作者：陀先润 编辑：李晶 校对：程筱筱 翻译：彭小梅

前几天，一名网友讲述了这样一段经历：他在北京前往毛主席纪念堂参观，安检时身份证连续两次无法通过。执勤人员查看屏幕内容后，询问他最近是否通过 12345 投诉过小米。他承认确有其事，且投诉尚未结案。对方点头示意，随后放行。

这件事的关键，并不在于它是否经过完整核实，而在于它在逻辑上完全自洽，在现实中完全成立。它不需要额外加工，也不依赖任何阴谋论假设。相反，它之所以令人不安，正是因为它看起来过于“正常”。

不少人第一反应是质疑企业权力，怀疑是否某家公司的影响力已经可以左右公共秩序。这种理解方式看似尖锐，实则安全。它把问题压缩为“资本勾结权力”的个案，好像只要换一家企业、换一次投诉对象，就能规避风险。但事实恰恰相反：决定一个人能否“刷得过去”的，从来不是企业，而是一个早已运行多年的国家级数据治理体系。

在今天的中国，个人并不是以权利主体的身份被对待，而是以数据对象的形式被管理。身份、行踪、消费、医疗、婚姻、信访、投诉、表达记录，被持续拆解、整合、关联，最终形成一个可调用、可标记、可联动的“人像”。技术上，这并不新鲜；真正发生变化的是，这套系统已经从后台管理走向前台治理，并且缺乏任何有效的外部约束。

这意味着，投诉不再只是表达不满，维权不再只是寻求救济，反映问题首先是一条数据，其次才可能是一项诉求。当数据进入系统，它的命运就不再由当事人掌控，而由算法、规则、权限和所谓“稳定需要”共同决定。是否反复提交、是否继续追问、是否涉及特定对象，都会被转译为风险特征。这些特征不需要公开，不需要论证，也不需要申诉路径，只需要在某个关键节点弹出一个提示：注意、限制、人工处理。

这正是现代控制最危险的形态：它不靠公开镇压，而靠隐形分类；不宣布罪名，却制造障碍。个人不会收到正式通知，只会发现“刷不过”“进不去”“被多看了一眼”。没有文书，没有解释，更没有纠错机制。当事人甚至不知道自己属于哪一类，也不知道如何退出这套系统。

有人会反驳：可他最终还是被放行了。恰恰在这里，控制的逻辑暴露得最为清楚。真正成熟的治理机器，并不追求每一次都拦下个体，而是要让人意识到，自己随时可能被拦下。今天放行，是因为系统判断“问题不大”；明天限制，也不需要新的理由，只需要“情形不同”。当权利从规则变成裁量，从确定性变成不确定性，社会行为就会自动发生变化。

于是，自我驯化开始出现。人们减少表达，回避公共事务，反复权衡“值不值得留下记录”。不需要命令沉默，沉默会自行生成；不需要禁止投诉，投诉会自然减少。久而久之，制度不再需要高强度维稳，因为社会已经完成了自我维稳。

更具讽刺意味的是，这一切往往以“治理现代化”“数字政府”“便民服务”的名义推进。数据被高度集中，却没有独立审计；权限被层层叠加，却没有责任追溯；裁量被不断下沉，却没有清晰边界。公民被要求实名、配合、守法，却被拒绝查询自己是否被标记、因何被标记、如何纠错。系统可以在关键时刻告诉一线人员某人“因为什么被注意”，却不允许当事人作为权利主体知情。

在这样的结构中，“正常人没事”成为一种极其危险的安慰。因为“正常”并不是法律概念，而是系统判断。它可以随时间、随环境、随政策需要而改变。今天是普通投诉者，明天可能成为反复申诉对象；今天是消费纠纷，明天可能被归入“影响稳定因素”。当规则不透明、标准不公开、救济不存在时，所谓安全感，只建立在“暂时没轮到我”之上。

这件事真正揭示的，不是某一次安检的偶发异常，而是一个社会如何在缺乏边界的情况下，把技术优势转化为控制优势。它清楚地表明：在一个以数据库为神经系统的治理结构中，公民不是被说服的对象，而是被管理的变量；权利不是不可侵犯的底线，而是可以被临时暂停的状态。

当一个社会需要公民“尽量少留下记录”才能自保，当参与公共事务本身需要进行风险评估，这个社会就已经不再是现代意义上的公民社会。它只是一个运转良好的系统，以及一群学会绕开系统的人。

真正令人恐惧的，从来不是暴力本身，而是暴力不再需要露面。当一个国家不必告诉你为什么限制你，只需要让你感受到它随时可以限制你，这种权力就已经摆脱了法律的约束，进入了纯粹的技术统治阶段。

而在这种体制下，权力最忌惮的，从来不是犯罪，而是记忆。因为记忆意味着记录，记录意味着追问，而追问本身，就是对控制的否定。

When the State Machine Begins to Remember You

— You Are Not Being Censored, You Are Being Marked

Author: Tuo Xianrun Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:The Chinese Communist Party is using advanced digital technology to attempt to mark every Chinese person, in order to identify those who may resist and to impose surveillance and suppression on them, all for the sake of maintaining the dictatorship of this regime.

A few days ago, an internet user described the following experience: while traveling in Beijing to visit the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall, his ID card failed to pass security screening twice in a row. After seeing the contents displayed on the screen, the on-duty staff asked him whether he had recently filed a complaint against Xiaomi through 12345. He admitted that he had indeed done so, and that the complaint had not yet been resolved. The other party nodded, then allowed him to pass.

The key point of this incident does not lie in whether it has been fully verified, but in the fact that it is entirely self-consistent in logic and entirely plausible. It requires no additional embellishment, nor does it rely on any conspiracy theory assumptions. On the contrary, what makes it disturbing is precisely the fact that it appears overly “normal.”

Many people’s first reaction is to question corporate power, suspecting whether the influence of some company has already reached the point where it can affect public order. This way of understanding the issue appears sharp but is in fact safe. It compresses the problem into an isolated case of “capital colluding with power,” as if changing the company or changing the target of the complaint would avoid the risk. But the truth is exactly the opposite: what determines whether a person can “get through the scan” has never been the company, but rather a national-level data governance system that has already been operating for many years.

In China today, the individual is not treated as a subject of rights but is managed as a data object. Identity, movements, consumption, medical care, marriage, petitions, complaints, and records of expression are continuously dismantled, integrated, and correlated, ultimately forming a retrievable, markable, and linkable “human profile.” Technically, this is nothing new; what has truly changed is that this system has already moved from backstage management to frontstage governance and lacks any effective external constraint.

This means that a complaint is no longer merely an expression of dissatisfaction, and rights defense is no longer merely a search for remedy. Reporting a problem is first a piece of data, and only secondarily may it become a claim. Once the data enters the system, its fate is no longer controlled by the person concerned, but is jointly determined by algorithms, rules, permissions, and so-called “stability needs.” Whether someone submits repeatedly, whether someone continues asking questions, and whether a matter involves certain specific targets, all can be translated into risk characteristics. These characteristics do not need to be public, do not need to be argued for, and do not need any path of appeal. They only need to trigger a prompt at some key node: attention, restriction, manual handling.

This is precisely the most dangerous form of modern control: it does not rely on open repression, but on invisible classification; it does not announce charges yet creates obstacles. The individual will not receive any formal notice, but will only discover that something “won’t scan,” “can’t be entered,” or that he has “been looked at one more time.” There is no document, no explanation, and even less any correction mechanism. The person concerned may not even know what category he belongs to, nor how to exit this system.

Someone may object but, in the end, he was still allowed through. It is precisely here that the logic of control is exposed most clearly. A truly mature governance machine does not seek to stop the individual every single time, but rather to make people realize that they may be stopped at any time. Letting him through today is because the system judged that “the issue is not serious”; restricting him tomorrow does not require any new reason, only that “the circumstances are different.” When rights change from rule-based to discretionary, from certainty to uncertainty, social behavior will automatically begin to change.

Thus, self-domestication begins to appear. People reduce expression, avoid public affairs, and repeatedly weigh whether “it is worth leaving a record.” There is no need to order silence, because silence will generate itself; there is no need to forbid complaints, because complaints will naturally decrease. Over time, the system no longer needs high-intensity stability maintenance, because society has already completed self-stability maintenance.

Even more ironic is that all of this is often advanced in the name of “modernized governance,” “digital government,” and “convenient public services.” Data is highly concentrated, yet there is no independent audit; permissions are layered one upon another, yet there is no tracing of responsibility; discretion is constantly pushed downward, yet there are no clear boundaries. Citizens are required to use their real names, cooperate, and obey the law, yet they are denied the right to inquire whether they have been marked, why they have been marked, and how to correct errors. The system can, at a critical moment, inform frontline personnel why a certain person has “drawn attention,” yet it does not allow the person concerned, as a subject of rights, to know.

Within such a structure, “normal people are fine” becomes an extremely dangerous consolation. Because “normal” is not a legal concept, but a system judgment. It can change with time, with environment, and with policy needs. Today one may be an ordinary complainant; tomorrow one may become a repeated-petition subject. Today it is a consumer dispute; tomorrow it may be classified as a “factor affecting stability.” When rules are not transparent, standards are not public, and remedies do not exist, the so-called sense of security rests only on the fact that “it has not reached me yet.”

What this incident truly reveals is not some accidental abnormality in one security inspection, but how a society, in the absence of boundaries, transforms technological advantage into control advantage. It clearly shows that: in a governance structure that uses databases as its nervous system, citizens are not subjects to be persuaded, but variables to be managed; rights are not inviolable bottom lines, but states that can be suspended.

When a society requires its citizens to “leave as few records as possible” to protect themselves, and when participation in public affairs itself requires risk assessment, that society is no longer a modern civil society in the true sense. It is only a well-functioning system, along with a group of people who have learned how to maneuver around the system.

What is truly frightening has never been violence itself, but the point at which violence no longer needs to show its face. When a state no longer needs to tell you why it is restricting you but only needs to make you feel that it can restrict you at any time, that power has already broken free of legal constraint and entered a stage of pure technological rule.

And under such a system, what power fears most has never been crime, but memory. Because memory means records, records mean questioning, and questioning itself is a negation of control.

