作者：關永傑 March 23, 2026

編輯：鍾然 校对：程筱筱 翻译：彭小梅

錢辰昌，他出生於1969年，江蘇揚州人，中國民心黨創辦人，《鳳凰訓》作者。他與我是2023年初在Twitter上認識。那時，他已經從中國一路輾轉到了老撾，處在一種近乎流亡的狀態。他帶著一本尚未出版的《鳳凰訓》手稿，也帶著一個宏大的理想——推動中國走向民主憲政。

（錢辰昌，2024年2月14日，紐約曼哈頓六四紀念館）

我們並不是完全認同彼此觀點的朋友，但一直保持聯繫。在他決定前往美國之前，曾把整整六百多頁的手稿拍照發給我保存，作為備份。2023年7月他到達紐約，在那裡他參與活動，發展黨員，出版書籍，但一切進展未如他所願。2024年12月，他仍處在等待庇護身份開庭的狀態下，毅然離開美國，前往東南亞繼續發展他的事業。

在2026年2月，他再次讓我震驚，他突然打電話通知我：他決定回中國。

我當時強烈反對。我告訴他，這樣做非常危險。但他說了一句話讓我至今難忘——他說，推翻中共的主戰場一定是在中國大陸。

他選擇開車從雲南邊境進入中國。他還對我說，如果48小時之後仍然沒有聯繫，希望我能為他發聲。那是我和他的最後一次對話。

從那之後，他已經失聯40天。

在錢先生失聯48小時後，我曾為是否應該在網絡上為他發聲而糾結了幾天，我害怕將他的信息公開，會對他不利。在某一次活動中我就這件事請教了灣區的一位民運前輩，前輩跟我說：既然錢辰昌在過關前給你發了那條信息，他也意料到自己會面臨這樣的風險，假若他現在已經在中共的監獄中了，你還不為他呼號，他很有可能就會這樣無聲無息地消失了，還有比這更壞的結果嗎？

是的，一個人，可以被質疑，可以被責罵，可以被審判，但不應該被無聲地消失。

錢辰昌只是一個普通人。他不是公眾人物，不是知名領袖，甚至他的很多想法及行為，也並沒有得到廣泛認同。但這恰恰就反映出，如果連一個普通人都可以這樣消失，那我們每一個人，都可能成為下一個。

這些年，我們見過一些有名字的人，他們的事跡傳遍全球：

站在北京四通橋上的彭立發，將墨水潑向獨裁者頭像的董瑤瓊，教學樓前舉起白紙的李康夢……他們因為那一刻的壯舉而被世界記住。但即使事件如此轟動，他們的處境至今仍缺乏公開透明的信息。

與此同時，還有更多人，他們沒有名字，沒有被持續的關注，甚至連零碎的記錄也沒有留下。

你們還能記起北京鳥巢玲瓏塔女士嗎？你們對深圳東門舉牌哥還有印象嗎？白紙運動時各高校中站在前列的學生現在都還能正常上學嗎？

他們可能只是短暫地出現在網絡上，然後迅速被刪除、被遺忘，像一顆石子投入大海，連一圈漣漪都來不及留下，我們甚至不知道他們是誰，也不知道他們後來發生了什麼。

在最近灣區的一次分享會上，有人提到一個問題：為什麼華人在海外可以成為奧運冠軍、諾貝爾獎得主、大牌教授、成功的企業家，卻在政治上始終沒有相應的影響力？

有人給出的答案是：因為大多數華人只關心自己。這個解釋聽起來有點道理，但並不完整。

因為我們忽略了一點，那些願意站出來的人，他們面對的是一個控制力異常強大、資源高度集中、並具備全球影響力的對手。在這種高度不對稱的環境下，仍然有人選擇發聲、記錄、行動……這本身就已經是一種莫大的勇氣。

當他們已經做出選擇，並為此付出沈重代價的時候，我們至少不應該讓他們消失得悄無聲息。

所以，我想表達的其實很簡單：我們呼籲關注錢辰昌。

當中國民主人權聯盟得知這個信息後，馬上響應併發起行動。2026年3月22日下午，在舊金山灣區的San Jose City Hall舉辦了一場“聲援錢辰昌”的活動。

中國民主人權聯盟灣區負責人李海峰在活動開場介紹時說，錢辰昌雖然不為人熟知，但普通人同樣值得被聲援。他為理想行動、冒險回國，如今失聯，我們有責任為他發聲。

同是中國民主人權聯盟成員的張勇則表示，民運群體中，“知名人士”畢竟是少數，而大多數都是像錢辰昌這樣名不見經傳的人，而真正支撐起整個群體的就是這大量默默無聞的人，他的純粹和選擇值得重視，也提醒我們：這些人，才是這個群體的基礎。

來自“南粵獨立”團體的鄭永華也前來聲援，他說：從未認識錢辰昌，甚至與錢先生的政治立場也不完全相同，但並不影響他前來聲援，我們應該為任何一個被專制獨裁壓制的人發聲。

中國民主黨黨員、活動召集人之一的周志剛更多的是擔心錢辰昌先生現在的安危，希望有更多人的關注，會讓有關部門有所忌憚。

其他前來參與活動並且發言聲援的人士還有：何冬玲、莊帆、惠汝濤、楊坤、葉良泉。未能前來參與的馬湘平，提前為活動寫好了橫幅。

同一時間，位於洛杉磯的中國民主人權聯盟南加州分部，也由史慶梅、何興強、彭小亮帶領，在中共國駐洛杉磯領事館門前舉行了一場同一訴求的活動，中國民主黨創辦人之一的朱虞夫先生到場支持。

（照片由中國民主人權聯盟南加州分部提供）

我們絕不應該遺忘那些被看見的人，但更要記住那些來不及被廣泛關注的人。

如果有一天我們身邊有一個平凡的人消失了，而沒有人發聲，那麼沈默就會成為一種默許。而當這樣的事情一再發生，被消失的，就不會再只是“某一個人”。

Searching for Qian Chenchang: Even the Most Ordinary Person Should Not Be Silently Disappeared

Author: Guan YongjieEditor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao

Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:After Qian Chenchang returned to China, he went missing, drawing attention.Support activities were held in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, emphasizing that ordinary people should not be disappeared, and calling on society to continue speaking out to prevent more people from disappearing silently.

Qian Chenchang, he was born in 1969, a native of Yangzhou, Jiangsu, the founder of the Chinese Minxin Party, and the author of Phoenix Teachings.He and I met on Twitter at the beginning of 2023. At that time, he had already traveled from China to Laos and was in a state almost like exile.He carried with him an unpublished manuscript of Phoenix Teachings and carried a grand ideal — to promote China toward democratic constitutionalism.

（Qian Chenchang, photographed on February 14, 2024, at the June Fourth Memorial Museum in Manhattan, New York）

We were not friends who completely agreed with each other’s views, but we kept in contact. Before he decided to go to the United States, he took photos of more than 600 pages of his manuscript and sent them to me for safekeeping as a backup. In July 2023, he arrived in New York, where he participated in activities, recruited party members, and published books, but everything did not go as he had wished. In December 2024, while still waiting for his asylum hearing, he resolutely left the United States and went to Southeast Asia to continue developing his cause.

In February 2026, he shocked me again. He suddenly called me to inform me: he had decided to return to China.

I strongly opposed it at the time. I told him that doing so was extremely dangerous. But he said something that I still cannot forget — he said that the main battlefield for overthrowing the CCP must be in mainland China.

He chose to drive into China through the Yunnan border.He also told me that if there was still no contact after 48 hours, he hoped I would speak out for him. That was my last conversation with him.

Since then, he has been missing for 40 days.

After Mr. Qian had been missing for 48 hours, I struggled for several days over whether I should speak out for him online.I was afraid that making his information public would be detrimental to him.At one event, I consulted a senior figure in the pro-democracy movement in the Bay Area about this matter. The senior told me: since Qian Chenchang sent you that message before crossing the border, he had already anticipated the risks he might face. If he is already in a CCP prison now, and you still do not speak out for him, he may disappear silently like this. Is there any worse outcome than that?

Yes, a person can be questioned, can be criticized, can be judged, but should not be disappeared silently.

Qian Chenchang is just an ordinary person.He is not a public figure, not a well-known leader, and even many of his ideas and actions have not gained widespread recognition. But this precisely shows that if even an ordinary person can disappear like this, then every one of us may become the next.

