Author: Zhong Ran Editor: Zhong Ran Translator: Zhou Min
Kang Sheng (1898–1975), a native of Zhucheng, Shandong, was a titan of the early CCP leadership. As a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo and the Secretariat, he stood as a primary architect of the CCP’s secret police apparatus, its ideological censorship mechanisms, and the institutionalized system of internal political purges. Throughout the Mao era, Kang wielded absolute control over intelligence, security, and the ideological sphere, earning a reputation as one of the most destructive “shadow players” in the history of the People’s Republic.
In the 1930s, Kang spent years in the Soviet Union, where he was deeply indoctrinated into the Stalinist terror apparatus. Upon his return, he headed the Central Social Department in Yan’an, overseeing intelligence and “counter-suppression” efforts. It was here that he codified a purge model predicated on “political vetting,” “ideological cleansing,” and “organizational purity.” By weaponizing forced confessions, mutual denunciations, and the elastic definition of “enemy agents,” Kang manufactured a wave of wrongful convictions that laid the institutional foundation for the party’s politics of terror.
The Yan’an Rectification Movement (1942–1945) marked the total ascendance of Kang’s power. Under his aegis, campaigns like the “Rescue of Lapsed Cadres” devolved into systematic persecution. Intellectuals and officials were branded as “traitors,” “spies,” or “Trotskyites,” suffering profound physical and psychological trauma. For many who would be purged again decades later during the Cultural Revolution, their “original political sins” were meticulously filed in the dossiers Kang created in Yan’an. Mao Zedong did not merely tolerate these methods; he embraced them as indispensable tools for consolidating his absolute authority.
Though he briefly receded from the public spotlight in the early years of the PRC, Kang never lost his grip on power. He remained the gatekeeper of ideological orthodoxy and the arbiter of historical characterization. As Mao grew increasingly paranoid regarding “revisionism,” Kang returned to the vanguard as a chief theoretician of the Cultural Revolution. His fabrication of the Liu Zhidan case—a modern-day “literary inquisition”—implicated over 60,000 people, resulting in more than 6,000 deaths. This case served as the dark overture to the decade of chaos that followed.
During the Cultural Revolution, as a core member of the Central Cultural Revolution Group, Kang operated from the shadows to dictate the fate of his rivals. In 1968, he assumed control of the Central Investigation Department, the CCP’s premier intelligence agency, where he became a dreaded “executioner” of intra-party struggles. By weaponizing “allusive historiography,” he transformed academic debate into capital treason, providing a “legal” veneer for the wholesale persecution of the intelligentsia. Historical research and memoir data now suggest that the number of intellectuals persecuted to death during this era exceeded 300,000.
Kang was instrumental in the downfall of top state leaders, including Liu Shaoqi, Peng Dehuai, He Long, and Tao Zhu. He systematically manipulated evidence and forged “historical dossiers” that determined life and death. Unlike the street-level brutality of the Red Guards, Kang’s influence was structural. He proceduralized persecution and technicalized censorship, ensuring that political cleansing did not rely on fleeting emotional fervor, but on a self-sustaining bureaucratic machine.
Kang Sheng died in 1975, escaping accountability in his lifetime. While post-Mao internal documents labeled him “one of the most heinous criminals of the Cultural Revolution,” there was never a public reckoning or a systemic reversal of his fabricated cases. His culpability was acknowledged only in isolation, deliberately severed from the institutional roots of the party-state.
Even today, official obituaries cautiously describe him as an “important party leader.” However, in the eyes of history, Kang Sheng remains the quintessential specimen of totalitarian governance. By fusing secret police logic with ideological monopoly and the cult of personality, he transformed political persecution into a replicable and enduring mode of rule. He was not just a powerful figure of the Mao era; he was the engineer of a mechanism of fear whose shadow continues to haunt Chinese political culture long after his death.
In Solidarity with Zou Wei: A Citizen Upholding Conviction Under Pressure
Author: Yang Changbing Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Lyu Feng
Abstract:This article focuses on Zou Wei, a member of the China Democracy Party, who has continued to advocate modern liberty and civil rights under conditions of intense political pressure within China.
In today’s social and political climate in China, maintaining independent thought and fulfilling civic responsibility often comes at a heavy personal cost. Zou Wei, an ordinary citizen from Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, has for many years persisted in upholding the principles of democracy and human rights under sustained pressure, embodying through his actions the conscience and responsibility of a citizen.
Born in 1960 in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, Zou Wei is an important member of the Zhejiang organization of the China Democracy Party. Over the years, he has consistently advocated the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, and human rights, and has actively participated in local democratic activities and civic initiatives. Despite the long-term suppression of grassroots organizations and independent political forces, Zou has continued to conduct outreach and advocacy work as a member of the China Democracy Party, promoting the principles of civil society.
On November 20, 2023, news that Nanjing dissident Sun Lin had allegedly been beaten to death by police in his home drew public attention. Out of concern for the right to life and procedural justice, Zou Wei publicly held signs to express concern and participated in signing open letters related to the incident. Subsequently, police in Gongshu District, Hangzhou, placed him under administrative detention, and both his residence and his family’s home were searched. This marked a further escalation in the pressure directed against him.
On March 17, 2024, on the fourth anniversary of the passing of Dr. Li Wenliang, the whistleblower during the COVID-19 outbreak, Zou Wei once again held signs to express mourning and to call for reflection and accountability.
On July 13, 2024, marking the seventh anniversary of the passing of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, Zou Wei and several friends traveled to the seaside in Haining, Zhejiang Province, to hold a memorial sea ceremony. They later posted related photographs online to express remembrance and respect for the advocate of peace. However, this peaceful commemorative act was subsequently deemed by the authorities to be suspected of illegality. Zou Wei was criminally detained by police on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” and on August 29 of the same year, his arrest was formally approved. In July 2025, the case was transferred to the procuratorate for public prosecution.
