where legitimate motives necessitate unavoidable measures, be used to arbitrarily exceed or abuse the law in the form of so-called “policies.” Instead, relevant legislative proposals or recommendations for amending laws should be initiated through lawful procedures, while continuing to strictly adhere to the fundamental principle of the rule of law: “No action may be taken without legal authorization.”
(3) On December 28, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted a decision to repeal legal provisions concerning re-education through labor. This signified that the “Decision of the State Council on Issues Concerning Re-education through Labor,” approved and promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on August 1, 1957, was legally repealed after more than 50 years of implementation. Although re-education through labor was abolished more than a decade ago, the “Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358,” which contains provisions on re-education through labor, is still being inappropriately cited and applied by government agencies and their staff. Clearly, in accordance with the requirements of current and effective laws, “Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358” must also keep pace with the times and be reviewed and repealed as soon as possible.
(4) For over 20 years, Chen Shuqing, his family members, and the units where his employment or social security was registered have been paying social insurance premiums on his behalf. They have never received explicit notification that premiums could not be paid during his incarceration. Even after his release on March 10, 2025—which was originally his final release—they successfully made up for the social insurance premiums for the recent years (including portions of his prison term) during which payments were interrupted by visiting the Government Service Center of the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, located at 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District, on several occasions.
More than two thousand years ago, the sage Confucius wrote in *The Analects: Yao’s Words*: “To punish without first instructing is tyranny.” Modern civilized societies are founded on the principle that “law cannot stand without virtue.” Any content—whether specific provisions or entire laws—that legally restricts citizens’ rights and freedoms or imposes punitive sanctions must adhere to the fundamental principles of “non-retroactivity” and “a law does not take effect until it is promulgated.” Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is marked as “disclosed upon request”; of course, disclosure upon request is not equivalent to promulgation. Although Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security lacks the legal status and effect prescribed by the Legislative Law of the People’s Republic of China, it nevertheless concerns the rights and obligations of a wide range of individuals. Such a provision for “disclosure upon request” leaves stakeholders in the dark until a request for disclosure is made. In this case, the applicant only obtained the document after submitting a “Government Information Disclosure Application” to the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, following repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain it while processing retirement procedures in recent months.
This elusive form of “disclosure upon request” policy provides means and opportunities for bureaucrats to abuse their power or even engage in rent-seeking. The unchecked abuse of power by bureaucrats has, in fact, been one of the key reasons why good governance has been difficult to implement or sustain, while corrupt practices have become deeply entrenched, leading to the decline and collapse of dynasties throughout China’s millennia-long history. The applicant believes that “disclosure upon request” in government affairs should be limited to information involving trade secrets or personal privacy within specific administrative acts, and restricted to disclosure upon request to individuals who have a vested interest and are legally eligible to apply. As for abstract administrative acts, the applicant hopes that when state organs at all levels formulate normative documents in the future, with the exception of those involving state secrets—which are not disclosed for internal implementation and cannot be used against external parties who are unaware of them—all other normative documents should be publicly released, following the example of legislation. Therefore, the applicant not only requests that Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security—which adopts the “disclosure upon request” approach—be reviewed and repealed in this case, but also earnestly urges that the re-emergence of any normative documents utilizing the “disclosure upon request” format be completely eliminated.
(5) Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 stipulates: “For individuals who continue to participate in social insurance as urban self-employed workers while serving a prison sentence or undergoing re-education, such cases must be promptly rectified. Pension insurance premiums already paid during the period of imprisonment or re-education may be temporarily retained by the social security administration agency to offset premiums due or deferred in future insurance years, or may be refunded to the individual in a lump sum.” ”Building upon Article 1 of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, this provision runs counter to the legal principle that “the government may not exercise power unless authorized by law, while citizens are free to exercise rights unless prohibited by law.” it has failed in practice to prevent social security agencies from continuing to collect pension insurance premiums from insured individuals during their incarceration. However, when insured individuals formally apply for or receive retirement benefits calculated based on their actual years of contribution, this provision effectively endorses the social security agencies’ crude and arbitrary “breach of trust and failure to honor agreements.” Chen Shuqing in this case is one of the typical victims of such administrative breach of trust.