作者：陈维明 编辑：黄吉洲 校对：毛一炜 翻译：吕峰

前些日子，奥运花样滑冰冠军之父刘俊前来洛杉矶演讲。演讲前的聚餐中，几位当年被通缉的学运风云人物王丹、王超华都在场。超华大姐现居英国，谈到当年的人和事，我让她转达对杨炼夫妇的问候。

想当年，顾城一家、杨炼一家与我们一家，都定居在新西兰而成为好友。不想今天由超华转来杨炼夫妇在37年前和我们一起在新西兰的合影！这是我们共同举办“面对死亡坚持生命”的行为艺术展上，在奥克兰大学入口处，我用报纸糊了一个大骷髅作为艺术展的入口，合影留念就在此入口处。

想当年大家风华正茂，我们还一起去采石场，购买了一块深红色中国地图形状的花岗岩石头，做64纪念碑用。当石场老板知道我们用意后，把石头送给了我们。

当时我们选用了杨炼的名句“你们已无言，而石头有了呼声！”，当时顾城也写下了「你们死于春天」，我们认为太诗意不够有力而放弃。我还设计制作了十几座血淋淋的雕塑……

今天，有些人已经「两片叶子同时落下」而离世；也有人当了国会议员，从政成功；也有人成了学者教授；也有人投了共而挣得盆满钵满、飞黄腾达；也有人出卖灵魂，当了中共的线人……而我离开了有“白云之乡”美称的第二故乡新西兰，来到了北美的莫哈维沙漠，并重操雕塑旧业，领着一帮甘愿吃苦的义工，把我的记忆和思绪进行固化……

When Stones Found Their Voice — Recollections from New Zealand Thirty-Seven Years Ago and the Divergent Destinies of a Generation

Author: Chen Weiming Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Lyu Feng

Abstract:“When stones found their voice” refers to the act of preserving memories and voices that could not be spoken or were suppressed—through commemoration and artistic creation—so that the silenced may continue to speak and history is not forgotten.

A few days ago, Liu Jun—the father of an Olympic figure skating champion—came to Los Angeles to give a lecture. At the pre-lecture dinner, several prominent figures from the student movement who had once been on wanted lists, including Wang Dan and Wang Chaohua, were present. Sister Chaohua now resides in the United Kingdom. While discussing people and events from those years, I asked her to convey my regards to Yang Lian and his wife.

Back then, the family of Gu Cheng, the family of Yang Lian, and my own family all settled in New Zealand, where we became close friends. Unexpectedly, through Chaohua, I recently received a photograph taken thirty-seven years ago of Yang Lian and his wife together with us in New Zealand. It was taken at the entrance of the University of Auckland during a performance art exhibition we jointly organized titled “Facing Death, Upholding Life.” At the entrance, I had constructed a large skull using pasted newspapers as part of the installation, and the photograph was taken there.

In those days, we were all in the prime of youth. We even went together to a quarry, where we purchased a deep-red granite stone shaped like the map of China, intended as a June Fourth memorial monument. When the quarry owner learned of our purpose, he donated the stone to us.

At the time, we chose a famous line by Yang Lian: “You have fallen silent, but the stones have found their voice.” Gu Cheng also wrote, “You died in spring,” but we felt it was too poetic and not forceful enough, and thus did not adopt it. I went on to design and produce more than a dozen blood-streaked sculptures…

Today, some people have already “fallen like two leaves at once” and passed away; some have become members of parliament and found success in politics; some have become scholars and professors; some have aligned themselves with the authorities and amassed great wealth and status; others have sold their souls and become informants for the Chinese Communist Party…

As for me, I left my second homeland, New Zealand—known as the “Land of the Long White Cloud”—and came to the Mojave Desert in North America. There, I resumed my work as a sculptor, leading a group of volunteers willing to endure hardship, solidifying my memories and reflections into enduring forms.

——献给我的小学老师蔡荣生

作者：侯改英 编辑：黄吉洲 校对：程筱筱 翻译：吕峰

摘要：笔者生于河北太行山偏远山区，此文记录缅怀在我村义务支教10多年，后被我村聘为临时老师多年，最终年老家庭变故陷入困境，但因为不是中共编制内教师拿不到退休金导致其与孤儿孙女生活艰难陷入赤贫的故事。后我村村民集体联名请愿才使她勉强得到公正。但正义已晚，正式编制待遇仅仅消受不足一年，便撒手人寰，留下孙女被县孤儿院收容。

蔡荣生是一位女士，在我以黑户身份返乡入村里小时，她就已经在我们村做临时老师好多年了，具体多少年我也不知道，但她在教我三年后又教了我弟弟三年，至少在我上初中时她一直在我们村支教。

她是一位中年女人，教我的时候约30多岁，白净整齐，戴着那个年代鲜有的金丝眼镜，齐耳短发，身材微胖，常年穿庄重或黑或灰套装制服，中性皮鞋，声音偏低沉，看起来感觉起来都像一个男人。

她说话慢，坚定，清晰，眼神犀利，整个人透着那个年代在农村极少见的文化人的睿智儒雅。她一条腿有一点微跛，走路左右摇晃摆幅较大，再搭配她常背着手微微驼背检查学生背诵功课的体态时，看起来跟我爸一样是一个与众不同非常优秀的——男人。

听说她婆家在短短的二里山路外的隔壁村，但她似乎没有家，她常年住在学校，独来独往，除了教学外几乎不跟村民攀谈。

她的工资因为不是正式教师，一直由我们村大队象征性的每月发二十块钱。她也没有地，无法种粮种菜，所以不得已她工资不足以果腹时，她会让学生每人带一点小麦谷子，冬天太冷时，她也会让学生带玉米轴（褪了玉米粒后的那个玉米棒）在教室生火取暖。

她最偏爱我，除了借书给我，有一次还叫我帮忙给她冷风倒灌的卧室窗户糊毛头纸。于是我有幸瞥见了她的卧室：逼仄，昏暗，我看到了火炉，桌子上的碗筷，也看到了挤在一起的单人床和放在其下的尿盆……虽然收拾的很整齐，但看着很憋屈。

我当时的感受是有些不适应，强烈的反差，让我觉得不真实，因为我的老师看起来那么优秀，儒雅，精致而有尊严……

我们村的学校是几所破房子，她的卧室是其中一间约6个平方，囊括了她的整个饮食起居，还有一间则是她不知从哪里带回来的许多童书堆砌成的图书室，是她对偏爱学生的福利。比如我，她常让我进去挑书借书给我看。

这就是我的学校，也是她的城堡和象牙塔。

没错，在我童年的记忆中，她是一位男老师。

蔡荣生——这名字听起来也挺像男人的。

我在村学校只上到三年级，后来我跟我弟长大在外上初中时，也不再跟老师有联络。听村民说蔡老师的二儿子二十七八岁，刚结婚没几年被自家房顶上塌方的黄土砸断了脊柱，变成植物人了……然后老婆跑了，蔡老师只好告别教师生涯回家照顾二儿子。

然后普通人的岁月在残酷的中国社会野萍般地离散沉浮。

一晃多年过去，许多人分开后相别相忘于茫茫人海，从来没想过上次对视竟然是今生的最后一面。

2022年，我开始在破碎的婚姻里挣扎，我从城市回老家给我爸上坟，听我舅说，蔡老师的大儿子车祸死了。我当时心里一紧，我问他，蔡老师怎么样了？我舅说，她命苦啊，小儿子她伺候了这么多年，前年刚去了。现在留下老大家的一个小孙子，这日子怎么过啊？

我当时真的很难受，真的很有冲动想去她的家看她一下，但是想着自己也做不了什么，我当时也挣扎在自杀的边缘，曾一次次的想了结生命，我满脸的颓废和破碎的心……，我自惭形秽，觉得自己没脸去，我曾是她最爱的学生，她的那么那么的骄傲，我们村的人都知道。

所以我没去看她，我觉得等我有时间调整回来，看起来不那么狼狈了，我再去。因为我对自己失望，无法面对她。

然后又过了一年，我陷于四面楚歌，六亲断绝的境地，又因为跟教育局，前夫，村委，派出所等的僵持，压力和恐惧过载罹患了很严重的神经疾病，手抖的几乎无法拿筷子，那时我跟我妈为数不多的电话中，她给我说从我舅那听来的村里的八卦，我以前是从来不听的，但她突然大骂共产党，她说村里正在联名给教育局写信，蔡老师现在生活极度贫困，而教育局因为她不是正式编制老师，不给她发退休金还是说退休金不是正式编制的标准来着，具体记不清了，引起了我们村村民的愤怒，大家都很气愤纷纷联名上书教育局，要求善待蔡老师，具体结果还不知道。然后我妈又骂政府没人性……

我心中泛起一阵酸楚，湿了眼睛，心疼她，也为我自己的无能。

2024年，当我抱要么死去要么重生的决心带着俩娃坐着渐行渐远离开故土的火车出发时，我流了最后一次泪。

擦干泪，我给我姐电话想让她帮我给蔡老师带点钱，替我去看看她。我姐不等我话说完，说，蔡老师去世了，她也是刚知道，听大舅说的。

蔡老师也教过她和我大姐，她也是她们俩的老师。

然后她也一阵感慨，她说好在好像村民联名上书迫使教育局给蔡老师转正了……

然后她又轻轻说，又有什么用呢，这才不到一年……

我压着眼泪匆匆挂断了电话，然后在火车的厕所里压抑的哭了一场。当时的眼泪不知是哭自己还是为她，可能都有吧。

我这一走是永远的跟故土告别，告别那些山水树木，鱼鸟花虫……我爱的山河故土，自然万物……只不过它们也和我一样痛苦，不得解脱，而我无能为力。

我悄悄的离开，没有跟任何人告别。

在渐渐模糊远去的故乡里，我在乎的人都消逝于暴政的桎梏之中，我的父亲，我的老师…我为自己的无能无力感到深深的遗憾。

好在我还能带走我仅有的，珍爱的——我的孩子。

擦干最后一滴泪，我踏上了征途。

侯改英2026年3月9日于纽约

原文发表于作者侯改英的X帐户，原文链接

https://x.com/hgylucky2017/status/2032839224492216331?s=20

May You Be Safe, Fulfilled, and No Longer Wandering— Dedicated to My Primary School Teacher, Cai Rongsheng

Author: Hou GaiyingEditor: Huang JizhouProofreader: Cheng XiaoxiaoTranslator: Lyu Feng

Abstract:The author was born in a remote mountainous region of the Taihang Mountains in Hebei Province. This essay documents and commemorates a teacher who voluntarily provided education in the author’s village for more than a decade, and was later employed there as a temporary teacher for many years.

In her later life, due to family misfortunes, she fell into hardship. Because she was not formally included within the state-sanctioned teaching system, she was ineligible for a pension. As a result, she and her orphaned granddaughter lived in severe poverty.

Only after a collective petition by the villagers was she able to obtain a measure of justice. However, that justice came too late. She was able to receive the benefits of formal employment status for less than one year before passing away. Her granddaughter was subsequently taken in by the county orphanage.