At present, Zou Wei is being held at the Gongshu District Detention Center in Hangzhou, and the case is still awaiting further trial proceedings. His prolonged detention has not only restricted his personal freedom but has also placed tremendous psychological and financial pressure on his family.
In fact, Zou Wei is respected among democracy advocates not only for his public actions, but also for his longstanding support for others. Over the years, he has actively maintained contact with friends across different regions, initiated fundraising efforts for members of the China Democracy Party facing hardship, paid close attention to the living conditions of those under pressure, and done his best to assist them and their families. In a high-pressure environment, such mutual aid and solidarity are especially rare and valuable.
Zou Wei’s experience once again reflects the current realities surrounding civic expression. When peaceful commemoration, rational expression, and humanitarian concern can all be regarded as risky behavior, the public space of society is undoubtedly shrinking. A healthy and stable society should be able to accommodate diverse voices rather than push those who speak rationally into confrontation.
Today, expressing solidarity with Zou Wei is not only about concern for the fate of one individual, but also a call to uphold fundamental rights and the principles of the rule of law. Expressing opinions, participating in public discussion, and peacefully commemorating historical figures should be recognized as legitimate civic rights, not grounds for prolonged detention or criminal charges.
We call upon the Chinese authorities to safeguard Zou Wei’s lawful rights in accordance with the law, to ensure that his case receives a fair and open trial, and to fully protect his personal rights and basic dignity. We also urge all sectors of society to continue paying attention to the development of this case and to express concern in a rational and peaceful manner.
In the face of heavy real-world pressures, an individual voice may seem small. Yet it is precisely these small but steadfast voices that form the foundation of social conscience. We stand in solidarity with Zou Wei because we believe that a society that respects citizens’ rights and allows rational expression is the true source of national stability and the future to which all people aspire. The waters of the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers do not flow backward, and the tide of history cannot be stopped. We will continue to speak out until Zou Wei’s freedom is fully restored.
Abstract:The Chinese Communist Party is depriving children of their right to life in order to realize an alleged “immortality” plan for those in power. We must firmly prevent such a plan from succeeding.
While those in power speak of “eternal life,” ordinary families are losing their flesh and blood.
Not long ago, a video circulated widely online, sending shockwaves through many viewers. In what was described as a private conversation between the Kremlin and Zhongnanhai, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping were said to have discussed the idea that organ transplantation could enable human beings to achieve longevity or even “immortality.” Xi Jinping was even portrayed as confidently predicting that human life expectancy could soon surpass 150 years.
This may sound like the plot of a science fiction novel, but in today’s China, it is presented as something far more ominous.
If those in power truly aspire to live to 150 years old, and if they believe that a continuous supply of organs could make “immortality” possible, then where would these “fresh parts” come from? They would not simply fall from the sky. When this alleged conversation is viewed alongside the series of campus disappearances reported domestically, a chilling interpretation emerges: that the “dream of longevity” for the powerful is built upon the loss and suffering of ordinary families’ children.
The “Dark Trap” on Campus
This January, in Xincai County, Henan Province, a 13-year-old boy died under mysterious circumstances in his school dormitory. What devastated and enraged his family most was that, before the parents had even arrived, an ambulance reportedly hurried to remove the body. Had the boy’s uncle not physically blocked the school gate, that small body might already have been sent to the crematorium—or, as some fear, even more disturbingly, quietly transferred to an operating table.
According to the author, this is not an isolated case. From Hu Xinyu to the recent case of a student surnamed Zhu, every child who has gone missing or died in a place that should be the safest—the school—raises grave suspicions. The article questions why blood samples are collected from students, and why some missing children are allegedly “matched” to critically ill individuals in positions of power. It argues that when “organ donation” is framed as a matter of state ownership, and when the medical system is portrayed as functioning like a harvesting machine, schools cease to be sanctuaries of learning and are instead depicted as “breeding grounds” for organ supply.
Rejecting “State-Owned Organs” Means Refusing to Be Treated as Disposable
The author notes that online campaigns calling for the rejection of organ transplantation have emerged domestically, describing them as acts of collective self-protection by ordinary people who feel they have no other recourse. In a normal society, organ donation is seen as a life-affirming act; however, the article claims that under the current political system it has become an officially organized system of bodily exploitation.
The concept of so-called “state-owned organs,” the author argues, amounts to turning the human body into a public resource. If one’s liver, kidneys, or even corneas are catalogued and priced within a bureaucratic system, then in that system’s eyes a person is no longer an individual with dignity, but a set of spare parts that can be extracted when needed.
The article further asserts that organ transplantation has in recent years been vigorously promoted as an industry, even described as a medical export component of the “Belt and Road” initiative. It characterizes this as a form of “blood-stained GDP,” alleging that behind official claims of rising volunteer donor numbers lie families of missing persons who are unable to obtain clear answers. According to the author, a lack of transparency and the concentration of power over life-and-death decisions create the conditions in which alleged forced organ harvesting could persist.
Our Outcry Is to Prevent Further Tragedy
Writing as a father, the author expresses fear over what might happen if a child’s blood type were allegedly matched within such a system. He states that his protest is not only an indictment of what he describes as an unjust political structure, but also a message to parents inside the country that they are not alone.
Every missing child, he argues, represents a shared loss; every allegedly forcibly taken organ, an assault on humanity. The article calls for dismantling what it describes as a dictator’s “150-year dream,” claiming it is built upon countless young lives. It demands investigation into campus disappearances and the abolition of policies that, in the author’s view, exploit human life.
