August 1st San Francisco Mobilization: Protest the CCP’s Party Army, Call for Nationalization of the Military [August 1st Mobilization Order]
Demand the Nationalization of the Military! Protest the CCP’s Party Army!
In China, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was supposed to belong to the nation and the people. However, under the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it has been reduced to a tool of one-party rule—a so-called “party commands the gun” Party Army. The annual “August 1st Army Day” is no longer a day for all citizens to commemorate, but has become a propaganda day for the CCP to consolidate its rule and flaunt its machinery of violence.
This year on August 1st, we will not remain silent!
We call on all Chinese at home and abroad who love freedom and pursue democracy, as well as international friends who support China’s democratization, to join our protest!
Event Details Time: Friday, August 1, 2025, 12:00 PM Location: Chinese Consulate, San Francisco
Our Demands: 1. Demand the nationalization of the military! The military must serve the country and the people, not any political party. The illegal system of “the Party commands the gun” must be abolished immediately! 2. Condemn the CCP’s Party Army! The CCP military not only suppresses rights defenders at home, but also monitors dissidents abroad, committing serious acts of transnational repression! 3. Hold the military accountable for repression and crimes! From the Tiananmen Massacre to suppressing rights movements, persecuting Hongkongers, and operating concentration camps in Xinjiang—these atrocities all bear the bloody hands of this Party Army!
We firmly believe: The people’s military must be freed from Party control. The nation’s military power must be subject to constitutional and public oversight!
Please help spread the word and join us. Bring banners, protest signs, recording devices, and raise your voice with us!
August 1st is not the CCP’s holiday—it is the people’s cry for justice! Only when the Chinese military is nationalized can the Chinese people have a future!
Explaining the Future of Chinese Democracy through the Five-People Constitution – Part IV Article 2 of the Constitution: The Cornerstone of Civil Governance and Freedom
Explaining the Future of Chinese Democracy through the Five-People Constitution – Part IV Article 2 of the Constitution: The Cornerstone of Civil Governance and Freedom
By He Qingfeng Editor: Feng Reng | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by Lu Huiwen
Introduction: A Democratic Vision Built by Citizens
The Five-People Constitution constructs a constitutional framework for China’s democratic future based on five core principles: civil governance, democracy, civil rights, people’s livelihood, and national identity. Article 1 clearly states: “Humanity precedes the state, and the people govern the state,” establishing the principle of citizens as the foundation of the nation. Article 2 further clarifies the nature and purpose of the state:
“The Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation is a country jointly established by all citizens living within its territory, for the purpose of a free, democratic, equal, and harmonious life. The fundamental purpose of state power is to protect all citizens’ legitimate rights from infringement. Regarding private rights, anything not prohibited by law is permitted.”
This article is citizen-centered and upholds the supremacy of liberty and rights, providing value-based guidance for public authority. This article will unpack Article 2, analyze its deeper meaning within the framework of Five-Peopleism, and explore its significance for the future of Chinese democracy, aiming to evoke resonance and anticipation for constitutional ideals.
Core Concept of Article 2: A Nation Built by Citizens
Article 2 opens by defining the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation as a country “jointly established” by “all citizens” for a life of “freedom, democracy, equality, and harmony.” This continues the logic of Article 1—that the state is not an abstract entity, but a community voluntarily formed by citizens with shared goals. The phrase “jointly established” highlights the essence of civil governance: the state is not an externally imposed authority but a governance platform actively created by the people.
This design fundamentally overturns traditional notions of the state. Citizens are no longer passive subjects but creators, owners, and sovereigns of the nation. The goals—freedom, democracy, equality, harmony—clarify the value orientation of the state. Freedom guarantees individual autonomy; democracy ensures the primacy of public will; equality eliminates institutional privilege and discrimination; harmony promotes social unity. Together, these principles represent the core of Five-Peopleism: civil governance through collective participation, democracy via elections and oversight, civil rights to ensure freedom and equality, people’s livelihood for a harmonious society, and national unity through the “Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation.”
