家 博客 页面 20

前进吧,为了那终将到来的春天!

0

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

透过“709律师大抓捕”看中共人权现状

0

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

向阳而生

0

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

中国式招标三不讲

0

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

咏刘晓波刘霞(诗四首)

0
咏刘晓波刘霞(诗四首)

伉俪情深离别多,
一路相知尽蹉跎。
蜡炬成灰终不悔,
留待史家当墨磨!

谢显宁 2017年6月30日

六六外公:七绝 • 念晓波

患难晓波得道多,
一生一世未蹉跎。
愤燃火炬启明亮,
华夏留名不可磨。

——丁酋岁仲夏于蓉

蔡楚:步韵集古句怀晓波

故人零落已无多,
阴晴圆缺任蹉跎。
此地他年难再饮,
亦复怀君旧琢磨。

白云乡人:步谢诗韵咏刘晓波刘霞

相聚日少相思多,
自由遥迢久蹉跎。
沉疴缠身人憔悴,
泪书血字难消磨。

编辑 张致君 校对:程筱筱 翻译:戈冰

In Praise of Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia (Four Poems)

咏刘晓波刘霞(诗四首)

The devotion between husband and wife runs deep, yet separations were many,Knowing each other along the way, their journey was entirely filled with hardships.The wax candle burns to ash, yet ultimately without regret,Leaving their story for historians to use as ink to grind!

Xie Xianning, June 30, 2017

Grandfather of Liuliu: Seven-Character Quatrain • Remembering Xiaobo

Sharing trials and tribulations,Xiaobo gained abundant support for his righteous cause,Throughout his entire life, his time was never spent in vain. Indignantly, he lit the torch to bring forth brightness and dawn,Leaving a name in China that can never be erased.

——Midsummer of the Dingyou Year, in Rong (Chengdu)

Cai Chu: Matching the Rhyme and Gathering Classical Lines to Cherish the Memory of Xiaobo

Old friends have scattered and withered, already not many remain,Letting time waste away through cloudiness, sunshine, fullness, and wane.In this place, in other years, it will be difficult to drink together again,And I also cherish your memory, recalling our old reflections and shared steps of discipline.

Baiyun Xiangren: Matching the Rhyme of Xie’s Poem to Sing of Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xia

The days gathered together were few, the days of mutual yearning were many,Freedom remains distant and remote, while time has long wasted away in hardships.A severe illness entangles the body, leaving the person haggard and worn,Tearful writings and words of blood are difficult to ever erase.

Editor: Zhang Zhijun Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

旧金山中领馆前举行悼念洛嘎让赞集会

0

抗议《中华人民共和国民族团结进步促进法》的实施

作者:吕小静  

旧金山中领馆前举行悼念洛嘎让赞集会

7月5日,旧金山民主人士在中领馆前举行悼念藏人洛嘎让赞集会现场

【旧金山讯】 流亡藏人洛嘎让赞在纽约联合国总部附近自焚身亡后,引发海外社会持续关注。7月5日下午,数十位民主人士、藏人及关心西藏议题的民众在中国驻旧金山总领事馆前举行和平集会,悼念洛嘎让赞,并就《民族团结进步促进法》表达抗议。

 7月2号,流亡藏人洛嘎让赞(Loga Rangzen)在纽约联合国总部附近以自焚方式表达诉求,引发国际社会广泛关注。据其生前公开发表的遗言及支持者介绍,他希望借此唤起国际社会关注西藏人民的处境,并以最惨烈的方式向恶法发出无声的抗议。 

流亡藏人媒体《西藏之声》表示,逝者事发前架设手机,通过社交平台直播整个过程,目前已确认其伤重身亡。逝者留下的信息显示,自焚主要有两个目的:第一,抗议中共7月1日正式实施的《民族团结进步促进法》;第二,坚持其支持西藏独立的政治立场。媒体分析指出,逝者名字中的“Rangzen”在藏语中意为“独立” ,所以大概也可以看出他的政治态度。

洛嘎让赞在行动前通过社交媒体留下遗言,呼吁海外藏人继续守护民族文化、语言和信仰,希望世界不要忽视西藏人民所面临的现实处境。他选择联合国总部前作为行动地点,希望借助这一国际平台,让更多国家和国际组织关注西藏问题。