As long as we still draw breath, we will never allow their dream of immortality to be realized through our blood and tears.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader：Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min
I was never a man naturally drawn to politics. For a long time, my only aspiration was to lead a quiet life—to work hard, cherish my family, and adhere to the cautious maxim of “the less said, the fewer the mistakes” regarding the state. It took years to realize that in China, certain topics are not merely “sensitive”; they are forbidden from thought. Certain values are not merely “disputed”; they are systematically negated.
My profound and sustained focus on the United States began in 2024, the year my wife and children traveled there. Through our conversations, I began to perceive the essence of that country—not through grand political theories, but through the visceral, mundane details of their daily life.
They didn’t speak of lofty ideologies, but of things that are hauntingly “extraordinary” by Chinese standards: the freedom to voice an opinion in public without the shadow of consequence; a mosaic of ethnicities and backgrounds coexisting without the mandate of ideological uniformity; and a respect for individual rights that felt like breathing—natural and uncoerced—rather than a hollow slogan.
Driven by these lived experiences, I began to scrutinize the American system. I realized that the U.S. is heralded as a bastion of liberty and human rights not because it is flawless, but because it permits its flaws to be debated. It allows power to be interrogated, and it ensures that an individual is not criminalized for the “sin” of a dissenting opinion.
I have expressed these views both privately and publicly: that any nation which forbids its citizens from debating its systems or criticizing its rulers possesses a “stability” that is nothing more than the silence of the grave. A regime that equates a political party with the nation, and dissent with treason, is, by definition, a dictatorship. It was this conviction that marked me.
In China, one does not need an organization or a manifesto to “oppose” the CCP. It is enough to simply state that “the Party is not the Country,” “power must be checked,” or “free speech is an inalienable right.” Such thoughts make you a “dangerous element.” Soon, the walls began to close in: conversations were abruptly cut off, warnings were issued, and I was repeatedly told to “watch my stance.” That invisible, suffocating pressure makes one truth agonizingly clear: independent thinkers are persona non grata here. I awoke to a cruel reality: in China, you don’t have to commit a crime to be in danger; you only have to think too deeply and speak too clearly.
The CCP does not safeguard the interests of the people; it safeguards its own survival. It fears free discourse because freedom dismantles lies; it crushes dissent because truth erodes coerced authority. Its so-called “stability” is a fortress built on surveillance and fear; its “patriotism” is reduced to blind, unconditional fealty to the Party.
When I realized that remaining in China meant choosing between permanent silence, self-betrayal, or the constant threat of state retribution, I knew I had no choice at all.
I came to America not because it is a utopia, but because it is a place where one can acknowledge, discuss, and oppose the problems at hand. Here, criticizing the government is not a felony, opposing the ruling party is not an act of betrayal, and one’s life does not belong to an unquestionable power.
I did not leave China because I hate my homeland. I left because I refuse to surrender my life to a regime that forbids the truth. If a state requires fear to command loyalty, then it is not afraid of enemies—it is terrified of the truth itself.
Abstract: Zhu Yufu mourns Mr. Lihong’s life and spirit, recalls his unyielding and martyrdom in prison, praises his democratic ideals and personality, and inspires future generations to inherit his unfinished aspirations.
Author: Zhu Yufu Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao
Lihong has left us. The mountains and rivers are solemn, the gods and men are sad, the rivers and seas are silent, and the earth is white.
With Lihong’s departure, China has lost a great talent. We will never see your sharp and vigorous pen fly again; we will never hear your eloquence of laughter and anger again. The sword points to evil, pity the poor and weak, how precious is your undisguised passion: singing the light, longing for democracy, how strong is your fiery pursuit. “One inch of freedom, one inch of blood,” you practiced: with your talent, you could be “elite,” “petty bourgeois,” or “middle class,” but you chose a thorny path; with your efforts, you could “climb up,” “rise high,” and “be powerful,” but you chose a journey to pursue your dreams. Hail Lihong! You left your home and your family, and you rode into battle. The nation took you as its backbone, and you donated your blood to dispel the reproach of China. You were imprisoned in a black prison, but you were still unyielding. The evil police saw you as a deterrent, and you were killed for your own sake, and you were rid of the stench of copper in the vast land of China.
Alas, Li Hong, “I am on the shore of the West Lake, you are imprisoned in Linping Mountain.” The handwriting you wrote to me still remains, but now we are forever separated. I received your precious letter, and your optimism overflowed between the lines. Recalling that year, although I was in prison, I knew that you were severely persecuted in the Youth Prison Hospital. The authorities did not provide any treatment for you. When Yan Zhengxue was transferred there, you were fortunate to meet and talk to him. When you felt great joy, the authorities immediately isolated you. But they could not change your state of mind. Although you could not see the West Lake, your heart was filled with the beauty of the West Lake, and it was ten million times more beautiful than the West Lake. Although they deprived you of your family and friends, your spiritual world is still rich and solid, and you are still in deep communion with everyone. My fellow prisoners told me that you don’t care about your own skin and would rather live in history, so I know that you have chosen immortality. I know that your heart is peaceful, as calm as the bottom of the Aegean Sea; your heart is clear, as clear as the sea and the sky.
Your family cannot accept this situation: a good person was arrested and tortured in an inhuman detention center for just over two months, suffering from such an incurable disease. Your gentle and kind wife is worried about you every month as your condition continues to worsen. So she applied to the authorities again and again to arrange for you to be released on medical parole, but every time it was like a stone sinking into the sea. What she did not know was that the authorities were afraid of you. They were afraid that your mouth would speak, they were afraid that your hand would write, they were afraid that your personality would awaken the conscience of more and more people, and they were determined to torture and kill your body.