The Essential Purpose of State Power: Protecting Citizens’ Rights
The heart of Article 2 lies in stating that “the fundamental purpose of state power is to protect all citizens’ legitimate rights from infringement.” This aligns with the five fundamental rights laid out in Article 1: the right to life, liberty, property, resistance to oppression, and electoral participation. It underscores that the legitimacy of government and other public institutions lies in protecting citizens’ rights, not ruling over them.
Public authorities are not only guardians of rights but must also be institutionally designed to prevent any infringement from the state, organizations, or individuals. This principle imposes clear constraints: all public power must operate strictly within the constitutional framework. Any action beyond the protection of citizens’ rights is unlawful.
In other words, the function of government and public authorities is not to dominate or control, but to serve and empower. This principle guides later sections of the constitution: public institutions must be citizen-centered and ensure comprehensive rights protection through power division, transparency, and citizen participation.
Supremacy of Private Rights: Anything Not Prohibited by Law Is Permitted
Article 2 also establishes protection for private rights:
“Regarding private rights, anything not prohibited by law is permitted.”
This principle expresses freedom in its fullest form—citizens have complete autonomy in areas not explicitly forbidden by law. It both guarantees individual liberty and fundamentally restricts the power of the state.
While traditional constitutional systems protect rights by enumerating them, Article 2 adopts an open-ended principle, pushing the boundaries of freedom to the maximum: as long as it is not illegal, citizens are free to pursue personal goals, express opinions, create wealth, and form communities.
This principle also embodies the fusion of civil governance and civil rights within Five-Peopleism. Civil governance calls for self-management and self-determined lifestyles, while civil rights ensure that such autonomy is legally protected.
This design not only grants citizens unlimited possibilities but also places higher demands on public institutions: legislation must be cautious; laws must not arbitrarily restrict freedom and must reflect public will through democratic processes. The baseline for public power is clear—any law that limits private rights must justify its necessity and legality; otherwise, it is unconstitutional.
Implications for Public Institutions
Article 2 provides a clear constitutional framework for subsequent articles. First, public institutions must be democratic—formed through citizen elections—ensuring that executive and legislative bodies reflect public will. Democracy is not just about elections; it is also about participatory governance, including initiatives, referendums, and oversight to ensure that the exercise of public power aligns with the goal of “protecting citizens’ rights.”
Second, public power must be limited—strictly confined to the scope of rights protection. Any expansion of power must be constitutionally restrained.
Moreover, public institutions must embody equality and harmony through fair policy and resource distribution, promoting unity and eliminating class and ethnic divides. Citizen participation must be central throughout—through referendums or civic councils—in major decisions. This ensures that public institutions are not only tools for citizens but also platforms for practicing civil governance.
Significance for the Future of Chinese Democracy
Article 2, by affirming the citizen as the sovereign and protecting private rights to the fullest, provides profound insights for the future of Chinese democracy.
First, it challenges the traditional “state supremacy” mindset, placing the citizen above the state and granting them the right to construct and govern it. This design counters authoritarian suppression of liberty and, by emphasizing equality and harmony, prevents the fragmentation seen in Western democracies caused by excessive individualism.
Second, “anything not prohibited by law is permitted” is especially vital in the context of technology and globalization. Emerging challenges such as AI and data privacy threaten civil liberty, and Article 2 draws a clear red line for public institutions: unless explicitly forbidden, citizens enjoy full freedom in digital spaces and economic activity—so long as they do not infringe others’ rights or social order. This openness fosters innovation and integrates Chinese democracy into the global civilization.
Finally, Article 2 gives public institutions a mission—not to rule or enslave, but to protect. This provides a “third way” for Chinese democracy: it avoids the inefficiency and populist risks of Western representative systems, and it breaks free from the oppression of authoritarian regimes. Through co-creation by citizens and a rights-first principle, the Five-People Constitution outlines a future of freedom and order for China.