Cai Rongsheng was a woman. By the time I returned to my village as an undocumented child, she had already been working there as a temporary teacher for many years. I do not know exactly how long, but she taught me for three years, and then taught my younger brother for another three. At the very least, she remained teaching in our village until I had gone on to middle school.

She was a middle-aged woman, in her thirties when she taught me. Fair-skinned and neatly dressed, she wore the kind of gold-rimmed glasses that were rare in those days. Her hair was cut short, just to the ears. She had a slightly plump build and dressed year-round in solemn black or gray suits, paired with neutral leather shoes. Her voice was low and deep. In both appearance and bearing, she felt almost like a man.

She spoke slowly, firmly, and clearly. Her gaze was sharp. Her whole being carried the wisdom and refined dignity of an intellectual—something rarely seen in rural areas of that era. One of her legs had a slight limp, and when she walked, her body swayed noticeably from side to side. When she inspected students reciting lessons, she would often clasp her hands behind her back, slightly hunched. In those moments, she looked—much like my father—to be an extraordinary and remarkable man.

I heard that her husband’s family lived in the neighboring village, only about two li (roughly one kilometer) away. But she seemed to have no real home. She lived at the school year-round, keeping to herself, rarely speaking with villagers outside of teaching.

Because she was not an officially appointed teacher, her salary was merely symbolic—twenty yuan a month, paid by the village collective. She had no land to cultivate, no way to grow food. When her income could not sustain her, she would ask each student to bring a little wheat or grain. In the harsh winter, she would also ask students to bring corn cobs—what remained after the kernels were removed—to burn in the classroom for warmth.

She favored me especially. Besides lending me books, she once asked me to help paste paper over her bedroom window to block the cold drafts. That was when I caught a glimpse of her living space: cramped and dim. I saw the stove, the bowls and chopsticks on the table, and the narrow single bed pressed tightly against other belongings, with a chamber pot tucked underneath. Everything was tidy, but the space felt suffocating.

At the time, I felt a sense of discomfort—a stark contrast that seemed almost unreal. My teacher appeared so refined, dignified, and composed… yet her living conditions were so harsh.

Our village school consisted of a few dilapidated buildings. Her bedroom, about six square meters in size, contained her entire daily life. Another room had been turned into a small library, filled with children’s books she had somehow gathered. This was her gift to the students she favored. For example, she often allowed me to enter and borrow books.

This was my school. It was also her castle—her ivory tower.

Yes, in my childhood memory, she was a male teacher.

Even her name—Cai Rongsheng—sounded like a man’s.

I only studied at the village school until third grade. Later, my brother and I left for middle school elsewhere, and we lost contact with her. I later heard from villagers that her second son, in his late twenties and newly married, had been crushed by a collapse of earthen roofing at home, breaking his spine and leaving him in a vegetative state. His wife left. Teacher Cai had no choice but to give up her teaching career to care for him.

And so, like wild duckweed drifting in a harsh current, an ordinary life was scattered and tossed about in the brutal tides of Chinese society.

Years passed in a blur. People parted ways, disappearing into the vast sea of humanity, never realizing that the last glance they shared would be the final one in this lifetime.

In 2022, as I struggled through the wreckage of my marriage, I returned from the city to my hometown to visit my father’s grave. My uncle told me that Teacher Cai’s eldest son had died in a car accident. My heart tightened. I asked him, “How is she now?” He sighed and said, “Her life is bitter. She cared for her younger son for all those years, and he passed away just the year before last. Now only her eldest son’s young child is left. How is she supposed to live like this?”

I felt deeply distressed. I had a strong urge to visit her, but I knew I could do nothing to help. At that time, I myself was hovering on the edge of suicide, repeatedly thinking of ending my life. I was consumed by despair and shame. I felt unworthy of seeing her—I had once been her favorite student, her pride, as everyone in the village knew.

So I did not go. I told myself that I would visit her after I had regained some stability—after I no longer looked so broken. I was too disappointed in myself to face her.

Another year passed. I found myself besieged on all sides, estranged from family, and locked in conflicts with the education bureau, my ex-husband, the village committee, and the police. The pressure and fear overwhelmed me, and I developed a severe neurological condition—my hands trembled so badly I could barely hold chopsticks. During one of my rare phone calls with my mother, she relayed gossip from the village—something I had never cared to hear before.

Suddenly, she began cursing the government. She said the villagers were collectively petitioning the education bureau. Teacher Cai was now living in extreme poverty, and because she had never been formally recognized as a state-appointed teacher, she was denied a proper pension. The injustice had angered the villagers, who jointly signed a petition demanding fair treatment for her. The outcome was still unknown. My mother continued to curse the authorities for their inhumanity.

A wave of sorrow rose within me. My eyes filled with tears—for her suffering, and for my own helplessness.

In 2024, when I left my homeland by train with my two children—determined either to die or to be reborn—I shed my final tears.

After wiping them away, I called my sister, asking her to bring some money to Teacher Cai on my behalf and to visit her for me. Before I could finish speaking, my sister said, “She has passed away. I just found out—from our uncle.”

Teacher Cai had also taught her and my elder sister.

My sister sighed and added, “At least it seems the villagers’ petition finally forced the education bureau to grant her official status…”

Then she said softly, “But what was the use? It lasted less than a year…”

I held back my tears and hurriedly ended the call. Then, in the train’s restroom, I broke down and cried in silence. I do not know whether I was crying for myself or for her—perhaps for both.

This departure marked my final farewell to my homeland—to its mountains and rivers, its trees, fish, birds, and flowers… the land I loved. Yet they, too, seemed trapped in suffering, unable to escape—and I was powerless to change anything.

I left quietly, without saying goodbye to anyone.

As my hometown faded into the distance, the people I cared about had all been consumed under the weight of oppression—my father, my teacher… I was left with a profound sense of regret for my own helplessness.

At least I could take with me the only thing I still cherished—my children.

After wiping away my final tear, I set out on my journey.

Hou GaiyingMarch 9, 2026, New York

Originally published on the author’s X account:https://x.com/hgylucky2017/status/2032839224492216331?s=20

作者：彭小亮
编辑：Geoffrey Jin 校对：王滨 翻译：彭小梅

剥削的本质是权力得不到约束，而不是所谓的地主、私有企业、民营经济。特斯拉、索尼、丰田等世界知名企业都是私营企业，没有权力撑腰的资本家才是真正的资本家，所以这些企业的工资高，福利待遇好。

真正好的法律是保障人权，选举、民主、司法独立、王在法下，保护私有产权，而在毛泽东时代，毛泽东做的事情是践踏私有财产，践踏人权，毛泽东从来没有制度建设，也没有私有化改革，而是一个人说了算，每天在家里自大，高傲，喊口号小麦亩产三万斤，造成中国六十年代初饿死数千万人。

为什么要希望一个强人来把国家治理好，而不是希望有良好的法律来把国家治理好呢！毛泽东只是杀的人多得来的皇帝位，搞闭关锁国和慈禧基本没有区别，现在中国的烂摊子就是毛泽东留下的后遗症。

所谓的社会主义公有制就是皇有制，所谓的资本主义私有制就是民有制。所谓的社会主义，站在心理学的角度就是不肯把公共资源分发给底层的老百姓，社会主义最终的结局就是集体贫穷和灾难！

中国现在想变好，唯一的道路就是产权改革，然后选举，让民众拿回属于自己的利益，然后引进国外石油，电力，通信、矿产等公司，进行市场竞争把资源价格降下来，然后像美国一样高速免费，让民众富裕起来，保护人权才是长治久安之道。

如果世界上只能存在一种歌颂祖国的声音，这个声音一定是奴役人民的声音。

社会主义公有制就是皇有和官僚所有制，资本主义私有制就是民有和百姓所有制度。

东方大国的皇帝吃着改革开放的饭，砸着改革开放的锅。

有人权讲人权的国家都是文明的发达国家，有主权讲特权的地方都是独裁专政封建皇有制国家。

如果一个人把一个凡人或组织捧上神坛，这个人一定会遭到吞噬，更有甚者可能会借用你孩子的器官为伟人续命。这个世界上不管是谁吃爱国主义这碗饭，他一定会被爱国主义反噬。

如果一个人高呼爱国主义，不是证明了他的伟大和英明，恰好证明了他的邪恶和懦弱。

有爱国主义的地方一定灾难深重，爱国主义泯灭人性践踏人权。

爱国主义的本质就是让你闭嘴，让你不要监督公权力，让权贵阶级随意骄奢淫欲，腰缠万贯。

每一个穷苦民众的心中都有一块裹脚布，这块裹脚布就是爱国主义。

人权思想和人权制度才能让社会长治久安，爱国主义独裁思想和制度永远走不出封建王朝更迭的悲惨命运。

贫穷和灾难的根源就是爱国主义，因为爱国主义的存在造成的后果是忽略人最基本的价值为皇权服务，是一种邪恶的法西斯思想。

如果人民是国家的主人，公务员只是仆人，人民不仅养活了自己还养活了仆人，让主人感恩仆人，这种思想行为模式真的需要进行反思。

西方现代民主法治国家，公务员不能从国家获得巨大利益，所以从来没有感恩教育，义务教育的课本也没有要求孩子们感恩国家，教育的内容是要求孩子们监督公权力，保障人权，避免社会进入贪腐的恶性循环里。

民主、自由派人群才是真正爱国人群，他们心胸开阔，他们一心想要吸引外资增加民众的就业岗位，他们希望国家公务员没有贪腐，他们希望国企没有垄断，民众可以平等就业，他们希望食品安全，民众能吃的放心，民众能被善良的对待。

反观那些口号爱国的盲从之人，他们抵制外资，减少民众的就业机会，他们对贪腐和不公视而不见，他们对糟糕的食品安全做闷头鬼，他们对走失的年轻孩子漠不关心，他们对农村弱势群体毫无善意，他们正在实践他们的人生格言沉默是金。

贪腐的根源其实就是产权没有明晰，民众几千年都没有属于自己的私有财产，哪怕是百姓的生命也是皇帝的私有财产。就是因为美国是完全私有制的国家，所以美国总统不能去贪污私人和民营企业的财产，这样就从制度上杜绝了贪腐。

美国有一整套完整的约束权力的法律、制度、思想、文化，从而告诉总统能做什么不能做什么，这样做的后果就是：哪怕是白宫常年失修，也需要总统自己私人掏腰包3亿美元来给政府修缮大楼，因为总统本能的知道这笔费用，有立法权的国会可能不会通过。