Alas, Lihong, when you were dying, the prison threw you to your family, and you finished the last stage of your life in the intensive care unit. I went to see you that day. You were as thin as a rake, and your breath was like a thread. I leaned over to you and said softly, “Lihong, I am Zhu Yufu, I came to see you.”Your lifeless eyes suddenly flashed with brilliance, and you nodded vigorously — although it was only a weak movement, I saw your deep affection for your comrades. Oh, Lihong, in order to leave the precious visiting time to your wife and sister, I hurriedly walked away, but I kept standing near you, watching you, watching your family busy wiping you, massaging you, changing your clothes. I was full of tears: I knew that you did not have many days left, so I quickly and secretly took a few photos as a permanent memory.
Alas, Lihong, at this moment, as you said in the poem “Earth”, you are “feeling the breath in the soil, listening to the roar of the rapid arrival of spring in the depths of the earth.” We feel the same way. At this moment, I face your portrait, my chest full of vigor: your soul-piercing eyes speak of your expectations, looking forward to our inheritance of your unfinished business; your tight lips are delivering your perseverance, telling us that the road to democracy is still full of hardships. You were confident, firmly believing that a democratic China would come; you were optimistic, believing that this day would not be too far away. Today, we examine ourselves before you. In the face of your diligence, we have done far less than we should; in the face of your sacrifice, what can we not give up? Lihong, your spirit is not dead, your moral appeal still exists. We will be more united and work harder under your spiritual inspiration to comfort you, to comfort Lin Zhao, Yu Luoke, and to comfort all the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the cause of democracy in China. Li Hong, rest in peace!
Alas, Li Hong, how magnificent you were.
Live as a champion among men, die as a lord among spirits.
Though tempered, their luster never fades, standing as lofty as Mount Tai.
Their mighty pens cut like blades, earning the praise of all.
China’s splendor endures because of such men.
We hold fast to their example as our compass.
With spring drawing near, why should we dread the winter cold?
Through endless ages,his spirit spans the heavens in glory.
January 7, 2011 (the first seventh day after Lihong’s departure from this world)
In Memory of Li Wenliang, Questioning Responsibility and Truth
————The 776th Jasmine Operation of the Chinese Democratic Party
Abstract: Li Wenliang, based on professional judgment, reminded his colleagues to pay attention to an unknown pneumonia that may be contagious, hoping that everyone would strengthen their protection. Soon after, the epidemic spread rapidly and the situation got out of control. Li Wenliang was also infected with the virus while working on the front line, and unfortunately died on February 7, 2020, at the age of 34.
Author: Yang Changbing
Editor: Cheng Wei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing
On February 8, 2026, the 776th Jasmine Operation of the Chinese Democratic Party was held in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles to commemorate Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang, calling for accountability for the information blockade in the early days of the epidemic, and to safeguard the truth and the public’s right to know.
The sponsors and organizers of this event include: Yang Changbing, Zhang Yu, Mao Yiwei, Zeng Qunlan, Ma Qun, Zhao Ye, and Mou Zongqiang. At the event, participants wore masks with the words “Remember Li Wenliang”, “Hold the CCP accountable”, and “Let the truth be heard” written on them, and held yellow chrysanthemums to express their condolences to Li Wenliang.
At the beginning of the event, the hosts Zhang Xiaoli and Zhang Yu introduced the deeds of Dr. Li Wenliang, and everyone observed a minute of silence to express their condolences. In the early days of the epidemic, Li Wenliang, based on his professional judgment, reminded his colleagues to pay attention to an unknown pneumonia that might be contagious, hoping that everyone would strengthen their protection. This is the most basic duty of a doctor, and is the embodiment of responsibility for life. However, such professional reminders were deemed to be “rumors.” He was reprimanded and asked to be silent. At a critical moment when professional opinions and timely warnings should be valued, the real voice was suppressed. Soon after, the epidemic spread rapidly and the situation spiraled out of control. Li Wenliang was also infected with the virus while working on the front line, and unfortunately died on February 7, 2020, at the age of 34.
Li Wenliang’s experience is not only a personal tragedy for a doctor, but also exposes a serious problem: in the face of a public crisis, the authorities prioritize information control over risk disclosure; they prioritize maintaining superficial stability over ensuring public safety.
Looking back at the situation at the beginning of the epidemic, we can see that professional warnings were suppressed, the release of key information was slow, and the true situation of the epidemic was not disclosed to the society and the world in a timely manner. This cover-up and delay missed a valuable opportunity for prevention and control, and also buried the hidden dangers for the complete loss of control of the epidemic. Subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic evolved into a global disaster, causing huge loss of life and far-reaching social impacts. This disaster is not only a crisis brought about by the virus, but also a man-made disaster caused by information blockades and institutional failures.
A responsible government should disclose information as soon as risks arise, respect professional judgment, and protect the public’s right to information. The concealment and suppression of the epidemic not only harmed the people of the country, but also brought a heavy cost to the world. Serious reflection and accountability must be carried out for the information control and concealment in the early stages of the epidemic. Without accountability, similar tragedies could happen again.
Li Wenliang once said: “A healthy society should not have only one voice.”Today, we commemorate him not only to remember a brave doctor, but also to safeguard the most basic bottom line – in matters of life safety, the truth cannot be suppressed, warnings cannot be punished, and responsibility cannot be covered up.
Commemorating Li Wenliang is to remember the lessons of this disaster; safeguarding the truth is to avoid the next tragedy. May those who tell the truth no longer be punished, and may the price of life be able to promote real change.
