Hawaii Party Headquarters of China’s Democratic Party Hosts Democracy Salon
By ：Wang Lihua
Editor: Zhou Zhigang
Proofread: Mao Yiwei
Translation: Ge Bing
Abstract: The Hawaii Party Department of the Chinese Democratic Party held a democracy salon to discuss the changes in the international situation and the opportunities for China’s democratization, and stressed the importance of strengthening grassroots construction, expanding social influence and building the strength of the Party members.
On March 14, 2026, in the midst of a profound shift in global geopolitics, the Hawaii Party Department of the Chinese Democratic Party successfully hosted a lively pro-democracy salon event in the party office.
Seven party members gathered on the day of the event. Sharon focused on “democratic challenges and opportunities in a changing world,” aiming to enhance party members’ awareness of the international situation through free discussion. In the nearly three hours of exchanges, the members spoke out enthusiastically and spoke out in combination with the hot spots of current affairs: some of them deeply analyzed the impact of recent regional conflicts on the geopolitical landscape, while others explored the localization strategies of overseas democratic movements from the perspective of grassroots organization building.
Party member Lü Bin will speak first. He put forward the suggestions of promoting the diversification of the activities for the future development of the party department. Party activities should not be limited to indoor seminars, but should be conducted through outdoor presentations, community interaction and multimedia displays to enhance the social visibility of the party, Lu said. He believes that only if the activities are more closely related to life and diversified can they effectively attract the attention of people from different backgrounds and participate in the democratic cause.
Party members present for group photo
In his speech, party member Xu Zhongxiao expressed deep concern about the recent regional conflict triggered by Iran. He noted that the turmoil in the Middle East is not only a local crisis, but also part of a chain reaction of authoritarian forces around the world. He argues that the global democratic camp is being held hostage by the evolution of Iran, and that the imbalance in the geopolitical game will indirectly influence democratization in Asia, which party members must be vigilant and critical of.
Party member Li Yi offered suggestions on the development of Party building at the grass-roots level. The Hawaii Party Department should pay great attention to the rise of women and actively develop female party members while continuing to cultivate communities, she said. Li stressed that female party members have a unique tenacity and affinity in the democratic movement, and that increasing the proportion of women not only optimizes the membership structure of party departments, but also injects more diverse, moderate and firm perspectives into grassroots organizations.
Zhang Xiaoju, head of the Sacramento Party Headquarters and one of the main organizers of the event, made the banner’s design and its profound significance widely known. He explained in detail the spirit of democracy, freedom and rule of law symbolized by the Party flag, and combed and reviewed systematically the Party’s knowledge of history. Knowing the party’s flag and history is a compulsory course for every member of the party, he said, adding that only by bearing in mind the course of struggle can one locate himself in a complicated situation and hold on to his original aspiration.
At the end of the event, Wang Lihua, deputy director of the Party Department, made a concluding statement. He bluntly pointed out that, with the current drastic realignment of international geopolitics, the time had come for China to democratize. Mr. Wang stressed that the combination of internal and external circumstances was loosening an already sclerotic situation, which required all party members to have a keen sense of politics. He called on the Party headquarters not only to strengthen ideological discussions, but also to build a solid grassroots organization and make a good reserve of personnel to meet the coming turning point in history.
There was a lot of talk on the ground, and the clash of ideas wiped out the spark of wisdom. The participants agreed that in a turbulent international environment, it was essential to uphold democratic convictions and to maintain intellectual acumen and solidarity. Sharon’s visit not only deepened the friendship among Party members, but also consolidated the centripetal force of the Party Department, demonstrating the responsibility of the Party Department members in Hawaii to actively devote themselves to the trend of the times and pay attention to democratization in China.
Party members attending the event included:
Wang Lihua, Zhang Xiaoju, Xu Zhongxiao, Lu Bin, Chai Jialin Liyi, Chen Jia
Contributed: Wang Lihua, Deputy Director of the Hawaii Party Headquarters
Abstract: Li Wenliang’s death is not only a personal tragedy, but also reveals how a system that suppresses the truth can create disasters. The article restores events, criticizes the gag mechanism, and points out that the system of punishing honesty must constantly replicate tragedy.
Author: Zhang Yu
Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing
Today marks the sixth anniversary of Dr. Li Wenliang’s death.
