作者：李彬妹    

很多年以前，我从未认真思考过什么是自由，也从未思考过制度与普通人之间究竟有着怎样的关系。对于那时的我来说，生活无非就是照顾家庭，抚养孩子，努力把日子过好。我相信，只要勤劳、本分，人生总会朝着好的方向发展。然而，后来发生的一切，让我第一次意识到，一个普通人的命运，有时候并不仅仅掌握在自己手中。

对于每一个女人来说，生育本应是一项属于自己的权利。是否生育、何时生育、如何安排家庭生活，本应由夫妻共同决定，而不是由外界替自己作出选择。然而，当个人意愿与制度发生冲突的时候，我才真正体会到，一个普通人在庞大的制度面前是多么渺小。

那段经历改变的不仅仅是我的身体，更改变了我看待世界的方式。我开始不断追问，为什么如此重要的人生决定，自己却没有真正的选择权？为什么一个家庭关于孩子的决定，可以因为一项政策而发生彻底改变？为什么一个普通人的声音如此微弱，甚至连解释和申诉的机会都十分有限？

这些问题在我的脑海里盘旋了很多年。

起初，我只是觉得自己遭遇了不幸。后来我才逐渐明白，真正值得思考的并不是个人的不幸，而是为什么会有越来越多的人拥有相似的经历。当一个人的遭遇不断发生在不同家庭、不同地区、不同年代时，它便不仅仅是一个家庭的故事，而成为一种值得反思的社会现象。

随着时间推移，我开始阅读更多关于现代社会治理、法治以及民主制度的资料。我发现，一个真正成熟的社会，并不会因为拥有强大的行政能力而受到尊重，而是因为它懂得如何限制权力、保护个人权利。

任何制度都会制定公共政策，但现代文明始终强调，公共利益不能以无限牺牲个人权利作为代价。法律存在的意义，不只是赋予政府管理社会的权力，更重要的是划定权力边界，防止任何权力无限扩张。

正是因为有了这样的思考，我开始重新理解自由。

过去，我一直认为自由只是一个抽象概念，与普通人的生活距离很远。后来我才发现，自由其实体现在生活中的每一个细节：自由意味着一个家庭可以决定自己的生活；意味着一个人能够按照自己的意愿规划未来；意味着面对重大人生选择时，不需要担心自己的意志被他人轻易取代。

自由并不是毫无约束，而是在法律框架下，每一个人都拥有应当受到尊重的基本权利。

后来，我开始关注不同地区的发展。我尤其关注台湾社会的发展历程，并不是因为那里没有问题，而是因为我看到了另一种制度运行方式。台湾经历了长期的发展与改革，逐渐建立起选举制度、新闻监督、司法救济以及公民参与公共事务的机制。不同意见可以公开讨论，政策可以接受社会检验，政府也需要面对公众监督。

这种制度安排给我最大的启发，不是谁执政，而是人民拥有表达意见、监督政府和依法维护自身权益的渠道。

我逐渐明白，一个社会真正值得信赖，不是因为它不会犯错，而是因为当错误发生以后，它拥有纠正错误的能力。

有人说，民主不能解决所有问题，我完全赞同。世界上没有任何一种制度能够做到完美无缺。但是，一个能够允许人民批评、允许媒体监督、允许司法依法独立运行的社会，总比一个缺乏公开讨论和监督机制的社会更有机会不断修正自己的不足。

我向往的，也正是这样一种不断完善自身的制度。

这些年的经历让我越来越相信，国家的发展不仅仅体现在经济数字，更体现在普通人是否能够拥有尊严的生活。当每一个人都能够依法表达自己的意见，当每一个家庭都能够自主规划自己的未来，当每一个公民都能够受到法律平等保护，一个社会才真正拥有长久发展的基础。

今天，当我再次回顾自己的经历，心中依然会有遗憾。但相比遗憾，我更希望自己的经历能够成为一种提醒。任何制度都应该把人放在首位，而不是让人去适应制度。权力应当受到法律约束，政策应当尊重人的尊严，社会的发展也应当建立在对每一个普通人的尊重之上。

我相信，一个真正文明的社会，不会因为人民拥有自由而变得混乱，而会因为人民拥有自由、权利受到保障、制度接受监督而变得更加稳定。

也正因为如此，我更加珍惜民主、法治与自由的价值。它们不是遥远的口号，而是每一个普通人能够安心生活、拥有尊严、守护家庭的基础。

编辑：胡丽莉     校对：熊辩 翻译：沈美花

When a Mother Becomes Part of the System

Author: Li Binmei

Many years ago, I never seriously reflected on what freedom truly meant, nor did I ever contemplate the actual relationship between the system and ordinary people. For the me of that time, life was nothing more than taking care of my family, raising my children, and striving to live a good life. I believed that as long as one was hard-working and dutiful (benfen), life would always progress in a positive direction. However, everything that happened later made me realize for the very first time that the destiny of an ordinary person is, at times, not entirely held in their own hands.

For every woman, childbearing should inherently be a right that belongs to herself. Whether to have children, when to have them, and how to arrange family life should be decided jointly by the husband and wife, rather than having choices made for them by the outside world. Yet, it was only when personal will clashed with the system that I truly experienced just how infinitesimal an ordinary person is in the face of a massive state apparatus.

That experience altered not only my body, but more importantly, the way I view the world. I began to constantly question: why is it that for such a vital life decision, I possessed no genuine right to choose? Why can a family’s decision regarding children be completely overturned due to a single government policy? Why is the voice of an ordinary person so faint, to the point where even the opportunities for explanation and appeal are extremely limited?

These questions have hovered in my mind for many years.

At first, I merely felt that I had encountered personal misfortune. Later, I gradually came to understand that what truly warrants reflection is not individual misfortune, but rather why more and more people share similar experiences. When the plight of one individual repeatedly occurs across different families, different regions, and different eras, it ceases to be merely the story of a single household and instead becomes a social phenomenon that demands profound reflection.

As time passed, I began to read more materials concerning modern social governance, the rule of law, and democratic systems. I discovered that a truly mature society is respected not because it possesses formidable administrative capabilities, but because it knows how to restrain power and protect individual rights.

Any system will formulate public policies, but modern civilization consistently emphasizes that the public interest cannot be pursued at the cost of the infinite sacrifice of individual rights. The significance of the law’s existence is not merely to vest the government with the power to manage society, but more importantly, to delineate the boundaries of authority and prevent any power from expanding without limitation.

It was precisely because of such reflections that I began to re-evaluate and understand freedom anew.

In the past, I always regarded freedom as an abstract concept, far removed from the lives of ordinary people. Later, I discovered that freedom is actually manifested in every single detail of daily life: freedom means that a family can decide its own way of living; it means that an individual can plan their future according to their own will; it means that when facing momentous life choices, one does not need to worry that their own volition will be easily supplanted by others.

Freedom is not the absolute absence of restraint, but rather that within the framework of the law, every single person possesses fundamental rights that ought to be respected.

Later on, I began to pay attention to the development of different regions. I followed the developmental trajectory of Taiwanese society with particular interest—not because it is free of problems, but because I witnessed an alternative mode of institutional operation. Taiwan underwent a prolonged process of development and reform, progressively establishing electoral systems, journalistic oversight, judicial remedies, and mechanisms for civic participation in public affairs.Differing opinions can be openly debated, policies can withstand social scrutiny, and the government must face public supervision.

The greatest enlightenment this institutional arrangement offered me was not about which party holds office, but that the people possess channels to express their views, supervise the government, and safeguard their own rights and interests in accordance with the law.

I gradually came to realize that a society is truly worthy of trust not because it never commits errors, but because it possesses the capacity to rectify those errors when they do occur.

Some say that democracy cannot resolve all problems, and I completely agree. No system in the world can ever achieve absolute perfection. However, a society that permits criticism from its people, allows oversight by the media, and enables the judiciary to operate independently in accordance with the law will always stand a better chance of continuously correcting its shortcomings than a society that lacks mechanisms for public discussion and supervision.

What I yearn for is precisely this kind of system that constantly refines itself.

My experiences over these years have made me increasingly believe that a nation’s development is manifested not merely in economic figures, but more crucially in whether ordinary people can live a life of dignity. Only when every individual can express their opinions according to the law, when every family can autonomously plan their own future, and when every citizen can receive equal protection under the law, can a society truly possess the foundation for long-term development.

Today, when I look back upon my experiences once again, regrets still linger in my heart. Yet, more than regret, I hope my experience can serve as a reminder. Any system should place human beings first, rather than forcing human beings to adapt to the system. Power ought to be constrained by law, policies ought to respect human dignity, and the development of society ought to be built upon the respect accorded to every ordinary individual.

I believe that a truly civilized society will not lapse into chaos because its people possess freedom; rather, it will become more stable precisely because its people possess freedom, their rights are safeguarded, and the system is subjected to supervision.

And it is precisely for this reason that I cherish the values of democracy, the rule of law, and freedom all the more. They are not remote slogans, but the very foundation upon which every ordinary person can live in peace, possess dignity, and protect their family.

