The Farce of The Battle of Penghu:A Pseudo-Debate Between the “Little Pinks” and the Chinese Communist Party
Abstract:The Chinese Communist Party’s film The Battle of Penghu was produced to build public momentum for a military takeover of Taiwan. However, by portraying the Qing court and Shi Lang as positive figures, the film provoked dissatisfaction among “Little Pink” nationalists. Both the Little Pinks and the CCP distort history in their own ways, yet their positions share the same roots. Their dispute is a false debate, and both ultimately serve the narrative of armed unification.
Author: Former Radio Free Asia journalist Sun Cheng Editor: Zhang Zhijun ManagingEditor: Li Congling Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Peng Xiaomei
Recently, the Chinese Communist Party produced a film titled The Battle of Penghu, which depicts the historical episode in which the Qing emperor Kangxi and the general Shi Lang destroyed the Zheng family regime in Taiwan. Anyone with clear eyes can see that this is a propaganda film intended to shape public opinion in support of Xi Jinping’s plan to unify Taiwan by force. However, the film triggered a massive public backlash, with even many “Little Pinks” expressing strong displeasure.
The root of the issue is actually this: the rise of the Qing dynasty was, in essence, a history of a northern ethnic group conquering and ruling the Central Plains. The CCP and the Little Pinks routinely label others as “Han traitors,” yet in this propaganda film they portray the “real Han traitor” Shi Lang as a positive figure who “unified the motherland,” while casting the Zheng regime—“the last legitimate Han regime of the seventeenth century”—as the villain. As a result, the situation becomes absurd: after all the fuss, it turns out that the Communist Party itself is the true heir to the Qing dynasty and to the “real Han traitors.” When this is combined with the CCP’s reverence for Marxism–Leninism as its ancestral doctrine, the whole affair becomes even more comical.
However, when some Little Pinks who adhere to so-called “Imperial Han” ideology view this history, their position reveals a deep sense of internal contradiction. On the one hand, they oppose the Qing dynasty’s military conquest of Taiwan; on the other hand, they support the CCP’s military unification of Taiwan. In their view, the Zheng family and the CCP are both “good,” while the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China in Taiwan are both “bad,” because the Zheng family and the CCP are seen as “orthodox Huaxia,” whereas the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China in Taiwan are regarded respectively as “barbarians” and “agents of Western forces.”
Anyone with even a basic understanding of history can see that this worldview held by the Little Pinks is itself utterly ridiculous. The Zheng regime and the Republic of China in Taiwan are, by any reasonable comparison, far more similar to each other: both were based in Taiwan, and both were freer than the Qing dynasty and the CCP respectively. (The degree of freedom in maritime trade under the Zheng regime was something the early Qing—known for its coastal evacuation policies that caused massive civilian deaths—could never match.) Meanwhile, the CCP and the Qing dynasty are far more alike in both their scope of control and their level of repression. (Indeed, even at the height of Qing autocracy during the Yongzheng and Qianlong eras, people still enjoyed more freedom of association than under the CCP.)
The author at least possesses basic common sense and can see that the Zheng regime resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, while the CCP resembles the Qing dynasty. The author can also recognize the respective absurdities displayed by both the CCP authorities and the Little Pinks in the Battle of Penghu controversy:
The Little Pinks believe that the Ming-Zheng regime resembles the CCP, that the Qing dynasty resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, and they support the Ming-Zheng regime and the CCP. This is, of course, laughable.
The CCP authorities believe that the Zheng regime resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, that the Qing dynasty resembles the CCP, and that the Qing dynasty and the CCP represent the so-called “positive” side. This is, of course, also laughable.
In reality, with the most basic common sense, one can see that the Zheng regime resembles the Republic of China in Taiwan, that the CCP resembles the Qing dynasty, and that the Qing dynasty and the CCP are obviously the negative side.
Therefore, when faced with the dispute between the Little Pinks and the CCP authorities over The Battle of Penghu, anyone with even a little common sense can see that both sides are built on false concepts, that their dispute is a false debate, and that at their core the two sides are essentially the same. Both support Xi Jinping’s military unification of Taiwan, and both of their positions are ridiculous.
At this point, a brief digression is necessary: the author is neither a “Ming fan” nor a “Qing fan,” nor a “fan” of any ancient dynasty. The author has long believed that whether it is the Ming dynasty, the Qing dynasty, or dynasties such as Qin, Han, Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, or Yuan, they are not fundamentally very different. They were all usurping imperial autocracies. As for the differences in their systems, they were largely just different ways of abusing the common people. Some dynasties may at times have abused people slightly less, but abuse they still were. If the author truly has any preference for historical periods, one would be the Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn period, and the other would be the late Qing and Republican era. As for why the author prefers these periods, that is a subject requiring a separate article.
Democratic Activist Chen Xi’s Complaint and Policy Recommendations
Abstract:Restore my enterprise employee basic pension benefits at the level officially approved in July 2022; recognize my nearly 20 years of service in state public institutions; and restore my lawful entitlement to benefits associated with the Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate.