中国没有这样的法律制度，从秦皇汉武开始到今天，国家都是用野蛮暴力的方法武力夺取政权，所以都是秦始皇、刘邦、朱元璋、慈禧、毛泽东一个人说了算，说通俗一点，国家的所有公共资源本质上就是皇帝的私有财产，这样就永远停留在人治社会的贪腐中不停的挣扎、徘徊和轮回，不要说一个小民没有安全感，有可能皇帝也没有安全感。

所以人权才是保障社会能长治久安，每个人都能安全幸福活着的唯一方法。

让我们一起来回忆一下名人名言：

“跟着美国人混，有面包也有自由。跟着苏联混，有面包没有自由，跟着他们混，即没有面包也没有自由。”

——原北京大学校长中国驻美大使 胡适先生

“帮魔鬼唱赞歌，终将被魔鬼抛弃，成为魔鬼的祭品。”

——英国原首相 撒切尔夫人

“哪里有自由，哪里才是能生活的国家。”

——德国裔美国籍科学家 爱因斯坦

“财产不能公有，权力不能私有，否则人类将进入灾难之门。”

——英国经济学家 哈耶克

自由最大的敌人是：民族主义，是民粹思想，是法西斯，是特权和独裁，如果真正为了您的孩子着想，请站在自由一边，切勿站在民粹和独裁者一边，切勿站在公有制国家一边。

在爱国和爱民之间只能选择一个，爱国本质意义就是让孩子成为国家的炮灰，让孩子为国家服务；爱民的意义在于：国家只是物业公司，国家是服务民众的工具。

一个藏富于民的国家、保障人权、追求公平公正的国家才是正常国家，如果利益被少部分人瓜分，民众一贫如洗，民众的脑子被洗得一干二净，这样的国家就是法西斯的独裁国家。为人民服务，人民却一贫如洗，为人民服务的人却腰缠万贯，切勿让“为人民服务”成为表面宣传语。

一个13亿人都想做官的国家，官没有做成，最后大家都成了奴隶。民众没有属于自己的土地，他们承包着公有和集体的土地，民众没有自己的房子，居住着国家卖给他们的70年产权的房子。民众们吃着世界上最毒的食品，用着世界上最贵的汽油，交着世界上最贵的社保，缴纳着世界上最贵的房贷利息，死之前要把一生的财富贡献给医院。

中国共产党的权力阶层，个个都是数万亿资产，他们个个都是富可敌国，这些财富难道不是剥削民众所得吗，所以西方哲学家黑格尔说：中国非常适合奴隶制度，因为他们的思想决定了他们的社会制度。民众被自己的皇帝野蛮的剥削和压榨，这个就是大部分人贫穷的根本原因。

所谓的社会主义公有制，其本质上还是奴隶制和封建帝王制度。西方哲学家罗素、洛克、孟德斯鸠、哈耶克（诺贝尔经济学奖获得者）都有同样的思想表述：大部分人的公有制其实就是少部分人的私有制，少部分人霸占着公共资源，比如石油、通信、电力等，从而垄断和剥削民众，公有制是毁灭一切平等、人伦道德、文化良知的源头。所以私有制和私有产权才是人类文明发展的方向，是文明的基石，保护私有财产就是保护人权。

同胞们请行动起来，宣传私有制，宣传私有产权，抵制封闭式教育，宣传民主、自由、法治、人权，让我们的孩子生活在蓝天白云之下，生活在有爱、有尊严、幸福安康的世界里。

On the Harm of “Patriotism”

Author: Peng Xiaoliang
Editor: Geoffrey Jin. Proofreader: Wang Bin. Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:This article criticizes the tendency to instrumentalize patriotism, pointing out that exploitation stems from the lack of constraints on power rather than ownership itself. It emphasizes the importance of the rule of law, protection of property rights, and checks and balances of power. The article advocates replacing personal authoritarian rule with institutional construction, promoting development through reform and market mechanisms, and warns against the suppression of individual rights and social progress by a monolithic patriotic discourse.

The essence of exploitation is that power is not constrained, rather than so-called landlords, private enterprises, or the private economy. Companies such as Tesla, Sony, and Toyota are all well-known private enterprises. Capitalists without the backing of power are the real capitalists; therefore, these companies offer high wages and good benefits.

Truly good laws are those that protect human rights, elections, democracy, judicial independence, the supremacy of law over rulers, and the protection of private property. In contrast, during the Mao Zedong era, Mao trampled on private property and human rights. Mao never engaged in institutional construction or privatization reform; instead, everything was decided by one person. He stayed at home, arrogant and self-important, shouting slogans such as “30,000 jin of grain per mu,” which led to tens of millions of deaths by starvation in China in the early 1960s.

Why should people hope for a strongman to govern the country well, instead of hoping for good laws to govern the country? Mao Zedong only obtained his “imperial position” by killing large numbers of people. His policies of isolation were essentially no different from those of Empress Dowager Cixi. The current mess in China is the aftermath left behind by Mao Zedong.

The so-called socialist public ownership is imperial ownership, while so-called capitalist private ownership is people’s ownership. From a psychological perspective, socialism essentially means refusing to distribute public resources to ordinary people at the grassroots level. The ultimate outcome of socialism is collective poverty and disaster.

If China wants to improve, the only path is property rights reform, followed by elections, allowing the people to reclaim their own interests. It should introduce foreign companies in sectors such as oil, electricity, telecommunications, and mining, promote market competition to lower resource prices, and implement policies such as free highways like in the United States, so that people can become prosperous. Protecting human rights is the only path to long-term stability.

If there is only one voice in the world that praises the country, that voice must be one that enslaves the people.

Socialist public ownership is essentially imperial and bureaucratic ownership, while capitalist private ownership is ownership by the people.

The emperor of the “Eastern great nation” eats from the bowl of reform and opening up while smashing the very pot of reform and opening.

Countries that speak of human rights are civilized and developed nations; places that emphasize sovereignty and privilege are dictatorial, authoritarian, and feudal imperial systems.

If a person elevates an ordinary individual or organization to a godlike status, that person will inevitably be devoured, and in extreme cases may even have their child’s organs taken to prolong the life of a so-called great figure. Anyone who lives off patriotism will ultimately be devoured by it.

If a person loudly proclaims patriotism, it does not prove their greatness or wisdom; it instead reveals their evil and cowardice.

Wherever there is patriotism, there will be deep disaster. Patriotism destroys humanity and tramples on human rights.

The essence of patriotism is to make you remain silent, to prevent you from supervising public power, and to allow the privileged class to indulge in luxury and accumulate vast wealth.

In the heart of every poor person, there is a piece of foot-binding cloth; that cloth is patriotism.

Only human rights thinking and systems can ensure long-term social stability. Patriotic authoritarian ideology and systems will never escape the tragic cycle of feudal dynastic change.

The root of poverty and disaster is patriotism. Because of patriotism, people ignore their most basic value and serve imperial power. It is an evil fascist ideology.

If the people are the masters of the country and civil servants are merely servants, then the people not only support themselves but also support the servants. Yet making the masters feel grateful to the servants—this kind of thinking and behavior truly needs reflection.

In Western modern democratic and rule-of-law countries, civil servants cannot gain enormous personal benefits from the state. Therefore, there is no “gratitude education,” and textbooks in compulsory education do not require children to be grateful to the state. Instead, education teaches children to supervise public power, protect human rights, and prevent society from falling into a vicious cycle of corruption.

Those who are democratic and liberal are the truly patriotic people. They are broad-minded. They want to attract foreign investment to increase employment opportunities. They hope that government officials are free from corruption, that state-owned enterprises do not monopolize, that people can have equal employment opportunities, that food safety is ensured, and that people can live with peace of mind and be treated with kindness.

In contrast, those who blindly chant patriotic slogans resist foreign investment and reduce employment opportunities. They turn a blind eye to corruption and injustice. They remain silent about poor food safety. They are indifferent to missing young people. They show no kindness toward vulnerable rural groups. They live by the motto: silence is golden.

The root of corruption is actually unclear property rights. For thousands of years, the people have not had their own private property; even their lives have been treated as the private property of the emperor. Because the United States is a country of complete private ownership, the president cannot embezzle private or corporate property. Thus, corruption is eliminated at the institutional level.

The United States has a complete system of laws, institutions, ideas, and culture to restrain power, clearly defining what the president can and cannot do. As a result, even if the White House falls into disrepair, the president must personally pay hundreds of millions of dollars to repair it, because the president knows that such expenses may not be approved by Congress, which holds legislative power.

China does not have such a legal system. From Qin Shi Huang to today, power has been seized through violence. Therefore, whether it is Qin Shi Huang, Liu Bang, Zhu Yuanzhang, Empress Dowager Cixi, or Mao Zedong, one person has always made all decisions. In simple terms, all public resources of the country are essentially the private property of the emperor. This leads to an endless cycle of corruption under rule by man. Not only do ordinary people lack security, even the ruler himself may lack security.

Therefore, human rights are the only way to ensure long-term stability and allow everyone to live safely and happily.

Let us recall some famous quotations:

“Follow the Americans, and you will have both bread and freedom. Follow the Soviets, and you will have bread but no freedom. Follow them, and you will have neither bread nor freedom.”— Hu Shi, former president of Peking University and Chinese ambassador to the United States

“Those who sing praises for the devil will ultimately be abandoned by the devil and become its sacrifice.”— Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

“Where there is freedom, that is the country where one can live.”— Albert Einstein

“Property must not be public, and power must not be private; otherwise, humanity will enter the gate of disaster.”— Friedrich Hayek

The greatest enemies of freedom are nationalism, populism, fascism, privilege, and dictatorship. If you truly care about your children, stand on the side of freedom, and do not stand with populism, dictators, or public-ownership states.

Between loving the country and loving the people, only one can be chosen. Loving the country essentially means turning children into tools of the state; loving the people means the state is merely a service provider—a tool to serve the people.

A normal country is one that stores wealth among the people, protects human rights, and pursues fairness and justice. If wealth is monopolized by a small group, the people are impoverished, and their minds are completely indoctrinated, then such a country is a fascist dictatorship. “Serving the people” should not become mere propaganda, where the people remain poor while those who claim to serve them accumulate vast wealth.

In a country of 1.3 billion people where everyone wants to become an official, if they fail, they all become slaves. People do not own land; they merely contract collective land. They do not own homes; they live in houses sold to them with 70-year property rights. They consume the most toxic food, use the most expensive fuel, pay the highest social security costs, and bear the highest mortgage interest. Before death, they must hand over their lifetime savings to hospitals.

The ruling class of the Chinese Communist Party possesses assets worth trillions, each of them extremely wealthy. Are these not obtained through exploitation of the people? Thus, the Western philosopher Hegel said that China is well suited for slavery, because its people’s thinking determines its social system. The people are brutally exploited and oppressed by their rulers—this is the fundamental reason why most people are poor.