Editor: Hu Lili

Proofreader: Xiong Bian

Translator: Shen Meihua

作者：李彬妹    

直到今天，仍然有人问我，为什么总是谈论自由。

有人觉得，自由只是政治学里的概念；有人认为，自由离普通人的生活很遥远；还有人觉得，只要经济能够发展，普通人的生活能够维持，谈论自由似乎没有太大的意义。

但这些年的经历让我越来越明白，自由从来都不是一句抽象的口号，它与每一个普通人的生活息息相关。

真正失去过选择的人，才会明白选择有多么珍贵；真正经历过沉默的人，才知道说话为什么重要；真正面对过权力的人，才会理解法律为什么必须约束权力。

很多时候，我们习惯把自由理解为一种可以做任何事情的权利。事实上，现代社会所说的自由，并不是毫无边界的放任，而是在法律保护之下，每一个人都拥有按照自己意愿生活的权利。

这种权利，体现在生活的方方面面。

它意味着，你可以表达自己的观点，而不用因为不同意见受到惩罚；它意味着，你可以依法维护自己的权益，而不用担心因为身份普通就失去公平；它意味着，当公共权力影响你的生活时，你能够通过法律、媒体、社会监督等方式维护自己的合法权益，而不是只能默默承受。

过去很长一段时间，我从未认真思考这些问题。我和很多普通人一样，把更多精力放在家庭、工作和生活上，总觉得制度离自己很远，只要安安稳稳过日子，一切都会顺其自然。

后来我才发现，制度并不是一件抽象的事情，它会影响一个人的工作、家庭、教育、医疗、言论，甚至影响人生中每一个重要决定。

也正因为如此，我开始重新认识法治。

真正的法治，不只是制定法律，更重要的是所有人，包括掌握公共权力的人，都必须受到法律约束。法律不能只是要求普通人守法，更应该首先要求掌权者依法行政。

如果法律只约束普通人，而不能约束权力，那么法律便很难真正体现公平。

现代民主制度之所以强调司法独立，并不是为了让司法高于政府，而是为了确保任何权力都不能凌驾于法律之上。当普通人与公共机关发生争议时，法院能够依据法律作出独立判断，而不是受到行政力量影响，这样普通人才会相信，公平不仅存在于法律条文里，也能够落实到现实生活中。

除了司法，我也越来越关注新闻自由的重要意义。

很多人认为，新闻只是报道每天发生的事情。但实际上，新闻监督更重要的作用，是让公共权力始终处于社会的关注之下。当媒体能够调查事实、公开讨论公共政策，当不同观点能够在社会上充分交流，人们才能获得更多信息，也才能形成更加理性的判断。

一个社会如果只有一种声音，人们往往很难全面了解事情的真相；而当不同观点都能够公开表达，社会反而更容易接近事实。

我开始关注台湾的发展，也是因为在那里，我看到了这种制度安排带来的变化：不同政党之间可以公开竞争，媒体可以持续监督政府，社会团体能够积极参与公共事务，普通民众也能够通过合法渠道表达自己的意见。

当然，这并不意味着台湾没有问题。民主社会同样存在争议、冲突和分歧。但真正让我感受到希望的，是那里解决问题的方式。

当政策引发争议，人们可以公开讨论；当政府受到质疑，媒体能够持续追踪；当行政行为涉嫌违法，法院可以依法审查；当人民对执政者不满意，还能够通过选举和平更替政府。

我逐渐明白，民主制度真正值得珍惜的地方，并不是它能够避免所有错误，而是它能够不断纠正错误。

一个社会是否真正进步，并不取决于是否从来不会犯错，而在于犯错之后，是否拥有承认错误、纠正错误和防止再次犯错的制度能力。

这些年，我越来越相信，一个国家真正的稳定，并不是建立在人们保持沉默之上，而是建立在人民愿意信任制度之上。

而这种信任，并不是依靠宣传形成的，而是依靠公平、公正、公开一点一点积累起来的。

当每一个普通人相信法律能够保护自己，当每一种不同声音都能够被社会听见，当每一项公共权力都必须接受监督，人们自然会对未来充满信心。

自由并不会削弱一个国家，相反，它能够让社会拥有更多创造力，也能够让人民更加愿意承担责任。因为只有受到尊重的人，才更愿意尊重他人；只有拥有权利的人，才更懂得珍惜权利；只有生活在法治之中的公民，才更愿意共同维护社会秩序。

今天，我依然相信，自由不是少数人的特权，而应当成为每一个普通人的基本权利；民主不是一种遥不可及的理想，而是一种不断完善社会的制度实践；法治不是一句简单的口号，而是所有公共权力都必须遵守的共同规则。

我向往的，并不是一个没有分歧的社会，而是一个允许分歧存在、允许不同声音表达、允许人民监督政府、允许制度不断自我完善的社会。

因为我始终相信，一个真正文明的国家，最大的力量并不来自权力本身，而来自人民发自内心的信任。而这种信任，只能建立在自由、法治与民主共同构成的制度基础之上。这也是我始终珍视这些价值，并愿意不断讲述、不断思考、不断表达的原因。

编辑：胡丽莉    校对：熊辩 翻译：沈美花

Freedom Has Never Been a Mere Slogan

Author: Li Binmei

Even to this day, there are still people who ask me why I constantly talk about freedom.

Some feel that freedom is merely a concept within political science; some believe that freedom is far removed from the lives of ordinary people; and others think that as long as the economy can develop and ordinary people can maintain their livelihoods, discussing freedom seems to hold no significant meaning.

However, my experiences over these years have made me understand more and more that freedom has never been an abstract slogan; it is inextricably linked to the life of every single ordinary person.

Only those who have truly lost their choices can understand how precious choice truly is; only those who have truly experienced enforced silence can know why speaking out is vital; only those who have truly confronted power can comprehend why the law must constrain that power.

More often than not, we are accustomed to understanding freedom as a right to do anything one pleases. In reality, the freedom spoken of in modern society is not a form of license devoid of boundaries, but rather the right of every individual to live according to their own will under the protection of the law.

This right manifests itself in every aspect of life.

It means that you can express your own views without being punished for holding a differing opinion; it means that you can safeguard your rights and interests in accordance with the law without worrying about losing fairness simply because your social status is ordinary; it means that when public power impacts your life, you are able to defend your legitimate rights and interests through channels such as the law, the media, and social oversight, rather than being forced to endure it in silence.

For a long time in the past, I never seriously reflected on these questions. Like many ordinary people, I placed more of my energy on family, work, and daily life, always feeling that the system was far removed from myself, and that as long as I lived a stable and peaceful life, everything would naturally take its course.

Later, I discovered that the system is not an abstract matter; it affects a person’s work, family, education, healthcare, speech, and even influences every momentous decision in one’s life.

And it was precisely because of this that I began to recognize the rule of law anew.

Genuine rule of law does not merely consist of enacting laws; more importantly, it requires that all people, including those who wield public power, must be constrained by the law. The law cannot simply demand that ordinary people abide by it; it should, first and foremost, require those in power to exercise administration in accordance with the law.

If the law only constrains ordinary people but fails to constrain power, then it becomes very difficult for the law to truly manifest fairness.

The reason why modern democratic systems emphasize judicial independence is not to place the judiciary above the government, but rather to ensure that no power can place itself above the law. When disputes arise between ordinary people and public authorities, the courts can make independent judgments based upon the law, rather than being influenced by administrative forces. Only in this way will ordinary people believe that fairness exists not just in legal texts, but can also be realized in real life.

Aside from the judiciary, I have also paid increasing attention to the vital significance of freedom of the press.

Many people believe that news is merely about reporting what happens every day. In reality, however, the more critical function of journalistic oversight is to ensure that public power remains perpetually under the scrutiny of society. Only when the media can investigate facts and openly debate public policies, and only when different viewpoints can fully circulate within society, can people acquire more information and thus form more rational judgments.

If a society has only one single voice, it is often very difficult for people to comprehensively understand the truth of matters; conversely, when differing perspectives can be openly expressed, society is instead more likely to approach the truth.

I began to pay attention to the development of Taiwan precisely because there, I witnessed the transformations brought about by this kind of institutional arrangement: different political parties can compete openly, the media can continuously supervise the government, civil groups can actively participate in public affairs, and ordinary citizens can also express their opinions through legitimate channels.

Of course, this does not mean that Taiwan is free of problems. A democratic society likewise harbors controversies, conflicts, and disagreements. But what truly allows me to feel hope is the manner in which problems are resolved there.

When a policy triggers controversy, people can debate it openly; when the government is questioned, the media can continuously follow up; when an administrative action is suspected of violating the law, the courts can review it according to the law; when the people are dissatisfied with those in power, they can furthermore replace the government peacefully through elections.

I have gradually come to understand that the place where a democratic system truly deserves to be cherished is not that it can avoid all mistakes, but that it possesses the capacity to continuously rectify mistakes.

Whether a society makes genuine progress does not depend on whether it never commits an error, but rather on whether, after an error is made, it possesses the institutional capacity to acknowledge the mistake, correct the mistake, and prevent the mistake from occurring again.

Over these years, I have come to believe increasingly that the true stability of a nation is not built upon the silence of its people, but rather upon the willingness of the people to trust the system.