Over the years, we have seen some people with names, whose stories have spread around the world:Peng Lifa, who stood on Beijing’s Sitong Bridge; Dong Yaoqiong, who splashed ink on the dictator’s portrait; Li Kangmeng, who held up a blank paper in front of a teaching building… They are remembered by the world because of that moment of courage. But even though those events were so sensational, their situations still lack open and transparent information to this day.

At the same time, there are many more people. They have no names, no sustained attention, and not even fragmented records left behind.

Do you still remember the woman at the Linglong Tower near Beijing’s Bird’s Nest? Do you still have an impression of the man holding a sign at Shenzhen Dongmen? Are the students who stood at the forefront of the “white paper movement” in universities still able to attend school normally now? They may have only briefly appeared online, and then were quickly deleted and forgotten, like a stone thrown into the sea, not even leaving a ripple in time. We do not even know who they are, nor do we know what happened to them afterward.

At a recent sharing session in the Bay Area, someone raised a question:Why is it that Chinese people overseas can become Olympic champions, Nobel Prize winners, top professors, and successful entrepreneurs, but still do not have corresponding influence in politics?

One answer given was: because most Chinese people only care about themselves.This explanation sounds somewhat reasonable, but it is not complete.

Because we have overlooked one point: those who are willing to stand up are facing an opponent with extraordinarily strong control, highly concentrated resources, and global influence. In such a highly asymmetric environment, there are still people who choose to speak out, to record, to act… This itself is already a tremendous courage.

When they have already made their choice and paid a heavy price for it,the least we should do is not let them disappear silently.

So what I want to express is actually very simple: we call for attention to Qian Chenchang.

After the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance learned of this information, it immediately responded and launched actions.On the afternoon of March 22, 2026, an event titled “Support Qian Chenchang” was held at San Jose City Hall in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Li Haifeng, the Bay Area coordinator of the alliance, said in the opening remarks that although Qian Chenchang is not widely known, ordinary people also deserve support. He acted for his ideals and took the risk of returning to China, and now he has gone missing — we have a responsibility to speak out for him.

Zhang Yong, also a member of the alliance, said that in the pro-democracy community, “well-known figures” are only a minority, while most people are ordinary individuals like Qian Chenchang who are unknown.What truly supports the entire group is precisely this large number of unknown people. His sincerity and choice deserve attention, and it also reminds us that these people are the foundation of this group.

Zheng Yonghua from the “Southern Guangdong Independence” group also came to show support. He said: I have never known Qian Chenchang, and my political stance is not completely the same as his, but that does not affect my coming here to support him. We should speak out for anyone who is oppressed by authoritarian dictatorship.

Zhou Zhigang, a member of the China Democracy Party and one of the organizers of the event, expressed more concern about Mr. Qian’s current safety, hoping that greater attention would make relevant authorities more cautious.

Others who participated in the event and spoke in support included: He Dongling, Zhuang Fan, Hui Rutao, Yang Kun, and Ye Liangquan.Ma Xiangping, who could not attend, prepared a banner for the event in advance

At the same time, in Los Angeles, the Southern California branch of the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance, led by Shi Qingmei, He Xingqiang, and Peng Xiaoliang, held a similar event in front of the Chinese Consulate.Zhu Yufu, one of the founders of the China Democracy Party, attended to show support.

(Photos provided by the Southern California branch of the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance)

We should never forget those who have been seen,but we must also remember those who did not have time to be widely noticed.

If one day, an ordinary person around us disappears, and no one speaks out,then silence will become a form of acquiescence. And when such things happen again, those who have disappeared will no longer be just “one person.”

作者：郑伟
编辑：Gloria Wang 校对：王滨 翻译：吕峰

在宏大的历史叙事中，人们习惯把目光投向强者，仿佛只有掌握权力与资源的人，才能书写时代。然而真正推动社会前行的，往往是那些在关键时刻选择站出来的普通人。

广东信宜的民众抗争持续多日。一段广泛流传的视频中，一位白发老人面对全副武装的警察，没有退缩，只是举起手中的一枚鸡蛋。

那一刻，没有激烈的动作，却令人震撼。

她没有力量优势，没有任何防护，也没有现实意义上的胜算。从表面看，这是一场悬殊的对峙。但她依然站在恐惧与压力面前。这个简单的举动之所以沉重，不在于它能改变什么，而在于它表达了一个态度——不再沉默。

当一个普通人，甚至一位年迈的老人，都选择发声，这本身就是值得深思的信号。

回望历史，许多后来被铭记的人物，在最初的时刻也只是常人。他们并非天生强大，而是在某个关键节点，做出了不同的决定：选择承担，选择表达，选择不再退让。历史的改变，往往就从这样的选择开始。

岭南大地向来务实坚韧。不尚空谈，却常在关键时刻挺身而出。“敢想，也敢做”不是口号，而是一种被现实反复印证的品格。

那一枚鸡蛋很轻，却承载着沉重的象征意义。它不是武器，而是一种朴素而直接的表达：面对压力，我仍愿意站出来。

表达本身，就是对恐惧的突破。当这样的瞬间被看见、被传播，它就不再只是个人行为，而会在更多人心中留下痕迹。也许微小，却会积累力量。

很多人关心：这样的抗争，会成为历史的转折点吗？

历史很少因为一次事件而立刻改变。真正的变化往往来自长期积累，在不经意的时刻越过临界点。

深层次的社会转变通常经历相似的路径：少数人发声，引发更多人思考，一部分人从旁观走向认同，共识逐渐形成，改变才具备现实条件。

因此，比起追问结果，更值得思考的是：有多少人开始重新审视现实？有多少人不再习惯沉默？又有多少人，在心里做出了表达的决定？

真正的转折，不始于胜利，而始于发声。

那位白发老人或许不会知道，她的举动被多少人看到。但正因为她的普通，这个选择才更具力量。历史并非只由伟人书写，而是由无数普通人的微小决定共同构成。

一位老人，一枚鸡蛋，也许不会立刻改变现实，却会被记住、被传递，在人们心中留下回响。它可能成为一个起点，让更多人开始思考：面对不公与压力，我是否也应当表达立场？

历史，正是在这些看似微小却不断出现的瞬间中，缓慢写成。

也许个人的选择无法立刻改变世界，但它能够改变人心。而当越来越多的人不再沉默，时代的方向，终将发生转变。

历史不会忘记那些勇敢的人。

An Elderly Woman with White Hair Who Commands Respect

Author: Ma Xuefeng
Editor: Gloria WangProofreader: Wang BinTranslator: Lyu Feng

Abstract:This article takes as its starting point an incident in Xinyi, Guangdong, where a white-haired elderly woman confronted police while holding an egg. It emphasizes the significance of ordinary individuals speaking out at critical moments. The author argues that social change does not arise from instant victories, but from countless individuals breaking silence and gradually building consensus, highlighting the importance of personal choice and expression in the course of history.

In grand historical narratives, people tend to focus on the powerful, as if only those who possess authority and resources are capable of shaping an era. Yet what truly drives society forward are often ordinary individuals who choose to step forward at critical moments.

Public resistance in Xinyi, Guangdong has lasted for several days. In a widely circulated video, a white-haired elderly woman faces fully armed police officers. She does not retreat—she simply raises an egg in her hand.

In that moment, there is no dramatic action, yet it is profoundly striking.

She has no advantage in strength, no protection, and no realistic chance of winning. On the surface, this is an unequal confrontation. Yet she stands firm in the face of fear and pressure. The weight of this simple gesture lies not in its ability to change outcomes, but in what it expresses: a refusal to remain silent.

When an ordinary person—especially an elderly woman—chooses to speak out, it is in itself a signal worth deep reflection.

Looking back at history, many figures who are now remembered were, at the beginning, no different from others. They were not born powerful; rather, at certain pivotal moments, they made different choices: to take responsibility, to express themselves, and to refuse to retreat. Social change often begins with such choices.

The Lingnan region has long been known for its pragmatism and resilience. It does not indulge in empty rhetoric, yet at critical moments, people step forward. “Daring to think and daring to act” is not a slogan, but a quality repeatedly proven in reality.

That single egg is light, yet it carries a heavy symbolic meaning. It is not a weapon, but a simple and direct expression: in the face of pressure, I am still willing to stand up.

Expression itself is a breakthrough against fear. When such moments are seen and shared, they cease to be merely individual acts; they leave traces in the minds of others. Perhaps small, but capable of accumulating strength.