Twenty years in prison: a political execution for press freedom
Author: Zhang Yu Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Wang Bin Translation: Ge Bing
Abstract: The one-paper, twenty-year verdict against Mr. Lai Chee-ying freely sentenced Hong Kong to death and exposed the real fears of the Chinese Communist regime.
Twenty years in prison.
When the verdict was read, it was no longer just a judicial number but a political declaration: a regime’s public warning to all those who still try to uphold the truth and defend press freedom.
Lai Chee-ying, a media person in his seventies and the founder of Apple Daily, committed no violent acts, no armed organizations, and no covert operations, but was sentenced to 20 years in prison in the name of “national security”. This is not the law’s verdict on crime, but the power’s punishment of dissent; it is not the end of justice, but a display of the rule of fear.
In any normal legal society, news reporting, political commentary, and public expression of positions are all part of civil rights; under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, these behaviors were redefined as “threatening national security”. This logic itself has revealed the truth: it is never the state that truly feels insecure, but the regime itself.
These twenty years of imprisonment, ostensibly for Lai Chee-ying, were actually for society as a whole ——for journalists, scholars, publishers, entrepreneurs, and for all those who still believe that freedom of speech is not a gift but a right. It is not about “justice”, but about creating a chill: making everyone understand that telling the truth has a price, and the price can be so great that it destroys a lifetime.
The Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly claimed “rule of law in Hong Kong” and “trial independence”, but the Lai Chee-ying case reveals the hypocrisy of these claims. When the law is used to serve political goals, when crimes can be extended indefinitely, and when trial procedures are systematically de-supervised, “the law” ceases to be a tool for protecting citizens and becomes a weapon for suppressing them.
Twenty years in prison, which for an elderly man is almost equivalent to life imprisonment, is not accidental harshness, but carefully calculated deterrence. The CCP needs a sentence heavy enough to prove its zero tolerance for press freedom; it needs a cruel enough ending to tell the world and Hong Kong society: under this system, the truth is not allowed to exist for long.
The Lai Chee-ying case should therefore not be understood as a single “individual case”, but rather as an institutional sample: a complete model showing how totalitarianism can eliminate dissent through a legal shell and package political persecution through judicial proceedings.
Discussing these two decades is not just for the sake of one person’s justice, but to answer a more fundamental question: What is left of a society when the news is sentenced?
Before any punishment can be discussed, a fundamental, yet deliberately avoided, question must first be put on the table: What crime did Lai Chee-ying commit?
If we strip away the political language and the highly ambiguous label of “national security”, the remaining facts are actually extremely clear: Lai Chee-ying is a media person, the founder of Apple Daily, a person who publicly expresses his political stance, insists on press freedom, and refuses self-censorship. Everything he did took place in a public space, was accessible to society, and involved no violence, armed or covert action.
He did not organize armed forces, incite violent conflict, engage in espionage, or pose a direct threat to the safety of any life. Instead, what he did was publish editorials, give interviews, communicate with the international community about the situation in Hong Kong, and continue to criticize those in power through media reports. These actions are perfectly normal civic behavior in any democratic society; yet under the logic of CCP rule, they are repackaged as felonies “endangering national security”.
This is precisely where the Lai Chee-ying case is most absurd and most dangerous.
The so-called crime is not the danger of the behavior itself, but the positional attribute of the behavior.
In the political context constructed by the Chinese Communist Party, “crime” no longer depends on what you do, but on which side you are on. As long as your speech challenges your rights, your reporting is uncontrolled, and your influence cannot be incorporated, then even if you just write, speak, and run a newspaper, you can be endlessly exaggerated and eventually defined as an enemy of the state.
The very existence of Apple Daily is a challenge to totalitarian logic. It rejects the use of official languages, the repetition of a uniform calibre and the reduction of complex social realities to propaganda slogans. In the eyes of a regime that relies on an information monopoly to maintain its rule, this media is not “a different voice” but “a systemic threat”.
Therefore, the Lai Chee-ying case is not the result of the judicial system discovering the crime and punishing it according to law, but rather a process in which political power first determines its position and then searches for the crime. The so-called “conspiracy”“ collusion ”“incitement” is a legal narrative that is pieced together after the outcome is determined to give persecution a seemingly legitimate shell.
It is all the more alarming to note that this logic, once accepted, means that no one is safe anymore. If writing an article is a sin, if being interviewed is a sin, if communicating with the outside world is a sin, if upholding journalistic ethics is a sin, then “sin” itself has lost its boundaries.
This is precisely the core and most deadly feature of the National Security Law ——it is not about specific actions, but about ideas and positions; it is not about punishing harm that has already occurred, but about preventing any possible disobedience. In such a legal system, innocence is no longer determined by facts but by power.
For the Chinese Communist Party, the Lai Chee-ying case was not an ordinary case from the beginning, but an exemplary trial. Its goal is never just to punish one person, but through that person, to recalibrate the scale of fear across society.
In a totalitarian system, the significance of punishment is not so much in relation to the act “proportionality” as in relation to whether it is sufficiently deterrent. Twenty years is a number in itself ——it sends a clear message to everyone: if you touch press freedom and challenge the official narrative, no matter who you are, how old you are, or whether you are nonviolent or not, the cost can be devastating.
Why did it have to be so heavy? Because light sentences are dangerous.
If Lai Chee-ying is only symbolically convicted and serves a short prison sentence, society may have the illusion that there is still room for upholding principles and that there is a way out of fighting power. For a regime that relies on total obedience to peacekeeping rule, the illusion itself is a threat.
Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party needs a “painful enough” ending:
It hurts so much that media professionals learn to self-censor
It hurts so much that it keeps entrepreneurs away from public issues
It hurts so much that young people realize the cost of ideals
It hurts enough to make society as a whole understand again “where the boundaries are”.
Twenty years in prison is the product of this political mentality. It is not about correcting so-called “errors”, but about reshaping behavioral patterns. It’s not about convincing you, it’s about scaring you.
Even more cruel is that such heavy sentences do not need to be supported by true criminal facts. The design of national security laws itself facilitates this operation: the ambiguity of charges, the concentration of interpretation power, and the de-supervision of procedures make sentencing no longer subject to the logic of the regular rule of law, but completely subordinate to political needs.
This is where CCP rule is at its core and most ruthless: it doesn’t require you to believe it is just, it only requires you to believe that resistance is futile.
And when a regime has to rely on such heavy penalties to maintain order, it itself reveals its weakness. A truly confident system does not need to use twenty years in prison against a journalist; only a regime that is afraid of the truth, afraid of memory, and afraid of being recorded would exert such force.
Lai Chee-ying was sentenced not because he was “dangerous”, but because the system knew it could not withstand the long-term existence of the truth.
The core of press freedom is not just reporting facts, but recognizing that a premise —— power is not naturally correct, there is not only one version of the narrative, and the government’s behavior can and should be continuously questioned and monitored. This premise touches the very foundation of the legitimacy of Communist Party rule.
The source of power for the CCP has never been open competition or free authorization, but rather a long-term monopoly on historical narrative and real-world information. It requires a world that is carefully managed: what can be remembered, what can be said, what questions can be discussed, and what answers can only be given officially.
In such a system, journalism is not a public service but is seen as a potential threat; journalists are not watchdogs but are seen as “risk factors”; and independent media are not social assets but are seen as “hostile forces”.
The existence of Apple Daily breaks this logic of control. It does not accept official caliber as the final answer, does not put “stability” above the truth, and does not take “correct position” as a reporting premise. It exposes power to public view in a popular, direct, and emotionally charged way ——which is exactly what totalitarianism can tolerate the most.
For the Communist Party, the real danger is not a single report, but an uncontrollable information mechanism.
As long as this mechanism exists, power cannot fully control social emotions;
As long as someone keeps recording, history cannot be rewritten at will;
As long as the truth is constantly being spread, fear cannot be steadily effective.
This is also why the CCP’s attack on press freedom has never been “management”, but a complete liquidation. For freedom is not a variable that can be regulated, but a risk that must be purged.
Lai Chee-ying is also particularly “dangerous” because of the overlap of his roles. He is both a media personality and an entrepreneur; he has local influence while maintaining open ties with the international community; he expresses value positions while refusing to hide in a “technically neutral” safe zone. This public, continuous, visible persistence prevents him from being marginalized and quietly disappearing.
Therefore, he must be tried with high profile, imprisoned for a long time, and shaped into “negative teaching material”. Not because he did something unspeakable, but because he made too many people see what power doesn’t want to see.
From this perspective, the closure of Apple Daily was not a commercial failure of the news industry, but a political purge; Lai Chee-ying’s sentencing was not judicial discretion, but an ideological situation. The CCP does not want a “conformist media environment”, but a society that no longer raises questions.
A regime has effectively acknowledged its vulnerability when it needs to maintain its own stability by destroying press freedom. A truly confident system that does not need to fear journalists; a truly solid government that does not need to imprison those who write; only power based on lies and fear can be so sensitive and violent to the truth.
Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, for silence itself is a betrayal of freedom.
The most dangerous thing for a totalitarian regime is not the protesting crowd, but the people who dare to record, dare to report, and dare to let the truth be seen. Freedom of the press is not an empty slogan, it is the nervous system of social cognition; once it is lost, power can shape reality, tamper with history, and define “truth” at will.
Silence means compromise and is acquiescing to the power to appropriate facts and memories for oneself. In Lai Chee-ying’s view, silence is tantamount to recognition: the government has the right to define the boundaries of society, to decide which voices can exist, and to choose to let the truth disappear. He could not accept such a reality because his profession, his beliefs, the justice he had pursued throughout his life, were all based on the premise that truth could be revealed and power could be monitored.
The CCP is afraid of Lai Chee-ying speaking out because he can inspire people to think independently. His words and reports are like fire, conveying thoughts and questions to every corner of society. It is this power that makes a regime must punish with high profile, must detain for long periods of time, and must instill fear ——otherwise its authority cannot remain absolute.
Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, also because history calls for responsibility. Every independent media person, every citizen who dares to question, is a guardian of social memory. Silence leaves history blank, facts wiped out, and truth tampered with. The CCP knows this so well that it must use twenty years in prison to silence Lai Chee-ying and try to make everyone in the future understand that challenging authority will come at a devastating cost.
Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, and in this he transcends personal destiny and becomes a spiritual benchmark for the entire society. Twenty years in prison, unable to hold his convictions; a court blockade, unable to conceal his persistence; the law can deprive him of his freedom, but it cannot imprison the truth.
Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, because silence is the desired result of power, and insisting on speaking out is his loyalty to history, society, and freedom.
Lai Chee-ying was sentenced to twenty years, not just to one person, but to all of Hong Kong, and even to people around the world who care about press freedom. This sentence attempts to create fear with long prison sentences, to cover political persecution with the shell of legal proceedings, and to destroy the will with the consumption of time. However, no amount of heavy prison sentences or lengthy sentences can conceal the truth or extinguish the fire that has been lit.