That night six years ago, a 34-year-old Wuhan doctor stopped breathing in an isolation ward. Officials reported that he died of COVID-19. But all sober people know that it wasn’t just the virus that really took his life, but a political system that viewed “telling the truth” as a threat. Li Wenliang was not the creator of the epidemic, but he became a victim of the system’s loss of control; he was not a destroyer of public safety, but he was held on the ground as a “rumormonger” and admonished.
What did Li Wenliang do wrong?
He did not hold press conferences, incite panic, or confront the government. He simply used a doctor’s instinct to remind his peers: “Watch out for protection”. This is professional ethics that should be respected in any normal society. But in China, this touches the Chinese Communist Party’s most sensitive and deadly nerve —— the monopoly of power over information.
It was at that moment that Li Wenliang was selected. Not because he’s famous, but because he’s ordinary enough. The fact that the voice of an ordinary doctor can shake the system “maintain stability” itself exposes the fragility and fear of the Chinese Communist regime. Thus, admonitions replaced discussion, silencing replaced prevention and control, and political stability took precedence over professional judgment.
Six years have passed, and the Communist Party of China has tried to use the title of “martyr” to cover Li Wenliang’s coffin and make a final conclusion, using time to dilute responsibility and forgetting to complete the whitewashing. But there are some questions that are destined not to be buried: If the seal had not been made, would so many people have died? If truth is not a sin, will Li Wenliang still die?
Remembering Li Wenliang is not for nostalgia, but to refuse to be deceived again. Because when a regime must rely on suppressing the truth to maintain its operation, Li Wenliang’s death is not the end of a tragedy, but the starting point of countless tragedies.
If Li Wenliang must be held accountable for his “mistakes”, then we must first understand: what exactly he did.
At the end of December 2019, Li Wenliang reminded his colleagues in a WeChat group for doctors only to pay attention to an unidentified pneumonia “similar to SARS” and suggested that everyone strengthen protection. This is not a public statement, a media revelation, or a political statement, but a doctor’s most instinctive, professional, and responsible response to an abnormal case.
In any normal society, this behavior has only one name: professional warning.
But in China, it is characterized as “spreading rumors”.
This characterization itself is absurd to the point of being almost cruel. Because if even professional reminders between doctors must wait for official permission, then medicine will no longer be science, but a vassal of politics; epidemic prevention will no longer be an act of public health, but a test of obedience.
The problem was never Li Wenliang “what he said wrong”, but that he shouldn’t have said anything without political permission. What the Chinese Communist Party cannot tolerate is not a question of truth or falsehood, but a question of control. The truth, if not spoken from the official mouth, is considered a threat even if it is completely correct; professional judgment, if not in the service of politics, is considered a “instability factor” even if it saves lives.
So a doctor, who was no more ordinary than himself, was pulled into the police station; a letter of admonition, which required no court, no evidence, and no defense, was forcibly pressed before him. That is not a legal instrument, but a naked warning from power to the individual: you can be a doctor, but you cannot speak before the party.
Even more ironically, Li Wenliang later contracted the virus and eventually died, which just proved that his judgment at the time was completely correct. The so-called “rumors” have become reality; the so-called “stability maintenance” have become the prelude to disaster. But in the CCP system, right or wrong is never the standard of judgment, obedience or not is.
Therefore, Li Wenliang has only one real “crime”: he told the truth in a system that maintains order through lies. And when a society defines “telling the truth” as original sin, any professional, any conscience, any ordinary person will become the next Li Wenliang at any time.
Li Wenliang’s experience quickly completed an efficient social education ——it did not require the issuance of documents or the communication of meetings, but accurately taught everyone the same thing: silence is the safest professional choice.
This is exactly where the Chinese Communist Party’s rule is most terrifying. It doesn’t need to be violent towards everyone, it just needs to be seen once. Fear will spread like a virus, into institutions, into organizations, into the judgment of every ordinary person. Over time, the gag no longer requires commands and self-censorship will automatically operate.
In such an environment, the outbreak’s loss of control was not an accident, but a result.
When early warnings are suppressed, when professional judgment is silenced, when everyone is waiting “attitude above”, the virus does not need attitude. It does not understand stability maintenance, does not respect authority, and does not care about political correctness. It only follows biological laws, and it is precisely these laws that are ignored by China’s political system.
Even more ironic is that when the disaster could no longer be covered up and public opinion began to backfire, the CCP did not reflect on the system itself, but quickly switched narratives: from “no one passed down the line” to “people’s war”; from “rumormongers dealt with according to law” to “moved Chinese heroes”. Responsibilities are diluted, mistakes are blurred, and institutional questions that really need to be asked are once again pushed into silence.