In summary, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 clearly violates Article 9 of the legally binding *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*, which was ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress as early as February 28, 2001: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” By presenting itself as “specific operational provisions regarding the content of laws and regulations,” it arbitrarily added prohibitions under the pretext of “what is not explicitly prohibited by law.” It is clearly no longer compatible with the current legal environment following the adoption by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on December 28, 2013, of the “Decision on the Abolition of Legal Provisions Concerning Re-education Through Labor.” By adopting the form of “disclosure upon request,” it undermines the fundamental requirements of a modern rule-of-law society for openness and transparency in regulations; in practice, its specific provisions effectively endorse administrative bad faith on the part of social security administrative agencies, severely undermining the principle of protecting the public’s legitimate expectations regarding the law and government actions. An internal policy with so many obvious flaws, if allowed to continue to exist and remain in effect—especially when the policy-making body lacks the capacity for self-correction—will not only hinder the construction of a government and society governed by the rule of law, but will inevitably lead, through persistent breaches of trust, to the excessive depletion of political credibility and the continued erosion of the social credit structure, ultimately leading step by step toward irreversible decline.
Because the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes in the sense of responsibility (commitment to duty, never shirking difficulties) and the competence of the leadership and staff of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice, I hereby submit this “Request to the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice for Guidance on the Revision of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358” to your department.
Sincerely,
Chen Shuqing
Petitioner: Chen Shuqing
May 29, 2026
Enclosures:
1. One copy of petitioner Chen Shuqing’s ID card (front and back);
2. One copy of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358;
3. One copy of the “Review and Handling Opinions Accompanying Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security.”
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing
“The Opposition Party” China Human Rights Watch Bulletin No. 29 (May 25, 2026)
Author: Zhang Weiqing
This issue profiles the persecuted individual: Mao Qingxiang, born in February 1950 in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. He is an independent writer, democracy activist, one of the founders of the Preparatory Committee of the China Democratic Party, the planner of *The Opposition Party* magazine, and the honorary editor-in-chief of *The Opposition Party* since its relaunch.
Latest Update:
Mao Qingxiang, now 76 years old, was forcibly taken away by Hangzhou police around May 20, 2026, and is currently in a state of “enforced disappearance.” On May 19, Xu Guang, a member of the China Democratic Party in Hangzhou and a leader of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, was released from prison. Mao Qingxiang was forcibly taken away shortly after posting and reposting a video on his WeChat Moments featuring Xu Guang’s remarks upon his release and a call to “Never Forget June 4th.” It has been confirmed that the specific law enforcement unit handling the case is the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou. As Mao Qingxiang has no immediate family members nearby, police responded to inquiries from his ex-wife only with the verbal assurance that “he is safe,” refusing to disclose his place of detention, the charges against him, or the duration of his detention.
I. Personal Biography
1. Late 1970s: Participated in the “Democracy Wall” movement in Hangzhou; founded the independent dissident publications *The 45th* Monthly and *East China People’s Journal*.
2. 1981: Charged with “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement” and sentenced to three years in prison for engaging in democratic enlightenment and rights advocacy through publishing activities.
3. 1998: Co-founded the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee of the “China Democratic Party” with Wang Youcai, Zhu Yufu, and others; publicly applied for party registration; and founded the party journal *The Opposition Party*.
4. 1999: Following a large-scale official crackdown on public efforts to organize a political party, he was sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of “subversion of state power.”
5. From his release in 2010 to the present: He has remained in China, subject to constant, strict surveillance by state security authorities. During politically sensitive periods, he is frequently placed under house arrest or removed from Hangzhou.
II. Political Stance
1. Abolition of One-Party Rule: Advocates for the establishment of an open, legal political system featuring multiparty competition and democratic alternation of power.
2. Safeguarding Civil Rights: Calls on the Chinese government to fulfill its constitutional commitments and respect freedom of speech, association, assembly, and publication.
3. Peaceful, Nonviolent Transition: Insists on advancing constitutional reform in China through open, legal, and nonviolent channels.
III. Arrest and Sentencing History
1. First Sentence (1981): Sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and one year’s deprivation of political rights for participating in the Democracy Wall movement.
2. Second Sentence (1999): Sentenced by the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court to eight years’ imprisonment and three years’ deprivation of political rights on charges of “subversion of state power” for organizing the China Democratic Party.
3. Enforced Disappearance (May 2026): After reposting dissident Xu Guang’s remarks upon his release from prison and a video calling for “Do Not Forget June 4th” on his WeChat Moments, he was taken away by the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou. He currently faces a new round of political persecution and legal charges.
IV. Domestic and International Assessments
1. Domestic Civil Society Assessment: Widely recognized as a pioneer and pillar of China’s contemporary democracy movement, his decades of steadfast commitment have inspired generations of rights defenders seeking freedom.