Conclusion: A Constitutional Beacon of Freedom and Civil Governance With “citizens jointly building the state” and “anything not prohibited by law is permitted” at its core, Article 2 of the Five-People Constitution establishes civil governance as the principle of public institutions and freedom as their foundation. It not only guides the design of state power but lays the cornerstone for the future of Chinese democracy. Under this article’s guidance, public institutions become extensions of citizen will, rights become the constitutional bottom line, and freedom becomes the soul of society.
He Qingfeng, founder of Five-Peopleism and author of the Five-People Constitution A man of integrity, sleeves full of wind—He Qingfeng.
By Wang Lianjiang Chief Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen
I am Wang Lianjiang, a member of the China Democracy Party. On May 31, 2025, at Liberty Sculpture Park, I participated in a vigil commemorating the Tiananmen Massacre.
Here, I call upon all conscientious Chinese citizens: Do not be the screws that hold up the Chinese Communist Party. Withdraw from the CCP, Withdraw from the People’s Liberation Army, Withdraw from the civil service, Withdraw from the police, Withdraw from urban management forces!
Let us stand on the side of the people, Let us stand on the side of freedom and justice.
(By Zhang Xinggui, Member of the China Democracy Party)
Edited by Hu Lili | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by Lu Huiwen
Throughout history, the term “Hanjian”—traitor to the Han people—has carried deep shame and pain. It has referred to those who betrayed the nation and colluded with foreign enemies. But is this definition truly comprehensive? Does it reflect who actually causes the greatest harm to the nation? When we look back at history, especially during times of suffering and turmoil, we find that many of those labeled as “traitors” were merely trying to survive, protect their families, or prevent greater disasters. Meanwhile, those who held immense power often, even in times of peace and with full control over resources, ignored the people’s hardships, exploited the masses, and sold out national interests.
So, I propose a new standard of judgment: the real traitors are not those who, in chaotic times, collaborated with foreign regimes for survival, but those rulers who betray their people and disregard their well-being.
Traditionally, the label “Hanjian” has been applied to Han Chinese individuals who sided with enemy forces during national crises, placing personal gain above the greater good of the nation. They were condemned by history and became the target of universal scorn. Yet reality is often more complex than labels. Many so-called traitors were in fact ordinary people stripped of rights, local gentry forced to compromise to prevent greater harm, or reformers who dared to introduce advanced systems. Their choices may not have been noble, but they were not necessarily shameful. Their motives were often not betrayal, but the pursuit of a sliver of survival.
In contrast, those who sat in palaces of power—holding national resources and the reins of decision-making—yet still turned a blind eye to the people’s needs and trampled justice during peaceful times, are the ones we must truly be wary of. They were entrusted to protect the people’s welfare, yet betrayed that trust at crucial moments—even selling out the country’s interests. Cloaked in patriotic rhetoric, they engaged in acts that harmed the nation and its people. They proclaimed loyalty to the nation, but their corruption, repression, and incompetence dragged the country into decline. These individuals may not have openly joined foreign enemies, but their erosion of national foundations and betrayal of the public interest is more disgraceful than those who compromised to survive. They are the ones who truly bring shame to the nation and suffering to the people.
In the late Qing dynasty, some high officials, facing foreign invasions, scrambled to cede territory and pay reparations in exchange for temporary peace, just to preserve their own positions and wealth. How is this any different from directly siding with invaders? In more recent times, some rulers have chanted slogans of enriching the nation and empowering the people, while secretly exploiting the public, driving citizens into hardship. They turn basic needs—housing, healthcare, pensions, food safety—into profit machines for the elite. These officials who abuse power and ignore public welfare may not have colluded with foreign enemies, but their actions corrode the nation from within and injure the people profoundly. They intensify social injustice, erode public trust—is that not also a form of betrayal?
True traitors don’t need to raise a white flag to surrender—they may hide behind high walls, using power and selfishness to consume the nation’s hope. They control fiscal resources, monopolize public benefits, and deepen the burden on ordinary people, fueling social fragmentation. This internal harm is sometimes more destructive than foreign invasion. They impose harsh rule at home while making generous concessions abroad, all for empty diplomatic clout—yet it’s always the silent taxpayers who suffer. This kind of self-serving governance is a betrayal of national duty. They may not hold foreign passports, but they have long since betrayed their own people. Are such rulers not even more contemptible traitors?