The so-called socialist public ownership is essentially still a form of slavery and feudal imperial rule. Western philosophers such as Russell, Locke, Montesquieu, and Hayek (Nobel laureate in economics) all expressed similar ideas: public ownership for the majority is private ownership for a minority. A small group monopolizes public resources such as oil, telecommunications, and electricity, exploiting the people. Public ownership destroys equality, morality, and cultural conscience. Therefore, private ownership and private property rights are the direction of human civilization and its foundation. Protecting private property is protecting human rights.

Compatriots, act. Promote private ownership, promote private property rights, resist closed education, and advocate democracy, freedom, rule of law, and human rights. Let our children live under blue skies and white clouds, in a world of love, dignity, happiness, and well-being.

——抗议《民族团结进步促进法》

作者：黄吉洲
编辑：Geoffrey Jin 校对：王滨

洛杉矶，2026年3月22日 —— 周日下午4时，中国民主党洛杉矶地区党员组织华裔群体在中共驻洛杉矶领事馆前举行第782次茉莉花行动，主题为“抗议《民族团结进步促进法》！抵制中共马列同化灭绝政策！捍卫少数民族与汉语方言、地域文化！”

活动由黄吉洲发起，现场负责人为倪世成、卓皓然，陈信男负责秩序维护。

参加党员包括倪世成、黄吉洲、卓皓然、孔祥庆、吴腾辉、陈信男、卢超。

参与者高举标语，高呼“废除恶法！”、“停止文化灭绝！”、“抢救方言与地域文化！”、“马列不是中华！还我多元传统！”、“中国共产党下台！”，他们强调“中共马列

主义 ≠ 中国文化，强制同化 ≠ 民族团结”，呼吁各少数民族团体、方言保护组织及海外华人社团联合行动，通过现场抗议与网络传播表达反对。

活动背景指出，2026年3月12日通过的《民族团结进步促进法》（7月1日起施行）以马列主义为指导，核心条款包括强制幼儿园起普通话主导教学、推动跨民族通婚、禁止维护母语/信仰/习俗（定性为“破坏团结”）等。批评者认为，该法将新疆再教育营、西藏寄宿学校、内蒙古禁蒙语等政策全面合法化，同时加速汉族内部粤语、上海话、闽南语等方言及地方戏曲、民歌、地域文化的消失，是对中华多元根基的摧毁。

孔祥庆（客家人）在演讲中表示，自己是最后一代能流利讲客家话的人，批评中共通过“大一统”手段润物细无声地强制同化中国人，并指出该法否定了1984年《民族区域自治法》，法律自相矛盾。

黄吉洲演讲称，说自己的语言、用自己的文字是基本人权，该法本质上是针对少数民族的文化种族灭绝，是严重的反人类罪行。他抨击中共政权从未把人当人看待，只把百姓当成“燃料、耗材”，所以漠视基本人权，并呼吁终结暴政，胜利终将属于追求自由的世代。

李亚辉表示没有共产党的中国会更好。我们需要多样化，拒绝同质化。他认为中共政府的法律不是真正的法律，而是统治工具。

活动参与者呼吁拒绝沉默，各族各地区人民团结起来，为母语、信仰和地域根基而战。

The Chinese Democracy Party Los Angeles Chapter Holds the 782nd Jasmine Action

—— Protest Against the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress”

Author: Huang Jizhou
Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Peng xiaomei

Abstract:On March 22, 2026, members of the Chinese Democracy Party in Los Angeles held a “Jasmine Action” in front of the Chinese Consulate, protesting the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress,” accusing it of promoting forced assimilation and suppressing ethnic minorities and dialect cultures. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with CCP policies through speeches and slogans, emphasizing that language and cultural rights are fundamental human rights, calling for opposition to cultural homogenization and centralized rule, and advocating diversity and freedom.

Los Angeles, March 22, 2026 — At 4:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, members of the Chinese Democracy Party Los Angeles chapter organized members of the Chinese community to hold the 782nd Jasmine Action in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles, with the theme:“Protest the ‘Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress’! Resist the CCP’s Marxist-Leninist assimilation and extermination policies! Defend ethnic minorities, Chinese dialects, and regional cultures!”

The event was initiated by Huang Jizhou, with Ni Shicheng and Zhuo Haoran serving as on-site coordinators, and Chen Xinnan responsible for maintaining order.

Participating party members included Ni Shicheng, Huang Jizhou, Zhuo Haoran, Kong Xiangqing, Wu Tenghui, Chen Xinnan, and Lu Chao.

Participants held banners high and shouted slogans such as:“Abolish the evil law!”,“Stop cultural extermination!”,“Rescue dialects and regional cultures!”,“Marxism-Leninism is not China! Return our diverse traditions!”,“Chinese Communist Party step down!”

They emphasized that:“CCP Marxism-Leninism ≠ Chinese culture, forced assimilation ≠ ethnic unity,”and called on various ethnic minority groups, dialect preservation organizations, and overseas Chinese communities to take joint action, expressing opposition through on-site protests and online dissemination.

The background of the event points out that the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress,” passed on March 12, 2026 (to take effect on July 1), is guided by Marxism-Leninism. Its core provisions include:mandatory Mandarin-dominant teaching starting from kindergarten,promotion of interethnic marriage,and prohibition of maintaining mother languages, beliefs, and customs (defined as “undermining unity”), among others.

Critics believe that this law fully legalizes policies such as re-education camps in Xinjiang, boarding schools in Tibet, and the banning of Mongolian language in Inner Mongolia. At the same time, it accelerates the disappearance of internal Han dialects such as Cantonese, Shanghainese, and Minnan, as well as local operas, folk songs, and regional cultures, constituting a destruction of the pluralistic foundation of Chinese civilization.

Kong Xiangqing (a Hakka speaker) stated in his speech that he is the last generation able to speak Hakka fluently. He criticized the CCP for using “great unification” methods to impose assimilation on Chinese people in a subtle and pervasive manner and pointed out that the law negates the 1984 “Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law,” making the legal system self-contradictory.

Huang Jizhou stated in his speech that speaking one’s own language and using one’s own writing system are basic human rights. He said that the law is essentially cultural genocide against ethnic minorities and constitutes a serious crime against humanity. He criticized the CCP regime for never treating people as human beings, but only as “fuel and consumables,” thus ignoring basic human rights. He called for an end to tyranny, stating that victory will ultimately belong to generations that pursue freedom.

Li Yahui stated that China would be better without the Communist Party. We need diversity and must reject homogenization. He believes that the laws of the CCP government are not true laws, but instruments of rule.

Participants in the event called for rejecting silence and urged people of all ethnic groups and regions to unite and fight for their mother languages, beliefs, and regional foundations.

《全球覺醒》第六十六期

自由之鐘 時刻敲響 全球覺醒 民主聯盟 消滅獨裁 推翻暴政

活動主題：國際良心日，釋放良心犯

又是清明雨紛紛，今天我們站在領館門前，祭奠的是那些在中共黑暗牢籠中被折磨、被失蹤、甚至被活活虐殺的良心同胞！ 4月5日，不僅是清明節，更是聯合國「國際良心日」。在這個呼喚良知、清算罪惡的時刻，我們呼籲中共釋放要為那些被高牆隔絕、被數字抹除的中國良心犯。

王炳章，海外民運先驅，數十年來為中國的民主而戰，現被中共判終身監禁。高智晟，這位“中國的良心”，被失踪至今已近九年，生死不明；黎智英，年近八旬仍被囚禁在香港鐵窗後，寧折不彎。這些民族的脊梁，卻遭遇殘酷的肉體摧殘。從兩會期間因醫療虐待慘死的楊立，到長期被關進精神病院實施「社會性謀殺」的李宜雪，中共正試圖用「數位禁錮」抹去他們的功勳，用黑監獄終結他們的生命。這不僅是對生命的殘殺，更是對文明底線的公然褻瀆！

我們絕不接受被閹割的記憶！在“國際良心日”，我們呼籲全球清算中共的血債。我們大聲疾呼，就是要拆穿中共的虛假繁榮，撕碎數字枷鎖。清明祭奠，祭的是英魂，招的是民氣！辣椒水噴不滅自由的火種，黑監獄關不住正義的呼喚。

我們要讓高智晟回家！我們要讓王炳章、黎智英自由！血債終將清算，所有被禁錮、被消音的靈魂，終將在民主中國獲得真正的安息！

我們的口號：

我們要良知 不要暴政！

中共不倒 冤魂不散！

獨裁不滅 正義難尋！

國際良心日，釋放良心犯

時間：2026年4月5日（星期日）3:30PM (下午)

地點：中共駐洛杉磯總領館

地址：443 Shatto Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90020

活動召集人：廖军/劉廣賢

活動規劃： 孫曄/ 周蘭英

活動主持：易勇

組織者：

胡月明4806536918/穆偉6265670518

楊郭軍6263713274/粱振华626 828 9079

孔德翠6265588877/ 于越 6266498381

活動義工：于海龍 /李錦華/陳健 / 張健/范强/陈文辉/劉紹陽

攝影：Ji Luo /劉樂園

主辦單位：

中國民主黨聯合總部美西黨部

中國民主黨聯合總部美南黨部

自由鐘民主基金會

作者：关永杰
编辑：钟然    校对：王滨 翻译：周敏

        2026年3月29日，由中国民主人权联盟旧金山分部发起的“声援信宜人民反抗中共暴政”户外集会在San Jose City Hall举行。活动由李海风、张勇、周志刚召集发起，多位在美华人到场发言，表达对广东信宜群体性抗议事件的关注与声援。

        广东信宜近期发生的群体抗争，起因涉及当地公共项目争议。有消息称，原本以基础设施名义进行征地的工程，最终发现是殡葬设施建设，引发周边居民不满。网络曝光的现场画面显示，民众多次走上街头表达诉求，并与执法力量发生对峙，其中一位年迈女性站在队伍前方向防暴警察投掷鸡蛋的画面，引发广泛关注。

        活动发起人之一李海风在开场发言中表示，此次集会旨在为信宜民众发声。他提到，一段老年女性面对防暴力量的画面令人震撼，也反映出普通民众在强大权力面前的无力与坚持。他呼吁海外华人关注此类事件，通过发声打破信息封锁，让更多人了解正在发生的事情。他同时指出，这类抗争既可能激发更大范围的社会关注，抗争民众也可能面临被政府压制与分化，而勇敢的抗争者将面临的风险难以预料，因此更需要外界持续关注。