Li Wenliang did not wait for a real apology, and society did not wait for a real reflection. Instead, this logic of governance “fear for stability, silence for order” proved feasible and was continued.
From the pandemic to everything that followed, we saw the same pattern being replicated over and over again:
Seal the mouth first, then lose control;
Deny first, then promote;
Sacrifice the individual first, then sing the collective’s praises.
Li Wenliang is important not just because he died, but because of what happened to him, which clearly shows a fact: in a system that punishes honesty and rewards obedience, disasters are not occasional events, but institutional inevitability.
When society as a whole is trained “don’t be the first to speak”, when all professions learn to bow to power, the seeds of the next tragedy have actually been planted. And whether it breaks out depends only on time.
Shortly after Li Wenliang’s death, the Chinese Communist Party quickly completed a skilled and cold narrative shift.
He was “rehabilitated”.
He was posthumously awarded the title “Martyr”.
He was included in the official system of commemoration, becoming a controllable symbol.
On the surface, it appears to affirm a deceased doctor; at its core, however, it represents a systematic evasion of power and responsibility.The real questions remain unanswered: Who ordered the admonition? On what basis? What procedures were followed?If Li Wenliang had not “spread rumors,” why was he forced to sign a confession admitting wrongdoing in the first place? If he was telling the truth, did the authorities’ decision to punish him constitute a serious threat to public safety?None of these issues have been investigated. There has been no accountability, and no conclusions. The so-called “rehabilitation” was not about seeking justice for Li Wenliang, but about containing the damage to the system. It was not about clarifying responsibility, but about shutting down discussion as quickly as possible; not about reforming the system, but about restoring authority.By designating him a “martyr,” the CCP effectively repackaged a systemic issue as a personal tragedy, and then absorbed that tragedy into a controllable narrative. Meanwhile, the system that truly warranted scrutiny escaped accountability.Even more ironically, after the Li Wenliang incident, the same silencing mechanisms did not cease. On the contrary, they proved “effective” and became increasingly normalized. Across different professions and at various stages of public events, those in power continue to prioritize information control over factual truth.
In a healthy society, remembrance means reflection, reform, and not repeating the same mistakes. In China, commemoration often means covering the coffin and making a final decision ——covering the coffin not only for the deceased, but also for the problem.
Therefore, the title “martyr” is more of a seal than an honor. It tells people: the story is over, there is no need to ask any more questions; the mistakes have been turned over, there is no need to discuss them; the system has introspected itself, there is no need to question them.
But the opposite is true.
A system that refuses accountability, reflection, and change cannot learn from tragedy. The only thing it learns is how to cover up more efficiently, transfer more skillfully, and wait for people to forget more calmly.
For Li Wenliang, such “rehabilitation” is not comfort, but a second injury.
Li Wenliang’s existence exposes a core lie that the CCP has long maintained ——it claims to represent the people, protect the people, and rely on professional governance to govern the country. But when a doctor who was truly on the front lines of public safety was treated as a threat, the lie went bankrupt in an instant. What the system shows is not confidence, but fear; it is not ability, but vulnerability.
Even more deadly, Li Wenliang made countless ordinary people realize: the question is not whether you are “the opposition party”, but whether you have told the truth that should not be told by you.
This means that in China, there is no “safe honesty”. As long as your facts come before official calibre, as long as your judgments are not controlled by politics, you may be the next to be admonished, silenced, and sacrificed. This uncertainty is the key tool for totalitarian rule.
What Li Wenliang really left behind is not a slogan, but an unavoidable question: If a society needs to maintain order by suppressing doctors, intimidating professionals, and blocking early warning information, then what is it afraid of? The answer is not complicated. What it fears is the fact itself; a reality that cannot be commanded, cannot be unified, cannot be “correctly guided”. It fears ordinary people realizing that power is not omniscient, that official narratives are not naturally correct, and that truth does not necessarily rest in the hands of power.
Li Wenliang does not need to be deified. His danger lies precisely in his ordinary. He proved a fact that makes the Chinese Communist Party extremely uneasy: there is no need for rebels, and as long as there are people who insist on not lying, the lying system will never be truly safe.
Six years later, Li Wenliang’s name is still allowed to appear, but what he said is still dangerous.
If a regime truly respects the truth, then those who tell it do not need to trade death for innocence;
If a system truly puts people’s lives first, then early warning personnel will not be admonished first and then posthumously awarded;
If the so-called “rehabilitation” is not a lie, then the same gag and the same fear should not still exist six years later.