Moreover, this kind of trust is not formed by relying on propaganda; rather, it is accumulated bit by bit through fairness, justice, and transparency.

When every ordinary person believes that the law can protect them, when every different voice can be heard by society, and when every exercise of public power must accept supervision, people will naturally be filled with confidence regarding the future.

Freedom does not weaken a nation; on the contrary, it enables a society to possess greater creativity and makes the people more willing to assume responsibility. This is because only individuals who are respected will be more willing to respect others; only those who possess rights will better understand how to cherish rights; and only citizens living within the rule of law will be more willing to jointly maintain social order.

Today, I still believe that freedom is not the privilege of a minority, but ought to become the fundamental right of every ordinary person; democracy is not a remote and unattainable ideal, but an institutional practice that continuously refines society; the rule of law is not a simple slogan, but a common rule that all public power must observe.

What I yearn for is not a society devoid of disagreements, but rather a society that allows disagreements to exist, allows different voices to be expressed, allows the people to supervise the government, and allows the system to continuously perfect itself from within.

For I have always believed that the greatest strength of a truly civilized nation does not derive from power itself, but from the trust that comes from the bottom of the people’s hearts. And this trust can only be built upon the institutional foundation jointly formed by freedom, the rule of law, and democracy. This is also the very reason why I perpetually treasure these values, and am willing to continuously narrate, continuously reflect, and continuously express them.

Editor: Hu Lili

Proofreader: Xiong Bian

Translator: Shen Meihua

作者：金米  

摘要：七月的海浪中回荡着我们对刘晓波先生的思念。

下午把手头最后一点事情做完，我提前下了班，一个人开车去了海边。

我一年总会这样几次，没有约人，也没有什么特别的理由。像是心里忽然生出一点潮汐，把人推向海边。

沙滩还是那片沙滩，海还是那片海。海鸥在头顶盘旋，风把头发吹得有些凌乱。远处的浪一层一层翻卷，因为隔得太远，几乎听不见声音，只看见它们无休无止地起，又无休无止地落。

海总是这样，不急，也不解释，而我每一次看见海，都会想起刘晓波。

别人看海，看的是日出、晚霞、远方和归航的船。我却总忍不住想，一个人的一生，最后化作了海里的一部分。于是后来，每一片海，都像认识他。

我常常觉得，一个人若最后连墓碑都没有，原该是一件很孤独的事。没有可以献花的地方，没有可以停下来轻轻叫一声名字的地方。可偏偏，大海又太辽阔了。辽阔得像一种命运，把所有寻找都化成了眺望。

海不会替谁保存记忆。

今天的浪，不会记得昨天的浪；今天吹过来的风，也不会知道它曾吹过谁最后停留的地方。

可人会。

所以每次来到海边，我都会安静一会儿。不是寻找什么，只是觉得，这样望着海的时候，人与历史之间，会忽然变得很近。

有些人的一生，最后浓缩成一本书、一座铜像、一间纪念馆。

而有些人，只剩下一片海。

海面那么宽，那么静，静得什么都装得下，也什么都不说。正因为它什么都不说，后来的人，才总想替它说一点什么。

有人说，人一生会死去三次：第一次是生命结束；第二次是葬礼结束；第三次，是最后一个记得他的人，也忘记了他的名字。我不知道这句话是不是对。但我知道，只要我还会来看海，我就还会想起他。

七月只是一个提醒。真正让我想起他的，从来不是日历，而是潮汐，是海风，是那些一遍又一遍涌上岸来的浪。

今天，我在沙滩坐了很久。

耳畔是海鸥零零落落的叫声，风一直吹，远方的海浪安静地翻滚。阳光慢慢偏西，沙子还留着白天的温度。我什么都没有做，只是看着海，像看着一本已经读过很多遍，却始终没有读完的书。

后来，我低下头，写下了这些字。

忽然觉得，纪念一个人，也许并不需要鲜花，不需要仪式，不需要很多人。只要还有人在七月的某一个下午，提前下班，一个人来到海边，在风里轻轻念起他的名字。

那么，他就没有真正离开。

编辑：李晶   校对：孔祥庆    翻译：沈美花

In Memory of Mr. Liu Xiaobo on the Ninth Anniversary of His Passing

Author: Jin Mi

Abstract: Within the waves of July echoes our deep remembrance of Mr. Liu Xiaobo.

Finishing up the last bits of work at hand this afternoon, I left the office early and drove to the seaside alone.

I do this a few times every year, without planning any company, nor for any particular reason. It feels as though a tiny tide suddenly rises within my heart, pushing me toward the shore.

The beach is still the same beach; the sea is still the same sea. Seagulls wheel overhead, and the wind whips my hair into a slight tangle. The distant waves roll in layer after layer; because they are so far away, they are almost silent, visible only as they rise endlessly and fall endlessly.

The sea is always like this—never in a hurry, never offering an explanation. Yet every time I look at the sea, I think of Liu Xiaobo.

When others look at the sea, they see the sunrise, the sunset glow, the distant horizon, and the returning ships. But I cannot help but think of how a person’s entire life could, in the end, dissolve into a part of the ocean. Thus, ever since, every stretch of the sea feels like an old acquaintance of his.

I often think that if a person ends up without even a tombstone, it must be a very lonely thing. There is no place to lay flowers, no place to stop and softly call out their name. Yet, by some twist, the ocean is simply too vast. It is vast like a destiny, turning all searching into a distant gaze.

The sea will not preserve memories for anyone.

Today’s waves will not remember yesterday’s waves; the wind blowing by today will not know whose final resting place it once swept over.

But humans will.

Therefore, every time I come to the seaside, I stay quiet for a while. It is not that I am searching for anything; I just feel that when gazing at the sea like this, the distance between human beings and history suddenly becomes very close.

The lives of some people are ultimately condensed into a book, a bronze statue, or a memorial hall.

Yet for some others, nothing is left but a stretch of sea.

The surface of the sea is so wide and so still—so still that it can hold everything, yet it says nothing. Precisely because it says nothing, those who come after always want to say something on its behalf.

It is said that a person dies three times in life: the first time is when life ends; the second time is when the funeral ends; the third time is when the last person who remembers them also forgets their name. I do not know if this saying is true. But I do know that as long as I still come to look at the sea, I will still think of him.

July is merely a reminder. What truly makes me think of him has never been the calendar, but the tides, the sea breeze, and the waves that wash ashore time and time again.

Today, I sat on the beach for a very long time.

In my ears was the scattered crying of seagulls; the wind blew continuously, and the distant waves rolled in silence. The sunlight gradually skewed toward the west, and the sand still held the warmth of the daytime. I did nothing at all, just watched the sea, as if reading a book that I have read many times, yet have never truly finished.

Later, I lowered my head and wrote down these words.

Suddenly, I felt that remembering someone perhaps does not require flowers, rituals, or a crowd of people. It only requires that on a certain afternoon in July, someone still leaves work early, comes to the seaside alone, and softly whispers his name in the wind.

If so, then he has never truly left.

Editor: Li Jing

Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing

Translator: Shen Meihua

作者：张兴贵

二十八年。对于一个生命而言，这是从青春走向成熟的黄金时期；而对于中国民主党而言，这二十八年，是一部在荆棘中开辟道路的长诗，是一场在至暗时刻坚守灯塔的修行。我们在这里回望，不是为了沉溺于往昔的伤感，而是为了在血与火的洗礼中，重新确认我们灵魂深处的坐标。

一、浴血之魂，在废墟上挺起的脊梁

回溯1998年，那是一个充满了理想主义色彩的年份，那是中国民主党人的破茧时刻。从那一天起，我们就注定要与“沉重”二字为伍。这二十八年来，我们经历了什么？我们经历过高潮时的激昂，也品尝过低谷期的苦涩。无数的民主党人，在时代的巨轮面前，以肉身抗衡强权，以血肉之躯撞击冰冷的壁垒。有人失去了自由，有人流离失所，有人甚至付出了生命的代价。

为什么？为什么在每一次沉重的打击之后，那面旗帜依然能在硝烟中重新挺立？因为我们深知，民主不是一种装饰品，它是国家尊严的底色，是民族文明的归宿。二十八年，我们用血泪书写的，不仅仅是一个政党的编年史，而是一部关于“良知如何对抗遗忘”的抗争史。我们挺起的不仅仅是脊梁，更是这个民族不甘沉沦的最后一份倔强！

二、旗帜的重量，将民主与自由刻入骨髓

有人问，政党的生命力源于何处？我们给出的答案是：源于灵魂的刻骨。我们不仅将民主写在旗帜上，更是将其植入我们的血管；我们不仅将自由作为追求，更是将其视为我们立党之魂的唯一养料。这绝非轻飘飘的口号，而是我们每一个民主党人的自我拷问。当你看到一个政党能够将“民主”作为旗帜，这意味着我们放弃了依附权力的捷径，选择了最艰难的逆行。这意味着我们要去对抗陈腐的积习，要去挑战权力垄断的堡垒。当我们将“自由”注入党魂，我们便告别了教条与盲从。我们的自由，是思想的解放，是即便在最极端的封锁下，依然能够保持逻辑的独立、人格的尊严。我们要建设的未来，不是一种权力的更迭，而是一个人人可以挺直腰杆、自由呼吸的时代。