        张隆在发言中表示，信宜事件体现了环境问题与社会矛盾的叠加。他认为，污染环境、资源浪费与劳工问题长期存在，而此次抗议显示出基层民众的觉醒与行动力。他呼吁更多人关注此类事件，并表达对当地抗争者的支持。

        发言者杜志国则从历史角度出发，提及广东地区在近代社会变革中的角色，南粤人民确实勇气可嘉，认为社会变迁往往由局部事件逐步推动。他表示，民间行动在历史进程中曾产生深远影响。

        中国民主党成员周志刚在发言中提出，应从更深层原因看待此类事件。他指出，类似情况反复出现，并非偶然，而与长期的信息不透明和政府一直无视民意而公信力丢失有关。他呼吁公众不要保持沉默，应持续传播信息，让事件被记录与记住。

        原籍广东的Eric表示，信宜民众通过集会表达诉求，是一种常见的社会表达方式。他认为，在公共事务中，民众有权表达意见，相关问题应通过沟通解决，而非激化矛盾。

       何冬玲则关注事件本身的信息透明问题。她指出，如果项目在推进过程中存在信息不对称或沟通不足，将直接影响公众信任。她呼吁给予民众明确的解释与回应。

        长期生活在广东的袁强表示，这是一党专制之下，政府不受监督、缺乏制约的必然结果。无论这次信宜事件结果如何，如果问题不能从根源上得到解决，类似事件仍将持续发生。身在海外的华人，应表达关注与支持。

        集会召集人之一张勇在总结发言中表示，信宜事件中民众的行动展现出强烈的情绪与诉求。他认为，这类事件在中国不同地区均有出现，前有香港中环，四川江油，今天有广东信宜，明天又不知道在哪里。这是共产党在长期高压统治下的必然结果，但有压迫就会有反抗，终有一天，这个肮脏且独裁的政权会被人民推翻。

        活动尾声，延续之前的“每人捐一美元帮助良心犯”的行动，继续用实际行动支持国内被政府打压的良心犯。本次活动在平和氛围中结束。主办方表示，未来将继续关注相关事件发展，并推动更多公共讨论。

Rally in San Jose Supports Rights Activists in Xinyi, Guangdong

Author: Guan Yongjie
Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: Chinese people in the Bay Area gathered at San Jose City Hall to support the struggle of the people in Xinyi, Guangdong, calling for attention to grassroots rights protection and information blockades under the high-pressure rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

On March 29, 2026, the outdoor rally “Supporting the Xinyi People in Resisting CCP Tyranny,” organized by the San Francisco branch of the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance, was held at San Jose City Hall. The event was convened and initiated by Li Haifeng, Zhang Yong, and Zhou Zhigang. Many Chinese living in the U.S. attended and spoke, expressing their concern and support for the mass protest incident in Xinyi, Guangdong.

The recent mass struggle in Xinyi, Guangdong, originated from a controversy involving a local public project. According to reports, land originally requisitioned under the guise of an infrastructure project was eventually discovered to be for the construction of funeral facilities, triggering dissatisfaction among nearby residents. Footage exposed online shows citizens taking to the streets multiple times to express their demands and engaging in confrontations with law enforcement. Among them, a scene of an elderly woman standing at the front of the line throwing eggs at riot police has garnered widespread attention.

Li Haifeng, one of the event organizers, stated in his opening remarks that the rally aimed to speak for the people of Xinyi. He mentioned that the footage of the elderly woman facing riot forces was shocking and reflected the helplessness and persistence of ordinary people in the face of powerful authority. He called on overseas Chinese to pay attention to such events and break the information blockade by speaking out, letting more people know what is happening. He also pointed out that while such struggles might stimulate broader social concern, the protesters may also face suppression and division by the government. The risks faced by brave protesters are unpredictable; therefore, sustained attention from the outside world is even more necessary.

Zhang Long stated in his speech that the Xinyi incident embodies the overlap of environmental issues and social contradictions. He believes that environmental pollution, resource waste, and labor issues have existed for a long time, and this protest demonstrates the awakening and mobilization of grassroots citizens. He called for more people to focus on such events and expressed support for the local protesters.

Speaker Du Zhiguo, speaking from a historical perspective, mentioned the role of the Guangdong region in modern social transformations. He stated that the people of Southern Yue (Guangdong) are indeed courageously commendable and believes that social change is often driven progressively by local incidents. He remarked that grassroots actions have had a profound impact throughout the course of history.

Zhou Zhigang, a member of the China Democratic Party, suggested in his speech that such events should be viewed from deeper underlying causes. He pointed out that the repeated occurrence of similar situations is not accidental but is related to long-term information opacity and the loss of government credibility due to the consistent ignoring of public opinion. He urged the public not to remain silent and to continue spreading information so the event can be recorded and remembered.

Eric, a native of Guangdong, stated that the Xinyi people’s gathering to express demands is a common form of social expression. He believes that in public affairs, citizens have the right to express their opinions, and relevant issues should be resolved through communication rather than escalating conflicts.

He Dongling focused on the issue of information transparency regarding the incident itself. She pointed out that if there is information asymmetry or insufficient communication during the promotion of a project, it will directly affect public trust. She called for a clear explanation and response to be given to the people.

Yuan Qiang, who lived in Guangdong for a long time, stated that this is an inevitable result of a one-party dictatorship where the government is not supervised and lacks constraints. Regardless of the outcome of this Xinyi incident, if the problem is not solved at its root, similar incidents will continue to occur. Chinese people living abroad should express their concern and support.

Zhang Yong, one of the rally conveners, stated in his concluding remarks that the actions of the people in the Xinyi incident demonstrate intense emotions and demands. He believes that these types of incidents appear in different regions of China—previously in Central, Hong Kong, and Jiangyou, Sichuan; today in Xinyi, Guangdong; and no one knows where it will be tomorrow. This is the inevitable result of the Communist Party’s long-term high-pressure rule, but where there is oppression, there will be resistance. One day, this filthy and autocratic regime will be overthrown by the people.

At the end of the activity, continuing the previous “Donate One Dollar to Help Prisoners of Conscience” campaign, participants continued to use practical actions to support prisoners of conscience suppressed by the government domestically. The event ended in a peaceful atmosphere. The organizers stated that they will continue to monitor the development of related events in the future and promote more public discussion.

作者：马群
编辑：黄吉洲  校对：孔祥庆 翻译：周敏

2026年3月，广东省信宜市水口镇，一起围绕殡仪馆建设项目的争议，在短短数日内迅速升级为持续性的群体性冲突，并引发外界关注。

3月16日，信宜市政府发布“颐福园”殡仪馆项目公示，拟选址马六塘，项目投资约1.45亿元，计划于当年3月至12月建设完成。公示称，项目周边500米范围内无居民。然而，这一说法很快遭到当地村民的普遍质疑。

多位村民反映，此前相关土地征收是以“修建励儒大道”的名义进行，并未明确告知将建设殡仪馆项目。更令村民不满的是，实际选址与官方公示存在明显差距：距离旺埇村不足700米，距五胜村约200米，附近还有一所小学约600米。对于一个具有明显邻避属性的公共设施而言，这样的距离使村民难以接受，也加剧了对政府信息透明度的质疑。

3月17日，数百名村民前往村委会聚集，要求政府撤回项目并公开真实情况。随着现场警力增加，局势迅速紧张，防暴警察进场维持秩序。在随后的冲突中，警方采取强制措施驱散人群，现场出现推搡与混乱，有村民受伤并被带走，矛盾由此激化。

3月18日至19日，抗议行动进一步升级。部分村民转至信宜市政府门口集结，挥舞国旗、高喊口号，表达诉求。随着情绪升温，现场出现向警方方向投掷石块和鸡蛋的行为。与此同时，警方不断增援，对周边道路实施封控，双方形成持续对峙。有消息称，部分村口一度出现停电情况，使外界难以及时了解现场状况。

在连续三天的冲突之后，当局迅速加强管控措施。自3月20日起，大量特警力量进驻水口镇及周边区域，强化巡逻与布控，试图以高压手段遏制事态扩散。村庄整体氛围趋于紧绷，人员流动与信息传播均受到明显限制。

然而，3月25日，在持续高压之下，仍有村民再次走上街头表达反对立场。这一行动发生在管控尚未解除的背景中，因而更具象征意义：即使在强力压制之下，部分民众仍选择发声，而非完全沉默。

从整个事件的演变来看，这不仅是一场典型的“邻避冲突”，更折射出基层治理中长期存在的结构性问题。首先，是信息披露与实际情况之间的落差。当官方公示与民众感知出现明显不一致时，信任基础便会迅速动摇。其次，是决策过程缺乏有效的公众参与机制。对于高度敏感的公共设施选址，如果缺乏充分沟通与协商，任何单方面推进都可能引发强烈反弹。

更值得关注的是应对方式。当局在冲突升级后，主要依赖警力介入与高压管控来恢复秩序。短期来看，这种方式能够迅速降低街头对抗的强度，但从长远看，却可能加深对立情绪，使问题从具体项目争议，转化为更深层的信任危机。

3月25日村民的再次集结，正说明问题并未真正解决。高压可以压低声音，却难以消除不满。对普通人而言，他们的诉求并不复杂——不过是对生活环境、安全感以及基本尊严的守护。当这些最基本的关切被忽视时，街头便成为最后的表达出口。

在现实条件下，这类抗争往往难以改变既定决策。项目或许仍将推进，参与者也可能承受各种压力。从结果来看，这似乎是一场难以取胜的行动。但其意义，并不止于结果本身。它揭示了一个更深层的问题：当制度性表达渠道不足时，社会张力终将以更直接的方式呈现出来。

“哪里有压迫，哪里就有反抗。”信宜事件再次印证了这一点。村民的呐喊，也许无法立即改变项目走向，却让人看到，在高度约束的环境中，仍有人试图守住最基本的权利与尊严。

如果类似问题的根源得不到正视，那么信宜不会是孤例。真正值得思考的，不是如何更有效地“维稳”，而是如何让民众在不走上街头的情况下，也能被认真倾听。

The Xinyi Incident: A Public Opinion Dilemma Under Information Distortion and High-Pressure Stability Maintenance

Author: Ma Qun
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: Information distortion and high-pressure stability maintenance weaken government credibility; a lack of transparency and public participation leads to the intensification of contradictions. Information disclosure should be improved, consultation mechanisms established, and institutionalized expression channels perfected to resolve conflicts from the source.

In March 2026, in Shuikou Town, Xinyi City, Guangdong Province, a controversy surrounding a funeral parlor construction project rapidly escalated into a persistent mass conflict within just a few days, drawing outside attention.