2. International Organization Assessments: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have long listed him as a “prisoner of conscience” of particular concern. The international community condemns the Chinese authorities’ prolonged extrajudicial persecution and deprivation of his rights.
V. The Human Rights Watch Department of The Opposition Party Party issued the following urgent statement:
1. Immediately Release Mao Qingxiang: We strongly condemn the Hangzhou authorities for punishing him for his speech and demand that the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou immediately and unconditionally release 76-year-old Mao Qingxiang.
2. Disclose Detention Information: We urge the investigating authorities to follow legal procedures and immediately disclose to the public Mao Qingxiang’s place of detention, his health condition, and the charges against him.
3. Cease political persecution: We call on the Chinese government to stop extrajudicial surveillance, enforced disappearances, and judicial suppression of Chinese democrats and all political dissidents, and to effectively safeguard citizens’ basic human rights.
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing
Announcement No. 2:International Day of Civilizational Dialogue
Author: Chen Xi
Abstract: This article takes education, healthcare, and public power as its three entry points to explore their important impact on national development. The author argues that education should cultivate independent thinking and the ability to engage in dialogue, healthcare should focus on protecting life and alleviating suffering, and public power must be subject to effective supervision and checks and balances. The article points out that when education becomes driven by utilitarian interests, healthcare loses its humanitarian spirit, and public power lacks constraints, social trust will gradually disintegrate and institutional functioning will also be eroded. In particular, the author emphasizes the importance of oversight of power, arguing that transparency, fairness, and accountability mechanisms are key to safeguarding the rule of law, protecting citizens’ rights, and promoting a nation’s long-term development. The full text is a commentary and reflection on public governance and social systems.
A failed state begins with the decay of these three professions: education, healthcare, and public administration. These three professions form the foundation of a nation and safeguard the future of its people. Once they begin to rot from within, the nation is doomed to failure even before any external enemy invades. This is especially true of the third—the profession we must focus on during our second “International Day of Dialogue among Civilizations.”
First, education. It is meant to be the lamp that illuminates a child’s life, teaching them to think independently and using dialogue to kindle the light within their hearts—a light that will illuminate the inevitable stretch of darkness they will encounter on their journey, ensuring that the traveler does not become part of that darkness. But if educators lose their original purpose, treating students as tools for financial gain and trading their conscience for a few coins, they will inevitably turn students into tools, conditioning them to obey in perfect unison while losing the courage to engage in dialogue. An education that fosters mere obedience not only destroys the future of a generation but also destroys the tomorrow of this nation.
Second: Hospitals. They should be sanctuaries of life, places that alleviate suffering and kindle hope. But if they trample the oath to save lives underfoot and become cold, callous places that “prioritize money over people,” then the common people will fear not only illness and pain, but also the evil hands reaching out from those icy doors to rob them of both life and wealth, leaving them with nothing.
Third: Public Authority. We do not fear the decay of education or the corruption of hospitals; what we fear most is the decay and corruption of public authority. Once public authority becomes corrupted, the entire nation is truly beyond salvation. As George Washington said: “We are increasingly aware that the greatest threat to human civilization, and the most devastating force, is unchecked power; natural disasters and human ignorance come only second.”
There is a saying in China that has long held true: “A nation’s downfall stems from corrupt officials.” This is because a “government-centered” system fears transparency; once someone becomes an official, they feed off the public for life. Furthermore, in such a system, the upper echelons dictate the lower ones, leaving the entire nation in a situation where “if the upper beam is crooked, the lower beam will follow suit”; this is unlike a “people-centered” nation, which operates under transparent laws where the grassroots determine the policies of the higher levels. Therefore, we need not fear the decay of education or healthcare systems; what we must fear is the emergence of a privileged bureaucratic class. If this happens, they will inevitably enact exploitative national policies, and the nation will be doomed.
At this point, the laws enacted by the privileged bureaucratic class no longer safeguard freedom but degenerate into tools of exploitation. The so-called rule of law becomes the most hypocritical performance of the privileged, and the so-called “serving the people” turns into “serving the renminbi.” Upholding social justice becomes protecting privilege, public power is replaced by private power, and the fresh spring of life turns into stinking stagnant water—hasn’t the political ecosystem of this country been ruined by a tiny handful of privileged elites?