Many people ask: will such acts of resistance become a turning point in history?

History rarely changes overnight because of a single event. True transformation usually comes from long-term accumulation, crossing a critical threshold at an unexpected moment.

Deep social change tends to follow a similar path: a few speak out, prompting more people to reflect; some move from observation to agreement; consensus gradually forms; and only then does change become possible.

Therefore, rather than focusing solely on outcomes, it is more meaningful to ask: how many people have begun to reassess reality? How many are no longer accustomed to silence? And how many have already made the decision, in their hearts, to express themselves?

A true turning point does not begin with victory, but with the act of speaking out.

The elderly woman may never know how many people have seen her action. Yet precisely because she is ordinary, her choice carries greater power. History is not written only by great figures, but by the countless small decisions of ordinary people.

An elderly woman, an egg—these may not immediately change reality, but they will be remembered and passed on, leaving echoes in people’s hearts. It may become a starting point, prompting more to ask: when faced with injustice and pressure, should I also express my stance?

History is written slowly through these seemingly small yet recurring moments.

Perhaps an individual choice cannot immediately change the world, but it can change hearts. And when more and more people refuse to remain silent, the direction of the times will eventually shift.

History will not forget those who are brave.

文：林养正
编辑：Geoffrey 校对：程筱筱 翻译：吕峰

两千二百年前， 一位名不见传的燕国使者，以秦国叛将之首和割地契约为见面礼，面见秦王。 他对面的，是普天之下最有威势之人。强大，冷酷。他的目光里，透露着一股属于上位者的威严。那是身拥百万雄兵，踏遍八荒，横扫六合，连灭韩赵，即将掌控天下的人才有的威严。 但他凌然不惧。缓缓为秦王打开地图。 当地图全部打开的一瞬间，情况突然发生了剧变。一把匕首，出现在地图中，使者的手握着匕首把柄。 在同一刹那，使者握着匕首，朝着秦王胸膛狠狠地刺去。这位小小使者，逆天逆命而行，试图终结这位上位者，试图以一人之力做到数十万大军无法做到的事情，试图拯救天下苍生。

最终，因朝廷内安保森严，这位使者失败了，没能打破天道，逆天改命。 但他的精神，却永久地流传下来，流传了不止百倍于这位秦王建立大一统王朝的时间，流传到了今天。 两千二百年后。 一位名不经传的电磁学家，以装修工人的装扮为掩饰，登上天桥，面见全体国民。 他将要面对的，是整个中国一言九鼎的人。他排除异己，修改宪法。将所有跟他意见相左的人，通通斩灭。乃至一言而将十四亿人关在家中三年，害死和自己观点不同的二号总理。他也想和两千二百年前的那位一样，登基为帝，大权独揽，甚至同样妄图长生不死。 但他同样凌然不惧。缓缓展开横幅，打开音响。 当横幅全部展开的那一刻，吸引了闹市区，车水马龙，每一个人的目光。“不要核酸要吃饭、不要封控要自由、不要谎言要尊严、不要文革要改革、不要领袖要选票、不做奴才做公民”，以及，“罢工罢课罢免独裁国贼习近平”，就像一把尖刀，把一介草民代表全体中国人发出的诉求，狠狠地刺进了中南海的心脏。 他同样作为一介凡人百姓，试图逆天逆命。他以自己为全国的榜样，向全国人民发出抵抗暴政的呼吁。

他试图号召这片土地上的每一个人，团结起来，罢工罢课，走上街头。试图以一己之力拉下习近平的第三任期，做到美国总统都无法做到的事情，让民主和人权的光辉照耀中国大地。 最终，因习皇威势过盛，这位凡人失败了，没有阻止习近平的第三连任、大权独揽。 但似乎，又没有完全失败。他的精神，同样流传了下来，塑造了一个月后的白纸运动，以及后续的天桥勇士方艺融、梅士林，以及千千万万的勇士。他以一具布衣百姓之躯，发出了让意欲称帝的独裁者颤抖的声音。 两千二百年前的他，明知此行必死无疑，却还是义无反顾地踏上了前往秦都咸阳的道路。因为他的燕国弱小，无法抵抗秦军的灭国攻势。

于是有此一行，此行为了天下，为了苍生，为了燕国，也为了其余五国。 为了这些，他甘愿赴死。“风萧萧兮易水寒，壮士一去兮不复返”就是对他最好的写照。 两千二百年后的他，明知此行必被抓捕，身陷囹圄，秘密失踪，却还是义无反顾地踏上了前往四通桥的道路。他的勇气，比两千二百年前的他，有过之而无不及。因为两千二百年前的他只会被乱刀砍死，而两千二百年后的他，却不知会面临怎样的恐怖。科技在进步，人心在变坏，作恶的手段，折磨人的方式也在升级。恐惧来源于未知，刑不可知则威不可测。他的恐惧，必然比两千二百年前的他更甚。 但他还是去了。他背后，没有站着一个国家。他与国安、政保、国家机器的武力差距，比秦国和燕国的差距还大上千百倍。他知道自己此行，必然面临着用语言难以形容的恐怖。他知道自己此行，必然导致永久性失去自由、尊严甚至人格，自己被折磨，家人被牵连。但他义无反顾，选择直面。若一去不回，那便一去不回。 两千二百年前的壮举，虽然没有改变秦国不可一世的军队统一六国。然，这股反秦的勇气却深入了每个人的心中，在十数年后的大泽乡起义中爆发了巨大的能量。水能载舟可亦能覆舟，当秦国的暴政日益加剧，兴建长城，焚书坑儒，严刑峻法，沉重劳役共同成为压垮骆驼的稻草时，人民的反抗就来了。

当反抗的临界点到来，那位不可一世自立为帝妄图长生不死的秦始皇，那个百万雄军横扫六国的秦国，比每个人想象都更快地，如同雪崩般轰然倒塌。 两千二百年后的壮举，虽然没有改变共产党看似不可一世的强大，奴役控制着整个中国。然，这股反共的勇气却深入了每个人的心里。现在已有很多人模仿他站了出来，未来规模更大的新的“大泽乡起义”也必将很快到来。当中共的暴政日益加剧，动态清零，防火长城，红色洗脑，恐怖治国，活摘器官，大肆抓捕异议人士，这些共同点燃人民情绪的临界点时，人民的反抗就来了。

到那一天，那位试图复辟帝制同样妄想长生不死的憨熊维尼，那个支援全球独裁政体成为当代邪恶轴心之首的中共，也必然会在很短的时间内，轰然倒塌。 曾经是秦，当下是共。 不同的是当皇帝的人和迫害他人的手段，相同的是人权和民主同样未曾降临这片土地。

这片土地，两千二百年来从未改变过体制。当皇帝的人换了一批批，但皇帝的思想从未远离过这里。 但这片土地，也同样未曾缺乏过反抗暴政的人。只是每一次旧的政权倒台，新的政权依然不会还权于民，不断如此循环。 只愿中共尽快倒台，在倒台后，不要再进入历史的专职轮回，把民主和人权永久性地种在这里。

林养正

In Memory of the Brave

Written by: Lin Yangzheng
Edited by: Geoffrey Proofread by: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translated by: Lyu Feng

Abstract:This essay juxtaposes the attempted assassination of the King of Qin by Jing Ke with the Sitong Bridge protester, using historical allegory to reflect on the present. It praises the courage of individuals who stand up against overwhelming power. The author argues that although such acts of resistance may not immediately change reality, they transmit the spirit of opposing tyranny and pursuing human rights and freedom, becoming a vital spark for future social awakening. The piece is emotionally intense, centered on commemorating the brave, while expressing hope for China’s future transition toward democracy and freedom.

If one goes and never returns, then so be it—this is in memory of the brave man on the overpass.

Over two thousand two hundred years ago,an obscure envoy from the State of Yan brought with him the severed head of a Qin defector and a treaty of territorial concession as gifts, and went to meet the King of Qin.

Standing before him was the most powerful man under heaven—mighty, cold, and commanding.In his gaze lay the authority of one who commanded millions of troops, who had swept across lands in all directions, annihilated Han and Zhao, and stood on the verge of unifying the world.

Yet the envoy did not tremble.He slowly unfolded a map before the king.

At the very moment the map was fully opened,everything changed.

A dagger appeared within the map.The envoy grasped its handle—

And in that instant, he lunged toward the king’s chest.

