作者：张 宇
编辑：黄吉洲 校对：王滨 翻译：戈冰

二十年监禁。

当这个判决被宣读时，它已经不再只是一个司法数字，而是一种政治宣言：一个政权向所有仍试图坚持真相、捍卫新闻自由的人发出的公开警告。

黎智英，七十多岁的媒体人，《苹果日报》的创办者，没有暴力行为、没有武装组织、没有秘密行动，却被以“国安”之名判处二十年徒刑。这不是法律对犯罪的裁决，而是权力对异议者的惩罚；不是司法的终点，而是恐惧统治的展示。

在任何正常法制社会中，新闻报道、政治评论、公开表达立场，都是公民权利的一部分；而在中国共产党统治下，这些行为却被重新定义为“威胁国家安全”。这一逻辑本身已经揭示了真相：真正感到不安全的，从来不是国家，而是政权本身。

这二十年刑期，表面上是判给黎智英，实际上却是判给整个社会——判给记者、学者、出版人、企业家，判给所有仍然相信言论自由不是恩赐而是权利的人。它的目的并不在于“伸张正义”，而是在于制造寒意：让每一个人明白，说真话是有代价的，而且代价可以大到摧毁一生。

中国共产党一再宣称“依法治港”、“审判独立”，但黎智英案恰恰揭示了这种宣称的虚伪性。当法律被用来服务政治目标，当罪名可以被无限延展，当审判程序被系统性地去监督化，“法律”便不再是保护公民的工具，而是压制公民的武器。

二十年监禁，对一位高龄老人而言，几乎等同于终身监禁，这不是偶然的严苛，而是精心计算的震慑。中共需要一个足够重的判决，来证明它对新闻自由的零容忍；需要一个足够残酷的结局，来告诉世界和香港社会：在这个体制下，真相不被允许长期存在。

因此，黎智英案不应被理解为一起“个案”，而应被视为一个制度样本：一个展示极权如何通过法律外壳消灭异议、通过司法程序包装政治迫害的完整示范。

讨论这二十年，不只是为了一个人的公正，更是为了回答一个更根本的问题：当新闻被判刑，一个社会还剩下什么？

在讨论任何刑罚之前，一个最基本、却被刻意回避的问题必须先被摆上台面：黎智英究竟犯了什么罪？

如果剥离政治语言、剥离“国安”这一高度模糊的标签，剩下的事实其实异常清楚：黎智英是一名媒体人，是《苹果日报》的创办者，是一个公开表达政治立场、坚持新闻自由、拒绝自我审查的人。他所做的一切，都发生在公开空间，都可以被社会检视，都不涉及任何暴力、武装或秘密行动。

他没有组织武装力量，没有煽动暴力冲突，没有从事间谍行为，更没有对任何的生命安全构成直接威胁。相反，他所做的，是发表社论、接受采访、与国际社会沟通香港局势，持续通过媒体报道批评当权者。这些行为，在任何民主社会中，都是再正常不过的公民行为；而在中共统治逻辑下，却被重新包装成“危害国家安全”的重罪。

这正是黎智英案最荒谬、也是最危险的地方。

所谓罪行，并不是行为本身的危险性，而是行为的立场属性。

在中国共产党构建的政治语境中，“罪”不再取决于你做了什么，而取决于你站在哪一边。只要你的言论挑战权利、你的报道不受控制、你的影响力无法被收编，那么即便你只是写字、说话、办报，也可以被无限上纲，最终被定义为国家敌人。

《苹果日报》的存在，本身就是对极权逻辑的挑战。它拒绝使用官方语言，拒绝重复统一口径，拒绝把复杂的社会现实简化为宣传口号。在一个依赖信息垄断维持统治的政权眼中，这种媒体不是“不同声音”，而是“系统性威胁”。

因此，黎智英案并不是司法系统发现犯罪、依法惩处的结果，而是政治权力先认定立场、再寻找罪名的过程。所谓“串谋”“勾结”“煽动”，都是在结果确定之后才被拼凑出来的法律叙事，用以赋予迫害一个看似合法的外壳。

更值得警惕的是，这种逻辑一旦被接受，就意味着任何人都不再安全。如果写文章是罪，如果接受采访是罪，如果与外界交流是罪，如果坚持新闻伦理是罪，那么“罪”本身就已经失去了边界。

这正是国安法最核心、也最致命的特征——它不是针对具体行为，而是针对思想和立场；不是惩罚已经发生的危害，而是预防任何可能出现的不服从。在这样的法律体系中，清白不再由事实决定，而是由权力裁定。

对中国共产党而言，黎智英案从一开始就不是一宗普通案件，而是一场示范性审判。它的目标从来不只是惩罚一个人，而是通过这个人，重新校准整个社会的恐惧刻度。

在极权体制中，刑罚的意义并不在于与行为“成比例”，而在于是否足够震慑。二十年这个数字，本身就是一种语言——它向所有人清晰传达一个信息：只要你触碰新闻自由、挑战官方叙事，无论你是谁、年纪多大、是否非暴力，代价都可以是毁灭性的。

为什么一定要判得这么重？因为轻判是危险的。

如果黎智英只是被象征性地定罪、短期服刑，社会就可能产生错觉：也许坚持原则仍有空间，也许对抗权力尚存退路。对一个依赖全面服从维系统治的政权来说，这种错觉本身就是威胁。

因此，中国共产党需要一个“足够痛”的结局：

痛到让媒体人学会自我审查，

痛到让企业家远离公共议题，

痛到让年轻人意识到理想的代价，

痛到让整个社会重新理解“边界在哪里”。

二十年的刑期，正是这种政治心理的产物。它不是为了纠正所谓的“错误”，而是为了重塑行为模式。它要做的不是说服你，而是让你害怕。

更残酷得是，这种重判并不需要真实的犯罪事实作为支撑。国安法的设计本身为这种操作提供了便利：罪名模糊、解释权集中、程序去监督化，使得量刑不再受制于常规法治逻辑，而完全服从于政治需要。

这正是中共统治最核心、也是最冷酷的地方：它不需要你相信它是正义的，它只需要你相信反抗是徒劳的。

而当一个政权必须依靠如此沉重的刑罚来维持秩序时，本身就暴露了它的虚弱。真正自信的制度，不需要用二十年监禁来对付一名记者；只有害怕真相，害怕记忆、害怕被记录的政权，才会如此用力。

黎智英被重判，并不是因为他“危险”，而是因为这个体制知道，它经不起真相的长期存在。

新闻自由的核心，并不只是报道事实，而是承认一个前提——权力并非天然正确，叙事并非只有一个版本，政府的行为可以、也应该被持续质疑与监督。而这一前提，正好触及共产党统治合法性的根基。

中共的权力来源，从来不是公开竞争或自由授权，而是对历史叙事与现实信息的长期垄断。它需要一个被精心管理的世界：哪些事情可以被记住，哪些话可以被说出口，哪些问题可以被讨论，哪些答案只能由官方给出。

在这样的体系中，新闻并不是公共服务，而被视为潜在威胁；记者不是监督者，而被视为“风险因素”；独立媒体不是社会资产，而被视为“敌对力量”。

《苹果日报》的存在，恰恰打破了这一控制逻辑。它不接受官方口径作为最终答案，不把“稳定”置于真相之上，不把“正确立场”当作报道前提。它以通俗、直接、情绪鲜明的方式，让权力暴露在公共视野之下——而这正是极权最无法容忍的事情。