Our concerns are well-founded. A sound bill on financial transparency for civil servants has been under discussion for over 30 years without being passed. Conversely, the judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (Judicial Interpretation No. 6 [2026]), which took effect on May 1, has been implemented—and this is precisely what fuels our concerns. Enlightened individuals within the system have long proposed a bill for “financial transparency among civil servants.” This was meant to be a remedy tailored to the problem—a transparent law that addresses the root causes, capable of curing the ills of social chaos. Yet, before this remedy could be formulated, the poison has already taken effect. When we call it “poisonous and evil,” we mean it is a trap for corruption. Setting 3 million yuan as the threshold for a “serious crime” seems to imply that anything below that is a “minor offense,” thereby actually widening the trap.
The dominance of the official-centered mindset represents a loss of checks and balances on public power and a manifestation of insatiable greed; it is evidence that an exploitative bureaucratic privileged class is corrupting the nation. All things in the world must exist within paradoxes and structures of opposing forces, allowing their mutual tension or conflict to enrich one another and drive their evolution. The official-centered mindset must create tension with the people-centered mindset, just as yin and yang, opposites, left and right, old and new, beauty and ugliness, and good and evil must create tension. This aligns with the principle that “the interplay of yin and yang is the Way.”
The dominance of the bureaucratic mindset indicates that our country is sliding toward a system of extractive failure. At this critical juncture, citizens of the Republic—including Dai mian, Song Shuwen, Xiong Li, Chen Xi, and others—have stepped forward one after another. They submitted a “Proposal Application” to the “Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress,” calling for a re-examination and repeal of “Judicial Interpretation No. 6 [2026].”
At the same time, as the second International Day of Civilizational Dialogue approaches, we, the “Citizens’ Dialogue Alliance,” call for a nationwide dialogue on the “Civil Servant Financial Disclosure Bill” to address the ills of the bureaucratic culture through the Sunshine Law. If relevant state agencies fail to grasp the myriad benefits of the Sunshine Law, they may seek guidance from the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption.
The rise and fall of the nation is inextricably linked to every citizen; when the nest is destroyed, no egg remains intact. We hope that more citizens of the Republic will participate in the activities of the International Day of Civilization Dialogue!
Initiators of the “Citizens’ Dialogue Alliance Platform”:
Citizen Chen Xi from Guiyang, Guizhou – Mobile:18198281954 (same number on social media)
Citizen Chen Shuqing from Hangzhou, Zhejiang – WeChat ID: wxid-wmhnbocidh4k22
Citizen Tang Haoming from Huaihua, Hunan – Mobile:13212390018, 13974518171 (same number on social media apps)
Citizen from Ganzhou, Jiangxi – Liu Shaoming Mobile:18802016201 (same number on social media apps)
Citizen from Guiyang, Guizhou – Xu Guoqing Mobile:13984086628 (same number on social media apps)
Citizen of Qianjiang, Hubei – Yao Lifu Mobile:13339728964 (same number on social media)
Citizen of Dezhou, Shandong – Chen Liyong Mobile:18005449982 (same number on social media)
Citizen from Suizhou, Hubei – Liu Feiyue Mobile:19171484732 (Same number on social media)
Citizen from Guiyang, Guizhou – Shen Youlian Mobile:13037897453 (Same number on social media)
We welcome citizens of the Republic to participate in the Second “Citizen Dialogue Alliance” Initiators’ Activity.
Effective from the date of this announcement, anyone who voluntarily and publicly provides their phone number or contact information will be designated as a founder and “volunteer” of the Republic’s “Citizens’ Dialogue Alliance,” tasked with organizing local “International Day of Civilized Dialogue” events. Signatures will be automatically ranked in the order they are received.
May 28, 2026
Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Shen Meihua
Abstract: This article explores the core implications of the concept of the “republic” in modern politics, arguing that a republican system should be founded on the principles of popular sovereignty, free elections, freedom of speech, and transparency. The author contends that if citizens lack the right to choose, the right to information, and the right to express themselves, the legitimacy of a government’s claim to represent the people will be called into question. The article further emphasizes that transparency, diverse opinions, and public oversight are essential for maintaining social trust and institutional vitality; only by safeguarding citizens’ rights and accommodating differing viewpoints can we promote policy improvements, prevent power imbalances, and drive long-term social development.
In the modern political context, the term “republic” should signify that power derives from the people, that the government is authorized by the people, and that it is accountable to the people. However, when a nation bears the name “republic” yet lacks a genuine electoral system, freedom of speech, and transparency of information, this designation loses its inherent meaning and becomes nothing more than a superficial adornment.