现场视频显示,他高举西藏旗帜后点燃自己,直至倒下。这一事件迅速引发海外藏人社区及多个民主、人权团体的关注。 

统计显示,2009年至2022年间共有超过150名藏人自焚,其中10起发生于流亡海外的藏人社群。国际人权团体及流亡藏人长期以来批评中共在西藏地区实施高压统治。

 洛嘎让赞离世后,纽约、旧金山以及洛杉矶等多个大城市的中共领馆前,相继举行悼念活动。7月5日下午,由中国民主党旧金山党部党员陈森峰等人发起的“悼念洛嘎让赞暨抗议《民族团结进步促进法》和平集会”在中国驻旧金山总领事馆前举行。来自民主团体、藏人社区及关心西藏议题的民众参加集会,通过默哀、发言等方式表达哀思,并呼吁国际社会持续关注西藏的人权、宗教自由、民族文化及语言传承等诉求。  

全体人员低头默哀,悼念洛嘎让赞,现场气氛庄严肃穆

下午两点左右,集会在庄严肃穆的氛围中开始。现场悬挂着“悼念洛嘎让赞”“反对《民族团结进步促进法》”等横幅,参加者手持西藏雪山狮子旗及洛嘎让赞遗像,全体人员首先低头默哀,悼念洛嘎让赞及所有因追求自由而逝去的人士。现场气氛沉重,不少参加者表示,希望通过和平集会,让更多人了解西藏人民所面临的现实处境。

 

作为此次活动策划发起人之一,陈森峰表示,当看到洛嘎让赞在联合国总部前自焚的视频后深受震动,因此发起此次悼念活动。他表示,举办集会并非鼓励任何形式的自我牺牲,而是希望借此让世界听见藏人的声音,关注西藏人民在人权、宗教、文化及民族语言传承等方面所面临的挑战,并持续抗议《民族团结进步促进法》实施。 

中国民主党党员李凯表示,《民族团结进步促进法》实施后,引发外界对西藏语言、文化、宗教及民族认同等议题的持续关注。他指出,多年来一百多位藏人先后以自焚表达诉求,这些事件背后所反映的人权问题值得国际社会认真关注,并呼吁各国政府及人权机构持续关注西藏现状,共同维护人的基本尊严与自由。

 

中国民主党党员高应芬与丈夫胡帅表示,今天站在这里,不仅是悼念我们的藏族同胞,更是对中共独裁的抗议!洛嘎让赞前辈,他用他生命在抗议!我们不提倡牺牲,因为活着才有更多机会为我们的民主自由努力奋斗,但他勇敢坚定的精神值得我们学习,我们要将这种精神传承下去,继续努力,早日实现民主自由! 

中国民主党旧金山党部活动部部长郭志军表示,洛嘎让赞选择以最惨烈的方式向世界发声,反映藏人在长期高压统治下的绝望处境。他说,当一个民族的语言、宗教、文化与基本自由被一步步剥夺,当所有和平表达意见的管道都遭封锁,有些人最终只能用生命唤醒世界。 

中国民主党党员王永胜提议,默哀三秒以纪念西藏自焚烈士。民族团结促进法的实质是大一统,大一统的危害是加强集权,压制自由思想和创造力,民间社会失去活力公民没有人权。我们每一位发声者都应该是刺向暴政的一把利剑,戳破中共的谎言,像荆轲刺秦一样,推翻暴政,反对恶法。 

中国民主党旧金山党部Fremont支部副部长、文宣部副部长吕小静表示,当看到洛嘎让赞在烈火中仍高举西藏旗帜直至倒下的视频时,内心久久无法平静。她说,没有人会轻易选择以生命表达自己的诉求,这样的悲剧本身就是对世界的一次沉重提醒。悼念洛嘎让赞,不是为了歌颂死亡,而是希望更多人关注人权、自由、文化传承和宗教信仰,让每一个民族都能够在和平、尊严与自由中延续自己的语言、文化和信仰,让未来不再有人需要以生命作为最后的呼喊。 

活动中,周云龙、范国林、李树青、郭鉴鑫、蒋书清、罗艳丽等人士也先后发言,共同表达对洛嘎让赞的悼念,并呼吁国际社会持续关注西藏人民的人权处境。

 主办方表示,许多流亡海外几十年的藏人,头发已经花白,但他们对故土的思念、对自由的追求、对信仰的坚守,从未改变。并不赞同以自焚结束生命的抗争方式,但尊重每一个为自己的民族、信仰和尊严发出声音的人。愿这样的悲剧不再发生,愿更多的人能够关注西藏的人权与自由。愿逝者安息,愿西藏早日迎来自由与和平。 