对共产党而言，真正危险的并不是某一篇报道，而是一种不可控的信息机制。

只要这种机制存在，权力就无法完全掌控社会情绪；

只要有人持续记录，历史就无法被随意改写；

只要真相被不断传播，恐惧就无法稳定地生效。

这也是为什么，中共对新闻自由的打击从来不是“管理”，而是彻底清算。因为自由不是可以被调节的变量，而是必须被清除的风险。

黎智英之所以格外“危险”，还在于他的角色重叠性。他既是媒体人，又是企业家；既拥有本地影响力，又与国际社会保持公开联系；既表达价值立场，又拒绝躲进“技术性中立”的安全区。这种公开、持续、可被看见的坚持，让他无法被边缘化、无法被悄然消失。

因此，他必须被高调审判、被长期关押、被塑造成“反面教材”。不是因为他做了什么不可告人的事，而是因为他让太多人看见了权力不愿被看见的东西。

从这个角度看，《苹果日报》的关闭并不是新闻行业的商业失败，而是一场政治清洗；黎智英的判刑也不是司法裁量，而是一种意识形态情场。中共要的不是一个“守规矩的媒体环境”，而是一个不再提出问题的社会。

当一个政权需要通过摧毁新闻自由来维持自身稳定时，它实际上已经承认了自己的脆弱。一个真正自信的制度，不需要害怕记者；一个真正稳固的政府，不需要监禁写字的人；只有建立在谎言与恐惧之上的权力，才会对真相如此敏感、如此暴力。

黎智英不能沉默，因为沉默本身就是对自由的背叛。

对一个极权政权而言，最危险的不是抗议的人群，而是敢于记录、敢于报道、敢于让真相被看到的人。新闻自由不是空洞的口号，它是社会认知的神经系统；一旦失去它，权力就可以随意塑造现实、篡改历史、定义“真相”。

沉默意味着妥协，是在默许权力将事实和记忆据为己有。在黎智英看来，沉默就等于承认：政府有权定义社会的边界，有权决定哪些声音可以存在，有权选择让真相消失。他无法接受这样的现实，因为他的职业、他的信念、他一生追求的正义，都建立在真相可以被揭示、权力可以被监督的前提之上。

中共害怕黎智英发声，因为他能够启发人们的独立思考。他的文字和报道像火种一样，把思考和质疑传递给社会每一个角落。正是这种力量，让一个政权必须高调惩罚、必须长期关押、必须制造恐惧——否则它的权威就无法保持绝对。

黎智英不能沉默，也是因为历史在呼唤责任。每一个独立媒体人、每一个敢于质疑的公民，都是社会记忆的守护者。沉默会让历史空白，事实被消灭，真相被篡改。中共深知这一点，所以必须用二十年的监禁来封口黎智英，试图让未来所有人明白：挑战权威，将付出毁灭性的代价。

黎智英不能沉默，在这一点上，他超越了个人命运，成为了整个社会的精神标杆。二十年的刑期，无法关押他的信念；封锁庭审，无法掩盖他的坚持；法律可以剥夺自由，却无法囚禁真相。

黎智英不能沉默，因为沉默是权力想要的结果，而坚持发声，才是他对历史、对社会、对自由的忠诚。

黎智英被判刑二十年，不只是判给他一个人，而是判给整个香港，甚至是全世界关注新闻自由的人。这个判决试图用长久的监禁来制造恐惧，用法律程序的外壳来掩盖政治迫害，用时间的消耗来消灭意志。然而，无论多么沉重的牢门、多么漫长的刑期，都无法掩盖真相，也无法熄灭已经点燃的火种。

中国共产党害怕的不仅是黎智英个人的声音，而是真相本身的存在。它害怕媒体能够记录历史、曝光权力、激发质疑；它害怕任何人意识到，所谓“稳定”与“繁荣”，不过是建立在恐惧与操控之上的表象。它用法庭、法条、判决、监禁，把一个七十多岁的老人变成“罪人”，以示所有敢于发声者的下场。可它忘了，精神的自由是监禁无法触及的。

黎智英的坚持，昭示了新闻自由和公民权利的不可替代价值。他拒绝沉默，不为个人荣耀，而是为了让社会记住：权力可以掩盖事实，但无法消灭渴望真相的人；法律可以包装迫害，但无法粉碎正义的精神。二十年的刑期，对他而言是身体的囚禁，但对真相而言，却是光明的延续。他成为象征——象征那些不向暴力、恐惧、权力屈服的人；象征新闻自由和独立思考的力量；象征任何时代，勇敢发声的人永远不会被遗忘。

香港的自由正在被剥夺，言论空间正在被封锁，制度性的迫害正在系统化；但这并不意味着希望的终结。每一份报道、每一个勇敢发声的人，都是在续写黎智英所代表的时代革命。权力可以压制声音，但无法消灭记忆与信念；统治可以延长恐惧，但无法抹去历史的真相。正如黎智英所证明的那样，真正的力量来自坚持原则的人，来自不被恐惧支配的精神。

中共可以用监狱、审判、二十年的刑期来震慑社会，但它永远无法剥夺民众对自由的渴望，也无法阻止历史记忆对未来的指引。黎智英的坚持提醒我们：自由不是恩赐，它是必须捍卫的权利；新闻不是罪，它是社会的血脉；沉默不是安全，它是专制希望你接受的陷阱。

二十年，是对一个人的刑期，却也是对权力自信的警醒。正义迟早会被记住，真相终将被揭示。即便监狱将黎智英的身体关押，他的精神、他的信念、他捍卫新闻自由的火焰，仍将在社会中传递、燃烧、照亮那些不愿屈从、不愿沉默的人。

黎智英不能被消灭，香港的记忆不能被篡改，自由的火种不能熄灭。二十年的判决，是极权对勇气的惩罚，但也是历史对正义的记录。无论权力如何压迫，荣光必将归香港，真相必将抵达未来。

Twenty years in prison: a political execution for press freedom

Author: Zhang Yu
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Wang Bin Translation: Ge Bing

Abstract: The one-paper, twenty-year verdict against Mr. Lai Chee-ying freely sentenced Hong Kong to death and exposed the real fears of the Chinese Communist regime.

Twenty years in prison.

When the verdict was read, it was no longer just a judicial number but a political declaration: a regime’s public warning to all those who still try to uphold the truth and defend press freedom.

Lai Chee-ying, a media person in his seventies and the founder of Apple Daily, committed no violent acts, no armed organizations, and no covert operations, but was sentenced to 20 years in prison in the name of “national security”. This is not the law’s verdict on crime, but the power’s punishment of dissent; it is not the end of justice, but a display of the rule of fear.

In any normal legal society, news reporting, political commentary, and public expression of positions are all part of civil rights; under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, these behaviors were redefined as “threatening national security”. This logic itself has revealed the truth: it is never the state that truly feels insecure, but the regime itself.

These twenty years of imprisonment, ostensibly for Lai Chee-ying, were actually for society as a whole ——for journalists, scholars, publishers, entrepreneurs, and for all those who still believe that freedom of speech is not a gift but a right. It is not about “justice”, but about creating a chill: making everyone understand that telling the truth has a price, and the price can be so great that it destroys a lifetime.

The Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly claimed “rule of law in Hong Kong” and “trial independence”, but the Lai Chee-ying case reveals the hypocrisy of these claims. When the law is used to serve political goals, when crimes can be extended indefinitely, and when trial procedures are systematically de-supervised, “the law” ceases to be a tool for protecting citizens and becomes a weapon for suppressing them.

Twenty years in prison, which for an elderly man is almost equivalent to life imprisonment, is not accidental harshness, but carefully calculated deterrence. The CCP needs a sentence heavy enough to prove its zero tolerance for press freedom; it needs a cruel enough ending to tell the world and Hong Kong society: under this system, the truth is not allowed to exist for long.