A true republic is founded upon the fundamental rights of its citizens. The people possess the right to vote, the freedom to express their views, access to accurate information, and the ability to oversee public affairs. These are not merely technical matters of institutional design; they are fundamental markers of whether a nation respects its people and acknowledges human dignity. If the people lack the right to choose, the right to know, and the right to speak, then the claim of “representing the people” lacks a legitimate foundation.
History has repeatedly shown that governance models maintained through information control and the imposition of a single narrative may stabilize the situation in the short term, but they struggle to gain lasting acceptance. This is because the truth cannot be concealed forever, nor will people’s pursuit of freedom, justice, and dignity ever fade. The more information is suppressed, the more easily lies proliferate; and once lies accumulate, trust gradually erodes. When trust ceases to exist, any grand narrative becomes hollow.
More importantly, a healthy society does not fear dissenting voices. On the contrary, the existence of diverse opinions is precisely a manifestation of social vitality. Allowing criticism, encouraging discussion, and safeguarding freedom of expression will not weaken the nation; rather, it will strengthen the resilience of our institutions.
For it is only through openness and transparency that mistakes can be corrected, policies can be continuously improved, and power can be kept within bounds.
What we are calling for is not the disruption of order, but the reconstruction of rules; not the rejection of society, but the pursuit of justice. Rights have never been a favor to be bestowed, but rather the fundamental safeguards that every citizen is entitled to. When these rights are ignored or denied, raising questions and demanding change is itself a responsibility.
“You can deceive people for a time, but not forever.” This is not merely a warning; it is a historical law. Any power structure that is detached from the people, lacks oversight, and relies on a one-sided narrative will face challenges to its legitimacy. A truly stable nation must be built upon the trust of the people, and trust can only stem from truth, openness, and participation.
Therefore, advancing a system that is more open, fair, and people-centered is not only a restoration of rights but also the inevitable path for society’s long-term development. The rights that belong to the people should not be obscured or delayed; rather, they must be tangibly embodied in the system and genuinely safeguarded in reality.
Editor: Gloria Wang Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing
The “Crime” of Unauthorized Rescue Efforts Under Totalitarian Logic
Author: Zhang Xinggui (Member of the China Democratic Party)
On May 22, 2026, three teams from the Henan Blue Sky Rescue Team—from Yichuan, Yiyang, and Songxian—traveled to Changde, Hunan, to conduct rescue operations, film and release videos, and give interviews without having completed the required reporting and approval procedures. Subsequently, they were ordered to withdraw immediately and received written warnings. This is not an absurd isolated incident, but a stark demonstration of totalitarian logic in the 21st century. It labels humanity’s most primal sense of compassion and spontaneous mutual aid as “overstepping boundaries”; it characterizes the noble acts of volunteers—who bring their own equipment and raise their own funds—as “violations.”
The essence of a totalitarian state is by no means simply a “strong government” or “strict governance.” It is a modern system of tyranny that seeks to comprehensively subjugate and reshape both society and the individual.
First, totalitarian states monopolize all sources of legitimacy, creating a myth of omnipotence. The primary characteristic of totalitarianism is the state’s complete monopoly over social life and its zero tolerance for any autonomous action. It is not content with ruling political power but seeks exclusive legitimacy over all actions. Under this logic, any autonomous action not authorized by the state is viewed as a potential threat. This is because it shatters the narrative that “only the state can organize, mobilize, and define ‘good deeds.’” What it fears is not the failure of rescue efforts, but the success of rescue efforts originating from the people. Any success not authorized by the state silently debunks the myth of the “omnipotent government.” It must monopolize the right to define all public meaning: only the state is the “savior,” while the public can only be grateful supporting actors. Totalitarianism fears that citizens will discover they can act effectively without waiting for orders—which amounts to a silent declaration that the state is not indispensable—and fears that independent organizations will become seeds that might challenge authority in the future. Therefore, it must drag all autonomous actions into the iron cage of bureaucratic approval, using the name of “procedural justice” to strangle substantive justice.
It does not permit any facts to challenge the official narrative. In the midst of a disaster, the state may react slowly due to information delays and bureaucratic red tape, but the public must never “jump the gun.” Because “jumping the gun” itself exposes the myth of omnipotence. Totalitarianism requires the constant cultivation of the illusion that “without the state, there is nothing.” Thus, it would rather sacrifice some lives than relinquish its monopoly on the narrative. Filming videos or giving interviews constitutes a double offense—it exposes the public to images of “civil society acting before the state,” a form of “visual heresy” that the totalitarian propaganda machine can never tolerate. The “Ministry of Truth” described by Orwell in *1984* is resurrected here: reality must submit to the needs of power, and good must be defined by power; otherwise, it is evil.