Author: Chen Xi Editor: Cheng Wei ManagingEditor: Li Congling Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator:Gloria
I. Complaint Against the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs
II. Appeal to the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Veterans Affairs to Improve and Enforce Relevant Regulations
III. Recommendations for Building an Inclusive Society
I. Complaint
Complainant:Chen Xi, male, 72 years old, ID No. 520102195402286615, unemployed, citizen scholar, residing at 7-2-23-1 Longchangyuan, Shijicheng, Guanshanhu District, Guiyang City, Guizhou Province.Mobile phone: 18198281954Landline: 0851-84776400
Respondent Agencies:Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security;Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs (legal entities)
Cause of Complaint:My pension benefits were suspended in 2024, and my application for a Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate was denied.
Requests:Restore my enterprise employee basic pension benefits at the level officially approved in July 2022; recognize my nearly 20 years of service in state public institutions; and restore my lawful entitlement to benefits associated with the Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate.
II. Facts and Reasons
I, Chen Xi, began paying personal pension contributions in September 2003. By July 2022, I had paid a total of 220 months. Beginning in August 2022, I started receiving an approved basic monthly pension of RMB 1,663.82. However, in August 2024, my pension payments suddenly stopped. I therefore went to the Guiyang Social Insurance Management Service Center to inquire. I was informed that, pursuant to the document “Opinions on Issues Concerning the Improvement of the Enterprise Employee Basic Pension Insurance System” (Qian Lao She Ting Fa [2006] No. 26, August 9, 2006) issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security, Article 4, Paragraph 1, regarding pension issues for insured persons who have received criminal or administrative penalties, my pension payments were cancelled. Staff members showed me hundreds of files that had already been processed, stating that all of them had had their pensions cancelled under this provision. They further stated that the RMB 43,329.03 in pension benefits I had already received must be fully recovered. I was sentenced on December 26, 2011, by the Guiyang Intermediate People’s Court of Guizhou Province to ten years’ imprisonment for the crime of “inciting subversion of state power” and served my sentence at Xingyi Prison in Guizhou Province. During my incarceration, I was unable to pay pension contributions, and even if contributions had been made, they would have been considered invalid.
I asked: the affected party was never informed of such a regulation at the time of payment; furthermore, this document was issued in 2006, whereas I began contributing in 2003; moreover, so much time has passed, and I had already been receiving pension payments for two years—why is the decision that “the contributions were invalid” only being made now?
The staff replied that the document had always existed but had not been widely publicized, and due to insufficient staffing, cases were handled only after being discovered, one by one.
However, this method of “post hoc handling” has driven the affected individual back into absolute poverty. Legal principles state that laws do not apply retroactively. Once legal punishment has been imposed and pursued, it should not be imposed again. Yet local documents, many years later, again impose punishment and pursuit, which is clearly contrary to fundamental legal principles. As a result of this punishment, I have become a “person with three no’s”: no source of income, no labor capacity, and no social security of any kind (no social insurance, no medical insurance, no minimum living allowance, no special assistance), and I now owe nearly RMB 50,000 to the social insurance agency. In today’s moderately prosperous society, how has the nation’s basic social security system become a mechanism that manufactures a return to poverty?
Some netizens have commented that in capitalist countries, “people with three no’s” receive social security, medical insurance, and minimum living allowances, and that capitalist countries emphasize contractual principles. I believe that the superiority of a socialist country should surpass that of capitalist countries. Protection for “people with three no’s” and respect for contractual principles should be evident. For example, my years of service wages from 1970 to 1989 in state public institutions should count despite my having served a sentence. Only then would this conform to market economy and rule-of-law principles.
A society governed by the rule of law holds that once citizens pay taxes, they are taxpayers and should enjoy equal social welfare. Social insurance is a universal social welfare in modern society. Chen Xi paid money to purchase social insurance, yet was subjected to discriminatory treatment midway, which violates the spirit of a rule-of-law society. Article 1 of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China states that it protects citizens’ lawful rights to participate in and enjoy social insurance benefits, enabling citizens to share in development achievements; Article 3 states that the social insurance system adheres to the principles of broad coverage, basic protection, multi-level structure, and sustainability. Additionally, Xi Jinping, on the occasion of the 15th National Civil Affairs Conference, emphasized that civil affairs work must adhere to a people-centered approach, strengthen inclusive, foundational, and bottom-line livelihood construction, and address the people’s most immediate and practical concerns.
Yet the relevant official documents issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs run directly counter to these principles. They conflict with national law, national policy, and the governing party’s principles, and are therefore unlawful documents.
III. Hope That the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Veterans Affairs Will Observe and Enforce the Rule of Law
1. Article 1 of the Social Insurance Law protects citizens’ lawful rights to participate in and enjoy social insurance benefits. Am I not a citizen of the People’s Republic of China? Do local administrative documents have the authority to revoke my citizenship? During my imprisonment, even the prison authorities had no power to revoke my citizenship. After returning to society, it is effectively revoked instead. Are such local regulations lawful?