集会结束前,现场参与者高呼多项口号,包括“自由万岁”“反对同化”“反对民族促进法”等,来表达他们的立场和诉求。参与者希望联合海外的华人和各个群体的力量,团结起来,传播真相,为他们发声,共同守护人的尊严、自由与和平。 

参加本次活动的民运人士名单:方政,刘静涛,李树青,陈森峰,高应芬,吕小静,李凯,罗艳丽,关永杰,范国林,郭鉴鑫,周云龙,郭志军,刘忱忱,蒋书清,胡帅,李小林,张善诚,吴志创,熊朝凤(排名不分先后)

编辑:李晶  校对:周敏 翻译:周敏

Gathering Held in Front of the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco to Mourn Loga Rangzen

Protesting the Implementation of the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress”

Author: Lyu Xiaojing

旧金山中领馆前举行悼念洛嘎让赞集会

July 5, the scene of the gathering held by democracy activists in front of the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco to mourn the Tibetan Loga Rangzen.

[San Francisco News] After the self-immolation death of exiled Tibetan Loga Rangzen near the United Nations Headquarters in New York, continuous attention has been drawn from the overseas community. On the afternoon of July 5, dozens of democracy activists, Tibetans, and people concerned about Tibet issues held a peaceful gathering in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco to mourn Loga Rangzen and express protests against the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress.”

On July 2, Loga Rangzen, an exiled Tibetan, expressed his demands by means of self-immolation near the United Nations Headquarters in New York, drawing widespread attention from the international community. According to his publicly released last words during his lifetime and introductions by his supporters, he hoped by this to arouse the international community’s attention to the situation of the Tibetan people, and to issue a silent protest against the evil law in the most tragic way.

The exiled Tibetan media “Voice of Tibet” stated that before the incident, the deceased set up a mobile phone to live-stream the entire process through a social platform, and it has currently been confirmed that he died of severe injuries. The information left by the deceased shows that the self-immolation mainly had two purposes: first, to protest the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” officially implemented by the Chinese Communist Party on July 1; second, to adhere to his political stance of supporting Tibet independence. Media analysis pointed out that the “Rangzen” in the deceased’s name means “independence” in the Tibetan language, so his political attitude can probably also be seen from this.

Before his action, Loga Rangzen left his last words through social media, calling on overseas Tibetans to continue guarding their ethnic culture, language, and faith, and hoping the world would not ignore the realistic situation faced by the Tibetan people. He chose the front of the United Nations Headquarters as the location for his action, hoping to use this international platform to make more countries and international organizations pay attention to the Tibet issue.

The live video showed that he held high the Tibetan flag and then set himself on fire until he fell. This event quickly triggered attention from the overseas Tibetan community and multiple democracy and human rights groups.

Statistics show that between 2009 and 2022, a total of more than 150 Tibetans self-immolated, among which 10 incidents occurred in exiled overseas Tibetan communities. International human rights groups and exiled Tibetans have long criticized the Chinese Communist Party for implementing high-pressure rule in the Tibet region.

After Loga Rangzen passed away, mourning activities were held successively in front of Chinese Communist consulates in several major cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. On the afternoon of July 5, the “Peaceful Gathering Mourning Loga Rangzen and Protesting the ‘Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress,'” initiated by Chen Senfeng and other members of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, was held in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco. People from democratic groups, the Tibetan community, and those concerned about Tibet issues participated in the gathering, expressing their grief through silent tribute and speeches, and calling on the international community to continuously focus on demands such as Tibet’s human rights, religious freedom, ethnic culture, and language inheritance.

All personnel bowed their heads in silent tribute to mourn Loga Rangzen, and the atmosphere at the scene was solemn and respectful.

Around two o’clock in the afternoon, the gathering began in a solemn and respectful atmosphere. Banners such as “Mourning Loga Rangzen” and “Opposing the ‘Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress'” were hung at the scene. Participants held the Tibetan Snow Lion flag and portraits of Loga Rangzen. All personnel first bowed their heads in silent tribute to mourn Loga Rangzen and all those who have passed away due to the pursuit of freedom. The atmosphere at the scene was heavy, and many participants expressed that they hoped through the peaceful gathering to let more people understand the realistic situation faced by the Tibetan people.