三、伟大的力量来自人民的共鸣

任何政党的合法性，都不源于自封的荣耀，而源于它与这片土地上受苦人民的共鸣深度。一个政党的兴衰，终究取决于它是否站在了文明进步的一边。中国民主党的二十八年，是一场漫长的长征。我们清醒地看到，历史的潮流不可阻挡，尽管黑暗有时会遮住太阳，但文明的火焰从未熄灭。我们之所以能够坚持二十八年，是因为我们的根扎在了土地里，扎在了那些渴望权利、渴望公平、渴望尊严的普通人的心底。我们不需要宏大的叙事来包装自己，我们的力量，就源于那一个个真实的声音，那些因为我们的存在而感受到一丝希望的人群。

四、勤奋的意义，在微光中积聚风暴

什么是勤奋？在这个时代，勤奋不是简单的劳作，而是智识的坚持与灵魂的抗压。这种勤奋，不是为了争夺一时的名利，而是为了将文明的火种，在压抑的寒冬中一代代传下去。我们不只要做抗争者，更要做建设者。我们深知，当那个历史性的转折点来临时，中国需要一批拥有现代治理素养、拥有民主精神内核的建设者。因此，我们的勤奋是沉默的，也是深沉的。我们在海外的每一次呐喊，在国内的每一次守望，都是在为自由的回归铺路。我们用行动告诉所有人：不要放弃对民主的信仰，因为中国民主党在这里，因为这面旗帜从未倒下！

我们站在二十八周年的节点，回望过去，心潮澎湃；展望未来，责任如山。我们要清醒地意识到，真正的挑战才刚刚开始。随着国际形势的复杂化，随着中国社会内部矛盾的激化，民主的需求从未像今天这样迫切，我们要完成一次自我的升华。

我们要让民主党成为一个更加理性、更加专业、更加具有感召力的政党。我们要让世界看到，民主的力量不是破坏，而是建设；不是分裂，而是团结。我们的旗帜，要成为中国向现代文明转型的路标；我们的魂，要成为点燃这片土地上每个人自由意识的火种。

在这条漫长的路上，我们是孤独的吗？不，我们不孤独。因为在每一个渴望自由的灵魂中，都有我们的回响。请收起悲观的叹息，擦干泪水，握紧手中的旗帜！我们的征途，是星辰大海。我们的目标，是让民主的阳光，普照神州大地，让每一个中国人，不再需要为说真话而战栗，不再需要为争取自由而牺牲！这就是我们的党魂！

前进吧，为了那终将到来的春天！

编辑：李晶 校对：孔祥庆 翻译：戈冰

Forward, For That Springtime Which Shall Surely Arrive!

Author: Zhang Xinggui

Abstract: Commemorating the twenty-eighth anniversary of the founding of the China Democracy Party. Over the past twenty-eight years, more and more awakened Chinese people have joined the Democracy Party, fighting to realize democracy and freedom in China.

Twenty-eight years. For a life, this is the golden period of moving from youth toward maturity; but for the China Democracy Party, these twenty-eight years have been a long epic poem of bludgeoning a path through thorns, a spiritual cultivation of guarding the lighthouse in the darkest hours. We look back here, not to wallow in the sentimentality of the past, but to reconfirm the coordinates deep within our souls amid the baptism of blood and fire.

I. The Soul of Bloody Battle, the Backbone Erected Upon the Ruins

Looking back to 1998, that was a year filled with the colors of idealism, and it was the moment of breaking out of the cocoon for the members of the China Democracy Party. From that day onward, we were destined to be accompanied by the word “heavy.” What have we experienced over these twenty-eight years? We have experienced the fervor of high tides, and we have also tasted the bitterness of low ebbs. Before the giant wheel of the era, countless Democracy Party members have resisted authoritarian power with their physical bodies, striking the cold ramparts with flesh and blood. Some lost their freedom, some were displaced and became homeless, and some even paid the price of their lives.

Why? Why is it that after every heavy blow, that banner can still stand tall once again amidst the smoke of gunpowder? Because we know deep down that democracy is not a form of decoration; it is the underlying color of national dignity, and the ultimate home of national civilization. For twenty-eight years, what we have written with blood and tears is not merely the chronicle of a political party, but a history of struggle regarding “how conscience confronts forgetting.” What we have erected is not just our backbone, but the final shred of stubbornness of this nation that refuses to sink into ruin!

II. The Weight of the Banner, Engraving Democracy and Freedom Into the Very Marrow of Our Bones

Some people ask, where does the vitality of a political party originate? The answer we give is: it originates from the deep engraving of the soul. We do not merely write democracy upon our banner, but we plant it into our blood vessels; we do not merely pursue freedom as an aspiration, but we regard it as the sole nutrient for the soul of our party’s founding. This is by no means a feather-light slogan, but the self-interrogation of every single one of us as Democracy Party members. When you see a political party capable of taking “democracy” as its banner, it means that we have abandoned the shortcut of attaching ourselves to power and have chosen the most difficult path of moving against the current. It means that we must go against stale and corrupt deep-seated habits, and we must challenge the fortresses of power monopoly. When we inject “freedom” into the soul of the party, we bid farewell to dogma and blind obedience. Our freedom is the liberation of thought, and the ability to maintain independent logic and personal dignity even under the most extreme blockades. The future we want to build is not a turnover of power, but an era in which every person can straighten their back and breathe freely.

III. Great Power Comes from the Resonance of the People

The legitimacy of any political party does not stem from self-proclaimed glory, but from the depth of its resonance with the suffering people on this land. The rise and fall of a political party ultimately depends on whether it stands on the side of civilization and progress. The twenty-eight years of the China Democracy Party have been a long march. We see clearly that the torrent of history is unstoppable; although darkness sometimes obscures the sun, the flame of civilization has never been extinguished. The reason we have been able to persevere for twenty-eight years is that our roots are struck deep into the soil, deep into the hearts of those ordinary people who long for rights, long for fairness, and long for dignity. We do not need grand narratives to package ourselves; our power originates precisely from each of those real voices, from those crowds of people who feel a glimmer of hope because of our existence.

IV. The Meaning of Diligence, Gathering a Storm Amid the Glimmering Light

What is diligence? In this era, diligence is not simple labor, but intellectual perseverance and the soul’s resistance against pressure. This kind of diligence is not for the sake of scrambling for temporary fame and fortune, but for the sake of passing down the sparks of civilization from generation to generation through the suffocating cold of winter. We must not only be resisters, but also builders. We know deep down that when that historic turning point arrives, China will need a cohort of builders who possess modern governance literacy and the core spirit of democracy. Therefore, our diligence is silent, and it is also profound. Every shout we raise overseas and every vigil we keep domestically is paving the way for the return of freedom. We use our actions to tell everyone: do not give up faith in democracy, because the China Democracy Party is here, because this banner has never fallen!

Standing at the node of this twenty-eighth anniversary, we look back at the past with surging emotions; looking forward to the future, our responsibility is as heavy as a mountain. We must soberly realize that the true challenge has only just begun. As the international situation becomes more complex and the internal contradictions within Chinese society intensify, the demand for democracy has never been as urgent as it is today. We must achieve a self-sublimation.

We must make the Democracy Party a more rational, more professional, and more charismatic political party. We must let the world see that the power of democracy is not destruction, but construction; not division, but unity. Our banner must become the road sign for China’s transition toward modern civilization; our soul must become the spark that ignites the consciousness of freedom in every person on this land.

Are we alone on this long road? No, we are not alone. Because within every soul that longs for freedom, there is our resonance. Please put away pessimistic sighs, wipe away your tears, and grip the banner in your hands tightly! Our journey is the sea of stars. Our goal is to let the sunshine of democracy shine universally across the Divine Land (Shenzhou), so that every single Chinese person no longer needs to tremble for speaking the truth, and no longer needs to sacrifice to strive for freedom! This is the soul of our party!

Forward, for that springtime which shall surely arrive!

Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Ge Bing

作者：Kun Chang

2015年7月9日，中国发生了一场震惊国内外的维权律师打压事件，史称“709律师大抓捕”。此事件中，超过300名律师、法律助理及维权人士先后被警方带走、拘留、监视，甚至被强迫失踪。事件不仅对中国法治界造成巨大冲击，也揭示了中共政权在人权保障方面的严重缺失。

维权律师群体的兴起，原本是中国法治发展的一部分。这些律师依法代理宗教信仰、土地征收、户籍歧视等敏感案件，推动法律在社会公平中发挥应有的作用。然而，这类依法维权行为却被当局认定为“扰乱社会秩序”甚至“颠覆国家政权”，反映出中共对法治的根本误解与敌意。

“709事件”所暴露的问题，并非个别执法人员行为失当，而是国家机器对公民社会的系统性打压。包括王全璋、李和平、谢阳等在内的被捕律师，普遍遭遇了“指定居所监视居住”、长时间秘密关押、酷刑逼供、强迫认罪等侵犯人身自由的行为。这些做法严重违反中国宪法及其所承诺履行的国际人权公约。

事件发生后，官方虽未明言打压理由，但相关律所陆续被整顿或关闭，律师执照被吊销，家属遭监控、出行受限。法律职业的独立性由此急剧萎缩，公民社会的活动空间也被进一步压缩。自此之后，中国维权律师几乎销声匿迹，法治发展陷入倒退。

“709事件”也对国际社会发出了一个明确信号：中共政权所谓“依法治国”并非真正的法治，而是将法律作为压制异见的工具。尽管欧美多个国家和国际组织对事件表示谴责，并呼吁释放被拘律师，但在面对中国庞大的市场与日益扩张的国际影响力时，真正有效的国际压力仍显不足。

值得注意的是，尽管遭遇打压，不少律师和家属依然坚持发声。他们在极其艰难的环境下努力维护社会基本正义，成为中国人权运动的重要象征。他们的坚守提醒人们：在一个高度控制的社会中，法治与人权的价值从未过时，也不应被遗忘。

“709事件”过去已逾十年，但其造成的影响仍在延续。这不仅是一场对律师群体的镇压，更是一场针对全社会基本权利的全面打击。只有正视这一事件、持续关注中国人权状况，才能避免更多类似的历史悲剧重演。

编辑：李晶校对：王滨翻译：戈冰

Looking at the Current Human Rights Situation in China Through the “709 Lawyers Crackdown”

Author: Kun Chang

Abstract: Historical review and analysis of the “709 Lawyers Crackdown.”

On July 9, 2015, a crackdown on human rights lawyers that shocked both China and the international community took place in China, known historically as the “709 Lawyers Crackdown.” In this event, more than 300 lawyers, legal assistants, and human rights activists were successively taken away, detained, monitored, or even subjected to enforced disappearance by the police. This incident not only dealt a massive blow to the Chinese legal profession but also revealed the severe lack of human rights protection under the Chinese Communist Party regime.

The rise of the human rights lawyer community was originally a part of the development of the rule of law in China. Operating in accordance with the law, these lawyers represented sensitive cases involving religious beliefs, land expropriation, and household registration discrimination, pushing for the law to play its proper role in social fairness. However, such acts of defending rights according to the law were deemed by the authorities as “disrupting social order” or even “subverting state power,” reflecting the Chinese Communist Party’s fundamental misunderstanding of and hostility toward the rule of law.

The problems exposed by the “709 Incident” were not the improper conduct of isolated law enforcement personnel, but rather a systematic crackdown on civil society by the state apparatus. The arrested lawyers, including Wang Quanzhang, Li Heping, and Xie Yang, generally experienced violations of personal freedom such as “residential surveillance at a designated location,” prolonged secret detention, torture to extort confessions, and forced confessions. These practices severely violated China’s constitution and the international human rights conventions it has committed to fulfill.

After the incident occurred, although the officials did not explicitly state the reasons for the crackdown, relevant law firms were successively reorganized or shut down, lawyers’ licenses were revoked, and family members were placed under surveillance and restricted in their travel. The independence of the legal profession thereby shrunk sharply, and the space for civil society activities was further compressed. Since then, human rights lawyers in China have virtually vanished, and the development of the rule of law has fallen into regression.

The “709 Incident” also sent a clear signal to the international community: the Chinese Communist Party regime’s so-called “ruling the country according to law” is not the genuine rule of law, but rather the utilization of the law as a tool to suppress dissent. Although multiple countries in Europe and America, along with international organizations, condemned the incident and called for the release of the detained lawyers, truly effective international pressure still appeared insufficient when facing China’s massive market and expanding international influence.

It is worth noting that despite encountering the crackdown, many lawyers and their family members still persisted in speaking out. Under extremely difficult circumstances, they strived to safeguard basic social justice, becoming an important symbol of the Chinese human rights movement. Their perseverance reminds people that in a highly controlled society, the values of the rule of law and human rights have never become outdated, nor should they be forgotten.

More than ten years have passed since the “709 Incident,” but the impact it caused continues to persist. This was not only a suppression of the lawyer community, but more importantly, a comprehensive strike against the basic rights of the entire society. Only by facing this incident squarely and continuously paying attention to the human rights situation in China can the recurrence of more similar historical tragedies be avoided.

Editor: Li JingProofreader: Wang BinTranslator: Ge Bing

作者：谢先生

我出生在七零年代中国农村，小时候生活异常艰苦，每天都跟着父母，在泥地里辛勤劳作。我的母亲非常乐观，她总是一边干活，一边唱着“东方红，太阳升，中国出了个毛泽东……”。那欢快的歌声，总能将我的疲倦一扫而光，使我觉得，生活在中国，真是一件值得偷着乐的事情。直到2018年，我女儿因为接种疫苗患上血癌，才让我逐渐发现，中国共产党，原来是一个不折不扣的骗子。

2018年夏天，当吉林长春长生假疫苗事件闹得沸沸扬扬的时候，我的女儿，也因为接种上海生物的水痘疫苗而患上了血癌。三次鉴定，都认定我女儿的病是由接种疫苗造成的。根据《上海市预防接种异常反应补偿办法》的第五条，上海政府和疫苗企业理应承担包括“补偿、医疗康复、入学就业、残疾照顾和生活救助”等处置工作。但中共流氓政府拒绝履行义务。并在我尝试保护我女儿的合法权益的时候，多次对我进行绑架、殴打和非法拘禁。所有这些都没有任何法律程序。

中共流氓政府首先无视法条内容，提出一次性买断方案。也就是企业给予一笔补偿金，从此我们便不能以任何理由再去找政府和企业。可这笔补偿金连医疗费都没有，我断然拒绝。我要求上海卫健委履行“医疗康复”的义务。上海卫健委说这不是他们的义务。我拿出政府的信息公开，里面白纸黑字表明“医疗康复”就是他们的责任。上海市卫健委便开始胡说八道，他们说：“‘医疗康复’是指我在就医过程中遇到不懂的问题，他们可以提供指导”。我要求他们拿出政策解读依据，他们置之不理。我质问“医疗费”谁承担？他们置若罔闻。我指责他们行政不作为，他们理直气壮地说：“你要是不满意，可以去起诉！”我向法院诉上海卫健委行政不作为。法院拒绝立案，并拒绝出具《不予立案裁定书》。我说法院不出具《不予立案裁定书》我就不走，法官直接叫来法警，将我赶出了法院。

我再次要求政府履责，政府让我去起诉企业。我说这不是企业的责任，政府说有纠纷，找法！他们威胁说如果我继续胡搅蛮缠，将涉嫌寻衅滋事。共产党颠倒黑白的本事真是练得炉火纯青，他们自己拒不履责，反而指责别人寻衅滋事，真是滑天下之大稽。但没有办法，枪炮都在他们手里，老百姓能有什么办法？迫于无奈，我以疫苗侵犯了我女儿的生命权和健康权为由，将疫苗企业告上法庭。法院两审都驳回了我的起诉，法院说“疫苗接种异常反应不属于法院管辖范围，应该由政府通过行政手段去解决”。我拿着裁决第三次找到政府，政府说法院判错了，让我去申请再审……。政府和法院相互踢皮球，谁也不管我们的死活。而疫苗企业更是靠着政府的庇护，说出了“我们有钱，我们也想帮你，但我们不能这样做，因为这样做我们就违法了”这样恬不知耻的言论。

既然法律保护不了我的权益，那就让社会来评判。我申请游行示威，浦东公安拒绝了我的申请，我向中国公安部投诉，公安部将投诉又踢回给浦东公安。浦东公安气急败坏，警告我不要再申请和投诉，否则后果自负；他们甚至理直气壮地说：“中国人是没有游行示威权，《游行示威法》也只是拿来糊弄那些欧美人的”。面对这种赤裸裸的威胁、无耻的行径，我只能作罢。

既然官方道路走不通，那就走自媒体，我开始在微博上发文章。我的《拿什么来保护你，我的女儿》一文，三天阅读量破200万。可我还来不及及高兴，我的文章就被删除了，紧接着对我限流，最后封号。中共在捂老百姓的眼睛和嘴巴上，早就轻车熟路了！

老百姓状告无门，摆在我脚下的就只有上访了。可正是因为上访，才让我真正见识到共产党的邪恶，体会到共产党的残忍。邪恶的事就是共产党设计了很多套路，目的就是走自己的路，让老百姓无路可走。比如信访，我将上海卫健委的不作为，投诉到国家信访局，国家信访局将我的信访件打回到上海卫健委。上海卫健委恬不知耻地在答复里将自己狠狠的夸了一番，对于我在信访件里提出的不公，只字不提。他们既不给出政策解读的依据，也不回答医疗费的来源。更荒谬的是，信访系统没有人关注这个答复是否合理？而其信访也一样，最后的结果是向公安投诉公安，向法院投诉法院。这种既当裁判又当运动员的制度，是万恶的共产党故意设计的制度陷阱。它不可能公平公正，人民也不会满意。这不上海信访答复满意率不足3成，但当我将人民对上海信访不满投诉到国家信访局，结果上海信访的满意率在第二天就变成了99%，真是天下奇观！这种集体造假和作秀，真是令人作呕！