Citizenship is the most basic legal status of an individual. No individual, social organization, or state organ has the authority to revoke citizenship as defined by the Constitution. Article 33 of the Constitution states that all persons holding Chinese nationality are citizens of the People’s Republic of China.
2. Article 3 of the National Social Insurance Law, and the governing party’s repeated emphasis on “strengthening inclusive, foundational, and bottom-line livelihood development, and safeguarding the basic living conditions of the people.” Based on this, my years-of-service wages from 1970 to 1989 in state public institutions should also be counted; recently, when Honda withdrew from Japan, wages were compensated based on years of service. Moreover, I made every effort to pay pension contributions for 220 months, at the lowest contribution level; I very much did not wish to add burdens to my family, society, or the state, yet local red-header documents denied this, causing me to become a “person with three no’s” and a debtor, and forcing me to add avoidable negative burdens to my family, society, and the state.
Common sense tells me that superior national laws prevail over local policies; subordinate laws must obey superior laws; and when subordinate laws conflict with superior laws, superior laws must be followed. A nation’s social security system is a shared responsibility between the state and citizens for individual livelihood protection. What citizens must bear, citizens bear; what the state must bear, the state bears; and what citizens cannot bear after having fulfilled their maximum responsibility, the state bears. This embodies the superiority and inclusiveness of modern state institutions.
The superiority and inclusiveness of modern state institutions are embodied in “inclusiveness”: that is, the universality of the protected subjects, whereby all citizens equally share national treatment; embodied in “foundationality”: that is, protection content centered on the basic needs of the people, reflected in the state’s establishment and implementation of social insurance systems such as basic pension insurance, basic medical insurance, work injury insurance, unemployment insurance, and maternity insurance; and embodied in “bottom-line protection”: that is, in a risk society, the government bears the national responsibility of providing bottom-line livelihood protection. Because relying solely on the power of individuals and families cannot fully withstand social or natural risks, and charity and mutual aid are likewise insufficient to provide adequate support, a modern state must assume the responsibility of constructing a rational protection system to ensure that citizens obtain the basic living necessities consistent with human dignity, to guide the independent and autonomous development of individual人格, and to realize and safeguard citizens’ equal right to development.
“Inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection” are requirements of modern inclusive state-building, or in other words, requirements of building a harmonious society. They constitute the political responsibility of the state’s existence, and their theoretical origin lies in the recognition of why the state is established. Since the emergence of political philosophy in ancient Greece, it has been held that the state is the embodiment of goodness and morality. People establish states for the purposes of goodness and morality, never for the purpose of producing evil or engaging in discrimination. This purpose is absolute, not relative. That is to say, the state’s pursuit of goodness and morality is neutral, and does not carry the suspicion of discriminatory or selective law enforcement. For example, the state will never differentiate among its citizens based on ethnicity, gender, wealth, region, class, whether one is good or bad, a criminal or an outstanding individual, in deciding whom it bears; regardless of what kind of person one is, the state bears all citizens equally. To use the words of the renowned political philosopher Karl Popper: the goal of politics should be “to strive to eliminate concrete evils, rather than to attempt to realize abstract good; not to seek to establish a beautiful and happy life through political means, but to focus its objectives on eliminating concrete suffering.” That is to say, the state should only undertake low-level, neutral, platform-based matters of “inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection,” while medium- and high-level, lofty and beautiful, good deeds should be left to social organizations and individuals.
However, when implementing national responsibilities, Guizhou’s local policies fail to adhere to low-level neutrality and platform-based functions. Instead, they pursue lofty ideological preferences, distinguishing between good and bad, wealth and poverty, region, class, criminals and outstanding individuals in deciding whom to bear. This severely distorts the nature of the state. Invisibly, the state is doing what it should not do, and undertaking projects it should not undertake, which inevitably produces serious consequences. For example, I ask: if the state does not perform bottom-line platform responsibilities, who will?
3. Because of selective enforcement of local policies, I have become a “person with three no’s” and a debtor. This reflects that within the protection system, problems of imbalanced and insufficient development in livelihood fields remain extremely prominent; the institutional construction of individual responsibility and state responsibility has not yet taken shape; and the responsibility relationship between families and individual members remains unclear. This restricts those who genuinely need assistance from receiving it. For example, I do not meet the standards of Article 15 [Minimum Living Guarantee Households] and Article 16 [Persons in Extreme Difficulty] of the “Social Assistance Law.” These provisions function as buck-passing clauses, failing to respect individual responsibility, and even more failing to respect the dignity that individuals ought to possess. As a result, the state has failed to assume its responsibility to ensure that individual citizens obtain basic living necessities consistent with human dignity, and to realize and safeguard equal development rights for citizens, creating a “breach” in state responsibility.