As one of the planners and initiators of this activity, Chen Senfeng stated that when he saw the video of Loga Rangzen’s self-immolation in front of the UN Headquarters, he was deeply shaken, which was why he initiated this mourning activity. He expressed that holding the gathering is not to encourage any form of self-sacrifice, but rather hoping by this to let the world hear the voice of Tibetans, pay attention to the challenges faced by the Tibetan people in terms of human rights, religion, culture, and ethnic language inheritance, and continuously protest the implementation of the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress.”

China Democracy Party member Li Kai stated that after the implementation of the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress,” continuous attention from the outside world has been triggered regarding issues such as the Tibetan language, culture, religion, and ethnic identity. He pointed out that over the years, more than one hundred Tibetans have successively expressed their demands through self-immolation. The human rights issues reflected behind these events deserve earnest attention from the international community, and he called on governments of various countries and human rights institutions to continuously focus on the current situation of Tibet, to jointly safeguard basic human dignity and freedom.

China Democracy Party member Gao Yingfen and her husband Hu Shuai stated, standing here today, we are not only mourning our Tibetan compatriots, but even more protesting against the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party! Senior Loga Rangzen, he used his life to protest! We do not advocate sacrifice, because only by staying alive do we have more opportunities to strive and fight for our democracy and freedom, but his brave and firm spirit is worthy of our learning. We must pass this spirit down, continue to work hard, and realize democracy and freedom at an early date!

Guo Zhijun, Director of the Activity Department of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, stated that Loga Rangzen chose to speak to the world in the most tragic way, reflecting the desperate situation of Tibetans under long-term high-pressure rule. He said that when a nation’s language, religion, culture, and basic freedoms are stripped away step by step, and when all channels for peacefully expressing opinions are blocked, some people in the end can only use their lives to awaken the world.

China Democracy Party member Wang Yongsheng proposed a three-second silent tribute to commemorate the Tibetan self-immolation martyrs. The essence of the Ethnic Unity Promotion Law is grand unification. The harm of grand unification is the strengthening of centralization, the suppression of free thought and creativity, the loss of vitality in civil society, and citizens having no human rights. Every one of us speakers should be a sharp sword piercing through tyranny, puncturing the lies of the Chinese Communist Party, and like Jing Ke assassinating the King of Qin, overthrowing tyranny and opposing the evil law.

Lyu Xiaojing, Deputy Director of the Fremont Branch and Deputy Director of the Publicity Department of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, stated that when she saw the video of Loga Rangzen still holding high the Tibetan flag in the raging fire until he fell, her inner heart could not calm down for a long time. She said that no one would easily choose to express their demands with their life; such a tragedy itself is a heavy reminder to the world. Mourning Loga Rangzen is not to praise death, but rather hoping more people will pay attention to human rights, freedom, cultural inheritance, and religious beliefs, so that every nation can perpetuate its own language, culture, and faith in peace, dignity, and freedom, and so that in the future, no one will ever need to use their life as the final cry.

During the activity, Zhou Yunlong, Fan Guolin, Li Shuqing, Guo Jianxin, Jiang Shuqing, Luo Yanli, and other individuals also spoke one after another, jointly expressing their mourning for Loga Rangzen, and calling on the international community to continuously pay attention to the human rights situation of the Tibetan people.

The organizers stated that for many Tibetans who have been in exile overseas for decades, their hair has already turned gray, but their longing for their homeland, their pursuit of freedom, and their adherence to their faith have never changed. They do not agree with using self-immolation to end life as a method of resistance, but they respect every person who speaks out for their own nation, faith, and dignity. May such tragedies not happen again, and may more people be able to focus on the human rights and freedom of Tibet. May the deceased rest in peace, and may Tibet usher in freedom and peace at an early date.

Before the end of the gathering, participants at the scene chanted multiple slogans, including “Long Live Freedom,” “Oppose Assimilation,” “Oppose the Ethnic Promotion Law,” etc., to express their stances and demands. Participants hoped to unite the forces of overseas Chinese and various groups, stand together, spread the truth, speak out for them, and jointly safeguard human dignity, freedom, and peace.