The Lai Chee-ying case should therefore not be understood as a single “individual case”, but rather as an institutional sample: a complete model showing how totalitarianism can eliminate dissent through a legal shell and package political persecution through judicial proceedings.

Discussing these two decades is not just for the sake of one person’s justice, but to answer a more fundamental question: What is left of a society when the news is sentenced?

Before any punishment can be discussed, a fundamental, yet deliberately avoided, question must first be put on the table: What crime did Lai Chee-ying commit?

If we strip away the political language and the highly ambiguous label of “national security”, the remaining facts are actually extremely clear: Lai Chee-ying is a media person, the founder of Apple Daily, a person who publicly expresses his political stance, insists on press freedom, and refuses self-censorship. Everything he did took place in a public space, was accessible to society, and involved no violence, armed or covert action.

He did not organize armed forces, incite violent conflict, engage in espionage, or pose a direct threat to the safety of any life. Instead, what he did was publish editorials, give interviews, communicate with the international community about the situation in Hong Kong, and continue to criticize those in power through media reports. These actions are perfectly normal civic behavior in any democratic society; yet under the logic of CCP rule, they are repackaged as felonies “endangering national security”.

This is precisely where the Lai Chee-ying case is most absurd and most dangerous.

The so-called crime is not the danger of the behavior itself, but the positional attribute of the behavior.

In the political context constructed by the Chinese Communist Party, “crime” no longer depends on what you do, but on which side you are on. As long as your speech challenges your rights, your reporting is uncontrolled, and your influence cannot be incorporated, then even if you just write, speak, and run a newspaper, you can be endlessly exaggerated and eventually defined as an enemy of the state.

The very existence of Apple Daily is a challenge to totalitarian logic. It rejects the use of official languages, the repetition of a uniform calibre and the reduction of complex social realities to propaganda slogans. In the eyes of a regime that relies on an information monopoly to maintain its rule, this media is not “a different voice” but “a systemic threat”.

Therefore, the Lai Chee-ying case is not the result of the judicial system discovering the crime and punishing it according to law, but rather a process in which political power first determines its position and then searches for the crime. The so-called “conspiracy”“ collusion ”“incitement” is a legal narrative that is pieced together after the outcome is determined to give persecution a seemingly legitimate shell.

It is all the more alarming to note that this logic, once accepted, means that no one is safe anymore. If writing an article is a sin, if being interviewed is a sin, if communicating with the outside world is a sin, if upholding journalistic ethics is a sin, then “sin” itself has lost its boundaries.

This is precisely the core and most deadly feature of the National Security Law ——it is not about specific actions, but about ideas and positions; it is not about punishing harm that has already occurred, but about preventing any possible disobedience. In such a legal system, innocence is no longer determined by facts but by power.

For the Chinese Communist Party, the Lai Chee-ying case was not an ordinary case from the beginning, but an exemplary trial. Its goal is never just to punish one person, but through that person, to recalibrate the scale of fear across society.

In a totalitarian system, the significance of punishment is not so much in relation to the act “proportionality” as in relation to whether it is sufficiently deterrent. Twenty years is a number in itself ——it sends a clear message to everyone: if you touch press freedom and challenge the official narrative, no matter who you are, how old you are, or whether you are nonviolent or not, the cost can be devastating.

Why did it have to be so heavy? Because light sentences are dangerous.

If Lai Chee-ying is only symbolically convicted and serves a short prison sentence, society may have the illusion that there is still room for upholding principles and that there is a way out of fighting power. For a regime that relies on total obedience to peacekeeping rule, the illusion itself is a threat.

Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party needs a “painful enough” ending:

It hurts so much that media professionals learn to self-censor

It hurts so much that it keeps entrepreneurs away from public issues

It hurts so much that young people realize the cost of ideals

It hurts enough to make society as a whole understand again “where the boundaries are”.

Twenty years in prison is the product of this political mentality. It is not about correcting so-called “errors”, but about reshaping behavioral patterns. It’s not about convincing you, it’s about scaring you.

Even more cruel is that such heavy sentences do not need to be supported by true criminal facts. The design of national security laws itself facilitates this operation: the ambiguity of charges, the concentration of interpretation power, and the de-supervision of procedures make sentencing no longer subject to the logic of the regular rule of law, but completely subordinate to political needs.

This is where CCP rule is at its core and most ruthless: it doesn’t require you to believe it is just, it only requires you to believe that resistance is futile.

And when a regime has to rely on such heavy penalties to maintain order, it itself reveals its weakness. A truly confident system does not need to use twenty years in prison against a journalist; only a regime that is afraid of the truth, afraid of memory, and afraid of being recorded would exert such force.

Lai Chee-ying was sentenced not because he was “dangerous”, but because the system knew it could not withstand the long-term existence of the truth.

The core of press freedom is not just reporting facts, but recognizing that a premise —— power is not naturally correct, there is not only one version of the narrative, and the government’s behavior can and should be continuously questioned and monitored. This premise touches the very foundation of the legitimacy of Communist Party rule.

The source of power for the CCP has never been open competition or free authorization, but rather a long-term monopoly on historical narrative and real-world information. It requires a world that is carefully managed: what can be remembered, what can be said, what questions can be discussed, and what answers can only be given officially.

In such a system, journalism is not a public service but is seen as a potential threat; journalists are not watchdogs but are seen as “risk factors”; and independent media are not social assets but are seen as “hostile forces”.

The existence of Apple Daily breaks this logic of control. It does not accept official caliber as the final answer, does not put “stability” above the truth, and does not take “correct position” as a reporting premise. It exposes power to public view in a popular, direct, and emotionally charged way ——which is exactly what totalitarianism can tolerate the most.

For the Communist Party, the real danger is not a single report, but an uncontrollable information mechanism.

As long as this mechanism exists, power cannot fully control social emotions;

As long as someone keeps recording, history cannot be rewritten at will;

As long as the truth is constantly being spread, fear cannot be steadily effective.

This is also why the CCP’s attack on press freedom has never been “management”, but a complete liquidation. For freedom is not a variable that can be regulated, but a risk that must be purged.

Lai Chee-ying is also particularly “dangerous” because of the overlap of his roles. He is both a media personality and an entrepreneur; he has local influence while maintaining open ties with the international community; he expresses value positions while refusing to hide in a “technically neutral” safe zone. This public, continuous, visible persistence prevents him from being marginalized and quietly disappearing.

Therefore, he must be tried with high profile, imprisoned for a long time, and shaped into “negative teaching material”. Not because he did something unspeakable, but because he made too many people see what power doesn’t want to see.

From this perspective, the closure of Apple Daily was not a commercial failure of the news industry, but a political purge; Lai Chee-ying’s sentencing was not judicial discretion, but an ideological situation. The CCP does not want a “conformist media environment”, but a society that no longer raises questions.

A regime has effectively acknowledged its vulnerability when it needs to maintain its own stability by destroying press freedom. A truly confident system that does not need to fear journalists; a truly solid government that does not need to imprison those who write; only power based on lies and fear can be so sensitive and violent to the truth.

Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, for silence itself is a betrayal of freedom.

The most dangerous thing for a totalitarian regime is not the protesting crowd, but the people who dare to record, dare to report, and dare to let the truth be seen. Freedom of the press is not an empty slogan, it is the nervous system of social cognition; once it is lost, power can shape reality, tamper with history, and define “truth” at will.