My family consists of three people: my wife and my daughter. One receives a retirement pension of 3,000 yuan, and the other earns approximately 5,000 yuan in wages. Therefore, I do not meet the standards of Article 15 [Minimum Living Guarantee Households] and Article 16 [Persons in Extreme Difficulty]. I do not qualify as “an elderly person with no labor capacity, no source of livelihood, and no legally obligated supporters, or whose legally obligated supporters lack the ability to provide support.” Traditional Chinese dynastic culture did not support individualism but instead suppressed it, resulting in a nationwide lack of individual responsibility. My own sense of responsibility has been suppressed by the above provisions. These provisions cancel individuals’ efforts to fulfill their own responsibilities, shift my living burden onto my family, and require me to consume my family’s extremely limited resources. Such a predicament has caused me to lose personal dignity within my own home, living day after day dependent on others, like a superfluous person. One must know that human nature everywhere tends to favor wealth over poverty. Discriminatory local policies are policies that generate one family conflict and family tragedy after another. Because of discrimination under local policies, disharmony has arisen within my family. I ask: are local red-header documents policies that artificially and subconsciously manufacture family conflict? Where is their alignment with the national protection platform? Where is the life of a moderately prosperous society?
4. The state has repeatedly emphasized that everyone is equal before the law, and that the lawful rights and interests of all citizens and legal persons must be equally protected, and that selective and discriminatory law enforcement must not be practiced. Yet Guizhou’s local policies are violating this spirit. Apart from criminal matters, local policies have also covertly liquidated the national treatment that I should receive as a veteran.
According to Article 5 of the “Opinions on Issues Concerning the Improvement of the Enterprise Employee Basic Pension Insurance System” issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security, regarding deemed contribution years for retired military personnel, original years of military service are deemed contribution years and are to be combined with actual contribution years after participation.
When I asked about this provision, staff members replied that there were more specific operational texts (hidden in a black box) stipulating that anyone who has received criminal or administrative punishment shall have this benefit cancelled entirely. It is called “black-box operation” because when I requested to see the text, I was not allowed to do so. The policies of the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security set a bad precedent. Immediately afterward, the document “Interim Measures for the Application and Issuance of Preferential Treatment Certificates for Special Categories of Personnel in Guizhou Province” issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs on February 6, 2023, likewise runs counter to the construction of an inclusive state. Article 12, Paragraph 1 of that document stipulates that persons sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of ten years or more for acts endangering national security may not apply for a Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate. After I had completed my legal punishment and went to apply for the certificate, I was informed that this was an internal document that even community staff could not see, only receive and execute. Such local red-header documents are more vicious than national laws and regulations. This is because national laws and regulations have an effective time limit and a bottom line for punishment, whereas local red-header documents have neither a time limit nor a bottom line. Once punished, one is punished forever, discriminated against forever, and never forgiven. Local red-header documents are典型的 extremist policies.
It appears that local improvised policies are more powerful than national laws and regulations. Under such exploitative treatment by these policies, I am truly being expelled from citizenship by local improvised policies. I ask: does my citizenship still exist?
“Inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection” are already the most basic national treatments of a modern state. Military service is also a basic civic duty. I fulfilled my duty as a citizen, defending the country, without regard to pay, hardship, or sacrifice, serving in the military for many years. Yet, because of criminal punishment, this is no longer recognized, and all treatment corresponding to my past contributions as an ordinary citizen has been permanently cancelled. I ask: does the principle of “learning from past mistakes to prevent future ones, curing the illness to save the patient” contain the meaning of “never forgiving”? Does legal punishment mean permanently revoking citizenship? Does this not negate the existence of the state’s absolute purpose of goodness and absolute love? The responsibility of an inclusive state is: “not one person left behind,” regardless of whether one is good or bad, a criminal or not.
Recently, Foreign Minister Wang Yi of the People’s Republic of China urged the Taliban government of Afghanistan, during dialogue, to establish an inclusive government before China would extend friendship and assistance. Guizhou’s local government should also heed Minister Wang Yi’s urging.
A modern state is built upon rational, inclusive, partnership-based relationships, not upon relationships of hostility that divide people into enemies and friends, good and bad. All people’s rights are equal; each person has the right to reasonably share a portion of the overall social interest as a basic member, which is a benefit that society’s technologies and combined forces can and should provide.
If, in a country, relationships among people are not built on equal partnership but on mutual discrimination, such policies do not treat people as human beings. Everyone becomes a victim and an object of authoritarianism. As a result, individuals lose direction toward healthy upward living and instead descend into irreversible decline. Such practices, which block paths toward repentance and renewal, will bring curses upon the world, turning it toward a mad, disharmonious, vicious, chaotic, and hopelessly suffering hostile world. The construction of a modern state will become impossible and may ultimately fail; natural order will be violated, and world civilization will collapse. Based on these concerns, I hereby propose the following recommendations.