The Chinese Communist Party fears not only Lai Chee-ying’s personal voice, but the existence of the truth itself. It fears that the media can record history, expose power, and inspire doubt; it fears that anyone will realize that so-called “stability” and “prosperity” are just appearances based on fear and manipulation. It turns a man in his seventies into a “sinner” with courts, laws, sentences, and imprisonment to show what happens to all those who dare to speak out. But it forgets that spiritual freedom is beyond the reach of imprisonment.
Lai Chee-ying’s persistence demonstrates the irreplaceable value of press freedom and civil rights. He refused to be silent, to the personal glory, but to make society remember that power can conceal the truth but cannot eliminate those who desire the truth; law can package persecution but cannot crush the spirit of justice. Twenty years of imprisonment, for him, is a physical captivity, but for the truth, it is a continuation of light. He became a symbol——of those who do not surrender to violence, fear, power; of the freedom of the press and the power of independent thought; of an era when those who speak out will never be forgotten.
Hong Kong’s freedoms are being taken away, its space for expression is being blocked, and institutional persecution is being systematized; but this does not mean the end of hope. Every report, every person who bravely speaks out, is continuing the revolution of the times represented by Lai Chee-ying. Power can silence voices but not erase memories and beliefs; domination can prolong fears but not erase the truth of history. As Lai Chee-ying demonstrates, true strength comes from those who uphold principles, from a spirit that is not dominated by fear.
The CCP can deter society with prisons, trials, and twenty-year sentences, but it can never deprive the people of their desire for freedom or prevent historical memory from guiding the future. Lai Chee-ying’s insistence reminds us: freedom is not a gift, it is a right that must be defended; news is not a sin, it is the blood of society; silence is not security, it is a trap that despotism wants you to accept.
Twenty years is a sentence for a person, but it is also a wake-up call for confidence in power. Sooner or later justice will be remembered and the truth will be revealed. Even if the prison holds Lai Chee-ying’s body, his spirit, his convictions, his flame in defense of press freedom will still be transmitted, burned, and illuminated in society by those who are unwilling to submit and who are unwilling to remain silent.
Lai Chee-ying cannot be extinguished, Hong Kong’s memory cannot be tampered with, and the flame of freedom cannot be extinguished. Twenty years of judgment, a punishment for courage by totalitarianism, but also a record of justice by history. No matter how oppressive power may be, glory will surely return to Hong Kong and the truth will surely reach the future.
Author: Guo Quan Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Lyu Feng
The Logic of Trump (67)
President Trump noted that many people around the world assume the greatness of democratic America lies in its institutional arrangements. In fact, he argued, something even greater undergirds the nation: the faith of its people. The foundation of American freedom arises from reverence for God, not merely from constitutional structure. Once that principle is abandoned, liberty will slowly erode. Institutions cannot replace the transformation of the heart; the rebirth of faith is the basis for national renewal.
On February 5, at the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., the President emphasized that faith is the central force in rebuilding America.
He explained that “In God We Trust” means humility before a supreme authority — regardless of political stance or social status, all stand as equal individuals in need of divine grace.
On the personal level, he drew from his own experience, stating that neither power nor wealth can sustain a person in times of crisis; only one’s relationship with God can provide real strength.
On the national level, he reiterated that American liberty grows out of reverence for God rather than institutional design; forgetting this would gradually dissolve freedom.
He argued that the government’s role is to protect, not interfere with, religious liberty. He opposed administrative restrictions on religious expression and called on people across party lines to set aside differences and seek direction for the nation through prayer.
Faced with international conflict and domestic division, he insisted that politics cannot heal the human heart. Only a collective return to faith, humbly seeking guidance in prayer, can restore unity and hope.
At its core, the President’s thought is this: systems cannot substitute for inner transformation; spiritual renewal is the foundation of rebuilding a nation.
Recently, in a conversation with an American friend, Monica, we discussed justification by faith. I said: believing in God alone does not automatically bring one to heaven. Faith and action are like two wheels on an axle; if either stops, the other merely turns in circles without moving forward. True faith must move in parallel with right conduct.
What stirred me deeply was something the President once said:When he was young, he committed many wrongs that would make him ashamed before God. Now, in the final stage of life, he hopes to use his remaining years to do things pleasing to God.
Monica replied: yes — beyond belief, one must also overcome in conduct. Without repentance, how can there be renewal? Redemption is proven not by words but by deeds.
Today, I would like to analyze this statement through theology, psychology, philosophy, and cultural anthropology.
1. Psychological Dimension — mortality awareness and moral integration
Repentance in later life often reflects the search for integrity. Recognizing one’s shame before God reveals a breakthrough in self-understanding. Awareness of life’s finitude triggers a restructuring of values. The confession of weakness dismantles the image of invulnerability and discloses a universal mechanism of moral awakening.
2. Theological Dimension — the narrative of repentance and redemption
His language resonates with core Christian teachings:
Consciousness of sin: “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23).
Turn toward action: faith without works is dead (James).
Eschatological seriousness: placing finite life under ultimate judgment encourages active responsibility in the present.
3. Philosophical Dimension — rebuilding the moral subject
To live authentically requires facing death.
Time becomes urgent.
The self shifts from wielder of power to bearer of responsibility.
By appealing to God, one transcends narrow individualism and seeks recognition within a moral community.
Thus, psychological openness, theological conversion, and philosophical resolve together elevate private repentance into an example with universal human significance.
The National Prayer Breakfast Context
The event began during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953. Its tradition is to gather leaders across parties each February to pray beyond political division.
At the 74th gathering, President Trump’s address centered on two themes.
Personal faith
He admitted imperfection and recalled the assassination attempt of 2024, describing how God preserved his life. In hardship, he said, faith — not authority — sustains.
National principles
American liberty flows from reverence for God.