This insignificant envoy defied fate itself.He attempted to end the rule of the supreme ruler,to achieve alone what hundreds of thousands of soldiers could not,to save all under heaven.

In the end, due to the tight security of the Qin court,he failed.

He did not overturn destiny.But his spirit endured—lasting far longer than the empire that the King of Qin would go on to build,surviving to this very day.

Two thousand two hundred years later.

An unknown electromagnetics researcher, disguised as a construction worker, climbed onto an overpass to address the entire nation.

What he faced was a man whose word carried absolute authority across China.He purged dissent, amended the constitution,eliminated all who opposed him,confined 1.4 billion people to their homes for three years with a single command,and sought to consolidate power indefinitely—even aspiring, like the ruler two millennia ago,to reign unchallenged.

Yet he, too, did not tremble.

He slowly unfurled banners and turned on a loudspeaker.

As the banners were fully displayed,they captured the attention of a bustling city—every passerby, every vehicle, every eye.

“Don’t want PCR tests, want food.Don’t want lockdowns, want freedom.Don’t want lies, want dignity.Don’t want the Cultural Revolution, want reform.Don’t want a leader, want votes.Don’t be slaves, be citizens.”

And:

“Strike, boycott, and remove the dictator Xi Jinping.”

Like a blade, these words pierced straight into the heart of power.

As an ordinary citizen,he too defied fate.

He made himself an example for the nation,calling upon the people to resist tyranny.

He attempted to rally the people of this land—to strike, to boycott, to take to the streets.

He sought, with his own strength,to end a third term of rule,to accomplish what even foreign governments could not,to bring the light of democracy and human rights to China.

In the end,overwhelmed by the power of the regime,he failed.

He did not stop the consolidation of power.

And yet—perhaps he did not entirely fail.

His spirit endured.

It helped give rise to the White Paper Movement one month later,and to countless others who followed—new “bridge warriors,”and innumerable brave individuals.

With nothing but the body of an ordinary citizen,he gave voice to a force that made a would-be ruler tremble.

Two thousand two hundred years ago,that man knew he would not return—yet he still set out for the Qin capital.

Because Yan was weak,unable to withstand Qin’s conquest.

So he went—for the world,for the people,for his state,and for all others.

“For the wind is bleak and the Yi River cold;the hero departs, never to return.”

Two thousand two hundred years later,this man also knew his fate—arrest, disappearance, imprisonment.

Yet he still went.

His courage surpassed even that of his predecessor.

For the man of old would face only death by blades,but the man of today faces unknown horrors.

Technology has advanced.So too have the methods of cruelty.

Fear arises from the unknown—and when punishment is unknowable,its terror is immeasurable.

Yet still, he went.

Behind him stood no nation.Against him stood the machinery of the state—a disparity far greater than that between Yan and Qin.

He knew what awaited him:the loss of freedom, dignity, even identity;suffering for himself, consequences for his family.

And still—he chose to face it.

If he goes and never returns,then so be it.

Two thousand two hundred years ago,though that act did not prevent Qin from unifying the six states,the spirit of resistance spread.

Years later, it erupted in uprising.

When oppression intensified—forced labor, harsh laws, ideological suppression—the people rose.

And the mighty empire collapsedfaster than anyone imagined.

Two thousand two hundred years later,though this act has not yet overturned the present system,the spirit of resistance has taken root.

More people are standing up.And perhaps, a greater awakening lies ahead.

When pressures accumulate—restrictions, censorship, ideological control, repression—the threshold will be reached.

And resistance will come.

Once it was Qin.Today it is another power.

What has changed are the rulers and their methods.What has not changedis the absence of human rights and democracy.

For over two thousand years,this land has not escaped this cycle.

Rulers change,but the idea of absolute rule persists.

Yet neither has this land lacked those who resist.

Again and again,old regimes fall,new ones rise—yet power is never truly returned to the people.

May this cycle finally end.

May democracy and human rightstake root here—not temporarily,but forever.

文：祝正明（中国民主党创党人）
编辑：Geoffrey Jin 校对：程筱筱 翻译：吕峰

人们经常说某人有权某人无权，那么什么叫权力呢？权力就是支配别人的强制力，在遇到不服从时，使对方受到各种惩罚的能力。当人们事先就了解到服从的好处与不服从的坏处，形成了感觉上的默契，对某人的指令自觉服从，就可以认为该人拥有权力。如果服从没有好处或不服从没有坏处，权力就会动摇，权威就会丧失，只有奖罚分明，才能维护权威。

权力从何而来？一般来说，权力的来源有五种：威望、暴力、宗教、约定、财富。拥有其中一项，就可以拥有权力，而拥有三项以上，就可以拥有绝对的权力。

一、威望

人有智商的高低，知识的多寡，能力的强弱，处理各种问题时所用方法的准确性、可靠性、周密性不同，因此成功率也就不同。知识丰富、聪明能干的人，解决问题的办法好，做事的成功率高，如果该人品德高尚，人们自然就会钦佩他、信任他，服从他作出的决定，他就会逐渐具有威望，威望的影响力无形中就会转换成支配力。但是，拥有威望，并不是一件很容易能做到的事，更无法在短期内获得，在一个群体，只有极少数智能高强、品格高尚的人才能获得威望。

二、暴力

当一方不愿服从另一方时，另一方拥有的暴力能够强制对方服从，否则便可以惩罚对方，而对方反抗将会遭受更大的痛苦和损失，甚至丧失自己的生命，使其不得服从。由此，暴力就衍生出了权力，拥有暴力的一方就拥有了对他人的支配力。军队是用来实施暴力的专用工具，因此，也可以说，拥有军队就可以直接拥有权力。但是，如果一个政府仅依赖于军队的镇压和威慑而存在，则无异于一个强盗政府。

三、宗教

宗教是人类社会发明的用来解释自身与自然界各种现象的因果关系的一种意念性学说，许多宗教相信在人与自然之间存在着第三种神秘的力量，主宰着人的生老病死、旱涝丰歉、吉凶祸福，它们总结出人应遵守的伦理关系，如果违反，必将受到自然的惩罚，而布道者和宗教领袖由于暗悉其中奥妙，能向人指点迷津，因而获得人们的崇拜。某些宗教在使人们相信了其教义的同时，也将宗教领袖进行了神化，使人们认为他是能够理解、代表神的意志的人，或干脆就是神，他的意志就是自然界不可抗拒的规律，使得人们就象服从自然界的规律一样服从他的号召，从而获得对民众的巨大号召力或支配力。

四、约定

一群权利(注：权力与权利是两个不同的概念，权力是指强制他人服从的强力，权利是指自身拥有的神圣不可侵犯的利益)平等的人，事先约定好必须共同遵守的规则，按照规则公平竞争，获胜的一方取得某种利益，失败的一方放弃这种利益，这就是约定。如果失败方不遵守事先约定，旁观者便主动加入，胁迫败方遵守。竞争获胜后享有利益的大小，在事先约定的范围内，获胜者不得随意超越。在一个取消身份等级限制的自由平等社会，这是一种直接以自身能力取得权力的方法，解决了有限的资源在不够分配时出现的问题，并能使有能力的人在短期内脱颖而出，竞争过程本身往往具有很强的观赏性，使社会生活变得丰富多彩。在现代文明的法制社会，这种以公平竞争方式取得权利的方法被广泛应用，将竞争规则文字化，约定双方共同遵守，已成社会活动照章有序化进行的重要组成部分。

五、财富

拥有财富者总是可以雇佣别人去干他想干的事，他可以用多给钱去鼓励对方，也可以用少给钱或不给钱去制裁对方，使对方服从他。这就是我们当今社会最常见，最广泛应用的雇佣与被雇佣现象。建立在双方自愿的基础之上，与和平稳定的社会秩序完全兼容，与人类的智商、能力和本性相适应，为人类社会所普遍认可。

显然，如果社会体制能保证有威望的人，按公众普遍认可的规则，以公平竞争方式选出领导人，行使事先规定的权力，就能使社会既有高素质的人来为人民服务，又能保证政府有足够的权威，权力也不会被滥用，只有这种权力才可以被认为是合理、合法的权力。