III. Recommendations for Building an Inclusive Society
The function of absolute goodness of the state refers to the existence of the state’s functions of inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection. The punitive function of the state refers to the state’s responsibility to punish injustice and maintain proper social order. All citizens should understand that they exist within the paradoxical relationship between protection and punishment. In a market economy and rule-of-law state, the 17th-century English thinker John Locke stated: “Individuals may do anything unless the law forbids it; governments may do nothing unless the law permits it. The rule of law grants citizens the greatest possible freedom and governments the smallest possible power. Its essence is that citizens’ basic rights must be protected, and government power must be limited.” Therefore, most policies are formulated to prevent abuse of power and to protect basic civil rights, not to discriminate against citizens’ rights. At the same time, we acknowledge that a very small number of regulations are designed to punish improper conduct. Remember: punishment targets conduct, not thought. That is to say, modern state institutions are systems that protect and reward citizens’ expression, encourage citizens to raise good questions and help the state solve problems. They are not bad systems. Bad systems target those who raise questions and eliminate people with patriotism and responsibility. Thus, in bad systems, there are “thought criminals,” and dissenters are treated as enemies.
Both protection and punishment relate to the right to survival, which is a foundational right. Therefore, protection and punishment must not endanger individual survival rights. That is to say, when the state exercises its protective and punitive functions in maintaining social justice, it must not create injustice, must not create poverty, must not strike at individual responsibility or those who dare to innovate and raise new questions, and must not violate the principle of non-retroactivity or engage in repeated prosecutions with malicious intent. Only on this basis may the state punish crimes and pursue social justice.
1. I do not deny “post hoc punishment.” For example, in economic crimes, in addition to confiscating illegal gains, harsher economic penalties may be imposed, which constitutes “post hoc punishment.” However, post hoc punishment has boundaries, and those boundaries lie outside the framework of protecting citizens’ basic survival rights.
As for non-economic cases, where property was lawfully obtained, property rights should be protected (my case is non-economic). In international legal scholarship, this is referred to as the principle of “liberty punishment,” meaning that punishment primarily deprives personal liberty, while economic loss is a non-deliberate collateral effect. If the law permits, and without violating the law, non-economic civil or criminal cases may also mitigate consequences through economic compensation, but this must be done with the consent of the parties involved and on the basis of voluntary agreement.
2. The severity of punishment must be controlled outside the red line of protecting basic civil rights. There must be no revival of revolutionary thinking such as “seizing wealth and redistributing it.” For example, completely revoking my years-of-service and military-service benefits; or pursuing confiscation of illegal gains without considering the specific individual or innocent family members, or previously lawful income. Estates and lawful income of relatives should not fall within punishment. A consciousness of property law must be upheld. Property-law consciousness requires avoiding extreme punitive systems that create new classes of destitute people. The “proletariat” is a concept that exists only under extreme national conditions; a normal state should avoid creating new “propertyless” persons.
China’s millennia-long dynastic culture of seizing and ruling power contains remnants of ruthless intolerance, extermination, and a lack of humanitarianism and compassion. Practices such as collective punishment and “beating a fallen dog” exemplify these defects. Because I am a dissident and an open opposition figure, I have suffered persecution rooted in this dynastic culture. This cruel and cold-blooded cultural legacy remains embedded in the red-header documents of the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs, and it has already harmed numerous people and their families.
3. Distinguishing merit from fault. Merit is merit, fault is fault; merit cannot offset fault, and fault must not erase merit. Punishment must not completely destroy a person, and merit must not monopolize a person’s entire life. Extreme intolerance rooted in dynastic culture must be rejected.
For example, my past honor of military service could lawfully justify cancellation of a preferential certificate during the punishment period. The certificate may be cancelled, but the national treatment of “inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection” must not be cancelled. After legal punishment is completed, local policies should restore the preferential certificate associated with a citizen’s honor. Instead, local policies have permanently cancelled it, permanently cancelling national treatment. I hope local authorities restore the national treatment due to a veteran and an ordinary citizen.
4. National laws and regulations should not suppress individualism but protect it, because without individualism there can be no individual responsibility. “Not one person left behind” means protecting individualism. Articles 15 and 16 of the Social Assistance Law fail to account for this by treating the family as the smallest unit, whereas in reality, the smallest unit of human society is the individual.
I recommend that national laws define the individual as the smallest unit. On this basis, whether assistance is provided should first seek the individual’s opinion, and then the family’s opinion.
In summary, this concerns the construction of a modern state. Administrative regulations must not violate the Constitution or laws, and rewards and punishments must not conflict with legal principles. The neutrality of law dictates that law concerns itself with individuals and the protection of each person’s basic rights, not with collectivism or its interests.
If law serves collectivism, modern state-building cannot succeed. When any group holds power, it will favor itself, create malicious laws to suppress other groups, and treat law as a tool rather than a universal rule. Once law becomes an instrument of privilege rather than a neutral rule applied equally to all, modernization becomes impossible.
Where there is privilege, there is barbarism. Civilized society must abolish policies created by those with privilege.
May this complaint and set of recommendations promote the modernization of the state, the realization of a civilized society in Guizhou, and the appropriate revision of policies issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs that do not conform to national laws.