A real “Hanjian” is not defined by whether they cooperated with foreign enemies, but by whether they betrayed their people and violated the fundamental interests of the nation. Those ordinary people surviving in the margins, those who compromised out of pressure—are not criminals. A person who yields to survive may have his reasons. One who invites foreign resources for development may have vision. But those in high positions, entrusted with public duty, who abandon that duty and ignore the people’s needs, have no excuse. Their betrayal is inexcusable. They are the true traitors worthy of public contempt.
We must be vigilant of such traitors. More importantly, we must use our eyes to discern them, our voices to condemn them, and our actions to resist them. As ordinary citizens, we may lack overwhelming power, but we possess conscience—and responsibility. Every time we stand up, even if it’s just sharing a piece of truth, supporting a media outlet, or joining in public accountability—we are already dismantling the wall of silence that these traitors depend on. Only then can we ensure that those who betray the people have nowhere to hide.
If there is another life, I don’t want— I don’t want to keep my eyes shut in the dark, Don’t want to learn to speak within high walls, Don’t want to be taught to forget through books, Don’t want to learn to live Obediently and humbly amid lies.
I don’t want to see again— Books turning to ashes in flames, Thoughts torn to shreds behind bars, People dancing in shackles inside the wall, Yet never hearing the wind from beyond it.
If there is another life, Let me bathe in the sunlight of freedom. Let truth, like a rushing wind, Shatter every sealed door and window. I would choose the harder road— To no longer feign sleep, no longer bow, No longer sing hymns over ruins.
If there is another life, Let no bubbles obscure the bloodstained truth. Let history openly recall every scar. Let every lost name Be softly spoken by someone.
— Wang Chengguo Written in Los Angeles, July 20, 2025
Edited by Wang Mengmeng Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen Translated by Lu Huiwen
In Memory of Liu Xiaobo on the Eighth Anniversary of His Passing
By Jin Mi
Edited by Wang Mengmeng | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by Lu Huiwen
He died too quietly, like an old-fashioned gentleman who already knew the ending—his shirt buttoned, his handwriting neat, then slowly closed his eyes and returned his life to this world.
He disturbed no one, stained no sheets, left behind no excess words.
His death mirrored his life: restrained, gentle, clean—so clean it bordered on cruelty.
It wasn’t him who was cruel. It was the world that feared his purity.
He had no enemies, yet many treated him as one.
They refused to release him, saying he was ill, but the truth is—they feared him alive.
Feared that every inch of his emaciated body spelled defiance.
Feared that even his cough would shake the characters on the page.
Feared that a man with no power and no privilege had more reason to exist than they did.
They said he died of cancer. But the sea knows—it wasn’t illness, it was depletion.
He burned through his life, burned it so fiercely it made others blush—yet left them helpless.
He couldn’t see the sea before he died; only his ashes were scattered into it afterward.
The sea remembers no one. As the tide rises and falls, each drop forgets the last.
But we remember.
His ashes are like a banned poem, unable to find a resting place,
forever drifting at the margins of the nation.
He is gone, and those people breathed a sigh of relief.
But they forgot—
A body reduced to ashes weighs more than words left unsaid.
Los Angeles Roars Again: Support for Fang Yirong, Civic Resistance Unceasing
— Report on the 748th “Jasmine Action”
By: Li Congling
Editor: Luo Zhifei Chief Editor: Lu Huiwen Translation: Lu Huiwen
[Los Angeles] — At precisely 4:00 p.m. on July 26, 2025, the 748th “Jasmine Action” was held as scheduled in front of the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles. Centered on the theme “Support Fang Yirong,” the rally was organized by the China Democracy Party National Committee, with Cheng Ming and Lin Yangzheng serving as co-hosts. The event drew numerous participants concerned with the future of human rights, democracy, and rule of law in China.
This gathering aimed to support Chinese dissidents Fang Yirong and Peng Lifa, both of whom were arrested and detained for expressing dissatisfaction with the Chinese government and calling for constitutional democracy. Their whereabouts remain unknown, and they have reportedly been subjected to long-term secret detention.