（四）道德与法律

随着人口的增加，在有限的生存空间里，人与人之间不可避免地会产生利益冲突，有时这种冲突甚至会严重到威胁个人生存的地步，如果互不妥协，时常两败俱伤。因此，在生存空间和生活资料变得逐渐紧张的情况下，人们懂得合作的好处，即只有每个人都对自己的欲望进行适当的克制，作出一定的让步，人们才能和平共处。这就有赖于人们共同遵守一系列行为准则，尽管这些准则会使个人的行为受到某种约束，但这样做对大家对社会都有好处。这一系列人所公知的，共同认可的、不需要明文规定的行为准则就是道德，它是人类社会为了自身的稳定和延续而自发产生的，它的约束力依赖的是人的荣誉感和作为群体一员的责任心。在一个相对稳定，没有人员流动，发展缓慢的传统社会，人们从小就接受传统道德的教育，并将其世代相传。当然，不遵守的人总是有的，但这些的人付出的代价通常是丧失威信、名誉或被排逐出群体。这种惩罚方式在固定群体内通常是有效的。

传统道德通常只注重熟人、朋友、家人之间的关系和个人义务，依靠家族戒律作为实施保障，对解决家庭与部族内部的矛盾行之有效，但对部族之间的冲突，陌生人之间、社团之间的争端时常无能为力。如果一个社会是一个迅速变化与发展的社会，人的生活方式不断发生变化，以致每代人的习惯都有所不同，道德规范在代与代之间的传递就会遇到问题。当人们的生活与居住流动性较大时，传统惩罚方式的有效性也会大大下降。这些因素都将使传统道德起到的维持秩序与安定的作用明显降低。由于传统道德的非文字化、含糊性、非强制性，对人的行为不能形成统一的约束，随着人们生活方式的复杂多样化，违反传统道德的人就会增加，结果，社会就会表现出道德水准下降，犯罪率上升。

最早设计的法律制度，就是要求部族之间放弃报复行力，由代表公正的第三方按规定程序，以机械式的审讯方法核定事实，制定惩罚方式和赔偿数额，以调节并最终终止私人争端和部落冲关。一个社会根据自己的民族习惯，将个人、社团、公司的行为准则及惩罚方式以文字的形式明确规定下来，就形成了法律。

法律本身也可以被当作一种工具，可以为各种政府、阶级和意识形态所采用，为某个阶级服务，因此，法制本身仍然会存在合法不一定合理的现象。但是，无论什么政体的国家，依法治国都有好处，它能直接明确地告诉人们哪些是可以做的，哪些是不可以做的。另一方面，也可以使统治者按既定的公布的法律来管理社会，防止下层官员凭一时兴起，以临时的命令和草拟的决议来专断行事，减少官僚的随意性对民众造成的危害。

法律较之道德的进步之处在于它能够将人的社会行为的内容表现得更具体、更全面、具有强制性。由于它的执行者是全社会性的执法机构，无人能够逃避，从而使法律成为现代社会维持治安、解决争端的必不可少的工具。

实行法治有两个问题非常关键：第一，法律是否健全；第二，法律由谁来制定。这两个问题关系到法治是否能行之有效，是否准确、合理、公正。法律影响着社会每个人的生活方式，其作用与传统的道德不可同日而语，因此，每个有责任心的公民都应当关心法律的内容。良好的法律，应能充分代表民意，反映民情，是道德的明文表达形式。

在文明社会，法律是为全体公民的公共利益服务的，要求全体公民共同遵守，因此，它必须能代表全体公民的意志，得到广大民众的认可。它的颁布、修改、废除必须经过全体公民的同意或他们授权的代表的许可，否则，所谓的法律就不能被认为是合法的法律。

法制不健全的表现之一，就是法律由社会的统治者或由他们指派的人员来制定。由于统治者有自己的地位、特权，他们的利益不可能与普通公民的利益完全一致。因此，这种法律代表的是统治者的意志，他们也能够按照自己的意志随意修改法律。法律是辅助独裁者统治的工具，其作用与民众的需要背道而驰，不是用来服务于民众，而是用来管制民众。

法律的不健全的另一表现就是内容粗糙简陋，在许多问题上找不到适用的法律，或者不详细，含糊其辞，都会给民众造成困惑，给社会带来混乱，使法治的有效性下降，这种情况在专制制度下经常发生，结果大大增加了政府执法人员及司法人员的个人意志对法律的影响，使同样的法律在不同的地方、不同的时间有不同的实施情况，同样的案件经不同的法官审判，结果会有很大的差异。当百姓对执法人员的行为没有任何约束与控制手段时，这些滥用手中权力的现象就会泛滥，司法人员自己的意志就是法律，法治成了人治。在后门、关系、贿赂比事实、证据、道德更能赢得官司的情况下，公民的正当利益无法得到法律的保障，反而会受到素质低劣的司法人员的侵害，最终必将使法律本身威信扫地。我们经常听说的“合理的不合法，合法的不合理”，莫不包涵着对这种法律的蔑视。

法律的威信依赖于公众对其公正合理性的认可程度，任何一种被公众所蔑视的法律都不会具有长久的生命力。

（五）政体的种类

在人类历史上，曾经出现过许多不同的社会结构形式和政治体制，归纳起来，政府管理形式可以按四种模式进行分类：专制模式、经济模式、主权模式、民主模式，见下图：

1、专制模式

专制统治模式是人类生活社会化以后，伴随着国家的出现而同时出现的一种最自然的统治模式，尽管原始，却也简便、稳定有效，任何人只要取得统治权，都会以自己的意志建立起能确保自己政令畅通的此种统治方式。

（1）君主家族政府：

政府的政治行为由一个世袭家族控制，一人按家族继承规则取得全部统辖权，成为世袭君主，其余家族成员把持政府各要害部门，血亲以外的人进入政府，处于只能利用，不能重用的地位，君主对百姓握有绝对的生杀大权。

（2）寡头独裁政府：

政府由拥有绝对权力的寡头一人控制，寡头与幕僚之间不一定有血亲关系，寡头通常以某种意识形态将部属聚结在一起，政府要员的行为不受家族纪律的约束，政治决策具有很大的任意性，易将国家拖入战争，决策效率高，失误大，损失严重，统治往往只能维持一代人。

（3）多头贵族政府：

国家政治行为由一批拥有对地方牢固的控制权的贵族或军阀把持，他们自己收税，甚至握有军队，政府领导人必须尊重他们的意见，依赖于他们的支持，他们联合起来，能很容易地调换政府领导人，国家很难形成一致的统一行动。

（4）政教合一政府：

政府大小官员兼任宗教的传教士，政府主要领导人被神化，成为民众崇拜的偶像，即便是错误的决策，仍然能被奉为圣旨得到贯彻执行，迷信色彩浓，排斥外来文化，对异议者施刑残酷。

2、经济模式

经济统治模式是指政府对社会财富的所有、使用、分配方面的管理方式，经济模式直接而显著地影响着民众的生活方式。

（1）部落经济政府：

部落为基本生产单元，商品自给自足，部落之间甚少商品交易，内部成员劳动分工，财产公共所有，由酋长实行配给制，定期向君主缴纳贡品。

（2）土地册封政府：

政府或君主土地名义上的所有者，土地册封给幕僚或大贵族使用，大贵族则将土地册封给下一级的贵族使用，最小的贵族则将土地封给农民使用，农民及下级贵族依次将自己收获的一部分缴纳给上一级贵族或君主，贵族不从事体力劳动，练兵习武是其生活的重要组成部分。

（3）公有经济政府：

个人除极少量个人物品外不拥有任何财产，财产全社会共有，社会财富的生产、经营、分配、使用实际上由政府官员控制支配。

（4）私有经济政府：

个人社会财产的主人，政府对以盈利为目的的经营产生的利润按比例提成。

3、主权模式

主权模式是指政府权力的产生及使用方式。

（1）单一制政府：

国家为一个独立、统一的社会形态，实行同一种法律和管理模式。

（2）联邦制政府：

国家由一批相对独立的小国组成，各小国在法律和管理模式上保留自己的地方特色。

（3）殖民地政府：

国家被另一个国家占领和控制，政府官员由另一个国家指派，实行另一个国家的法律和管理模式。

4、民主模式

民主模式是指国家的法律政策，政府行为由占人口大多数的民众来控制的政治体制，实行法制，对政府领导人实行分权制和任期制，新闻自由，民选议会为国家的最高权力机关。

（1）君主立宪制政府：

国家有国王或皇帝，但只具象征地位，没有政治权力，权力由经民主选举产生的政府掌管。

（2）总统制政府：

由经国民直接选举产生的总统掌管国家的最高行政权。

（3）内阁制政府：

国家行政领导人由国会议员多数选举产生，通常为多数党领袖，如其失去国会支持，则需辞职。如国会随后不能以多数形成决议，提出新的首相人选，象征性的国家首脑国王或总统在总理的建议下可以解散国会，重新举行全民大选，产生新的议会。

(III) The Sources of Power

Written by: Zhu Zhengming
Edited by: Geoffrey Jin Proofread by: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translated by: Lyu Feng

Abstract:This article begins with a definition of power, interpreting it as the ability to exert influence and coercion over others. It identifies five primary sources of power: prestige, violence, religion, agreement, and wealth. The author further emphasizes that an ideal society should allocate power through fair rules and public recognition, enabling capable and reputable individuals to govern effectively while maintaining order.