Silence means compromise and is acquiescing to the power to appropriate facts and memories for oneself. In Lai Chee-ying’s view, silence is tantamount to recognition: the government has the right to define the boundaries of society, to decide which voices can exist, and to choose to let the truth disappear. He could not accept such a reality because his profession, his beliefs, the justice he had pursued throughout his life, were all based on the premise that truth could be revealed and power could be monitored.

The CCP is afraid of Lai Chee-ying speaking out because he can inspire people to think independently. His words and reports are like fire, conveying thoughts and questions to every corner of society. It is this power that makes a regime must punish with high profile, must detain for long periods of time, and must instill fear ——otherwise its authority cannot remain absolute.

Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, also because history calls for responsibility. Every independent media person, every citizen who dares to question, is a guardian of social memory. Silence leaves history blank, facts wiped out, and truth tampered with. The CCP knows this so well that it must use twenty years in prison to silence Lai Chee-ying and try to make everyone in the future understand that challenging authority will come at a devastating cost.

Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, and in this he transcends personal destiny and becomes a spiritual benchmark for the entire society. Twenty years in prison, unable to hold his convictions; a court blockade, unable to conceal his persistence; the law can deprive him of his freedom, but it cannot imprison the truth.

Lai Chee-ying cannot remain silent, because silence is the desired result of power, and insisting on speaking out is his loyalty to history, society, and freedom.

Lai Chee-ying was sentenced to twenty years, not just to one person, but to all of Hong Kong, and even to people around the world who care about press freedom. This sentence attempts to create fear with long prison sentences, to cover political persecution with the shell of legal proceedings, and to destroy the will with the consumption of time. However, no amount of heavy prison sentences or lengthy sentences can conceal the truth or extinguish the fire that has been lit.

The Chinese Communist Party fears not only Lai Chee-ying’s personal voice, but the existence of the truth itself. It fears that the media can record history, expose power, and inspire doubt; it fears that anyone will realize that so-called “stability” and “prosperity” are just appearances based on fear and manipulation. It turns a man in his seventies into a “sinner” with courts, laws, sentences, and imprisonment to show what happens to all those who dare to speak out. But it forgets that spiritual freedom is beyond the reach of imprisonment.

Lai Chee-ying’s persistence demonstrates the irreplaceable value of press freedom and civil rights. He refused to be silent, to the personal glory, but to make society remember that power can conceal the truth but cannot eliminate those who desire the truth; law can package persecution but cannot crush the spirit of justice. Twenty years of imprisonment, for him, is a physical captivity, but for the truth, it is a continuation of light. He became a symbol——of those who do not surrender to violence, fear, power; of the freedom of the press and the power of independent thought; of an era when those who speak out will never be forgotten.

Hong Kong’s freedoms are being taken away, its space for expression is being blocked, and institutional persecution is being systematized; but this does not mean the end of hope. Every report, every person who bravely speaks out, is continuing the revolution of the times represented by Lai Chee-ying. Power can silence voices but not erase memories and beliefs; domination can prolong fears but not erase the truth of history. As Lai Chee-ying demonstrates, true strength comes from those who uphold principles, from a spirit that is not dominated by fear.

The CCP can deter society with prisons, trials, and twenty-year sentences, but it can never deprive the people of their desire for freedom or prevent historical memory from guiding the future. Lai Chee-ying’s insistence reminds us: freedom is not a gift, it is a right that must be defended; news is not a sin, it is the blood of society; silence is not security, it is a trap that despotism wants you to accept.

Twenty years is a sentence for a person, but it is also a wake-up call for confidence in power. Sooner or later justice will be remembered and the truth will be revealed. Even if the prison holds Lai Chee-ying’s body, his spirit, his convictions, his flame in defense of press freedom will still be transmitted, burned, and illuminated in society by those who are unwilling to submit and who are unwilling to remain silent.

Lai Chee-ying cannot be extinguished, Hong Kong’s memory cannot be tampered with, and the flame of freedom cannot be extinguished. Twenty years of judgment, a punishment for courage by totalitarianism, but also a record of justice by history. No matter how oppressive power may be, glory will surely return to Hong Kong and the truth will surely reach the future.

作者：郭泉
编辑：胡丽莉 校对：熊辩 翻译：吕峰

《川普逻辑》之67：川普总统指出，世界上很多人都认为自由民主的美国伟大之处在于制度设计。其实，比制度设计更伟大的是美国人的信仰。美国自由的根基源于对上帝的敬畏而非仅是制度设计，若背离这一原则，自由将逐渐消亡。制度不能替代人心的转变，而信仰复兴是国家重塑的根基。

2月5日，川普总统在华盛顿DC举行的2026国家祷告早餐会上强调，信仰是重塑美国的核心力量。

他提出“我们相信上帝”的本质在于承认人类在至高权威前的谦卑——无论政治立场或社会地位，所有人都是“需要上帝恩典的平等个体”。

个人层面，他结合自身经历指出权力与财富无法支撑困境中的生命，唯有与上帝的关系能带来真正力量；

国家层面，他重申美国自由的根基源于对上帝的敬畏而非制度设计，若背离这一原则，自由将逐渐消亡。

他主张政府角色是保护而非干预信仰自由，反对以行政手段限制宗教表达，并呼吁跨党派群体放下政治分歧，通过祷告寻求国家方向。

面对国际冲突与国内分裂，川普总统强调政治手段无法治愈人心，唯有全民回归信仰、在祷告中谦卑寻求指引，才能让美国重获团结与希望。

川普总统这一思想的核心在于：制度不能替代人心的转变，而信仰复兴是国家重塑的根基。

前天，我与美国的莫妮卡通话时，说到“因信称义”。我说：不能认为自己信了上帝就一定能进天堂，因为，信与行，是连轴的两个车轮。任何一个车轮停止转动，另一个车轮只能以这个停转的车轮为中心，做圆周运动而无法前行。所以正信必须与正行，平行同步联动，生命的车轮才能滚滚向前。

我还说：最让我感同身受并心潮澎湃的是，川普总统有一次说到：年轻的时候犯过很多足以让我愧见上帝的过错，现在老了，生命倒计时了，我想趁生命的最后几年，努力做一些上帝悦纳的事情。

Monica说：是的，我们除了信仰之外，还要在行为上得胜。不改过，何以自新？建新功，才能赎旧愆。所以蒙恩得救不在言，而在行。

今天的文章，我想从神学、心理学、哲学和文化人类学的角度分析一下川普总统的这句话。

川普总统这句话中体现了三重内涵：信仰救赎的普世性、人性真实的共情力，以及基督教恩典观的核心体验。以下是具体分析：

一、心理学视角：死亡觉知驱动的道德整合晚年忏悔体现人格发展完整性。个体在生命末期会通过整合过往经历获得生命意义。川普总统承认“愧见上帝的行为”，展现对自身局限性的认知突破，其忏悔动机源于“死亡觉知效应” 面对生命有限性时激发的价值重构需求。这种自我揭露打破其惯常的强人形象，揭示人性中共通的道德觉醒机制。