Respectfully submitted to:National Petition and Complaints Platform
Complainant and Recommender: Chen XiFriday, December 25, 2025
Attachments:
One copy of Chen Xi’s release certificate
One copy of Chen Xi’s pension-related commitment document
Between Remembrance and Resistance: Ms. Fang Que’s Path in the Democracy Movement
Author: Fang Que Translator:Gloria Editor: Huang Jizhou ManagingEditor: Zhong Ran
Abstract
This article recounts Ms. Fang Que’s long-standing commitment to speaking out for democracy and human rights in China, and how she uses online media to carry the voice of freedom back into the country.
Ms. Fang Que, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party, has repeatedly and angrily condemned the tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party, seeking justice for the innocent victims of the June Fourth massacre.
At every memorial event for political victims inside China, Ms. Fang Que can always be seen at the scene of solidarity actions. She also serves in the publicity department of the Chinese Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights.
Standing before the newly established “Wall of Pioneers of the Chinese Democratic Movement,” Ms. Fang Que pays tribute to the deceased and looks up to the pioneers, resolving to carry on the unfinished work of her predecessors. On this land of freedom in the United States, she is determined to serve as a strong supporter of the domestic democracy movement, ready at any time to bring the spark of freedom back to China.
As a key member of the interview department of The Opposition Party, Ms. Fang Que undertakes filming and recording duties at events, preserving historical memory. Through the internet, she conveys the concerns and voices of the overseas democracy movement to mainland China, enabling compatriots to see the truth by breaking through the information blockade.
Christmas Day Protest in San Francisco Against the CCP’s Persecution of Christianity
— A Joint Accusation by Faith, Conscience, and Democracy
Opposition Party Reporter: Miao Qing, reporting from San Francisco
Editor: Zhong Ran ManagingEditor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei Photography: Jiang Shuqing
[San Francisco] On the afternoon of December 25, 2025, Christmas Day, multiple Christians, members of the Chinese Democracy Party, and human rights advocates from the Bay Area held a public protest in front of the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco. They strongly condemned the Chinese Communist Party’s long-term and systematic persecution of Christianity and house churches, and demanded the immediate release of pastors, preachers, and believers detained for their faith.
On the very day when the world commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ—a symbol of love and redemption—arrests, sentencing, and violent crackdowns against Christians continue unabated in mainland China. Protesters pointed out that this reality constitutes a grave violation of religious freedom, human rights principles, and the moral bottom line of human civilization.
Background: From “Religious Management” to “Faith Suppression”Participants generally noted that in recent years, especially since Xi Jinping came to power, the CCP’s religious policy has shifted from limited tolerance to systematic repression: house churches have been labeled “illegal organizations,” preaching, donations, and gatherings have been criminalized, pastors have been subjected to long-term detention, and minors have been comprehensively prohibited from accessing religious faith.
The nationwide crackdown on Zion Church in Beihai, Guangxi, in October 2025, followed by large-scale law enforcement actions targeting house churches in Wenzhou, Zhejiang, as well as Yunnan and Shanxi, has been widely viewed as a concentrated manifestation of a new round of high-pressure religious policy.
Gao Yingfen: Freedom of Belief Should Never Have Become a Subject of ProtestThe rally was hosted by Ms. Gao Yingfen, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party and an advocate for public affairs and religious freedom. She stated: “We are standing here today for an issue that should never have required protest—freedom of belief. But precisely because persecution continues, we cannot remain silent.”
She called on the international community to face the real situation of Christians in China and not to evade responsibility under the excuse of “lack of understanding.”
Ms. Gao Yingfen, member of the Chinese Democracy Party and advocate for public affairs and religious freedom
(Photographed by Opposition Party reporter Miao Qing)
Miao Qing: Persecuting Faith Reveals Totalitarian Fear of ConscienceMiao Qing, Deputy Director of the Publicity Department of the San Francisco Committee of the Chinese Democracy Party, Opposition Party reporter, and one of the initiators of this event, pointed out in his speech that the essence of the CCP’s suppression of religion lies in its fear of any value system beyond state control. “A regime that monitors prayer and criminalizes sermons is destined to be an enemy of freedom, dignity, and civilization.”
He emphasized that religious belief is not an enemy of the state, but the moral bottom line of society.
Deputy Director of the Publicity Department of the San Francisco Committee of the Chinese Democracy Party, event initiator Miao Qing(Photo: Jiang Shuqing)
Guo Mei: The Beihai Zion Church Incident Has Brought Shame to My HometownMs. Guo Mei, a house church Christian from Beihai, Guangxi, briefly reviewed the facts of the nationwide crackdown on Zion Church. She stated that the incident not only shocked the international community, but also brought shame to her hometown through the persecution of faith.
She noted that the house church she once attended in Beihai had also been shut down, with pastors taken away and believers intimidated and dispersed. She called for the immediate release of Pastor Jin Mingri and all Christians detained for their faith, emphasizing that freedom of belief is inviolable.