List of democracy activists participating in this activity: Fang Zheng, Liu Jingtao, Li Shuqing, Chen Senfeng, Gao Yingfen, Lyu Xiaojing, Li Kai, Luo Yanli, Guan Yongjie, Fan Guolin, Guo Jianxin, Zhou Yunlong, Guo Zhijun, Liu Chenchen, Jiang Shuqing, Hu Shuai, Li Xiaolin, Zhang Shancheng, Wu Zhichuang, Xiong Chaofeng (Names listed in no particular order)

Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Zhou Min

广西横州水库溃坝洪水——苦难之地上被反复重演的失责

0

作者:周敏  

2026年7月6日21时,横州市娘山水库水位已达88.15米且仍在上涨。当地水利部门直到深夜23时才发布通告,决定于次日凌晨2时30分开闸泄洪,要求横州镇、莲塘镇通知涉及的村庄群众远离河道。从发现险情到实际泄洪,留给下游群众的反应时间三个半小时,这短短200分钟是在深夜——手机信号本就容易在暴雨中中断,村民酣睡,村干部逐户敲门通知的效率可想而知。

而在几十公里外的六蓝水库,情况更为凶险。据下游村民梁微转述,8点通知泄洪,9点多堤坝就塌了——从通知到决堤,几十分钟而已。何等仓促。

六蓝水库坝体最终出现两处溃口,总长约50米,洪水直冲云表镇下辖的邓圩、振兴、黄榃、亚陂等多个村庄,部分区域水淹二楼。据南宁市应急管理局通报,此次洪涝灾害受灾人口约5.5万,转移疏散4.8万,另据多方消息,横州因灾死亡、失联人数持续攀升。

同时发生了两个灾难:泄洪与决堤。前者是有预案、有闸门控制的主动排水,后者是坝体本身失去控制的被动溃决。横州这次的实际情况,是官方通报的”漫顶、决堤”——也就是说,是一次没能及时调洪、最终酿成溃坝的险情。把泄洪当作事后解释的挡箭牌,掩盖不了大坝本身管理和预警的失败。

六蓝水库其实早已被官方点名列为问题水库,且有村民反映,险情发生前一天水库已经蓄满了。一座已知存在隐患的中型水库,承担着十几万亩农田灌溉任务、下游又是人口密集的乡镇村落,为什么没有在汛期来临前完成除险加固?为何直到坝体开裂、水位逼近极限,才仓促决定开闸?这些问题比半夜泄洪更值得深究——失责不单单发生在泄洪的那一瞬,而是隐藏在此前数月甚至数年的隐患排查与投入之中。

近些年,从郑州7·20地铁隧道进水,到涿州为保京畿而分洪淹没大片农村,几乎每一次极端降雨引发的重大伤亡,事后复盘都会指向同一组问题:预警发布滞后、基层通知不到位、工程设施带病运行、决策链条冗长。郑州事故后,国务院调查组认定其为重大生产安全责任事故,处理了数十名相关责任人。但公众普遍的感觉却是,处理停留在行政处分层面,没有对决策链条更高层级的追问,也未能转化为可验证、可监督的制度改进。涿州分洪的争议则更进一步:为保护上游城市而牺牲下游农村的决策逻辑本身有其防洪工程学上的合理性,但决策过程是否充分论证?受灾群众的知情权和补偿是否到位?至今缺乏透明的公开说明。

这次横州,同样的剧本,同样的家园尽失、生灵涂炭。

古代治水同样依赖人力和经验,技术条件远远逊于今日,但问责机制要直接得多。比如明代,对河防官员实行严格的岁修考核,堤防失事导致伤亡,主管官员依情节轻重要被杖责、革职乃至更重的惩处。且这种问责通常发生在事故之后不久,责任人是谁、受了什么处分,是可以公开追溯的。这套制度当然有其时代局限,但它至少建立了一条清晰的因果链:谁主管、谁负责、出了事谁承担。

今天的问责机制在技术能力上远胜古人——遥感监测、水位预警系统、应急指挥体系一应俱全。但在责任落地这一环,却比古代更加模糊。灾害发生后,通报中充斥着”迅速启动应急响应”、”全力搜救转移”这类程序性表述,偏偏很少看到对”为何险情发现到预警发布之间存在数小时空窗”、”为何已知隐患水库未能提前加固”等具体问题的正面回应。技术进步了,但透明度和问责的具体性没有同步提升,这才是问题。