信访没有解决我的问题，但让我成了需要被解决的人。从此，中共流氓政府对我家进行了长期的、有组织的迫害。他们全方位监视我们家庭，并跟踪他们的外出，连我女儿上学都不放过。他们肆意绑架、殴打、传唤和拘禁我，并在传唤的过程中多次虐待我，非常残忍。以下两件事足见一般。

2020年10月，我在北京乞讨，乞讨前我咨询了北京的12345和12348，他们都说在北京乞讨是合法的。可我乞讨不到20分钟，一队警察将我扑到在地，反铐双手带回了派出所，转身就交给了上海驻京办。上海驻京办工作人员在中巴车上对我进行了围殴，他们一个人在从身后用胳膊勒住脖子，其它人对我拳打脚踢，打到我不能动弹为止。随后他们将我押回上海，关进了浦东看守所。期间我因肋骨剧痛，多次请求医疗帮助，但均被拒绝。

看守所环境非常恶劣。不到30平米的监室最多关押了56个人。没有地方睡觉，大家只能头脚相错，侧身而眠，想翻身几乎不可能。就算这样，每晚依然有人需要站着值班，因为实在睡不下。监室内疫病横行，我在第三天就感染了感冒，高烧让我头疼欲裂；咳嗽时肌肉牵扯着受伤的肋骨，发出钻心的疼痛。可看守所拒绝给我提供药物，他们说只有快死的人才配得到药物。但快死的人真的能得到药物吗？我们牢头告诉我，他在一年半内亲眼见过两个人死在看守所，其中一个仅仅是因为20多天无法排便。所以中共治下的看守所，总有人莫名其妙的死亡，中共说是突发疾病，你无法想象他们其实是被虐待致死。我每天都被迫进行长时无聊而痛苦的静坐，臀部长出了厚厚的茧。看守所剥夺了我们的放风机会，没有理由。我的羁押时间也被延长到三十天，然后被强制取保候审一年。在监控遍地的今天，一个乞讨要侦察一年？中共唯一的目的就是打击你，让你害怕。明白共产党不把人当人，我知道抗争没有意义。我逼着自己吃下那些发臭的食物，多喝水让自己尽快康复。因为我知道我的妻子，她既要面对血汗工厂“华为”的刁难，还要照顾病重的孩子，更要面对公安的骚扰和威胁。我必须尽快出去，我担心她撑不住。事实证明我的担心完全正确，当我从看守所出来，我的妻子体重轻了六公斤，已经是形销骨立。我无法想象如果我再晚些出来，她会不会崩溃？我的妻子告诉我，在我被关起来后，孩子感冒病危，她恳求政府放我出来照顾孩子，但被无情地拒绝了。我们都知道，血液病患者的感冒是致命的。所以在共产党眼里，人命无关紧要。在取保候审期间，共产党又多次拒绝我带孩子外出求医的请求。再一次证明在共产党眼里，人民的生命真的一文不值！

2021年11月，我解除取保候审，我带着女儿的病历本，去北京问诊。在火车上就不断遭到骚扰，但大庭广众之下他们还相对收敛。火车进入北京南站，他们便对我实施了暴力绑架。绑架的过程中还试图用“碰瓷”来诬陷我，就是有一个黑衣人抓住我的胳膊，试图抢夺我正在录像的手机，我顺手一甩，他就像被高速卡车撞了一样向后面飞去，边飞边喊“你怎么打人？你怎么打人？”我说:”你别碰瓷，这手机还录着呢！”他只好悻悻的站起来。警察见碰瓷失败，便一拥而上，抢走我的手机，把我拽向一辆中巴车。我一边挣扎，一边大呼“救命”，但周围麻木的人群，让我仿佛又看到了百年前鲁迅笔下的那群中国人。在快被拉入中巴车的时候，我用力撑在车框上，他们见拉不进去，便殴打我，拳头像雨点般落在我的头上、背上，我支撑不住，被他们拉入车内。

上车的第一时间，我把手表里的SD卡取了出来，藏进了袜子里。因为我知道手机肯定会被抢，所以我的手机录像只是个幌子，真正录像的设备是手表。果不其然，警察抢走了我的手机，一个多月后才归还给我，归还前做了恢复出产设置。我被押回上海，囚禁在一个 “黑监狱”内。政府一次次撕毁释放我的口头承诺，让我害怕像上次一样被长期拘禁，于是我决定越狱。经过了努力，我终于在一个深夜破窗而逃。上海警方立刻对我行全城大追捕，他们闯入我家，发现我不在，便留下一队人马蹲守在我家门口，第二队人马沿街巡逻，第三队人马通过天眼系统，追查我逃亡路线，第四队人马找到我的工作单位，让单位逼我现身。而我在逃亡途中，将警察绑架我的视频发到微信群里，向群友求救。一时间公安部收到了很多投诉电话。公安部见群情激愤，便叫停了上海的抓捕行动，并承诺让北京的铁路稽察对这次事件进行调查。于是，在我越狱三周后，上海公安撤销了对我的追捕，而我回到家的第二天，公司和我结束了劳动合同。从此，我失去了我心爱的工作，也失去赖以生存的依靠。

公安部的调查结论，自然是公安合规合法。对于共产党的指鹿为马，我已经见怪不怪了，我没提其它要求，只要求他们公开民警的执法录像，我相信群众的眼睛是雪亮的。但公安部拒绝公开。我将公安部起诉到法院，法院蛇鼠一窝，驳回起诉。他们说我去北京看病是信访有关，说我申请信息公开也是信访有关，说我去北京立案也是信访相关。我突然才发现这是共产党设计信访制度的第二个目的，剥夺人民的诉权。只要你曾经信访过，共党就可以指鹿为马，把你的一切都归结为信访，然后剥夺你的法律援助权。信访的另一个目的是充当情绪缓冲垫，一个信访人员怒气冲冲，信访办人员和颜悦色地聆听他的哭诉，故事讲完，气就消了一半。然后工作人员再装模作样说会向上级汇报，人民就从怒气冲冲转为满心期待了。至于解决百姓困难，那是不存在的。但他们有话术来蒙骗百姓，什么领导很忙来不及处理，什么自己权力太小无法决定领导的想法，实在不行就跟着受害人一起骂那些不做人事的领导。最后信访人在一次次希望和失望之中耗尽了精力，大部分就放弃维权了，这是他们的目的。

如今，我的女儿因疫苗患病已经八年多了，她从未收到过来自共产党的关心！我也因维权弄得遍体鳞伤。妈妈也还是喜欢唱她的“东方红，太阳升……”，但这首歌如今听来，是多么的讽刺！妈妈一辈子活在谎言里，我不忍心戳破；但我不希望我的女儿，一辈子也生活在谎言中，我希望她能感受爱的温暖，我希望她能在阳光下起舞。于是在2025年8月，我义无反顾的离开了中国，我把这次行动，叫向阳而生！

编辑：李晶

校对：王滨

翻译：戈冰

Living Toward the Sun

Author: Mr. Xie

Abstract: Escaping the Chinese Communist Party and living toward the sun. For an ordinary Chinese family suffering persecution by the Chinese Communist Party, leaving one’s hometown is the only choice that many people summon up the courage to make, yet are forced to do so out of sheer necessity.

I was born in the 1970s in the Chinese countryside. Life was extremely bitter and hard when I was a child, and every day I followed my parents, laboring industriously in the mud. My mother was very optimistic; she would always sing while working, “The East is red, the sun rises, China has brought forth a Mao Zedong…” That cheerful singing could always sweep my fatigue completely away, making me feel that living in China was truly something to “secretly rejoice about.” It was not until 2018, when my daughter contracted leukemia due to receiving a vaccine, that I gradually discovered the Chinese Communist Party turned out to be an out-and-out swindler.

In the summer of 2018, when the Jilin Changchun Changsheng fake vaccine incident was causing a tremendous stir, my daughter also contracted leukemia due to inoculating with a chickenpox vaccine from Shanghai Biological. Three appraisals all determined that my daughter’s illness was caused by the vaccine inoculation. According to Article 5 of the “Measures of Shanghai Municipality on Compensation for Abnormal Reactions to Vaccination,” the Shanghai government and the vaccine enterprise should rightfully undertake disposal work including “compensation, medical rehabilitation, school enrollment and employment, disability care, and livelihood assistance.” However, the rogue Chinese Communist Party government refused to fulfill its obligations. Furthermore, when I attempted to protect my daughter’s legitimate rights and interests, they kidnapped, beat, and illegally detained me multiple times. All of this was done without any legal procedures.

The rogue Chinese Communist Party government first ignored the content of the legal articles and proposed a one-time buy-out scheme. That is, the enterprise would give a sum of compensation money, and from then on we could never look for the government or the enterprise again for any reason. But this sum of compensation money could not even cover the medical expenses, so I flatly refused. I demanded that the Shanghai Health Commission fulfill its obligation of “medical rehabilitation.” The Shanghai Health Commission said this was not their obligation. I pulled out the government’s information disclosure, in which the black and white text clearly showed that “medical rehabilitation” was precisely their responsibility. The Shanghai Municipal Health Commission then began to talk sheer nonsense; they said: “‘Medical rehabilitation’ means that when I encounter questions I do not understand during the process of seeking medical treatment, they can provide guidance.” I demanded that they produce the basis for their policy interpretation, but they ignored it. I questioned who would bear the “medical expenses”? They turned a deaf ear. I accused them of administrative inaction, and they righteously said: “If you are not satisfied, you can go sue!” I sued the Shanghai Health Commission in court for administrative inaction. The court refused to file the case and refused to issue a “Ruling on Non-Acceptance of Case.” I said if the court did not issue the “Ruling on Non-Acceptance of Case,” I would not leave, so the judge directly called the judicial police and kicked me out of the court.