People often say that some individuals have power while others do not. But what exactly is power?

Power is the coercive ability to control others—the capacity to impose penalties when obedience is refused. When people understand in advance the benefits of obedience and the consequences of disobedience, they develop an implicit consensus and willingly comply with a person’s commands; in such cases, that person can be said to possess power. If obedience brings no benefit or disobedience carries no cost, power will weaken and authority will erode. Only when rewards and punishments are clearly defined can authority be maintained.

Sources of Power

Generally speaking, power originates from five sources: prestige, violence, religion, agreement, and wealth. Possessing any one of these can confer power; possessing three or more can result in absolute power.

1. Prestige

People differ in intelligence, knowledge, ability, and the accuracy and reliability of their problem-solving methods. Those who are knowledgeable, capable, and morally upright tend to achieve higher success rates. Naturally, others admire, trust, and follow them, granting them prestige. This prestige gradually transforms into influence and control. However, gaining prestige is neither easy nor quick; within any group, only a few individuals of exceptional ability and character can attain it.

2. Violence

When one party refuses to obey another, the latter may use force to compel obedience. Resistance leads to greater pain, loss, or even death, forcing submission. Thus, violence gives rise to power, and those who control violence gain dominance over others. The military is a specialized tool for exercising violence; therefore, possessing a military effectively means possessing power. However, a government that relies solely on military suppression and intimidation is no different from a bandit regime.

3. Religion

Religion is a conceptual system developed by human societies to explain the causal relationships between humans and nature. Many religions posit a mysterious force that governs life, death, fortune, and misfortune. They establish ethical norms and warn that violations will result in punishment. Religious leaders, believed to understand these mysteries, gain followers’ reverence. In some cases, leaders are deified, regarded as representatives—or even embodiments—of divine will. As a result, people obey them as they would natural laws, granting them immense influence and control.

4. Agreement

A group of individuals with equal rights (note: rights differ from power—power refers to coercion, while rights refer to inviolable personal interests) may agree in advance on rules to be jointly observed. Through fair competition under these rules, winners obtain certain benefits while losers relinquish them. If losers refuse to comply, observers may intervene to enforce the agreement.

In a free and equal society without rigid hierarchies, this is a direct way to acquire power through individual ability. It helps allocate limited resources fairly and allows capable individuals to stand out quickly. The competitive process itself often adds vitality to social life. In modern legal societies, such rule-based competition is widely applied, with rules codified and mutually enforced as an essential component of orderly social activity.

5. Wealth

Those who possess wealth can hire others to carry out tasks on their behalf. They can incentivize compliance through higher pay or punish through reduced or withheld payment. This is the most common and widely practiced form of power in modern society—the relationship between employer and employee. Based on voluntary agreement, it is compatible with social stability and aligns with human nature and capability, making it broadly accepted.

It is evident that if a social system ensures that individuals with prestige are selected through fair competition under widely accepted rules, and are granted predefined powers, then society can benefit from capable leadership while maintaining authority without abuse. Only such power can be considered legitimate and reasonable.

(IV) Morality and Law

Abstract

As societies grow and resources become constrained, conflicts of interest inevitably arise. This section distinguishes morality from law, explaining their respective roles in maintaining social order. It argues that while morality relies on internalized norms and social pressure, law provides formalized, enforceable rules. A stable society requires both—but the legitimacy of law ultimately depends on its alignment with public interest and collective consent.

1. The Origins of Morality

With population growth and limited resources, conflicts between individuals become unavoidable. In extreme cases, such conflicts may threaten survival itself. Over time, people come to recognize that cooperation yields better outcomes than constant confrontation.

This realization gives rise to shared behavioral norms—commonly understood but not always formally codified. These norms constitute morality.

Morality operates through:

social recognition,

a sense of honor,

and responsibility toward the community.

In relatively stable, traditional societies with limited mobility, moral systems are transmitted across generations and enforced informally. Those who violate them may face reputational loss or exclusion from the community—sanctions that are often sufficient in tightly knit groups.

2. The Limits of Morality

Traditional morality is most effective within close social circles—families, acquaintances, and small communities. However, it struggles to regulate:

interactions among strangers,

conflicts between groups,

and rapidly changing social environments.

In dynamic societies, where mobility is high and lifestyles evolve quickly, moral norms become harder to transmit and enforce. Their informal nature—lack of codification, ambiguity, and absence of coercive power—reduces their effectiveness.

As a result, reliance on morality alone often leads to:

declining social cohesion,

increased uncertainty in behavior,

and rising levels of conflict or crime.

3. The Emergence of Law

Law arises as a structured response to these limitations.

Early legal systems replaced cycles of retaliation with third-party adjudication. A neutral authority determines facts, assigns responsibility, and imposes penalties or compensation according to established procedures.

In modern societies, law is defined as a system of codified rules that regulate the behavior of individuals, organizations, and institutions.

4. Law as an Instrument and Its Risks

Law is not inherently neutral. It can be used by different governments, classes, or ideologies as a tool to serve particular interests.

This creates a critical distinction:

what is legal is not always just.

Nevertheless, governance through law (“rule of law”) offers clear advantages:

it provides predictable standards of behavior,

it constrains arbitrary decision-making,

and it reduces the risk of abuse by lower-level officials.

5. Advantages of Law over Morality

Compared to morality, law has several defining features:

clarity (explicit rules),

universality (applies across society),

enforceability (backed by institutions).

Because legal enforcement is carried out by public institutions, individuals cannot easily evade its reach. This makes law indispensable for maintaining order and resolving disputes in modern societies.

6. Conditions for Effective Rule of Law

Two fundamental conditions determine whether a legal system functions effectively:

The completeness and coherence of the legal framework

Who has the authority to create and modify the law

Since law shapes nearly every aspect of social life, it must reflect public needs and ethical principles. Ideally, law should serve as the codified expression of shared moral values.

7. Legitimacy of Law

In a modern civil society, law must:

represent the will of the people,

serve the public interest,

and gain broad social recognition.

The enactment, revision, and abolition of laws should occur with public consent—either directly or through legitimate representation. Without such legitimacy, law becomes merely an instrument of control rather than a foundation of justice.

8. Deficiencies in Legal Systems

Legal systems may fail in two major ways:

(1) Concentration of law-making powerWhen laws are created solely by rulers or their appointees, they tend to reflect elite interests rather than those of the general population.

(2) Lack of clarity and completenessVague or incomplete laws create uncertainty, enabling inconsistent enforcement and increasing reliance on personal discretion.

In such conditions:

identical cases may yield different outcomes,

enforcement varies across time and place,

and personal influence may outweigh evidence or fairness.

When unchecked, this leads to the transformation of rule of law into rule by individuals.

9. The Authority of Law

The authority of law ultimately depends on public trust in its fairness and rationality. Laws that are widely perceived as unjust or unreasonable cannot maintain long-term legitimacy.

(V) Types of Political Systems

Abstract

Throughout history, societies have developed diverse forms of governance. These can be broadly categorized into four models: authoritarian, economic, sovereignty-based, and democratic systems. Each reflects a different way of organizing power, resources, and legitimacy.

1. Authoritarian Models

Authoritarian systems are among the earliest forms of governance, emerging naturally alongside the formation of states. They are often efficient and stable in the short term but concentrate power heavily.

(1) Hereditary Monarchy

Power is concentrated within a ruling family and passed down through lineage. The ruler holds absolute authority, often supported by relatives occupying key positions.

(2) Oligarchic Dictatorship

A single ruler or small group exercises absolute power, often bound by ideology rather than kinship. Decision-making is efficient but prone to instability and high-risk outcomes.