House church Christian Ms. Guo Mei(Photographed by Opposition Party reporter Miao Qing)
Guo Zhijun: The CCP’s Persecution of Christianity Is a Chain Extending Over DecadesGuo Zhijun, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party, a Christian, and the initiator of the “One Person, One Post for Prisoners of Conscience” campaign, pointed out from a historical perspective that the CCP’s persecution of Christianity is not incidental, but has continued since the founding of the regime.
He referenced Pastor Wang Mingdao, the religious catastrophe during the Cultural Revolution, and recent cases involving Early Rain Covenant Church, Zion Church, and house churches in Wenzhou, stressing that persecution has escalated significantly under Xi Jinping. He also led a brief prayer at the scene, calling for justice for the persecuted.
Member of the Chinese Democracy Party and Christian Guo Zhijun(Photographed by Opposition Party reporter Miao Qing)
Chen Huailuo: Give Us Back Our Freedom of BeliefChen Huailuo, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party, stated that standing in front of the Chinese Consulate on Christmas Day itself constitutes the most direct moral indictment of totalitarianism.
He called for the release of Zion Church believers, support for pluralistic faiths, and firmly opposed the CCP’s mode of governance that suppresses dissent and religious groups through political power.
Member of the Chinese Democracy Party Chen Huailuo(Photographed by Opposition Party reporter Miao Qing)
Jiang Shuqing: Testimony of a Three-Generation Christian Family and a Call for DemocracyThe speech by Jiang Shuqing, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party and a Christian, resonated strongly with those present.
Jiang stated that in recent years he has personally witnessed the rapid deterioration of the domestic religious environment: crosses torn down, minors prohibited from worship, pastors threatened and detained, and house gathering points struggling to survive.
He pointed out that all of this has made him increasingly aware that under a dictatorship, law cannot restrain power and citizens’ rights lack protection.
Member of the Chinese Democracy Party and Christian Jiang Shuqing(Photographed by Opposition Party reporter Miao Qing)
Liu Chenchen: A System That Persecutes Faith Will Ultimately Be JudgedLiu Chenchen, a member of the Chinese Democracy Party, stated in his speech that any system that places itself above faith and conscience will ultimately be judged by history and justice. He demanded an end to the systematic persecution of religious groups and accountability for those responsible.
Member of the Chinese Democracy Party Liu Chenchen(Photographed by Opposition Party reporter Miao Qing)
Conclusion: A Christmas Testimony and an Accusation of ConscienceIn a statement, the organizers emphasized that the CCP’s systematic persecution of Christianity constitutes a serious violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and fully exposes the false nature of its claimed “freedom of religious belief.”
Amid cold winds and light rain, protesters demonstrated through action that faith is not a crime, persecution is; silence is complicity, and speaking out is a responsibility.
This Christmas protest was not merely a rally, but a testimony written for history.
List of democracy activists participating in this event:Miao Qing, Liu Jingtao, Li Shuqing, Chen Senfeng, Guo Mei, Gao Yingfen, Lü Xiaojing, Wei Renxi, Lu Zhanqiang, Chen Huailuo, Guo Zhijun, Liu Chenchen, Jiang Shuqing, Guo Chao (listed in no particular order)
Los Angeles June Fourth Memorial Museum Holds Annual Conference:Guarding Conscience Behind High Walls with the Faint Light of Pen Tips
Abstract:At the end of the year, participants write greeting cards for Chinese prisoners of conscience living under hardship, paying tribute to heroes who have stood up in the darkness.
Author: Zhou Min Editor: Zhang Yu ManagingEditor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei
On December 20, 2025, the annual conference of Humanitarian China was solemnly held at the Los Angeles June Fourth Memorial Museum.
In the cold winter at year’s end, activists and supporters from various backgrounds gathered to continue a tradition filled with warmth—writing Christmas cards for Chinese prisoners of conscience living under difficult conditions.
At the conference site, historical photographs on the walls reflected one another with the greeting cards held in participants’ hands. With solemn expressions, attendees carefully wrote messages of concern and remembrance for those who suffer. These cards were not merely holiday greetings, but also a tribute to those lone heroes who have stood up in the darkness.
During the writing process, participants first thought of Mr. Peng Lifa (also known as Peng Zaizhou). Since his solitary act of courage on Beijing’s Sitong Bridge, which ignited a torch of public conscience, he has remained in a state of enforced disappearance. Attendees expressed their profound respect for this civilian hero on the cards. Although it is uncertain whether these words can evade strict censorship and reach him, people hoped that through this gesture they could tell him: his shout on the bridge still echoes across the ocean, and the world has not forgotten his courage.
Afterward, the granddaughter of Dr. Wang Bingzhang delivered an emotional speech at the conference. As a pioneer of China’s modern democracy movement, Dr. Wang Bingzhang has been imprisoned for more than twenty years. Her speech spoke of a family’s longing and perseverance spanning three generations, bringing tears to the eyes of many in attendance. This torch of faith, passed down by a grandchild over more than two decades, demonstrates that the pursuit of freedom cannot be cut off by iron bars, but instead takes root and grows across generations.