On March 16, the Xinyi Municipal Government released a public notice for the “Yifuyuan” funeral parlor project, proposing a site in Maliutang. The project involved an investment of approximately 145 million yuan and was scheduled for completion between March and December of that year. The notice stated that there were no residents within 500 meters of the project perimeter. However, this claim was soon widely questioned by local villagers.

Multiple villagers reported that the previous land requisition was carried out under the name of “constructing Liru Avenue,” and they were not clearly informed that a funeral parlor project would be built. What dissatisfied villagers even more was the obvious gap between the actual site and the official notice: it is less than 700 meters from Wangyong Village, about 200 meters from Wusheng Village, and there is a primary school nearby at about 600 meters. For a public facility with obvious NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) attributes, such a distance is difficult for villagers to accept and has exacerbated doubts regarding the transparency of government information.

On March 17, hundreds of villagers gathered at the village committee office, demanding the government withdraw the project and disclose the true situation. As the police presence on-site increased, the situation quickly became tense, and riot police entered to maintain order. In the subsequent conflict, police took mandatory measures to disperse the crowd; pushing and chaos occurred on-site, some villagers were injured and taken away, and thus the contradiction intensified.

From March 18 to 19, the protest actions escalated further. Some villagers moved to assemble in front of the Xinyi Municipal Government gates, waving national flags and shouting slogans to express their demands. As emotions heated up, acts of throwing stones and eggs toward the police occurred on-site. Meanwhile, police continuously sent reinforcements and implemented controls on surrounding roads, creating a sustained standoff between the two sides. Reports indicated that power outages occurred at some village entrances at one point, making it difficult for the outside world to understand the situation on-site in a timely manner.

After three consecutive days of conflict, the authorities quickly strengthened control measures. Starting from March 20, a large number of special police forces were stationed in Shuikou Town and surrounding areas, strengthening patrols and deployments in an attempt to use high-pressure means to contain the spread of the situation. The overall atmosphere of the villages became strained, and both the movement of personnel and the dissemination of information were significantly restricted.

However, on March 25, under continuous high pressure, some villagers still took to the streets again to express their opposition. This action took place against the backdrop where controls had not yet been lifted, and therefore possessed even greater symbolic significance: even under forceful suppression, some members of the public chose to speak out rather than remain completely silent.

Looking at the evolution of the entire incident, this is not only a typical “NIMBY conflict” but also reflects long-standing structural problems in grassroots governance. First is the gap between information disclosure and the actual situation. When official notices and public perception are clearly inconsistent, the foundation of trust will quickly shake. Second is the lack of effective public participation mechanisms in the decision-making process. For highly sensitive public facility siting, if there is a lack of sufficient communication and consultation, any unilateral promotion may trigger a strong backlash.

What is even more worthy of attention is the method of response. After the conflict escalated, the authorities mainly relied on police intervention and high-pressure control to restore order. In the short term, this method can quickly reduce the intensity of street confrontations, but in the long run, it may deepen antagonistic sentiments and transform the issue from a specific project dispute into a deeper crisis of trust.

The re-assembly of villagers on March 25 precisely demonstrates that the problem has not been truly solved. High pressure can suppress voices but can hardly eliminate dissatisfaction. For ordinary people, their demands are not complex—they are nothing more than the protection of their living environment, sense of security, and basic dignity. When these most basic concerns are ignored, the street becomes the final outlet for expression.

Under realistic conditions, such struggles are often difficult to change established decisions. The project may still move forward, and participants may also endure various pressures. From the perspective of the result, this seems to be an action that is difficult to win. But its significance does not stop at the result itself. It reveals a deeper problem: when institutionalized channels of expression are insufficient, social tension will eventually present itself in a more direct manner.

“Where there is oppression, there is resistance.” The Xinyi incident confirms this once again. The shouts of the villagers may not be able to immediately change the direction of the project, but they allow people to see that even in a highly constrained environment, there are still people attempting to hold onto the most basic rights and dignity.

If the root causes of similar problems are not faced squarely, then Xinyi will not be an isolated case. What is truly worth reflecting on is not how to “maintain stability” more effectively, but how to ensure that the people can be listened to seriously without having to take to the streets.

——第十三届奥斯卡自由人权奖纪实

作者：胡景

编辑 ：Geoffrey Jin   校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

3月15日下午，第13届奥斯卡自由人权奖颁奖典礼在六四纪念馆隆重举行。

坐落于洛杉矶的“六四”纪念馆，今天再次座无虚席。人群安静而肃穆，仿佛每一个人都带着各自的记忆而来。在这样的氛围中，第十三届“奥斯卡自由人权奖”颁奖典礼如期举行。本届奖项授予多位仍身处中国、为基本权利奔走呼号的维权人士与政治犯。他们中的许多人，或身陷囹圄，或长期遭受压制，却依然选择不沉默、不退却。

如果将历届获奖者一一排列，那几乎是一条由一个个体的命运铺就的道路——一条通向自由与尊严的“星光大道”。

记忆与延续

“我能来到这里，感到很荣幸。”作为本次活动的重要参与者之一，朱虞夫的声音低沉而平稳。他曾是第一届该奖项的获奖者之一，但在获奖时仍身处狱中，对外界的消息一无所知。多年后，当他得知这一切时，仍倍感温暖，那是一种“迟来的温暖”。

然而，这份温暖背后，也夹杂着遗憾。“像我们这样的人，很多时候并没有被真正看见。”他说。在他的讲述中，时间仿佛被拉长。从上世纪末至今，一代又一代人，在相似的处境中承受着代价。在浙江，一直有中国民主党人在不断的坐牢，监狱里一直有中国民主党人，这些民主党人，仿佛参加了一场接力赛，中共安排的接力赛，一棒接一棒的坐牢，从未间断。

当谈及为何争取基本权利如此艰难，他没有使用激烈的语言，而是以一种近乎冷静的方式指出：“在这样的体制之下，很多权利本身就很难获得。”也正因为如此，他将更多的重心放在“责任”上。“在外面的人，不应该忘记里面的人。”他说，“关注不能只是口头上的，而应该是持续的、具体的。”谈及未来时，他提到一种更深层的支撑——信念与品格。“一个社会要真正走向良性，不只是制度的问题，也和人的内心有关。要坚持正义，也要保持谦卑。”

沉默与选择

相比之下，史庆梅的表达更为直接。“很多人其实知道什么是自由、什么是权利，但他们没有勇气说出来。”她将这种沉默归因于长期的压力环境。“当表达意味着风险，人们自然会选择退缩。这不是因为不理解，而是因为代价太大。”

现在她已经身处一个可以公开表达的环境，但这并不意味着完全没有牵连。她提到，家人曾经遭遇过骚扰与威胁。“一开始会害怕，但时间长了，也慢慢学会如何面对。”这种变化，在她看来，这是一个脱敏的过程，是一种从恐惧到适应，再到坚定的过程。“

如果我不说话，那我离开的意义就不存在了。”她的语气并不激烈，却带着一种清晰的决断。

在她看来，权力之所以对公民社会保持高度警惕，本质上源于对“觉醒”的担忧。“一旦更多人敢于表达真实想法，就会带来改变的可能。”因此，她的期待也显得朴素而直接——希望改变发生，希望更多人能够真正呼吸到自由的空气。

荣誉与见证

“这对我来说，是一种巨大的荣誉。”袁崛这样形容自己受邀出席颁奖典礼的感受。

三年前，他来到美国，此后持续参与公共事务。在他看来，这一奖项的意义，远不止于象征性的肯定。“它真正关注的，是那些在最基层、最没有资源的环境中发声的人。

他们最容易被忽视，一旦被带走，很可能就悄无声息。”所以，在他眼中，这个奖项不仅是荣誉，更像是一束光，照向那些被遮蔽的角落。

当谈及现实，他的判断带有一种冷静的克制。“可以说，正处在一个‘至暗时刻’。表达空间在收缩，很多人选择沉默。”但他并未失去希望，反而对故土的光明未来充满信心。“历史上常常如此，当压抑走到极端，也可能孕育变化的契机。关键在于，是否有人能够抓住它。”

同时，他也强调了基层力量的重要性。在他看来，真正的社会变革，往往来自最广泛的普通人，而不是少数精英。正是这数量众多的普通人，才是推动社会变革的主体。

星光与方向

整场活动没有激昂的口号，也没有刻意的煽动。更多时候，是一种克制的表达，一种在现实压力下仍然试图保持理性的声音。

这些声音并不宏大，甚至常常显得微弱。但正是这些具体而真实的讲述，构成了某种更深层的力量，它穿过纪念馆，穿过街道，穿越苍穹。

会场上的嘉宾，他们谈论的，是权利、是恐惧、是选择，也是代价。

当名字被一个个念出，当故事被一段段讲述，那些原本孤立的经历开始彼此连接，彼此照亮。他们是一个个星星之火，但只要这种火多了，就可以燎原，照亮大陆的那片天空。

或许正如人们所相信的那样：当黑暗足够深时，哪怕是微弱的光，也会变得清晰而坚定。而这些光，终将指向远方，指引并照亮我们前行的路。

Starlight in the Darkness

— A Documentary of the 13th Oscar Free Human Rights Awards

Author: Hu Jing

Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: This article records the award ceremony of the 13th “Oscar Free Human Rights Awards” held at the June 4th Memorial Hall in Los Angeles. The event honors human rights activists and political prisoners who are still speaking out for basic rights in China, highlighting the spirit of human rights and the courage to persist in resistance under pressure and restrictions.

On the afternoon of March 15, the award ceremony for the 13th Oscar Free Human Rights Awards was grandly held at the June 4th Memorial Hall.

Located in Los Angeles, the “June 4th” Memorial Hall was once again packed to capacity today. The crowd was quiet and solemn, as if every person had arrived carrying their own individual memories. In such an atmosphere, the 13th “Oscar Free Human Rights Awards” ceremony proceeded as scheduled. This year’s awards were granted to several human rights activists and political prisoners who remain in China, running and crying out for basic rights. Many of them are either imprisoned or have long been subjected to suppression, yet they still choose not to remain silent and not to retreat.

If one were to arrange the past winners one by one, it would almost form a path paved by the fates of individuals—a “Walk of Fame” leading toward freedom and dignity.

Memory and Continuity

“I feel very honored to be able to come here.” As one of the key participants of this event, Zhu Yufu’s voice was low and steady. He was one of the winners of the very first edition of this award, but at the time of winning, he was still in prison and knew nothing of the outside news. Years later, when he learned of all this, he still felt a surge of warmth—a kind of “belated warmth.”