Government must protect religious expression.
He announced a nationwide day of prayer on May 17, 2026, calling for the country to recommit itself under God.
He repeatedly urged listeners never to underestimate the power of prayer. Politics cannot heal souls; remembrance of God gives direction.
Sixteen Representative Lines
1.Here we are not Republicans or Democrats; we are people before God.
2.The meaning of this breakfast is to remember that we all need God.
3.Before God, all are equal.
4.I am not perfect; I have made mistakes.
5.Under attack, you learn human limits.
6.In the hardest moments, power and money fail.
7.What sustains you is your relationship with God.
8.Freedom comes from reverence, not bureaucracy.
9.Government must not dictate worship.
10.Religious liberty must be protected for all.
11.Politics alone cannot heal hearts.
12.Systems cannot change hearts; prayer can.
13.Humility before God begins renewal.
14.Never underestimate prayer.
15.Prayer changes both circumstance and soul.
16.If we remember God, America will move forward.
Concluding Dedication
May this reflection assist all who seek the Christian faith.It is also offered in gratitude to Professor Lai Yonghai, my doctoral advisor in philosophy of religion at Nanjing University (1996–1999).
Ode of Aspiration He once confessed: my life bears faults; heaven seems distant. Yet in old age I would do what pleases God, hoping to draw nearer. To admit error requires courage. To seek the good of the people shows enduring will. To offer one’s remaining strength for the nation transforms private hope into public righteousness. Who is without fault? What matters is awakening. True bravery is not concealment but repentance; great love is not rhetoric but devotion in action.
Praise:
Sharpened by shame, resolve becomes a banner. Laboring to the end, purpose grows firm. Evening bells awaken distant mountains; dawn clears the heart with quiet light. Let merit answer the call of the land; let life be witnessed beyond fame. When reputation fades like mist, good deeds remain — humanity’s enduring monument.
Citizen Petition Requesting the Withdrawal of the Ministry of Public Security’s Cybercrime Prevention Law
Draft for Public Comment
Editor: Hu Jing Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Lyu Feng
To: The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress
On January 31, 2026, the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China issued a public notice soliciting comments on the Cybercrime Prevention Law (Draft for Public Comment). After careful review, I believe this draft seriously contravenes both the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China, for the following reasons.
Article 58 of the Constitution clearly provides:“The National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee exercise the legislative power of the State.”
Article 10 of the Legislation Law further specifies that the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee exercise state legislative power in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 11 of the same law provides that the following matters may only be governed by laws enacted by the legislature, including:(5) deprivation of citizens’ political rights, compulsory measures restricting personal freedom, and penalties.
Meanwhile, Article 91 stipulates that ministries and commissions under the State Council, the People’s Bank of China, the National Audit Office, and other organs with administrative functions may, within the scope of their authority, formulate rules and regulations in accordance with laws, administrative regulations, decisions, and orders of the State Council.
Under these provisions, penalties involving restrictions on personal liberty may only be established by law, and the authority to enact such laws lies exclusively with the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee. As a subordinate organ of the State Council, the Ministry of Public Security possesses only the authority to issue departmental rules; it does not hold the authority to enact laws.
The Cybercrime Prevention Law (Draft for Public Comment) is, in form, a piece of legislation at the level of law. The competence to formulate legislation at this level belongs to the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee. Substantively, the draft concerns crimes and punishments, including measures that restrict personal freedom, which, again, may only be established by law.
Therefore, the Ministry of Public Security has no authority to formulate this law. The draft seriously violates the Constitution and the Legislation Law, oversteps institutional boundaries, and infringes upon the hierarchical allocation of legislative power. Pursuant to citizens’ right to submit legislative proposals under the Legislation Law, I hereby respectfully petition the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to revoke it.
Citizen of the People’s Republic of China Wang Quanzhang (signatures openly solicited)
CC: State Council of the People’s Republic of China Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China
Attachment: Cybercrime Prevention Law (Draft for Public Comment)
To the China Democracy Party Overseas Committee Preparatory Group
All colleagues in the China Democracy Party Overseas Committee Preparatory Group:
As local preparatory committees of the China Democratic Party have applied for registration and the domestic democracy movement is vigorously developing in a new way, news of the establishment of the China Democracy Party Overseas Committee preparatory group has come from across the ocean. This marks that with the positive attitude of the domestic ruling party, overseas democratic movement forces are working hard to adapt to the new situation and promote China’s political democracy in a more rational way. We are delighted and encouraged by this and extend our warmest congratulations to you.
Even though you are far away from us, your patriotism has not given up at all; even though it is difficult for you to return to your motherland due to historical misunderstandings, you still pay close attention to the fate of your motherland. We share the sun and the moon. The accumulation of our motherland’s history and culture, the many ravages of feudal autocracy, and our worries about our motherland’s separation from the mainstream international democratic society have made us see the heavy responsibilities we shoulder. In the face of increasingly acute social conflicts, we are all deeply worried about possible unrest, and we are working hard on how to transition our country peacefully and stably into the new century of democracy and freedom. Many of you scholars are keenly aware of the shortcomings within the system, and your many years of travel and investigation abroad will surely greatly enrich your insights and strategies for dealing with modern politics. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Reform Movement of 1898, the lessons of history have enabled us and the wise among those in power to realize the importance of constitutional democracy. Over the past 100 years, the Chinese nation has paid a huge price due to the narrow-minded motives of a few people. History should not repeat itself. Another historical turning point lies before us. Let us jointly choose a path of survival, a path of national prosperity, and a path of long-term peace and stability.
Hold your hands tightly and let us move forward side by side.
China Democratic Party Zhejiang Preparatory Committee