(3) Aristocratic Pluralism

Power is distributed among regional elites or warlords who maintain local control. Central authority depends on their support, making unified governance difficult.

(4) Theocratic Governance

Political authority is intertwined with religious authority. Leaders may be regarded as divine or divinely sanctioned, and dissent is often suppressed in the name of belief.

2. Economic Models of Governance

These systems define how wealth is owned, distributed, and managed.

(1) Tribal Economy

Self-sufficient communities with collective ownership and limited trade.

(2) Feudal Land System

Land is allocated hierarchically, with obligations flowing upward through the social structure.

(3) Public Ownership System

Property is collectively owned, but in practice managed by state authorities.

(4) Private Ownership System

Individuals own property, and governments regulate economic activity through taxation and policy.

3. Sovereignty Models

These describe how political authority is structured geographically and institutionally.

(1) Unitary System

A single, centralized authority governs the entire state under uniform laws.

(2) Federal System

Power is divided between central and regional governments, each retaining certain autonomy.

(3) Colonial System

A territory is governed by an external power, with laws and administration imposed from outside.

4. Democratic Models

Democratic systems are based on popular sovereignty, where authority derives from the majority of citizens. They typically include:

rule of law,

separation of powers,

limited terms of office,

and freedom of expression.

(1) Constitutional Monarchy

A monarch exists as a symbolic figure, while elected institutions exercise real political power.

(2) Presidential System

An independently elected president holds executive authority.

(3) Parliamentary System

The executive emerges from the legislature and depends on its support, ensuring accountability through political processes.

Conclusion

Across different systems, the core question remains the same:how power is acquired, exercised, and constrained.

Sustainable governance depends not only on institutional design, but on the alignment between authority, legitimacy, and public participation.

声援信宜人民反抗中共暴政

活动组织：中国民主人权联盟旧金山分部

活动策划：李海风、关永杰、周志刚

活动联络：张勇6265816991

活动时间：2026年3月29日（周日）2-4pm

活动地点：圣何塞市政厅

FAttE: 200 E Santa Clara St

San Jose, CA 95113

聲援廣東信宜人民　打倒中共　結束暴政

—— 關注「廣東信宜火葬場抗爭事件」集會通知

為聲援廣東信宜人民的抗爭行動，關注中國地方暴政與民生壓迫問題，將於洛杉磯中國領事館前舉行公開集會。

活動資訊

日期： 2026年3月29日（周日）

時間： 下午2:00－3:30

地點： 洛杉磯中國領事館443 Shatto Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90020

主辦／參與組織

中國民主黨國際聯盟

香港自由民主黨

遠東青年自由同盟

活動人員

活動負責： 王文遠

活動宣傳： 蘇一峰

活動主持人： 孟兵

活動組織者： 范英龍、皮喬海、廖文浩、陳寧

現場組織者： 白國武、莫小月、王志軍、肖文柱

第783次茉莉花行动

时间：2026年3月29日（周日）下午4:00

地点：中国洛杉矶总领事馆

揭露中共医疗黑幕

为医疗事故受害家庭发声

生命不该成为代价真相不应被掩盖

本次行动将有多位受害家庭家长与嘉宾来到现场，讲述他们真实而沉痛的经历：他们的子女因严重医疗事故失去生命或健康，却在维权的过程中遭遇推诿、压制与沉默。

其中一位家长，已经被迫走上长达八年的上访之路。八年奔波，只为一个说法；层层推诿，却始终没有答案。

而更多家庭，在漫长的维权过程中被拖延、被消耗、被迫放弃，

把无法言说的伤痛独自承受。

这不是个案，而是被掩盖的制度性问题。3月29日，我们站出来，让声音被听见，让真相被看见：

生命高于权力

医疗必须负责

真相必须公开

欢迎所有关心中国人权与生命尊严的朋友到场支持，也欢迎转发，让更多人知道。

活動公告：中共立即釋放謝陽！釋放所有人權律師！

2026年3月23日中共長沙市中級法院以所謂「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」判處謝陽有期徒刑5年。

謝陽是湖南長沙人權律師，長期代理維權案件，替宗教受迫害者、土地維權者、公民權利受侵害者發聲。2015年「709大抓捕」中，他被中共抓捕，後來外界持續披露他在羈押期間遭受酷刑和虐待。曾代理山東薛明凱案、北京新公民運動張寶成案、河南南樂教案、湖南瀏陽張開華徵地案，參與徐純合案相關維權；還曾探訪陳光誠，並聲援建三江被捕律師。

2022年他因前往湖南聲援被強制送進精神病院的教師李田田再次被抓並關押至今。

中共立即釋放謝陽！釋放所有人權律師！

暴政必亡！中共下台！還政於民！民主中國！

中國民主黨舊金山黨部陳森鋒：

中共最厚顏無恥就是顛倒黑白，竊國者中共非法政權反過來把所有伸張正義、反抗不公的英雄污衊定罪為「煽動顛覆國家政權罪」。中共你他娘的這不就是賊喊捉賊「此地無銀三百兩」嗎？

中共你們都幹了些什麼？你們在殘害人民，在這片土地上橫徵暴斂、掠奪財富。無官不貪，哪個中共高官不是億萬甚至百億千億富翁？！你們不擇手段地掠奪，毫無底線地摧毀一切。現在中國大地還有一滴乾淨的水和一塊乾淨的土地嗎？！你們把災難轉嫁給人民，然後你們自己一邊享用特供，一邊轉移財產把子女家人送出國享受窮奢極欲生活。

中共你們真是：好話說盡，壞事做絕！到底是誰在摧毀國家、顛覆國家？就是中國共產黨！

我們從不「顛覆國家政權」！因為我們熱愛這個國家，熱愛這片我們土生土長的土地，熱愛這裡的山山水水一草一木，熱愛這裡的風土人情與勤勞善良的弟兄姊妹。

我們只想「顛覆中共非法政黨」，結束一黨暴政，讓中國建立自由民主制度，過上像台灣人民一樣的幸福美好生活。

主辦單位：中國民主黨(舊金山黨部)

活動召集：方政 鄭雲

策劃發起：陳森鋒 胡丕政

活動組織：關永傑 李栩 周雲龍 蔣書清 劉靜濤 衛仁喜 郭志軍

拍攝宣傳：繆青 何穎 莊帆 李小林

後勤保障：李樹青 盧占強 吳志創

現場義工： 周忠玉 高俊影 羅艷麗 韓秀花

活動聯係人：陳森鋒/6284687191

活動時間：2026年3月29日(週日)下午2:00pm—4:00pm

活動地點：舊金山中國領事館前

Consulate-General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco

作者：何文龙
编辑：黄吉洲   校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

本人何文龙，安徽庐江人。

中山大学翻译硕士研究生毕业，长期从事英语教学与文本翻译工作。

一直是基督教传道人，我所在的教会是RPC，上一份工作是广西理工职业技术学院英语专任教师，目前在广西梧州一所高校任职英语教师，已经被约谈要迫使我离开。

原因是，我是基督教传道人，和地下教会联系密切，和境外藏人与维吾尔人联系密切。我曾因为在教育系统，搜集了大量中共如何控制学校学生、教师信仰内容的一手资料。

我的职业路径清晰而普通：进入高校，从事教学，参与学术与语言相关工作。这本应是一条稳定、明确、可持续的道路。

但现在，这条道路被迫中断。

我已被有关方面约谈，并被明确要求“离开当前岗位”。没有正式文件，没有公开程序，但结论已经非常清楚：

我不再适合继续留在现有的高校体系之中。

这篇文章，是我对此的公开说明。

一、我做了什么

我没有参与任何非法活动，没有从事任何激烈行为，也没有组织任何对抗性事件。

我所做的事情，其实非常简单：

作为高校教师，完成日常教学工作

进行翻译与文本整理

发起并参与“经典与思想文本翻译项目”

与一些非体制化的社会群体保持联系

这些行为，在任何一个正常社会中，都应属于个人的职业延伸与文化实践。

但在现实中，它们被重新定义了。

二、问题不在于“我做了什么”，而在于“我属于哪一类人”