这次横州灾情中,还有一个值得记录的现象是:大量最初的求救信息,来自身处异地、通过社交平台为家乡父母求助的普通网民,而不是官方来主动通报。云表镇一位居民的父母被困在了两层自建房顶楼,是女儿在社交平台发帖求助后,才联系上了应急部门,得到的回应却是:救援行动已经展开,但由于洪水涨势过猛,呼吁市民先自行前往高处——这是不是把最初的自救责任推回给了受灾群众本身?与此同时,本地民间自发组成的救援队伍,在断网断电、道路被淹的情况下持续搜救转移群众,成为实际救援力量的重要补充。

但民间救援长期面临的困境是:缺乏统一协调、没有官方授权往往寸步难行,装备、信息、人力都要自行解决,一旦深入险情区域出现意外,责任归属也不明确,这使得很多本可以更快抵达现场的民间力量,不得不在”救不救、怎么救”之间反复权衡。一个健康的应急体系,理应是官方力量与民间力量的协同,而不是让民间在审批空白与责任真空中自行摸索。如果政府救援迟缓,又不能为民间救援提供便利通道和明确规则,受灾群众实际上是两头落空。

批评这类事件,不是简单地情绪宣泄,而是要把几个具体问题铺开在桌子上,倾听一个清晰的答案:

六蓝水库作为已知的”问题水库”,此前的除险加固计划执行到了什么程度?谁对此负责?

从险情预警到实际泄洪/决堤之间的时间窗口,是否符合应急预案的最低标准?如果不符合,是谁在哪个环节延误了?

民间救援力量在此次灾害中发挥了怎样的作用?官方是否应当、以及将如何为民间救援提供更明确的协作机制?

此次灾害的死亡、失联人数最终核实结果如何?相关责任人是否会被问责,问责结果是否会公开?

这些问题的答案,悬而未决。灾情在笔者打字的同时还在发展中。一些说法(包括社交平台上流传的、尚未获得官方或主流媒体证实的很多求救、遇难细节)仍需要时间和更多信源去核实。但可以确定的是,如果这次事件的问责最终仍旧止步于几份谨小慎微的通报,那么下一次暴雨时,会不会又一个深夜发出的泄洪通知,把同样的悲剧再来一遍。

编辑:李晶  校对:周敏 翻译:周敏

Guangxi Hengzhou Reservoir Dam Failure Flood — Repeated Dereliction of Duty on a Land of Suffering

Author: Zhou Min

Abstract: The Hengzhou reservoir dam failure incident in Guangxi once again exposes the low social governance and emergency response capabilities of the CCP authoritarian government. Power without accountability and supervision will inevitably disregard the life and death of the people.

At 21:00 on July 6, 2026, the water level of Niangshan Reservoir in Hengzhou City had reached 88.15 meters and was still rising. The local water conservancy department did not issue a notice until 23:00 late at night, deciding to open the gates to discharge floodwaters at 2:30 the next morning, requiring Hengzhou Town and Liantang Town to notify the residents of the involved villages to stay away from the river course. From the discovery of danger to the actual flood discharge, the reaction time left for the downstream masses was three and a half hours. This short 200 minutes was in the dead of night — mobile phone signals were already prone to interruption during heavy rain, villagers were fast asleep, and the efficiency of village cadres knocking on doors house by house to notify them can well be imagined.

In the Liulan Reservoir dozens of kilometers away, the situation was even more dangerous. According to the narration of downstream villager Liang Wei, the notice to discharge floodwaters came at 8 o’clock, and the dam collapsed at past 9 o’clock — from the notice to the breach, it was only a matter of tens of minutes. How hasty. The dam body of Liulan Reservoir eventually sustained two breaches, with a total length of about 50 meters. The flood rushed straight towards several villages under the jurisdiction of Yunbiao Town, including Dengxu, Zhenxing, Huangtan, and Yabei, with some areas flooded up to the second floor. According to a briefing by the Nanning Municipal Emergency Management Bureau, this flood disaster affected a population of about 55,000 and evacuated 48,000. In addition, according to multiple sources, the number of dead and missing people in Hengzhou due to the disaster continues to climb.

Two disasters occurred simultaneously: flood discharge and dam breach. The former is an active drainage with contingency plans and controlled by gates; the latter is a passive collapse where the dam body itself loses control. The actual situation in Hengzhou this time is the “overtopping and dam breach” as reported in the official briefing — that is to say, it was a danger that failed to regulate the flood in time and ultimately resulted in a dam failure. Using flood discharge as a shield for post-event explanations cannot cover up the failure of the management and early warning of the dam itself.