I once again demanded that the government fulfill its responsibilities, and the government told me to sue the enterprise. I said this was not the enterprise’s responsibility, and the government said if there is a dispute, look to the law! They threatened that if I continued to pester and make trouble unreasonably, I would be suspected of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. The Communist Party’s ability to turn black into white has truly been practiced to perfection; they themselves flatly refuse to fulfill their responsibilities, yet they instead accuse others of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, which is truly the height of absurdity in the world. But there was no way out; the guns and artillery are all in their hands, so what can ordinary people do? Forced by helplessness, I took the vaccine enterprise to court on the grounds that the vaccine infringed upon my daughter’s right to life and right to health. The court rejected my lawsuit in both trials, with the court stating that “abnormal reactions to vaccination do not fall within the scope of court jurisdiction and should be resolved by the government through administrative means.” Holding the ruling, I went to the government for the third time, and the government said the court had judged incorrectly and told me to apply for a retrial… The government and the court kicked the ball back and forth to each other, and neither cared whether we lived or died. As for the vaccine enterprise, relying even more on the protection of the government, they went so far as to utter such shameless remarks as: “We have money, and we also want to help you, but we cannot do so, because doing so would mean we are breaking the law.”

Since the law could not protect my rights and interests, I would let society judge. I applied for a demonstration and protest, but the Pudong Public Security refused my application. I lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Public Security of China, and the Ministry of Public Security kicked the complaint right back to the Pudong Public Security. Flying into a rage out of shame, the Pudong Public Security warned me not to apply or complain again, otherwise I would bear the consequences myself; they even said righteously: “Chinese people do not have the right to demonstrate and protest, and the ‘Law on Assemblies, Processions and Demonstrations’ is just used to fool those Europeans and Americans.” Faced with this kind of naked threat and shameless behavior, I could only drop the matter.

Since the official channels were blocked, I would take the path of self-media, and I began to post articles on Weibo. My article, “What Can I Use to Protect You, My Daughter,” surpassed 2 million views in three days. Yet before I even had time to be happy, my article was deleted, followed immediately by traffic restriction against me, and finally account suspension. When it comes to covering the eyes and mouths of ordinary people, the Chinese Communist Party has long been well-acquainted with the ropes!

Ordinary people have no way to complain or sue, so what lay before my feet was only petitioning. But it was precisely because of petitioning that I truly witnessed the wickedness of the Communist Party and experienced the cruelty of the Communist Party. The wicked thing is that the Communist Party has designed many traps, with the purpose of walking its own path while leaving ordinary people with no path to walk. Take letters and calls petitioning for example: I complained about the inaction of the Shanghai Health Commission to the National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration, and the National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration sent my petition piece back to the Shanghai Health Commission. Shamelessly, the Shanghai Health Commission praised itself fiercely in its response, without mentioning a single word about the injustice I raised in the petition piece. They neither provided the basis for their policy interpretation, nor answered the source of the medical expenses. What is even more absurd is that no one in the petition system cares whether this response is reasonable or not. Other petitions are just the same; the final result is complaining about the public security to the public security, and complaining about the court to the court. This kind of system, acting as both the referee and the athlete, is a system trap intentionally designed by the all-evil Communist Party. It cannot possibly be fair and just, and the people will not be satisfied. Thus, the satisfaction rate for Shanghai’s petition responses was less than 30%, but when I complained to the National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration about the people’s dissatisfaction with Shanghai’s petitioning, the result was that Shanghai’s petition satisfaction rate turned into 99% the very next day—truly a wonder of the world! This kind of collective fraud and showmanship is truly sickening!

The petitioning did not solve my problem, but it turned me into the person who needed to be solved. From then on, the rogue Chinese Communist Party government carried out long-term, organized persecution against my family. They monitored our family in an all-around manner and tracked our going out, not even sparing my daughter going to school. They wantonly kidnapped, beat, summoned, and detained me, and abused me multiple times in the process of summoning, which was extremely cruel. The following two incidents are sufficient to show a glimpse of the whole.

In October 2020, I was begging in Beijing. Before begging, I consulted Beijing’s 12345 and 12348, and they both said that begging in Beijing is legal. However, I had been begging for less than 20 minutes when a squad of police pinned me to the ground, handcuffed my hands behind my back, brought me back to the police station, and turned around to hand me over to the Shanghai Liaison Office in Beijing. The staff of the Shanghai Liaison Office in Beijing carried out a gang-beating against me inside a minibus; one of them choked my neck with his arm from behind, while the others punched and kicked me until I could not move. Subsequently, they escorted me back to Shanghai and locked me into the Pudong Detention Center. During this period, due to severe pain in my ribs, I requested medical assistance multiple times, but all were refused.

The environment in the detention center was extremely wretched. A cell of less than 30 square meters held a maximum of 56 people. There was no place to sleep, and everyone could only sleep on their sides, with heads and feet alternating; wishing to turn over was practically impossible. Even so, every night there were still people who needed to stand on duty, because it was truly impossible to fit everyone for sleep. Diseases were rampant inside the cell, and on the third day I caught a cold; the high fever made my head hurt as if it were splitting open. When coughing, the muscles pulled on my injured ribs, sending out a piercing pain. Yet the detention center refused to provide me with medicine; they said only those who were about to die were worthy of getting medicine. But can those who are about to die really get medicine? Our cell boss told me that within a year and a half, he had seen two people die in the detention center with his own eyes, one of whom was merely because he could not defecate for over 20 days. Therefore, in the detention centers under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, people always die inexplicably; the Chinese Communist Party says it is a sudden illness, but you cannot imagine that they were actually abused to death. Every day I was forced to engage in long, boring, and painful sit-stills, and thick calluses grew on my buttocks. The detention center deprived us of our opportunities for outdoor exercise, without any reason. My detention time was also extended to thirty days, and then I was forced into release on bail pending trial for one year. In today’s world covered in surveillance, does a case of begging need to be investigated for a year? The sole purpose of the Chinese Communist Party is to strike at you and make you afraid. Understanding that the Communist Party does not treat people as human beings, I knew that resistance was meaningless. I forced myself to swallow those foul-smelling foods and drank more water to make myself recover as quickly as possible. Because I knew my wife—she not only had to face the hurdles and difficulties created by the sweatshop “Huawei,” but also had to take care of the severely ill child, and moreover had to face the harassment and threats from the public security. I had to get out as quickly as possible; I worried she could not hold on. Facts proved that my worry was completely correct; when I came out of the detention center, my wife’s weight had dropped by six kilograms, and she was already reduced to skin and bones. I cannot imagine whether she would have broken down if I had come out any later. My wife told me that after I was locked up, the child caught a cold and was critically ill; she begged the government to release me to take care of the child, but was ruthlessly refused. We all know that a cold for a hematological disease patient is fatal. Therefore, in the eyes of the Communist Party, human life is of no consequence. During the period of release on bail pending trial, the Communist Party rejected my requests to take my child out to seek medical treatment multiple times. This proved once again that in the eyes of the Communist Party, the lives of the people are truly worthless!

In November 2021, my release on bail pending trial was lifted, and I took my daughter’s medical records to Beijing to seek medical advice. On the train, I was continuously subjected to harassment, but in the presence of the public, they were still relatively restrained. As the train entered Beijing South Railway Station, they implemented a violent kidnapping against me. In the process of the kidnapping, they even attempted to frame me using a “staged accident” setup; that is, a man in black grabbed my arm and tried to snatch my phone, which was currently recording. I swung my arm with the motion, and he flew backward as if hit by a high-speed truck, shouting while flying, “Why are you hitting people? Why are you hitting people?” I said, “Don’t stage an accident, this phone is still recording!” He had no choice but to stand up resentfully. Seeing that the staged accident had failed, the police swarmed up, snatched my phone, and dragged me toward a minibus. While struggling, I shouted “Help” loudly, but the numb crowd around me made me feel as if I were seeing that group of Chinese people written about by Lu Xun a hundred years ago. When I was about to be pulled into the minibus, I used my strength to prop myself against the vehicle doorframe; seeing that they could not pull me in, they beat me, and punches fell like raindrops onto my head and back. I could not sustain my hold and was pulled into the vehicle by them.