However, behind this warmth, regret was also intermingled. “People like us, many times, are not truly seen,” he said. In his narration, time seemed to be stretched. From the end of the last century to the present, generation after generation has endured the cost in similar circumstances. In Zhejiang, there have always been members of the China Democracy Party continuously going to prison; there have always been China Democracy Party members in prisons. These democrats seem to have participated in a relay race, a relay race arranged by the CCP, passing the baton of imprisonment from one to another without interruption.

When discussing why striving for basic rights is so difficult, he did not use intense language but instead pointed out in a nearly clinical manner: “Under such a system, many rights themselves are very difficult to obtain.” Because of this, he placed more weight on “responsibility.” “Those on the outside should not forget those on the inside,” he said. “Concern should not just be verbal; it should be continuous and concrete.” Speaking of the future, he mentioned a deeper layer of support—faith and character: “For a society to truly move toward a healthy state, it is not just a matter of the system, but is also related to the inner heart of the human being. One must persist in justice, but also maintain humility.”

Silence and Choice

In contrast, Shi Qingmei’s expression was more direct. “Many people actually know what freedom and rights are, but they do not have the courage to speak out.” She attributed this silence to the long-term high-pressure environment. “When expression means risk, people naturally choose to withdraw. This is not because they don’t understand, but because the cost is too high.”

Now she is in an environment where she can express herself publicly, but this does not mean there are no involvements at all. She mentioned that her family had previously encountered harassment and threats. “At first I would be afraid, but as time went on, I slowly learned how to face it.” In her view, this change is a process of desensitization—a process from fear to adaptation, and then to firmness.

“If I do not speak, then the significance of my leaving ceases to exist.” Her tone was not fierce, yet it carried a clear determination.

In her view, the reason power maintains a high degree of vigilance toward civil society stems essentially from a worry about “awakening.” “Once more people dare to express their true thoughts, it will bring the possibility of change.” Therefore, her expectations appeared simple and direct—hoping for change to happen, and hoping that more people can truly breathe the air of freedom.

Honor and Witness

“To me, this is a huge honor,” Yuan Jue described his feelings about being invited to attend the award ceremony.

Three years ago, he came to the United States, and since then has continuously participated in public affairs. In his view, the significance of this award goes far beyond symbolic affirmation: “It truly focuses on those who speak out in the most grassroots and resource-poor environments. They are the most easily ignored; once they are taken away, it is very likely they vanish without a sound.” Thus, in his eyes, this award is not just an honor, but more like a beam of light shining into those obscured corners.

When talking about reality, his judgment carried a calm restraint. “It can be said that we are currently in a ‘darkest hour.’ The space for expression is shrinking, and many people choose silence.” But he did not lose hope; instead, he was full of confidence in the bright future of his homeland. “History is often like this; when suppression reaches an extreme, it may also nurture the opportunity for change. The key lies in whether someone can seize it.”

At the same time, he emphasized the importance of grassroots power. In his view, true social transformation often comes from the broadest range of ordinary people, rather than a few elites. It is precisely these vast numbers of ordinary people who are the main subjects driving social change.

Starlight and Direction

The entire event featured no impassioned slogans nor intentional incitement. More often, it was a restrained expression—a voice attempting to remain rational under the pressure of reality.

These voices were not grand; they even often appeared faint. But it is precisely these concrete and real narrations that constitute a deeper kind of power, passing through the memorial hall, through the streets, and across the firmament. The guests at the venue talked about rights, fear, choices, and costs.

As the names were called out one by one, and the stories were told segment by segment, those originally isolated experiences began to connect and illuminate one another. They are individual sparks of fire, but as long as such fires increase, they can start a prairie fire and illuminate the sky of the mainland.

Perhaps just as people believe: when the darkness is deep enough, even a faint light will become clear and firm. And these lights will ultimately point to the distance, guiding and illuminating the road of our journey forward.

作者：马雪丰 编辑 ： Gloria wang 翻译：彭小梅

近年来，“跨国镇压”已成为国际社会关注的焦点问题。所谓跨国镇压，是指一国政府对身处海外的个人或群体，通过监控、骚扰、威胁甚至间接施压等方式进行控制。进入2026年，这一现象不仅没有减弱，反而呈现出更加多样化和系统化的趋势。

首先，直接针对个人及其家庭的“延伸式打击”，成为跨国镇压的重要特征。2026年，一起引发广泛关注的案例是：一名旅居美国的香港民主活动人士，其在香港的父亲被判刑。该案件被外界解读为对海外异议人士的“连带施压”，即通过惩罚家属来影响当事人的行为。这种方式突破了地理边界，使个人即使身处他国，也难以摆脱来自原政治体系的压力。

其次，在海外直接展开行动的情况也在增加。2026年3月，意大利方面驱逐了8名中国公民，原因是他们被怀疑参与监视并骚扰一名异见人士。这一事件不仅导致双方执法合作受影响，也显示出相关活动已经进入欧洲社会内部，引发主权与安全层面的担忧。

类似现象同样出现在其他国家。例如在澳大利亚，2026年初有人员被指控代表中国公安系统，对当地宗教团体进行情报收集和监控。当地安全机构指出，这类行为属于“外国干预”甚至带有跨国镇压的特征，尤其容易针对移民和侨民群体。

再次，跨国镇压的手段正在变得更加隐蔽和多样化。根据2026年的相关研究，一些行动不再依赖直接执法，而是通过商业渠道、社交媒体、信息传播等方式，对目标进行监控、施压或舆论打击。这种“外包式”或“间接式”的操作，使得行为更难被识别，也更难被法律界定。

此外，威胁和恐吓的范围也在扩大。2025年底至2026年初，多个国家出现针对特定文化团体和演出的威胁事件，包括匿名死亡威胁、恐吓邮件等，涉及欧洲、北美及亚太地区。这类跨国协调的恐吓行为，显示出其影响范围已具备全球性特征。

综上可以看出，跨国镇压已不再是零散个案，而是一种具有系统性的跨境行为模式。它既包括对个体的直接施压，也涵盖对信息环境和社群的间接影响。在全球化与数字化背景下，中共跨越国界的影响力正在不断增强，并对各国的社会环境、言论空间以及国家安全提出新的挑战。

中共长期以来对于全世界的渗透已经严重威胁到民主国家的国家安全，所幸国际社会已经注意到中共的狼子野心，并通过执法、立法和国际合作，多层次应对跨国镇压问题，经济上，也开始逐渐与中共统治下的中国脱钩。

在这次反共浪潮中，我们中国民主党员亦当利用中共的社交媒体，平台，在中共的言论审核框架之下巧妙传播真相以及民主自由思想以进行逆统战，旨在借由中共经济下行，人民不满增加，国际社会提高警惕的机会，在墙内埋下希望火种的同时消耗中共资源，提高中国民主党在墙内的认知度。

中共对于全世界的渗透势必会引起文明与野蛮的对抗，愿我们中国民主党党员以及所有热爱自由民主的人们，亲爱精诚，团结一致，我们已退无可退，这场反渗透的战斗，为了自由与民主，我们一定要赢！

The Threat of CCP Global Infiltration from the Perspective of Transnational Repression

Author: Ma Xuefeng Editor: Gloria Wang Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:In recent years, transnational repression has intensified. Its methods include pressuring overseas individuals and their families, conducting surveillance and harassment in other countries, and exerting influence through covert means such as social media. It has become a global and systematic security issue.

In recent years, “transnational repression” has become a focal issue of concern for the international community.So-called transnational repression refers to a situation in which a government exerts control over individuals or groups located overseas through monitoring, harassment, threats, and even indirect pressure.Entering 2026, this phenomenon has not weakened, but instead has shown a more diversified and systematic trend.

First, “extended strikes” directly targeting individuals and their families have become an important feature of transnational repression. In 2026, a widely noted case was that a Hong Kong pro-democracy activist living in the United States had his father in Hong Kong sentenced to prison. This case was interpreted by the outside world as “collateral pressure” on overseas dissidents, that is, influencing the behavior of the individual by punishing their family members. This method breaks through geographical boundaries, making it difficult for individuals to escape pressure from their original political system even when they are in another country.

Second, cases of directly carrying out actions overseas are also increasing. In March 2026, Italy expelled eight Chinese citizens because they were suspected of participating in monitoring and harassing a dissident. This incident not only affected law enforcement cooperation between the two sides but also showed that such activities have already entered European societies, raising concerns at the level of sovereignty and security.

Similar phenomena have also appeared in other countries.For example, in Australia, at the beginning of 2026, some individuals were accused of acting on behalf of China’s public security system to collect intelligence on and monitor local religious groups.Local security agencies pointed out that such behavior constitutes “foreign interference” and even has characteristics of transnational repression, especially targeting immigrant and diaspora communities.

Again, the methods of transnational repression are becoming more covert and diversified.According to relevant research in 2026, some actions no longer rely on direct law enforcement, but instead use commercial channels, social media, and information dissemination to monitor, pressure, or conduct public opinion attacks against targets.This kind of “outsourced” or “indirect” operation makes such actions more difficult to identify and also more difficult to define legally.

In addition, the scope of threats and intimidation is also expanding.From the end of 2025 to the beginning of 2026, multiple countries saw threat incidents targeting specific cultural groups and performances, including anonymous death threats and intimidation emails, involving Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region.Such transnationally coordinated intimidation demonstrates that its scope of influence has already taken on global characteristics.

In summary, it can be seen that transnational repression is no longer a series of isolated cases, but a systematic cross-border behavioral pattern. It includes both direct pressure on individuals and indirect influence on the information environment and communities.Under the background of globalization and digitalization, the CCP’s cross-border influence is continuously increasing, posing new challenges to the social environment, freedom of expression, and national security of various countries.

For a long time, the CCP’s infiltration around the world has already seriously threatened the national security of democratic countries.Fortunately, the international community has already recognized the CCP’s aggressive ambitions, and is responding to transnational repression through law enforcement, legislation, and international cooperation at multiple levels.Economically, there has also been a gradual decoupling from China under CCP rule.

In this wave of anti-CCP momentum, we members of the China Democracy Party should also make use of the CCP’s social media platforms.Within the CCP’s framework of speech censorship, we should cleverly disseminate truth and the ideas of democracy and freedom, to conduct reverse united front work. The goal is to take advantage of the CCP’s economic downturn, growing public dissatisfaction, and increased vigilance of the international community, to plant seeds of hope within the Great Firewall while also consuming CCP resources and increasing the recognition of the China Democracy Party within China.

The CCP’s infiltration of the entire world will inevitably lead to a confrontation between civilization and barbarism. May we, members of the China Democracy Party and all people who love freedom and democracy, remain sincere and united. We have no way to retreat. In this battle against infiltration, for freedom and democracy, we must win.