Liulan Reservoir had in fact long been explicitly named and listed by officials as a problem reservoir, and some villagers reported that the reservoir was already full the day before the danger occurred. For a medium-sized reservoir known to have hidden dangers, which bears the irrigation task of hundreds of thousands of mu of farmland and has densely populated towns and villages downstream, why was the elimination of dangers and reinforcement not completed before the arrival of the flood season? Why was the decision to open the gates made so hastily only when the dam body cracked and the water level approached the limit? These questions deserve deeper investigation than the midnight flood discharge — the dereliction of duty does not merely occur at the moment of flood discharge, but is hidden in the hidden danger inspection and investment during the preceding months or even years.

In recent years, from the Zhengzhou July 20 subway tunnel flooding to the Zhuozhou flood diversion to protect the capital region which inundated vast rural areas, almost every major casualty caused by extreme rainfall points to the same set of problems in post-event reviews: delayed issuance of early warnings, inadequate notification at the grassroots level, facilities running with defects, and lengthy decision-making chains. After the Zhengzhou accident, the State Council investigation team identified it as a major production safety responsibility accident and penalized dozens of relevant responsible persons. However, the general feeling among the public was that the handling remained at the level of administrative sanctions, lacking questioning of higher levels of the decision-making chain, and failing to transform into verifiable and supervisable institutional improvements. The controversy over flood diversion in Zhuozhou went a step further: the decision-making logic of sacrificing downstream rural areas to protect upstream cities has its own rationality in flood control engineering, but was the decision-making process fully demonstrated and debated? Were the affected masses’ right to know and compensation in place? To this day, a transparent public explanation is lacking.

This time in Hengzhou, it is the same script, the same loss of homes, and the same devastation of life.

Ancient flood control also relied on human labor and experience, with technical conditions far inferior to those of today, but the accountability mechanism was much more direct. For example, in the Ming Dynasty, strict annual maintenance assessments were implemented for river defense officials. If a dike failure resulted in casualties, the chief official would be flogged, dismissed, or even subjected to harsher punishments depending on the severity of the circumstances. Moreover, such accountability usually occurred shortly after the accident; who the responsible person was and what punishment they received could be publicly traced. This system certainly had its historical limitations, but it at least established a clear chain of causality: whoever is in charge is responsible, and whoever is responsible bears the consequences if something goes wrong.

Today’s accountability mechanism is far superior to that of the ancients in terms of technical capability — remote sensing monitoring, water level early warning systems, and emergency command systems are all available. However, in the link where responsibility lands, it is more ambiguous than in ancient times. After a disaster occurs, briefings are filled with procedural expressions such as “rapidly initiated emergency response” and “sparing no effort to search, rescue, and transfer,” yet they rarely see direct responses to specific questions such as “why there was a gap of several hours between the discovery of danger and the release of early warnings” and “why the known hidden-danger reservoir failed to be reinforced in advance.” Technology has progressed, but transparency and the specificity of accountability have not improved simultaneously, which is the problem.

In this Hengzhou disaster, another phenomenon worth recording is: a large amount of the initial information seeking help came from ordinary netizens who were located elsewhere and sought help for their parents in their hometown through social platforms, rather than being actively reported by officials. The parents of a resident in Yunbiao Town were trapped on the top floor of a two-story self-built house. It was only after the daughter posted a plea for help on a social platform that contact was made with the emergency department. The response received was: rescue operations had already commenced, but due to the rapid rise of the flood, citizens were urged to first head to high ground on their own — is this pushing the initial responsibility of self-rescue back to the affected masses themselves? At the same time, local civil rescue teams spontaneously formed, continuously searching, rescuing, and transferring the masses under conditions of cut-off network and power, and flooded roads, becoming an important supplement to the actual rescue forces.

However, the long-term dilemma faced by civil rescue is: lacking unified coordination and without official authorization, they often find it difficult to move a single step; equipment, information, and manpower must all be resolved by themselves. Once they go deep into dangerous areas and accidents occur, the attribution of responsibility is also unclear. This makes many civil forces, which could have arrived at the scene faster, repeatedly weigh between “whether to rescue and how to rescue.” A healthy emergency system should rationally be the synergy between official forces and civil forces, rather than letting the civil sector grope on their own in administrative blanks and responsibility vacuums. If government rescue is slow and cannot provide convenient channels and clear rules for civil rescue, the affected masses actually fall between two stools.