我逐渐意识到，真正的问题，并不在具体行为本身，而在于一种更深层的分类逻辑：

一个体制内的人，是否可以同时保持“非完全同质化”的状态？

换句话说：

是否必须完全一致

是否必须在所有层面都被纳入同一逻辑

是否允许存在边界之外的联系与实践

我的处境说明了一点：

答案是否定的。

三、所谓“稳定”，正在变成一种单向要求

体制内的稳定，通常被理解为一种保障：

岗位稳定、收入稳定、身份稳定。

但现实是，这种稳定正在附带越来越明确的前提：

行为必须可预期

联系必须可解释

表达必须在既定范围之内

当一个人超出这些范围，即使只是部分超出，他的“稳定性”就会被重新评估。

而这种评估，并不需要公开标准。

四、我被要求离开的真正含义

从形式上看，这是一次岗位调整；

但从实质上看，这是一个信号：

你可以存在，但不能以现在的方式存在。

也就是说：

你可以继续做教师，但要改变你是谁

你可以继续留在体系内，但要放弃你的一部分现实联系与实践

这不是一个简单的职业选择，而是一个身份重塑的要求。

五、我为什么不能接受

我不是不能理解现实规则，也不是不能做出妥协。

但问题在于：

这种妥协已经超出了职业调整的范围，而进入了“自我否认”的层面。

如果我接受：

我需要放弃已经长期投入的翻译工作

需要切断既有的社会联系

需要将自己压缩为一个“完全合规的单一身份”

那么我所保留下来的，只是一个形式上的岗位，而不是一个真实的人。

六、我并没有“选择在野”，但我被推向那里

我没有组织任何政治力量，也没有试图成为所谓的反对者。

但当一个人无法被既有结构容纳时，他的状态就已经发生变化。

“在野”，在这里并不是一种主动选择，而是一种被动结果。

它意味着：

你不再被正式体系承认

你必须重新寻找自己的位置

你开始在制度边缘生存

这正是我现在所处的位置。

七、这不是个体问题，而是结构问题

如果只是个体冲突，那么可以归结为个人选择。

但如果类似的情况不断出现，那么问题就不再是个体，而是结构。

我并不认为自己是特殊的。

相反，我更可能只是一个典型案例：

一个受过高等教育的人

一个进入体制内的人

一个尝试保留部分独立空间的人

最终被要求退出。

八、我将面对什么

离开体制，并不意味着结束，而意味着不确定的开始。

我将失去：

稳定的职业路径

明确的社会身份

可预期的生活结构

但与此同时，我也将面对一个更真实的问题：

在没有体制保障的情况下，一个人如何继续存在？

这个问题，没有标准答案。

九、我写这篇文章的目的

我不是在控诉，也不是在动员。

我只是做一件非常简单的事情：

把一个原本会被“静默处理”的过程，公开出来。

因为如果所有类似的变化都保持沉默，那么它们就不会被理解，也不会被讨论。

十、结语

我没有成为我曾经设想的那种人。

我没有在体制内稳定上升，也没有沿着既定路径发展。

相反，我正在被迫离开。

但这并不意味着失败。

它只是说明，在某些结构中，一个人无法同时保留：

职业身份

现实联系

自我一致性

当这三者发生冲突时，总要有一个被放弃。

而我选择保留后两者。

这就是我此刻的处境。

Why I Am Forced to Leave: A Public Statement by a University Teacher

Author: He Wenlong
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: The author frankly states that writing this article is not an accusation or a mobilization, but simply making public a process that would otherwise have been “silently handled,” because if all similar changes remain silent, they will be impossible to understand or discuss.

I am He Wenlong, a native of Lujiang, Anhui.

I graduated from Sun Yat-sen University with a Master of Arts in Translation and Interpretation, and have long been engaged in English teaching and text translation work.

I have always been a Christian preacher; the church I belong to is the RPC. My previous job was as a full-time English teacher at the Guangxi Polytechnic Vocational and Technical College. Currently, I hold a position as an English teacher at a university in Wuzhou, Guangxi, and I have already been summoned for talks to pressure me to leave.

The reason is that I am a Christian preacher, have close ties with house churches (underground churches), and maintain close contact with overseas Tibetans and Uyghurs. Because I was within the education system, I collected a large amount of first-hand materials on how the CCP controls the religious beliefs of students and teachers in schools.

My career path was clear and ordinary: enter a university, engage in teaching, and participate in academic and language-related work. This should have been a stable, clear, and sustainable path.

But now, this path has been forcibly interrupted.

I have been summoned for talks by the relevant authorities and explicitly required to “leave my current post.” There is no formal document, no public procedure, but the conclusion is very clear:

I am no longer suitable to continue remaining within the existing university system.

This article is my public statement regarding this matter.

1. What I Have Done

I have not participated in any illegal activities, have not engaged in any radical behavior, and have not organized any confrontational events.

What I have done is, in fact, very simple:

As a university teacher, completed daily teaching tasks.

Conducted translation and text editing.

Initiated and participated in the “Classic and Intellectual Text Translation Project.”

Maintained contact with some non-institutionalized social groups.

In any normal society, these actions should belong to an individual’s professional extension and cultural practice.

But in reality, they have been redefined.

2. The Problem Is Not “What I Have Done,” But “Which Category of Person I Belong To”

I gradually realized that the real problem does not lie in the specific actions themselves, but in a deeper logic of classification:

Can a person within the system simultaneously maintain a state of “not being completely homogenized”?

In other words:

Is total uniformity mandatory?

Is it mandatory to be incorporated into the same logic at all levels?

Is it permitted to have contacts and practices that exist outside the boundaries?

My situation illustrates one point:

The answer is no.

3. So-called “Stability” Is Becoming a One-Way Requirement

Stability within the system is usually understood as a guarantee:

Stability of the post, stability of income, and stability of identity.

But the reality is that this stability is being attached to increasingly explicit prerequisites:

Behavior must be predictable.

Contacts must be explainable.

Expression must remain within established limits.

When a person exceeds these ranges—even if only partially—his “stability” will be re-evaluated.

And this evaluation does not require public standards.

4. The True Meaning of Being Asked to Leave

From a formal perspective, this is a job adjustment;

But from a substantive perspective, it is a signal:

You can exist, but not in the way you do now.

That is to say:

You can continue to be a teacher, but you must change who you are.

You can continue to stay within the system, but you must give up a part of your existing social contacts and practices.

This is not a simple professional choice, but a demand for identity reshaping.

5. Why I Cannot Accept This

It is not that I cannot understand the rules of reality, nor that I cannot make compromises.

But the problem lies here:

This kind of compromise has exceeded the scope of professional adjustment and entered the level of “self-denial.”

If I accept:

I need to give up the translation work I have long been invested in.

I need to cut off existing social ties.

I need to compress myself into a “fully compliant, singular identity.”

Then what I would have preserved is only a formal post, not a real human being.

6. I Did Not “Choose to Be in the Wild,” But I Am Being Pushed There

I have not organized any political forces, nor have I attempted to become a so-called “dissenter.”

But when a person can no longer be accommodated by the existing structure, his status has already changed.

“In the wild” (Zai Ye) is not an active choice here, but a passive result.

It means:

You are no longer recognized by the formal system.

You must find your position anew.

You begin to survive on the margins of the system.

This is exactly where I am now.

7. This Is Not an Individual Problem, But a Structural Problem

If it were only an individual conflict, it could be attributed to personal choice.

But if similar situations continue to emerge, the problem is no longer the individual, but the structure.

I do not believe I am special.

On the contrary, I am more likely just a typical case:

A person who has received higher education.

A person who entered the system.

A person who tries to retain a part of independent space.

Ultimately being required to exit.

8. What I Will Face

Leaving the system does not mean an end, but means an uncertain beginning.

I will lose:

A stable career path.

A clear social identity.

A predictable life structure.

But at the same time, I will also face a more real question:

Without the guarantee of the system, how does a person continue to exist?

There is no standard answer to this question.

9. My Purpose in Writing This Article

I am not accusing, nor am I mobilizing.

I am simply doing one very simple thing:

Making public a process that would have been “silently handled.”

Because if all similar changes remain silent, they will not be understood, nor will they be discussed.

10. Conclusion

I did not become the kind of person I once envisioned.

I did not rise stably within the system, nor did I develop along a set path.

On the contrary, I am being forced to leave.

But this does not mean failure.

It simply illustrates that in certain structures, a person cannot simultaneously retain:

Professional identity

Actual social contacts

Self-consistency

When these three conflict, one must always be abandoned.

And I choose to retain the latter two.

This is my situation at this moment.