The very first moment I got into the vehicle, I took the SD card out of my watch and hid it in my sock. Because I knew the phone would definitely be snatched, my phone recording was just a decoy; the device truly recording was the watch. Sure enough, the police snatched my phone and did not return it to me until more than a month later, having performed a factory reset before returning it. I was escorted back to Shanghai and imprisoned inside a “black jail.” The government tore up its verbal promises to release me time after time, making me fear being detained for a long period just like last time, so I decided to jailbreak. After making efforts, I finally escaped through a window in the dead of night. The Shanghai police immediately carried out a city-wide manhunt against me; they broke into my home, and finding that I was not there, left a squad of personnel to stake out in front of my door, a second squad of personnel to patrol along the streets, a third squad of personnel to track my escape route via the Skynet surveillance system, and a fourth squad of personnel to find my workplace, having the workplace force me to show up. Meanwhile, during my flight, I sent the video of the police kidnapping me into a WeChat group to seek help from group members. For a time, the Ministry of Public Security received many complaint phone calls. Seeing that public indignation was stirred, the Ministry of Public Security called a halt to Shanghai’s arrest operation and promised to let the Beijing railway investigators conduct an investigation into this incident. Consequently, three weeks after my jailbreak, the Shanghai public security cancelled the manhunt against me, and on the second day after I returned home, the company terminated my labor contract. From then on, I lost my beloved job, and also lost the source of support upon which I relied for survival.

The conclusion of the Ministry of Public Security’s investigation was, naturally, that the public security acted in compliance with regulations and the law. Regarding the Communist Party calling a deer a horse, I had already long ceased to be surprised. I raised no other demands, only requesting that they make public the law enforcement video of the people’s police; I believed that the eyes of the masses are razor-sharp. However, the Ministry of Public Security refused to make it public. I sued the Ministry of Public Security in court, but the court—birds of a feather—dismissed the lawsuit. They said my going to Beijing to seek medical treatment was related to petitioning, said my application for information disclosure was also related to petitioning, and said my going to Beijing to file a case was also related to petitioning. I suddenly discovered that this was the second purpose of the Communist Party designing the petition system: to deprive the people of their right to litigate. As long as you have petitioned before, the Communist Party can call a deer a horse, attribute everything of yours to petitioning, and then deprive you of your right to legal aid. Another purpose of petitioning is to act as an emotional buffer pad; a petitioner arrives furious, and the staff of the petition office listen to his tearful complaints with a pleasant and amiable expression—once the story is finished, the anger is half gone. Then the staff members pretend to say they will report to the higher authorities, and the people switch from being furious to being full of anticipation. As for solving the hardships of the common people, that simply does not exist. But they have verbal techniques to deceive the people, such as saying the leaders are very busy and have no time to deal with it, or saying their own power is too small to decide the leader’s thoughts; if all else fails, they will join the victim in cursing those leaders who do not act like human beings. In the end, the petitioner exhausts his energy through round after round of hope and disappointment, and most of them give up defending their rights—this is their objective.

Now, my daughter has been sick due to the vaccine for over eight years, yet she has never received any concern from the Communist Party! I, too, have been left covered in wounds from defending our rights. My mother still likes to sing her “The East is red, the sun rises…”, but how ironic this song sounds today! My mother has lived in lies her entire life, and I do not have the heart to pierce the illusion; but I do not want my daughter to live in lies her entire life either. I hope she can feel the warmth of love, and I hope she can dance under the sunshine. Consequently, in August 2025, I left China without looking back. I call this action living toward the sun!

Editor: Li JingProofreader: Wang BinTranslator: Ge Bing

作者：武书剑

18世纪，英国爆发了工业革命，与之相应的，社会很多方面都出现了变革，政府也需要进行大量建设，因此就需要对相关产品和服务进行采购。为了节约开支，就需要对政府在公共工程中的采购行为进行监管，这就要保持采购行为的公平透明，于是，”招标”就在这种大背景下诞生了。1782年，英国开始用招标方式开展工程建设等项目。到了18 世纪末，英国已经比较广泛地通过招标方式来做工程建设。并通过了《公共工程法案》之类的法规，从而确立了“招标制度”。与英国相比，美国、德国等其他国家的招标制度要晚了将近半个世纪！因此，英国，是公认的招标投标制度起源国，被看作是“招标”制度的祖师爷。招标制度从诞生的第一天，就是作为一种“公共采购”或”集中采购”的手段出现的，专门用来规范政府花钱办事。随着文明的传播，这套做法逐渐传到全世界，成了现在商业竞争里的核心机制。

1980年，伴随着改革开放与市场经济体制改革，我国也开始在工程建设等领域试点引入招标投标方式。2000年1月1日，《招标投标法》正式施行，标志着该制度正式成为资源配置的法定机制。和英国相比，我们晚了两百多年。

然而，作为后起之秀，我们的“招标”有着自己的特色。

从后发优势的角度看：我们用只有了二十年的时间，就走完了英国二百多年的发展历程。

从制度自信的角度看：英国是“招标”，我国是“全过程”招标。

从道路自信的角度看：招标，不是西方国家的“专利”，而是所有企业的“权利”。

从理论自信的角度看：中国式招标，体现了中国国情、中国特色，是中国对世界的独创性理论贡献。

中式招标，是西方先进理论和中国具体实践相结合的产物，是招标制度进行中国本土化改造后的重大创新成果。

那么，中国式招标，到底有哪些特点呢？概括起来有五大项：

其一、用流程的严谨性，掩盖结果的预设性； 其二、用程序的合规性，掩饰内定的合理性； 其三、用台上的公开性，掩护台下的隐蔽性； 其四、用竞争的激烈性，佐证报价的公平性； 其五、用博弈的复杂性，保证权力的稳定性！

再好的经，到了这儿，保证能给你念歪！

再干净的水，到了这儿，保证能给你搅浑！

“规矩是死的，人是活的。”这就是我们最大的文化自信！

在一个没有规则意识的地方，“讲规则”，就是一个笑话；

在一个没有程序正义的地方，“讲流程”，就是一个笑话； 在一个没有契约精神的地方，“讲契约”，就是一个笑话！ 在一个不讲规则、不讲流程、不讲契约的“三不讲”地方，引入招标机制，就是个笑话！

编辑：李晶

校对：王滨

翻译：戈冰

Three No-Gos of Chinese-Style Bidding

Author: Wu Shujian

Abstract: The bidding process across various industries in China is a microcosm of Chinese society. No rules, no processes, no contracts—only power.

In the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution broke out in Britain. Correspondingly, transformations appeared in many aspects of society. The government also needed to undertake a massive amount of construction, and therefore required the procurement of relevant products and services. In order to cut expenditures, it was necessary to supervise the government’s procurement behavior in public works, which required keeping procurement behavior fair and transparent. Thus, “bidding” was born against this macro background. In 1782, Britain began using the bidding method to carry out projects such as engineering construction. By the end of the 18th century, Britain had already quite extensively utilized the bidding method to execute engineering construction, and passed regulations such as the Public Works Act, thereby establishing the “bidding system.” Compared with Britain, the bidding systems of other countries like the United States and Germany came nearly half a century later! Therefore, Britain is the universally recognized country of origin for the bidding and tendering system, regarded as the founding ancestor of the “bidding” system. From the very first day of its birth, the bidding system emerged as a means of “public procurement” or “centralized procurement,” specifically used to regulate how the government spends money and conducts business. With the spread of civilization, this set of practices gradually spread throughout the world, becoming the core mechanism in modern commercial competition.

In 1980, along with the reform and opening up and the reform of the market economic system, our country also began to pilot the introduction of bidding and tendering methods in fields such as engineering construction. On January 1, 2000, the “Bidding and Tendering Law” came into force officially, marking that this system officially became a statutory mechanism for resource allocation. Compared with Britain, we were more than two hundred years late.

However, as a latecomer, our “bidding” has its own characteristics.

From the perspective of the latecomer advantage: it took us only twenty years to complete the developmental course that took Britain more than two hundred years.

From the perspective of institutional confidence: Britain has “bidding,” while our country has “whole-process” bidding.

From the perspective of road confidence: bidding is not the “patent” of Western countries, but the “right” of all enterprises.

From the perspective of theoretical confidence: Chinese-style bidding reflects China’s national conditions and Chinese characteristics, and is China’s original theoretical contribution to the world.

Chinese-style bidding is the product of combining advanced Western theory with concrete Chinese practice, and is a major innovative achievement following the localized transformation of the bidding system in China.

So, what exactly are the characteristics of Chinese-style bidding? To summarize, there are five major items:

First, using the rigor of the process to conceal the predetermined nature of the outcome;

Second, using the compliance of the procedure to disguise the rationality of the insider selection;

Third, using the openness on the stage to cover up the concealment under the stage;

Fourth, using the intensity of the competition to corroborate the fairness of the quoted price;

Fifth, using the complexity of the game to guarantee the stability of power!

No matter how good the scripture is, once it arrives here, it is guaranteed to be chanted sideways for you!

No matter how clean the water is, once it arrives here, it is guaranteed to be muddied for you!

“Rules are dead, but people are alive.” This is our greatest cultural confidence!

In a place with no awareness of rules, “speaking of rules” is a joke;

In a place with no procedural justice, “speaking of processes” is a joke;

In a place with no contract spirit, “speaking of contracts” is a joke!

In a “three no-gos” place that does not speak of rules, does not speak of processes, and does not speak of contracts, introducing a bidding mechanism is just a joke!

Editor: Li Jing

Proofreader: Wang Bin

Translator: Ge Bing