二、神学视角：清教传统中的救赎叙事

践行“因行称义”的清教伦理。其言论精准呼应基督教”悔改-救赎”核心教义：

1、认罪意识：援引”愧见上帝”概念，符合《圣经》”世人都犯了罪”（罗马书3:23）的罪性观；

 2、行为转向：”让上帝悦纳”指向《雅各书》”信心没有行为是死的”的实践神学；

 3、末世关怀：将有限生命置于终极审判框架，体现清教徒特有的现世行动主义。

这种基于契约神学的道德表达，强化了话语在宗教语境中的精神重量。

三、哲学视角：存在主义下的道德主体重建向死而生的伦理自觉。直面死亡方能本真地筹划生命：

1、时间性觉醒：“趁生命的最后几年”，凸显存在有限性激发的责任意识；

 2、主体性回归：从权力实践者转向道德实践者，实现“我们是我们一切行为的总和”的哲学目标；

3、 共同体责任：借上帝视角超越个人主义，暗合交往伦理中对”主体间认可”的追求。

川普总统这一言论的人性光辉的核心在于突破自我人格的封闭性（心理学），在亚伯拉罕宗教传统中完成罪责转化（神学），最终通过存在选择重建道德主体性（哲学）。这种三重维度的道德觉醒，使个体忏悔升华为具有普遍启示意义的人性样本。

好了，我们再看看2月5日川普总统出席的华盛顿DC国家祷告早餐会吧。

国家祷告早餐会起源于1953年艾森豪威尔总统时期，核心传统是每年2月首个周四在华盛顿聚集跨党派人士超越政治分歧共同祷告。

2026年2月5日第74届活动上，川普总统的演讲聚焦两大重点：

一、信仰与个人层面

坦承自身不完美，分享2024年遇刺事件中“上帝让子弹偏离”的经历，强调困境中”支撑人的是信仰而非权力”。引用《诗篇》20:7指出”人与上帝的关系”才是根本力量。

二、国家价值观阐释

 1、明确美国自由源于对上帝的敬畏，警告遗忘这点将侵蚀自由根基；

2、强调政府职责是保护而非干预信仰，反对限制宗教表达；

3、宣布将于2026年5月17日在国家广场举行全国祷告日，号召”在上帝之下重新奉献美国”。

川普总统的演讲，反复呼吁“不要低估祷告的力量”，指出政治无法替代信仰对心灵的治愈，结尾强调”只要不忘上帝，美国就有方向”。

整场讲话通过16条金句传递核心信息：在上帝面前的平等超越政治分歧。

以下，是我整理的川普总统在本次演讲中引用的16条金句：

1、在这里我们不是共和党人也不是民主党人，我们是站在上帝面前的人。

2、 国家祷告早餐会的意义不在于政治，而在于让人记得，我们都需要上帝。

3、无论你来自哪个背景，在上帝面前人是平等的。

4、我并不是一个完美的人，我也犯过很多错误。

5、当你经历攻击和仇恨时，你会真正明白人的有限。

6、在最艰难的时刻，支撑你的不是权力也不是金钱。

7、真正支撑你继续走下去的是你与上帝之间的关系。

8、美国的自由不是来自官僚体系而是来自对上帝的敬畏。

9、政府不应该告诉信仰群体该怎么讲道该怎么敬拜。

10、不论你是基督徒、犹太人，还是穆斯林，宗教信仰自由都必须被保护。

11、我们生活在一个充满冲突的世界，仅靠政治无法真正医治人心。

12、制度不能改变人心，祷告可以。

13、当一个国家愿意向上帝谦卑，自我改变就会开始。

14、永远不要低估祷告的力量。

15、祷告不仅能改变环境也能改变人的内心。

16、只要我们不忘记上帝，美国就会继续前行。

川普总统引用的以上16条金句，聚焦信仰的普世价值、个人谦卑与国家精神根基，呼应了早餐会超越政治分歧、回归信仰本质的初衷。

希望我今天这篇文章能给所有渴望基督教信仰的朋友带来帮助。

并以此文，致敬并感恩我在南京大学攻读（宗教）哲学博士学位时（1996至1999年）的博导赖永海教授。

泉史公作《川公赎志赋》，全文如下：

川普公尝自陈：“吾生多愆，恐难登天国。然暮年欲行神悦之事，冀近天堂。”此言虽简，蕴道三重：

其一，悔过之勇昭然。

坦承旧谬而不讳，如周处除三害而自新，廉颇负荆而谢罪。昔《周易》云”无咎者，善补过也”，川公暮年自省，不饰己非，足见赤诚。

其二，济世之志未泯。

“行神悦之事”者，非独祷于庙堂，实欲践义于天下。范文正“先忧后乐”之训，正与此契。今虽白发垂暮，犹思利民之举，其志如烛，虽微长明。

其三，爱国之忱愈炽。

所求非独私福，乃以余生报国为阶，叩天门而祈社稷安泰。昔曹孟德歌“烈士暮年，壮心不已”，川公之言，异曲同工，以残躯奉国，化私愿为公义，此诚家国情怀之至高也。

泉史公曰：人孰无过？贵在幡然。川公暮年剖心，示世人：真勇者非避瑕掩疵，乃知耻而后勇；大爱者非空言慷慨，乃尽瘁以酬国。其言若晨钟，警醒众生：尘途起点，秉仁心能自成光；生命终章，惟善行可铸不朽。

赞曰：
钟，警醒众生：尘途起点，秉仁心能自成光；生命终章，惟善行可铸不朽。

赞曰：
砺剑知瑕耻作征
躬耕尽瘁笃行志
暮钟警世千山应
晓月澄心万籁鸣
血荐轩辕酬故国
魂归岱岳证生平
浮名散尽烟霞外
不朽人间善行碑

Guo Quan — The Logic of Trump

Author: Guo Quan
Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Lyu Feng

The Logic of Trump (67)

President Trump noted that many people around the world assume the greatness of democratic America lies in its institutional arrangements. In fact, he argued, something even greater undergirds the nation: the faith of its people. The foundation of American freedom arises from reverence for God, not merely from constitutional structure. Once that principle is abandoned, liberty will slowly erode. Institutions cannot replace the transformation of the heart; the rebirth of faith is the basis for national renewal.

On February 5, at the 2026 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., the President emphasized that faith is the central force in rebuilding America.

He explained that “In God We Trust” means humility before a supreme authority — regardless of political stance or social status, all stand as equal individuals in need of divine grace.

On the personal level, he drew from his own experience, stating that neither power nor wealth can sustain a person in times of crisis; only one’s relationship with God can provide real strength.

On the national level, he reiterated that American liberty grows out of reverence for God rather than institutional design; forgetting this would gradually dissolve freedom.

He argued that the government’s role is to protect, not interfere with, religious liberty. He opposed administrative restrictions on religious expression and called on people across party lines to set aside differences and seek direction for the nation through prayer.

Faced with international conflict and domestic division, he insisted that politics cannot heal the human heart. Only a collective return to faith, humbly seeking guidance in prayer, can restore unity and hope.

At its core, the President’s thought is this: systems cannot substitute for inner transformation; spiritual renewal is the foundation of rebuilding a nation.

Recently, in a conversation with an American friend, Monica, we discussed justification by faith. I said: believing in God alone does not automatically bring one to heaven. Faith and action are like two wheels on an axle; if either stops, the other merely turns in circles without moving forward. True faith must move in parallel with right conduct.

What stirred me deeply was something the President once said:When he was young, he committed many wrongs that would make him ashamed before God. Now, in the final stage of life, he hopes to use his remaining years to do things pleasing to God.

Monica replied: yes — beyond belief, one must also overcome in conduct. Without repentance, how can there be renewal? Redemption is proven not by words but by deeds.

Today, I would like to analyze this statement through theology, psychology, philosophy, and cultural anthropology.

1. Psychological Dimension — mortality awareness and moral integration

Repentance in later life often reflects the search for integrity. Recognizing one’s shame before God reveals a breakthrough in self-understanding. Awareness of life’s finitude triggers a restructuring of values. The confession of weakness dismantles the image of invulnerability and discloses a universal mechanism of moral awakening.