Criticizing this type of event is not simple emotional venting, but rather laying out several specific questions on the table to listen for a clear answer:

To what extent had the previous elimination of dangers and reinforcement plan for Liulan Reservoir, as a known “problem reservoir,” been executed? Who is responsible for this?

Does the time window between the danger warning and the actual flood discharge/dam breach comply with the minimum standards of the emergency plan? If it does not comply, who delayed in which link?

What kind of role did civil rescue forces play in this disaster? Should the authorities, and how will they, provide a clearer collaboration mechanism for civil rescue?

What is the final verified result of the number of deaths and missing persons in this disaster? Will the relevant responsible persons be held accountable, and will the results of accountability be made public?

The answers to these questions hang in the balance. The disaster situation is still developing while the author is typing. Some statements (including many details of seeking help and casualties circulating on social platforms that have not been confirmed by official or mainstream media) still require time and more sources of information to verify. But what is certain is that if the accountability for this incident ultimately stops at a few cautious briefings, then during the next heavy rain, there might be another midnight flood discharge notice repeating the same tragedy all over again.

Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Zhou Min

挽联

0

作者:刘二安

黎明未至,神州待报晓
壮士先亡,史册载余波

挽联

编辑:张致君    校对:周敏   翻译:沈美花

Elegiac Couplet

Author: Liu Er’an

Upper Line (上联):
黎明未至,神州待报晓
Before the dawn has arrived, the Divine Land awaits the announcement of daybreak (Xiaobo).

Lower Line (下联):
壮士先亡,史册载余波
The brave warrior passed away too soon, yet the history books will record his lingering waves (Xiaobo).

挽联

Editor: Zhang Zhijun | Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Shen Meihua

我与刘霞有约 ——写给天下所有怀念刘晓波的人

0

作者:张朴

我与刘霞有约,

 去苏格兰看雨。

 在雨中的山里,留下攀登的脚印;

 在雨中的湖上,荡舟,任风狂浪巨。

 我与刘霞有约,

 到兰兹角看海。

 不平静的海面,隐约着刘晓波的笑脸;

 让阵阵海风,送去无尽的思念。 

我与刘霞有约,

 把“空椅子”摆到天安门广场。

 独裁者的王冠已经落地,

 数不尽的行人们会对着空椅子说一声:晓波,你好!

编辑:张致君    校对:程筱筱 翻译:沈美花

I Have an Appointment with Liu Xia ——Written for All People in the World Who Miss Liu Xiaobo

Author: Zhang Pu

I have an appointment with Liu Xia,

To go to Scotland and watch the rain.

In the rainy mountains, leaving footprints of our climb;

Upon the rainy lakes, rowing a boat, letting the wind rage and the waves tower.

I have an appointment with Liu Xia,

To go to Land’s End and look at the sea.

On the restless surface of the ocean, Liu Xiaobo’s smiling face faintly appears;

Let the gusts of sea breeze send forth our endless remembrance.

I have an appointment with Liu Xia,

To place the “empty chair” in Tiananmen Square.

The crown of the dictator has already fallen to the ground,

Countless passersby will say to the empty chair: Xiaobo, hello!

Editor: Zhang Zhijun | Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao

Translator: Shen Meihua

七月诗—怀念

0

作者:蔡楚

七月诗—怀念

怀念一棵老树
根,扎进大地
叶,撑开乌云
即使被雷霆劈断
仍然挺立
怀念一个人
用骨灰书写爱情
在海上把忧伤
化作阴间的地址
怀念一个灵魂
没有远去
海浪一样向你扑来
礁石一样站成宪章
怀念,年年抽出新绿
直到怀念长成树前
我不会忘记
把种子留给人间

编辑:张致君    校对:程筱筱 翻译:沈美花

July Poem — Remembrance

Author: Cai Chu

七月诗—怀念

Cherishing the memory of an old tree:

Its roots, dug deep into the earth;

Its leaves, pushing open the dark clouds.

Even if split by thunder,

It still stands upright.

Cherishing the memory of a person:

Who wrote of love with ashes,

Who, upon the sea, turned sorrow

Into an address in the underworld.

Cherishing the memory of a soul:

That has not departed far away,

Rushing toward you like ocean waves,

Standing firm like a reef, shaped into a charter.

Remembrance sprouts new green year after year;

Before remembrance grows into a tree,

I will not forget

To leave the seeds to the world of mortals.

Editor: Zhang Zhijun Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Shen Meihua