Second, totalitarian states are committed to atomizing society and eliminating civil society. The most profound operation of totalitarianism is the systematic destruction of intermediary organizations and citizens’ capacity for self-organization. *The Origins of Totalitarianism* incisively points out: through terror and propaganda, totalitarian regimes sever individuals from traditional bonds—such as family, community, and church—transforming them into isolated “atoms” that can only confront the omnipotent state directly. Within this structure, independent rescue teams, volunteer organizations, and civil society groups all pose potential threats. For they demonstrate that society is capable of self-governance and self-repair. The Blue Sky Rescue Team incident is a daily manifestation of this logic: the problem lies not with the rescue efforts themselves, but with the very notion of “civil society.” It must be warned, withdrawn, and tamed until all rescue operations become an extension of the state apparatus. Within a totalitarian system, independent organizations are targets that must be tamed or banned. This stands in stark contrast to the logic of democratic nations, where civil society serves as a check and balance to state power, rather than a vassal. In countries like the United States, Germany, and Japan, the Red Cross and civilian search-and-rescue teams act swiftly in the aftermath of disasters, and governments often publicly thank them and provide logistical support. This is because democratic systems recognize a fundamental premise: the public good is not the exclusive domain of the state; citizens possess freedom of association, freedom of action, and freedom of speech. These rights are not “graces” bestowed by the state, but are inherent and protected by the constitution. As long as they do not violate the law, individuals and organizations have the right to decide for themselves how to help their fellow citizens. The government may evaluate and regulate such actions after the fact, but it would never regard “failure to report” as an original sin, nor would it equate spontaneous rescue efforts with “acting without authorization” and punish them accordingly.
Third, totalitarian states are inherently anti-human; they reduce people from ends in themselves to mere tools. Classical totalitarianism achieved control through open terror, while contemporary totalitarianism is more subtle: through ubiquitous approvals, surveillance, warnings, and self-censorship, it fosters widespread fear and self-censorship. Volunteers no longer ask, “What is the most effective way to save lives?” but instead ask first, “Is this compliant?” Kindness becomes dangerous, courage becomes suspect, and the most noble altruistic impulses of human nature are gradually eroded. More profoundly, this logic is causing moral atrophy and the alienation of humanity across the entire society. When saving lives requires seeking “permission” first, and when volunteers choose to stand by out of fear of being held accountable, a sense of civic responsibility is gradually neutered. Over time, society will be left with only two types of people: indifferent bystanders and machines awaiting orders. This is not administrative wisdom, but a slow murder of the nation’s vitality.
This incident exposes the behavioral logic of a totalitarian state: it is not protecting disaster victims, but protecting its own fragile authority; it is not serving the people, but castrating them of their humanity. When “rescuing people on one’s own initiative” becomes an act that requires an apology, this system has become the enemy of humanity. It is dragging us into a moral wasteland and a ruin of capability. Unauthorized rescue is not a crime; totalitarian politics is the greatest crime of our time.
Editor: Gloria Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing
Remember History · Hold Firm to Our Beliefs · Fight for Freedom · Build the Future Together
Caravan Time / Locations:
June 3, 11:00 AM — San Jose City Hall
1:00 PM — Stanford University
3:00 PM — San Francisco City Hall
5:00 PM — Golden Gate Bridge
Organizers:
China Democracy Party, San Francisco Branch / China Democracy Education Foundation
Conveners: Fang Zheng, Zheng Yun, Hu Pizheng
Initiators: Chen Senfeng, He Ying, Zhou Yunlong
Organizing Team: Guan Yongjie, Zhang Junjie, Wei Xuguang, Liu Jingtao, Li Shuqing, Jiang Shuqing, Cui Yunxing, Guo Zhijun, Li Xiaolin, Wei Renxi, Li Xu
Logistics: Zhang Shancheng, Li Kai, Lu Zhanqiang, Wu Zhichuang, He Cong, Ma Li, Zhang Jishun
Publicity: Zhuang Fan, Miao Qing, Lü Xiaojing
On-site Team: Gao Junying, Luo Yanyan, Zhou Zhongyu, Tang Qi, Guo Jianxin, Yao Rongtao, Zhou Xiaojun