2. Theological Dimension — the narrative of repentance and redemption

His language resonates with core Christian teachings:

Consciousness of sin: “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23).

Turn toward action: faith without works is dead (James).

Eschatological seriousness: placing finite life under ultimate judgment encourages active responsibility in the present.

3. Philosophical Dimension — rebuilding the moral subject

To live authentically requires facing death.

Time becomes urgent.

The self shifts from wielder of power to bearer of responsibility.

By appealing to God, one transcends narrow individualism and seeks recognition within a moral community.

Thus, psychological openness, theological conversion, and philosophical resolve together elevate private repentance into an example with universal human significance.

The National Prayer Breakfast Context

The event began during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953. Its tradition is to gather leaders across parties each February to pray beyond political division.

At the 74th gathering, President Trump’s address centered on two themes.

Personal faith

He admitted imperfection and recalled the assassination attempt of 2024, describing how God preserved his life. In hardship, he said, faith — not authority — sustains.

National principles

American liberty flows from reverence for God.

Government must protect religious expression.

He announced a nationwide day of prayer on May 17, 2026, calling for the country to recommit itself under God.

He repeatedly urged listeners never to underestimate the power of prayer. Politics cannot heal souls; remembrance of God gives direction.

Sixteen Representative Lines

1.Here we are not Republicans or Democrats; we are people before God.

2.The meaning of this breakfast is to remember that we all need God.

3.Before God, all are equal.

4.I am not perfect; I have made mistakes.

5.Under attack, you learn human limits.

6.In the hardest moments, power and money fail.

7.What sustains you is your relationship with God.

8.Freedom comes from reverence, not bureaucracy.

9.Government must not dictate worship.

10.Religious liberty must be protected for all.

11.Politics alone cannot heal hearts.

12.Systems cannot change hearts; prayer can.

13.Humility before God begins renewal.

14.Never underestimate prayer.

15.Prayer changes both circumstance and soul.

16.If we remember God, America will move forward.

Concluding Dedication

May this reflection assist all who seek the Christian faith.It is also offered in gratitude to Professor Lai Yonghai, my doctoral advisor in philosophy of religion at Nanjing University (1996–1999).

Ode of Aspiration
He once confessed: my life bears faults; heaven seems distant.
Yet in old age I would do what pleases God, hoping to draw nearer.
To admit error requires courage.
To seek the good of the people shows enduring will.
To offer one’s remaining strength for the nation transforms private hope into public righteousness.
Who is without fault? What matters is awakening.
True bravery is not concealment but repentance;
great love is not rhetoric but devotion in action.

Praise:

Sharpened by shame, resolve becomes a banner.
Laboring to the end, purpose grows firm.
Evening bells awaken distant mountains;
dawn clears the heart with quiet light.
Let merit answer the call of the land;
let life be witnessed beyond fame.
When reputation fades like mist,
good deeds remain — humanity’s enduring monument.

公民建议书

编辑：胡景 校对：熊辩 翻译：吕峰

全国人大常委会：

2026年1月31日，中华人民共和国公安部发布《网络犯罪防治法（征求意见稿）》公开征求意见的公告。本人研读后认为，该《征求意见稿》严重违反《宪法》及《立法法》，理由如下：

《中华人民共和国宪法》第五十八条明确规定：“全国人民代表大会和全国人民代表大会常务委员会行使国家立法权。”

《中华人民共和国立法法》第十条明确规定： 全国人民代表大会和全国人民代表大会常务委员会根据宪法规定行使国家立法权。

第十一条又规定，下列事项只能制定法律  ：（五）对公民政治权利的剥夺、限制人身自由的强制措施和处罚；

同时，第九十一条明确规定：国务院各部、委员会、中国人民银行、审计署和具有行政管理职能的直属机构以及法律规定的机构，可以根据法律和国务院的行政法规、决定、命令，在本部门的权限范围内，制定规章。

根据以上的规定，涉及限制人身自由的处罚只能由法律来设定，该位阶的立法权限在于全国人大及其常委会，公安部作为国务院下设机构仅有制定规章的权限，并没有制定法律的权限。

《网络犯罪防治法（征求意见稿）》从形式上属于法律位阶的“法律”，制定该层级法律的权限在于全国人大及常务委员会；从内容上来讲，该《法律（征求意见稿）》涉及犯罪和处罚，涉及对人身自由的限制，只能由法律来设定。

因此，公安部无权制定《网络犯罪防治法》，该《意见稿》严重违反《中华人民共和国宪法》及《立法法》的相关规定，越俎代庖，侵害国家立法权的层级和权限设计，依据《立法法》公民建议权之规定，特向全国人大常委会提出撤销建议。

中华人民共和国公民
王全璋 （开放征集签名中）

抄送：
     中华人民共和国国务院
     中华人民共和国公安部       

附件：
     《网络犯罪防治法（征求意见稿）》

Citizen Petition Requesting the Withdrawal of the Ministry of Public Security’s Cybercrime Prevention Law

Draft for Public Comment

Editor: Hu Jing Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Lyu Feng

To: The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress

On January 31, 2026, the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China issued a public notice soliciting comments on the Cybercrime Prevention Law (Draft for Public Comment). After careful review, I believe this draft seriously contravenes both the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China, for the following reasons.

Article 58 of the Constitution clearly provides:“The National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee exercise the legislative power of the State.”

Article 10 of the Legislation Law further specifies that the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee exercise state legislative power in accordance with the Constitution.

Article 11 of the same law provides that the following matters may only be governed by laws enacted by the legislature, including:(5) deprivation of citizens’ political rights, compulsory measures restricting personal freedom, and penalties.

Meanwhile, Article 91 stipulates that ministries and commissions under the State Council, the People’s Bank of China, the National Audit Office, and other organs with administrative functions may, within the scope of their authority, formulate rules and regulations in accordance with laws, administrative regulations, decisions, and orders of the State Council.

Under these provisions, penalties involving restrictions on personal liberty may only be established by law, and the authority to enact such laws lies exclusively with the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee. As a subordinate organ of the State Council, the Ministry of Public Security possesses only the authority to issue departmental rules; it does not hold the authority to enact laws.

The Cybercrime Prevention Law (Draft for Public Comment) is, in form, a piece of legislation at the level of law. The competence to formulate legislation at this level belongs to the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee. Substantively, the draft concerns crimes and punishments, including measures that restrict personal freedom, which, again, may only be established by law.

Therefore, the Ministry of Public Security has no authority to formulate this law. The draft seriously violates the Constitution and the Legislation Law, oversteps institutional boundaries, and infringes upon the hierarchical allocation of legislative power. Pursuant to citizens’ right to submit legislative proposals under the Legislation Law, I hereby respectfully petition the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to revoke it.