But the reality is that nothing has changed in the Chinese Communist Party.
Li Wenliang’s tragedy did not end on the day of his death, but was completely inherited by the system. Inheritance is not just a specific means such as the Book of Admonitions, but a complete logic of rule with control instead of governance, sealing instead of responsibility, and forgetting instead of reckoning.
Li Wenliang is not an exception to the system, but an inevitable product of the system.
Six years later, what we really want to remember is not a person who is no longer able to speak, but the question that remains unanswered: In a country that punishes honesty, have we become accustomed to not speaking anymore? If the answer is yes, then Li Wenliang’s death is not only a tragedy for him, but also a failure for the entire society; if the answer is no, then at least one thing can be confirmed ——even within the high walls built by lies, the truth is still knocking on the door.
Remembering Li Wenliang is not about the past, but about refusing to be a person who chose to remain silent despite knowing the truth.
On February 1, 2026, a rally was held in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles to support Zou Wei and to oppose the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a cult organization. The event was jointly organized by the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance and the Almighty Christ Anti-Communist Front.
The event was coordinated and hosted by He Xingqiang. Zhu Yufu, founder of the China Democracy Party, was invited as the initiator of the event and a special guest and delivered a speech on site. Fang Lanfeng, President of the Southern California chapter of the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance, also spoke at the event.
Other speakers included Hu Jing, a member of the China Democracy Party and the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance who has been persecuted by the Communist Party inside China; Pu Qingsong, a member of the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance; and democracy activist Lin Changwu.
July 13, 2024 marked the seventh anniversary of the death of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. On that day, Zou Wei, together with independent Chinese PEN members Zan Aizong, Zhuang Daohe, Mao Qingxiang, and others, held a sea memorial ceremony at the Qiantang River estuary in Haining, Zhejiang Province.
Shortly after photos of the event were posted online, the police intervened and arrested six participants that very night. Among them, Zou Wei and Zan Aizong were subsequently placed under criminal detention.
July 20, 2024: Zou Wei and Zan Aizong were criminally detained by the Gongshu Branch of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” and were held at the Gongshu Detention Center in Hangzhou.
August 26, 2024: Both individuals were formally arrested (approved for arrest) and remained in custody.
March 2025: The case entered the procuratorate stage. According to lawyers’ meeting reports, Zou Wei was in stable condition and continued to be detained pending further legal procedures.
July 2025: The case was formally prosecuted and transferred to the court, marking the statutory indictment stage.
September 19, 2025: The case was heard at the Gongshu District People’s Court in Hangzhou. No verdict was announced. Security outside the court was extremely tight; citizens seeking to observe the trial were refused entry or briefly detained. Zou Wei and his lawyer entered a not guilty plea and protested the failure to guarantee the right to defense and public observation.
Mr. Zhu Yufu, a longtime friend of Zou Wei, was invited by the organizers to share his personal experiences with Zou Wei. He described Zou Wei as a man of justice who firmly pursues democracy and freedom.
Mr. Zhu recalled that Zou Wei once held a sign reading: “The Yangtze and Yellow Rivers will not flow backward. The Communist Party acts against history, rules brutally, and insanely suppresses dissent—this defies justice and conscience.”
Mr. Zhu also revealed that when he was released on medical parole, China’s state security authorities instructed him not to disclose the reason for his conviction. The Communist Party, he said, is ashamed to admit its persecution of democracy activists—it has no moral legitimacy. What it has done is anti-humanity and anti-people. The Communist Party is, in essence, a thoroughly cult-like organization.
He further stated that the CCP persecutes Christians, and that people in mainland China cannot and dare not openly express their views or pursue their faith. Anyone with genuine belief is labeled a “cult,” while in reality, the Chinese Communist Party itself is the largest cult in the world.
The Communist Party fears Jesus. From the death of Jesus, one can foresee the downfall of communism. The ancient Roman authoritarian regime crucified Jesus; later, it enacted laws to stop persecuting Christians and eventually established Christianity as the state religion—this history itself is clear proof.
Communism will inevitably collapse. The Chinese Communist Party will inevitably collapse.