Peng Lifa, known as the “Bridge Man,” shocked the world in October 2022 when he unfurled a banner on Beijing’s Sitong Bridge protesting Xi Jinping’s reappointment. His slogans included: “We want food, not COVID tests; we want freedom, not lockdowns.” Three years later, it is reported that Peng has been secretly sentenced to nine years in prison. His place of detention and health condition remain unclear.
On July 30, 2024, Fang Yirong hung a large white banner with red characters from a pedestrian bridge in Xinhua County. The message, adapted from Peng Lifa’s slogans, read:
“We want equality, not privilege; we want reform, not a Cultural Revolution; we want freedom, not lockdowns; we want votes, not a supreme leader; we want dignity, not lies. We will not be slaves, but citizens.”
He also broadcast slogans through a loudspeaker: “We want freedom, democracy, and votes! Boycott classes, boycott work, recall the traitorous dictator Xi Jinping!”
As a rare public protester in recent years, Fang bravely took to the streets to challenge authoritarian rule and was eventually subjected to secret interrogation and detention.
In his opening speech, host Cheng Ming said, “Fang Yirong used his own flesh and blood to confront lies and tyranny. He is our role model, and a symbol of hope that our nation’s spirit is not yet extinguished.”
The speeches then began in a solemn and respectful atmosphere. Speakers included Yang Hao, Ma Qun, Zhang Donghao, Ni Shicheng, and Liu Ao. They passionately condemned the CCP’s ongoing suppression of free speech and civic rights, and called on the international community to pay attention to the persecution of Fang Yirong and other activists such as Peng Lifa.
Following the speeches, participants sang a song in memory of Peng Lifa, showing solidarity with this unyielding citizen. Attendees then unfurled banners and marched peacefully around the entrance of the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles, chanting slogans such as “Be citizens, not slaves!”, “Free prisoners of conscience!”, “Down with the CCP tyranny!”, and “End CCP!” The chants drew attention from passersby—some stopped to take photos, others gave thumbs-up in support.
The organizing body, the China Democracy Party National Committee, stated that the 748th Jasmine Action was both a tribute to the “Bridge Warriors” and a defense of the spirit of Chinese civil society. In the face of tightening speech control and authoritarian expansion, only the free lands overseas can serve as sanctuaries for preserving the flame of democracy.
“We will not stop,” said co-host Lin Yangzheng, “even if it’s only once a week, even if there are only a few people, we will keep standing up, speaking out for them, and paving the way for the future.”
The event concluded peacefully in the evening. Participants gradually dispersed, but the banners in their hands and the determination in their eyes cast long shadows under the blazing Los Angeles sun. From Sitong Bridge in Beijing to the consulate in Los Angeles, from lone resistance to collective outcry, these actions proclaim: even if the iron curtain still stands and the long night has yet to lift, those with conscience will not forget to cry out, and those with justice will not succumb to silence.
The Bridge Warriors are not alone — on the other side of the world, countless people are running the next leg of the relay.
Los Angeles, July 27 – Support Human Rights Lawyer Xie Yang
Event Theme: Supporting Human Rights Lawyer Xie Yang
Event Time: July 27, 2025, 12:00 PM – 3:00 PM
Event Location: Chinese Communist Consulate, Los Angeles
Organizer: Yuan Zegang Coordinator: Hua Zhaosong
After more than a dozen postponements, the case of Xie Yang is finally going to trial. The pretrial meeting is scheduled for July 28. As this is a case of persecution, the one on trial is innocent, and the ones conducting the trial are guilty. Whether it’s a pretrial meeting or a public hearing, each occasion serves a vital purpose: affirming the lawyers, praising the defendants, judging those in power, and placing the judiciary itself on trial.
In the criminal proceedings against the 709 lawyers, every single procedural step constitutes a massive revelation and condemnation of the CCP’s crimes.
Once a criminal case has entered the judicial process, they cannot avoid the stage of holding a public trial.