Citizen of the People’s Republic of China
Wang Quanzhang (signatures openly solicited)

CC:
State Council of the People’s Republic of China
Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China

Attachment:
Cybercrime Prevention Law (Draft for Public Comment)

中国民主党海外委员会筹备组全体同仁：

在中国民主党各地方筹备委员会纷纷申请注册，国内民运以一种全新的方式蓬勃开展之际，从大洋彼岸传来了中国民主党海外委员会筹备组成立的消息，这标志着在国内执政党的积极姿态下，海外民运力量努力适应新形势，以更理性的方式推进中国的政治民主。我们对此感到欢欣和鼓舞，向你们致以热烈祝贺。

纵然远隔天涯，你们的爱国之心没有放弃丝毫；纵然由于历史的误会，使你们故国难归，但是你们仍密切地关注着祖国的命运。我们同戴日月，祖国历史文化的沉淀，重重封建专制的戕害，对于祖国游离于国际民主主流社会的忧虑，使我们看到了自己肩负的重任。面对日益尖锐的社会矛盾，我们都对可能发生的动乱具有深深的忧虑，如何将我国和平、稳定地过渡到民主自由的新世纪，我们殚精竭虑。你们中的许多学者对体制内的弊端有着切肤之痛，在国外的多年游历和考察必会大大丰富你们的见解以及处理现代政治的方略。在戊戌变法一百周年之际，历史的教训使我们也使执政者中的明智者们认识到宪政民主的重要。一百年来，由于少数人狭隘的动机使中华民族付出了何等巨大的代价。历史不应该重演。又一个历史的转折点摆在我们的面前。让我们共同选择一条生存之路，一条民族兴旺之路，一条长治久安之路。

紧握你们的双手，让我们并肩前进。

中国民主党浙江筹备委员会

一九九八年九月二十三日

To the China Democracy Party Overseas Committee Preparatory Group

All colleagues in the China Democracy Party Overseas Committee Preparatory Group:

As local preparatory committees of the China Democratic Party have applied for registration and the domestic democracy movement is vigorously developing in a new way, news of the establishment of the China Democracy Party Overseas Committee preparatory group has come from across the ocean. This marks that with the positive attitude of the domestic ruling party, overseas democratic movement forces are working hard to adapt to the new situation and promote China’s political democracy in a more rational way. We are delighted and encouraged by this and extend our warmest congratulations to you.

Even though you are far away from us, your patriotism has not given up at all; even though it is difficult for you to return to your motherland due to historical misunderstandings, you still pay close attention to the fate of your motherland. We share the sun and the moon. The accumulation of our motherland’s history and culture, the many ravages of feudal autocracy, and our worries about our motherland’s separation from the mainstream international democratic society have made us see the heavy responsibilities we shoulder. In the face of increasingly acute social conflicts, we are all deeply worried about possible unrest, and we are working hard on how to transition our country peacefully and stably into the new century of democracy and freedom. Many of you scholars are keenly aware of the shortcomings within the system, and your many years of travel and investigation abroad will surely greatly enrich your insights and strategies for dealing with modern politics. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Reform Movement of 1898, the lessons of history have enabled us and the wise among those in power to realize the importance of constitutional democracy. Over the past 100 years, the Chinese nation has paid a huge price due to the narrow-minded motives of a few people. History should not repeat itself. Another historical turning point lies before us. Let us jointly choose a path of survival, a path of national prosperity, and a path of long-term peace and stability.

Hold your hands tightly and let us move forward side by side.

China Democratic Party Zhejiang Preparatory Committee

September 23, 1998

活动主题：声援黎智英等民主人士

一场丑陋的审判，一场早已注定的宣判，黎智英先生和他的同事们和全世界人的目光，随着那代表独裁，代表邪恶的法槌落下。香港，这曾经的东方之珠，段段20多年就被赤化，就变成了独裁国家的一个普通城市。金融中心的地位丧失，法制陷落，民生凋弊，留下的是只有苦不堪言的人民和对昔日荣光的追忆。

来吧，朋友们，发出我们的声音，声援黎智英等民主人士，让世界看到我们的呐喊，让台湾人民擦亮眼睛，不要重蹈覆辙！

活动组织：中国民主人权联盟洛杉矶分部

活动发起人：胡景、彭小亮

活动组织者： 房兰峰,何兴强

活动开始时间：2026年2月15日 2:00 pm

活动地点：洛杉矶领事馆门口

联系人： 何兴强：6266974469、房兰峰：7733400777

活动主持人：卜青松

洛杉矶 2月15日 释放黎智英！FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ! FREE HONGKONG!

Release 黎智英!

FIGHT FOR FREEDOM !

FREE HONGKONG!

时间:2/15/2026 3:30PM

地址：中共洛杉矶领事馆 433 SHATTO PL,LOS ANGELES, CA 90020

主办：中国民主党

2月15日（周日）湾区声援黎智英活动 下午四点

在闻道读书会的会场 以观看电影的形式举行

地址：2077 Gold St ，Alviso, CA 95002，United States

第十三届奥斯卡中国自由人权奖(2026)

通知

顾问：

苏晓康、朱虞夫、林劲鹏、陈立群、陈维明、周锋锁、方政、封从德、金秀红、王丹、盛雪

候选人名单（个人）：

余江帆、常珈瑄、王一飞、许光利、徐光、张晓东、陆辉煌、董广平、李宜雪、樊军益、袁小华、刘家财、宋泽、张毅、黄云敏、邹巍、程晓峰、李原风、朱承志；

候选人名单（集体）：

林昭墓拜祭群体、四川泸州“中国民主胜利党”案全体涉案人员

投票人：

1，主办单位（洛杉机中国民主平台、自由雕塑公园、洛杉矶中国民主党全委会）的会员，参与现场投票；

2，关注中国人权的世界各民主大佬、领袖类名人、人权斗士、媒体记者、特邀嘉宾等可以电话或现场投票；

3，国内一线的著名人权抗争勇士等可以网络、邮件或电话投票

投票时间：美西时间2026年2月21日下午一点

地址：June 4th Memorial Museum（3024 Peck Rd, El Monte, CA 91732）

组委会联系人：王应国、李亚辉、周云龙、刘卓华、张志君

官网网址：www.lacd01.com

邮箱：[email protected]

—致金明日牧师

作者：赵令军
编辑：钟然 校对：熊辩 翻译：彭小梅

在当下的中国，教堂被监控、信徒被传唤、聚会被定性为“非法”早已成为一种常态。从建政初期至今，中共对基督教的压制从未中断，只是在不同时期更换了手段与名目。

然而，2025年10月9日晚，广西北海，当局出动三十余名全副武装的警察，包围整栋住宅，只为抓捕一位讲道、祷告、牧养信徒的老人——金明日牧师，这个世界仍然不得不再次面对一个问题：

一个自称强大、稳定、无所畏惧的政权，究竟在恐惧什么？

金明日牧师的被捕，并不仅仅是一场针对个人的抓捕行动。

它更像是一种公开宣示——当信仰拒绝臣服，权力就必须出手；当良知不肯低头，国家机器便被动员起来。

一个坚持无神论的独裁政权，试图通过这种方式向信徒宣告：没有人能帮助你们——你们的教堂不能，你们的上帝也不能。

但金明日牧师并非毫无准备。

在此之前，他已经亲眼见过多位牧师、传道者被抓、被审、被长期拘押。他曾为他们感到纠结、痛心；也正因为见过代价，他才更加清楚，这条路通向何处。

正是在这样的背景下，他后来对来访者所说的那句话才显得格外平静，却分量极重：“以前看到别的牧师或传道者被抓，我很纠结，却无能为力；如今，我自己被抓了，反而觉得很坦然。”

从这一刻起，叙事发生了变化。

金明日牧师不再只是一个“被迫害者”，而是一位明知后果、仍然作出选择的人。

他让我想起《使徒行传》中记载的第一位殉道者——司提反。

《使徒行传》5章29节写道：“顺从神，不顺从人，是应当的。”

这并非一句抽象的信仰宣言，而是在历史中一次次被具体生命所印证的选择。

在教会最初的年代，执事司提反因坚持公开见证信仰，被带到权力与宗教合谋的审判面前。面对捏造的指控与即将降临的石刑，他既没有为自己辩护，也没有以认罪换取生存。

当石头即将落下时，他没有控诉，也没有呼喊不公，而是仰望天空，平静地说了一句

“主耶稣，请你接受我的灵魂。”