In addition, participants also wrote messages of support for two long-standing legal and civil rights scholars, Xu Zhiyong and Qin Yongmin. Dr. Xu Zhiyong was heavily sentenced for advocating the New Citizens Movement, yet his vision of a “Beautiful China,” articulated in court, continues to inspire those who come after him. Mr. Qin Yongmin, regarded as a “living fossil” of China’s contemporary democracy movement, has been imprisoned multiple times throughout his life, with a total incarceration period exceeding thirty years. His unyielding resilience stands as a microcosm of China’s grassroots resistance spirit.
Although these Christmas greetings are addressed to the present, the thoughts at the scene inevitably turned to the late Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Though Liu Xiaobo can no longer personally open these cards, the nonviolent spirit he advocated—“I have no enemies”—continues to support people as they move forward in darkness. Participants reflected that every pen held in people’s hands today is, in fact, an extension of his wish—to ensure that words are no longer treated as crimes, and that the flower of freedom may one day bloom on its native soil.
A representative of Humanitarian China stated that the annual card-writing campaign aims to break isolation. In this season meant for reunion, these words, infused with the concern of the international community, will become faint points of light, attempting to illuminate the coldest corners and safeguard the still-burning flame of conscience.
Wang Lihua: A Record of the China Democracy Party’s International Human Rights Day Activity in Hawaii
Author: Wang Lihua Editor: Li Jing Managing Editor: Hou Gaiying Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Peng Xiaomei
Abstract:Members of the China Democracy Party Hawaii Branch protested the Chinese Communist Party’s various human rights abuses on the occasion of the 76th International Human Rights Day.
On December 10, 2025, marking the 76th International Human Rights Day, several members of the China Democracy Party voluntarily organized a solemn commemorative event in front of the Sun Yat-sen bronze statue in Chinatown, Honolulu, Hawaii. They issued a strong appeal to the world: to pay attention to the continuously deteriorating human rights situation in mainland China and to hold the Chinese Communist authorities accountable for their long-term and systematic violations of human rights.
At 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, participants stood solemnly in front of the statue of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, holding placards reading “Hold the CCP Accountable,” “Seeking Human Rights Is Not a Crime,” and “CCP Stop Human Rights Persecution,” as well as a banner stating “The China Democracy Party Calls on the World to Pay Attention to Human Rights in China.” Sunlight fell on Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s kind yet resolute bronze statue, while the sea breeze blew gently. The participants maintained serious expressions and chanted in unison: “End one-party dictatorship! Return our human rights and freedom!” “Release all political prisoners!” “The CCP does not equal China!” The slogans echoed through Chinatown, drawing the attention of many overseas Chinese, tourists, and local residents. Quite a few people raised their phones to record this historic moment.
China Democracy Party member Lü Bin was the first to speak. He pointed out that he had personally witnessed numerous shocking cases of human rights violations while still in China. Now that he has set foot on free land, he said, he must bravely speak out for freedom and human rights, shout for those human rights defenders still imprisoned, and call with all his strength for their early release. “As long as the CCP does not release them, we will never stop,” he declared.
（Lü Bin delivering a speech at the scene）
Wearing a black “Stand with Hong Kong” T-shirt, Mr. Zhang Xiaoju, Director of the San Francisco–Sacramento Branch, also participated in the event and delivered a passionate speech on site. He pointed out: “Today, December 10, is World Human Rights Day, a commemorative day established by the United Nations General Assembly to promote and advocate human rights. Yet today, China sits as a member of the UN Human Rights Council—this is undoubtedly a huge irony. Since 1949, the Chinese regime has been systematically violating human rights every single day. Even today, across 9.6 million square kilometers of land, all kinds of human rights abuses continue to occur one after another. Not only that, the CCP has even exported these methods and experiences of repression to the world. Hong Kong today is a vivid example. I stand here today to denounce the CCP’s backward actions and its wanton trampling of human rights.”He then led the crowd in chanting: “Hold the CCP Accountable!”
（Zhang Xiaoju delivering a speech on site）
Finally, Mr. Meng Jiahu, Director of the Hawaii Branch, delivered an impassioned closing statement. He said: support a formal United Nations investigation into allegations of crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, so that the truth is not forgotten; impose targeted sanctions on Chinese officials and entities involved in serious human rights violations; provide emergency asylum and support for human rights defenders within China who continue to speak out; and refuse to recognize any laws and practices that, under the pretext of “national security,” effectively eliminate civil society and press freedom. History has repeatedly proven that silence in the face of tyranny is a betrayal of the next victim.
（Meng Jiahu delivering a speech）
The event lasted nearly one and a half hours. It was peaceful and rational, attracting many local overseas Chinese, residents, and tourists from various countries to stop, watch, take photos, and record videos. Some passersby even applauded on the spot to show their support, with some shouting “Free China” in solidarity.
At the conclusion of the event, the China Democracy Party Hawaii Branch issued a statement:“On International Human Rights Day, we call on people around the world who care about human rights: please pay attention to the human rights situation in China, support the cause of human rights in China, and jointly push for accountability for the CCP’s human rights violations!”