Light and Shadow as a Sword: Innovative Practices of the Film and Television Department of the Los Angeles Committee of the China Democratic Party
— A Year of Exploration and Breakthroughs Marked by Six “Firsts”
Author: Zhao Jisen Editor: Wang Mengmeng Translator: Ge Bing
Abstract: This article reviews the explorations of the Film and Television Department of the Los Angeles Committee of the China Democratic Party over the past year. Through six innovative practices—including zero-cost program production, global solidarity campaigns, and advocacy on public issues—the department has expanded pathways for democratic communication, demonstrating the cohesion and influence of grassroots power in visual media and public action.
Over the past year, the Film and Television Department of the Los Angeles Committee of the China Democratic Party has actively explored new ways to promote democratic ideals through visuals, programming, and public events, despite limited resources. From program production to public action, and from cultural expression to international collaboration, the department has opened up new spaces for the democratic movement through volunteerism and innovative approaches. This is not merely a technical experiment but a practice of finding breakthroughs within constraints.
In just over a year, the Film and Television Department has pioneered six groundbreaking initiatives within the Los Angeles Committee’s work, achieving breakthroughs in organizational collaboration, public discourse, and civic engagement.
I. Reshaping Video Production Through Volunteer Collaboration
The Film and Television Department took the lead in experimenting with volunteer-based program production, successfully launching two shows: *The Madhouse* and *Focus on Madness*. The production process was entirely carried out by Party volunteers; all crew members were Party members who participated in acting and production on a voluntary basis.
Without professional funding, this zero-cost production model fully demonstrated Party members’ passion and dedication to the cause of democracy. It also proved that creativity and teamwork can overcome resource constraints, allowing political expression to be presented in a more vivid manner.
II. Cross-Regional Collaboration: From Dispersed Individuals to Collective Action
The Film and Television Department launched a global campaign in support of Yu Menglong, which quickly garnered a response from Democratic Party of China branches across the United States. Branches in various regions participated in the solidarity campaign simultaneously, forming a collective action through cross-regional collaboration.
At the same time, numerous organizations and individuals worldwide concerned with human rights issues in China joined the solidarity effort. A large number of social activists from various countries, sympathizing with Yu Menglong’s plight and opposing the CCP’s disregard for human rights, raised their voices, transforming this campaign into a transregional, cross-group international solidarity movement.
This cross-regional collaborative action transcended the geographical limitations of traditional organizations, enabling dispersed individuals to form a visible collective voice. It demonstrated a decentralized yet highly interconnected model of action, highlighting the resonance of democratic ideals within a global context.
III. Transforming Public Issues into Tangible Visual Narratives
In its content creation, the Film and Television Department sought to integrate current social hot topics into program themes. Through program discussions and commentary, it questions and holds the Chinese Communist Party regime accountable for its role in these events.
This approach of combining public issues with media production ensures that programs are not only entertaining but also contribute to public discourse, thereby expanding the influence of the democratic movement in the public sphere.
IV. Connecting Global Public Will Through Digital Platforms
A petition campaign launched on an international public interest platform ultimately garnered over 700,000 signatures.
The significance of this achievement lies not merely in the numbers themselves, but in the fact that it demonstrates: in the digital age, public will can be rapidly mobilized across national borders, and even the smallest actions by individuals can coalesce into a visible force online.
V. Breaking Down Barriers: Bringing Different Perspectives into the Same Space
In numerous offline events, the Film and Television Department broke with traditional models by proactively inviting non-Party members and even those who are not anti-Communist to participate.
Through open dialogue and the presentation of facts, more ordinary citizens were able to gain direct insight into human rights issues and historical realities under the Communist regime. This more open format of engagement provided a space for people of differing viewpoints to exchange ideas and reflect.
VI. From Politics to Culture: Reconstructing Public Memory
The Film and Television Department also initiated a culturally symbolic project—erecting a commemorative plaque on a park bench in honor of a deceased entertainment star.
As a form of public commemoration, this initiative expresses respect for the spirit of freedom and public memory, while also expanding the democratic movement beyond the political realm to include cultural and humanistic dimensions.
Documenting the Era Through Images, and Participating in It
Looking back on over a year of exploration, the scale of the Film and Television Department’s work may not be vast, but its innovative significance is worthy of recognition. From producing programs at zero cost to organizing global solidarity campaigns; from discussing public issues to hosting cultural commemorative events, every endeavor has expanded the range of expression within the democratic movement.
Visual media is not merely a tool for documentation; it is a force for dissemination.
Moving forward, the Film and Television Department of the Los Angeles Committee of the China Democratic Party will continue to explore new creative forms, using film and public action to document the times and spread the ideals of freedom and democracy.