那不是绝望中的哀求，而是在已经作出选择之后的交托。

正是在这一刻，死亡失去了它作为威胁的力量。

两千年后，当金明日牧师说出“我反而觉得很坦然”时，这种坦然同样不是对现实的无知，也不是对苦难的轻视，而是源自同一个根基：

当一个人已经把生命交托，权力便无法再以恐惧相要挟。

司提反在行刑之时，将灵魂交在主的手中；

金明日牧师在被捕之时，将命运交在同样的顺从之中。

时代不同，方式各异，

但那一刻的心境，是相通的。

为了抓捕金明日牧师，当局出动了数十名警力。

不是为了制止暴力犯罪，也不是为了防范公共危险，而只是为了终止祷告、终止讲道、终止一群人按照良心聚集的权利。

事实本身，已经构成了最清楚的控诉。

而更沉重的代价，落在了他的家人身上。

由于中共长期实施边控，金明日牧师已经超过七年未能与身在美国的家人团聚。他的家人被迫承受突如其来的分离、漫长的不确定，以及随时可能升级的打压。事实上，正如他女儿 Grace Jin 在美国国会的陈词中所披露的那样，中共对她们的恐吓已经开始。

然而，她们并未否认金牧师的选择，也没有将他的坚持视为鲁莽。

“很痛苦，但依然充满爱，我们相信上帝不会抛弃我们。”她们如是说。

殉道从来不是一个浪漫的词。

它意味着清醒地承受，意味着在孤独中站立，意味着明知将失去自由，仍不撤回信仰与良知。

司提反倒下后，教会并未消失；恰恰相反，逼迫成为信仰扩散的起点。历史一再证明：迫害从未终结信仰，反而不断替它作证。

当权力以为自己封住了口、锁住了人，却发现真理被推向了更远的地方。

正如 Grace Jin 在国会所说：即便在文革时期，仍有人在暗中坚持信仰，甚至躲在厨房里为家人唱赞美诗；那么在今天，一个政权同样无法消灭基督教。

当国际社会一次次发声，呼吁释放一位本应无罪的牧师时，真正站在历史被告席上的，早已不是他。

一个必须动用国家机器来压制信仰、用法律名义惩罚良知的政权，事实上已经对自己作出了判决。

政权或许可以囚禁人的身体，却无法审判一个顺从神的灵魂。

从司提反，到无数无名的信徒，再到今天的金明日牧师，殉道者从来不是失败者——他们只是提前把结局交给了时间。

而时间，终将作证。

赵令军（Frank），加拿大，2026年2月

Obey God, Not Men— A Letter to Pastor Jin Mingri

Author: Zhao Lingjun
Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Abstract:The arrest of Pastor Jin Mingri has sparked renewed reflection on the suppression of faith. Drawing on the spirit of Stephen’s martyrdom, this article points out that a conscience obedient to God does not fear the coercion of power, and that truth will ultimately be proven by time.

In present-day China, churches under surveillance, believers summoned for questioning, and gatherings labeled as “illegal” have long become a norm. From the early years of the regime to today, the Chinese Communist Party’s suppression of Christianity has never ceased; it has merely changed its methods and pretexts in different periods.

Yet on the night of October 9, 2025, in Beihai, Guangxi, when authorities dispatched more than thirty fully armed police officers to surround an entire residential building—simply to arrest an elderly pastor who preached, prayed, and shepherded believers—the world was once again forced to confront a question:

What exactly is a regime that claims to be powerful, stable, and fearless truly afraid of?

Pastor Jin Mingri’s arrest was not merely an operation targeting an individual.

It was more like a public declaration—that when faith refuses to submit, power must intervene; when conscience refuses to bow, the machinery of the state is mobilized.

An atheistic authoritarian regime attempts, in this way, to declare to believers: no one can help you—your church cannot, and your God cannot either.

But Pastor Jin Mingri was not unprepared.

Before this, he had personally witnessed multiple pastors and preachers being arrested, tried, and detained for long periods. He had felt anguish and pain for them; precisely because he had seen the cost, he understood even more clearly where this path would lead.

It is against this background that the words he later spoke to visitors appear especially calm, yet weighty:

“In the past, when I saw other pastors or preachers arrested, I felt torn and powerless; now that I myself have been arrested, I actually feel at peace.”

From that moment, the narrative changed.

Pastor Jin Mingri was no longer merely a “persecuted victim,” but a man who knew the consequences and still made his choice.

He reminds me of the first martyr recorded in the Book of Acts—Stephen.

Acts 5:29 says: “We must obey God rather than men.”

This is not an abstract declaration of faith, but a choice repeatedly embodied in concrete lives throughout history.

In the early days of the church, the deacon Stephen, for insisting on publicly bearing witness to his faith, was brought before a trial shaped by the collusion of power and religion. Facing fabricated accusations and the impending sentence of stoning, he neither defended himself nor exchanged confession for survival.

As the stones were about to fall, he did not accuse, nor cry out injustice, but looked up to heaven and calmly said:

“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

That was not a plea born of despair, but a surrender made after a decision had already been taken.

At that moment, death lost its power as a threat.

Two thousand years later, when Pastor Jin Mingri said, “I actually feel at peace,” this peace was likewise not ignorance of reality, nor disregard for suffering, but arose from the same foundation:

When a person has already entrusted his life, power can no longer use fear as leverage.

Stephen, at the moment of execution, entrusted his spirit into the Lord’s hands;Pastor Jin Mingri, at the moment of arrest, entrusted his fate in the same obedience.

The times are different, the circumstances vary,but the state of heart in that moment is shared.

To arrest Pastor Jin Mingri, the authorities mobilized dozens of police officers.

Not to stop violent crime, nor to prevent public danger, but merely to end prayer, to end preaching, to end a group of people gathering according to conscience.

The facts themselves constitute the clearest indictment.

And the heavier cost has fallen upon his family.

Because of long-standing exit controls imposed by the CCP, Pastor Jin Mingri has not been able to reunite with his family in the United States for more than seven years. His family has been forced to endure sudden separation, prolonged uncertainty, and the constant possibility of escalating repression. Indeed, as his daughter Grace Jin disclosed in her testimony before the U.S. Congress, intimidation against them by the CCP has already begun.

Yet they have not denied Pastor Jin’s choice, nor regarded his persistence as reckless.

“It is very painful but still filled with love. We believe God will not abandon us,” they said.

Martyrdom has never been a romantic word.

It means sober endurance. It means standing firm in solitude. It means knowing one may lose freedom yet still refusing to withdraw one’s faith and conscience.

After Stephen fell, the church did not disappear; on the contrary, persecution became the starting point for the spread of faith. History repeatedly proves that persecution has never ended faith; rather, it continually bears witness to it.

When power believes it has silenced mouths and locked up bodies, it finds that truth has been carried even farther.

As Grace Jin said in Congress: even during the Cultural Revolution, people persisted in faith in secret, even hiding in kitchens to sing hymns for their families; then today, likewise, a regime cannot eliminate Christianity.

When the international community repeatedly calls for the release of a pastor who should be innocent, the one truly standing in history’s dock is no longer him.

A regime that must mobilize state machinery to suppress faith, and punish conscience in the name of law, has in fact already passed judgment upon itself.

A regime may imprison the body, but it cannot try the soul that obeys God.

From Stephen to countless unnamed believers, to Pastor Jin Mingri today, martyrs have never been the defeated—they have merely entrusted the ending to time in advance.

And time will bear witness.

Zhao Lingjun (Frank)Canada, February 2026