作者：赵文龙

编辑：胡丽莉   校对：冯仍   翻译：戈冰

2026年1月18日，南加州的暖阳并未能驱散全球民主志士心中的严寒。在洛杉矶六四纪念馆内，一场名为“释放李卓人、邹幸彤，还香港自由”的集会在此庄严举行。这不仅是一场跨越时空的民主接力，更是一次对中共极权暴政的沉痛控诉。香港支联会（香港市民支援爱国民主运动联合会）的精神，在太平洋彼岸再次点燃。

一、维园烛光的火种，在洛杉矶复燃

曾几何时，香港维多利亚公园的烛光是全球反抗中共暴政、纪念六四英灵的灯塔。然而，随着中共悍然撕毁《中英联合声明》，在香港强推“国安法”，那个曾经的自由港已沦为极权的殖民地。支联会——这个坚持了三十余年的民主堡垒——被非法解散，其核心领导层李卓人、邹幸彤等人更是身陷囹圄，遭受政治迫害。

今日，洛杉矶六四纪念馆的墙壁上挂满了历史的见证。集会现场，投影幕布上清晰地写着：“反对任意拘禁！”“释放李卓人！”“释放邹幸彤！”这些字句在昏暗的馆内熠熠生辉，像是从香江彼岸传来的嘶吼。

二、民主先贤齐聚：正义的共振

此次集会汇聚了海外最具影响力的民主运动领袖，他们的发言不仅是对香港同胞的声援，更是对中共极权统治的深度解构。

王丹：作为八九学运的象征，他深情谈到，香港的命运与三十多年前的天安门如出一辙。中共对李卓人、邹幸彤的审判，本质上是对人类基本价值观的审判。

袁弓夷（Elmer Yuen）：这位著名的香港实业家、社会运动家，在现场发表了慷慨激昂的演说。袁先生直言，中共对香港的赤化是其全球渗透战略的关键一环。他呼吁国际社会不仅要关注人权，更要从政治和经济层面全面反击。集会期间，我有幸与袁先生合影，近距离感受到了这位长者对民主事业的赤诚。

郑存柱与中国民主党志士：郑存柱先生率领多名中国民主党成员到场支持。他指出，香港的民主斗争与中国大陆的民主化进程密不可分，只要中共政权不倒，类似的悲剧就会在华夏大地不断重演。我也与郑先生及多位民主党同仁留下了珍贵的合影，这象征着海内外反共势力的团结一致。

方政：坐在轮椅上的六四见证者方政，用他那坚定而略带沙哑的声音提醒世人：极权的坦克可以碾碎双腿，但永远无法碾碎追求自由的意志。

三、批判中共：制度性的流氓与历史的罪人

我们必须看清，中共对李卓人和邹幸彤的迫害，绝非单纯的法律案件，而是一场赤裸裸的制度性绑架。

首先，中共利用所谓的“国安法”实现了法律的工具化与武器化。在文明世界，法律是保护公民自由的盾牌；而在中共治下，法律是阉割异见者的利刃。邹幸彤作为一名律师，她所捍卫的正是法治的尊严，而中共恰恰因为她懂法、守法、用法，而感到前所未有的恐惧。

其次，中共的暴政根源在于其深刻的权力焦虑。一个号称“大国崛起”的政权，竟然害怕一名女性手中的蜡烛，害怕一个工会领袖的呐喊。这种极度的不自信，反映了其统治合法性的全面崩塌。他们试图通过抓捕李卓人来切断香港与国际工运的联系，通过禁锢邹幸彤来抹除香港人的历史记忆，但这种做法无异于扬汤止沸。

四、结语：在野的呐喊，必将化为执政的惊雷

李卓人在狱中曾言：“坐牢是抗争的一部分。”邹幸彤亦在法庭上坚称：“自由不需要恩赐。”

作为《在野党》杂志的忠实读者，我深知：今日在洛杉矶的集会，是为了明天在天安门、在香港礼宾府的重聚。我们记录每一个受难者的名字，批判每一个独裁者的罪行，是为了在历史的审判席上，让正义不再迟到。

中共以为高墙能阻断自由的传播，却不知高墙之内的呐喊，早已跨越山海，在每一个向往自由的心灵中回荡。李卓人、邹幸彤，你们并不孤单。全人类的良知，正与你们并肩作战。

作者评论：

洛杉矶的这场火种，正是中共最深重的梦魇。当海内外民主力量合流，当“六四精神”与“香江风骨”交汇，那个腐朽的独裁体制，终将在自由的洪流中土崩瓦解。

The Cry Before the Guillotine: A Report on the June Fourth Memorial Museum’s Rally in Support of Hong Kong in Los Angeles

Author: Zhao Wenlong

Editor: Hu Lili   Proofreader: Feng Reng   Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: In January 2026, the June Fourth Memorial Museum in Los Angeles held a solidarity rally calling for the release of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hing-tung. Overseas democracy activists gathered to denounce the CCP’s persecution of Hong Kong’s democratic movement through the National Security Law, reaffirming the enduring legacy of June Fourth’s spirit and the values of freedom.

On January 18, 2026, Southern California’s warm sunshine failed to dispel the chill in the hearts of global democracy advocates. Within the Los Angeles June Fourth Memorial, a solemn rally titled “Free Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, Restore Hong Kong’s Freedom” unfolded. This event represented not only a transcontinental relay of democracy but also a profound indictment of the CCP’s totalitarian tyranny. The spirit of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China was reignited across the Pacific.

I. The Flame of Victoria Park’s Candlelight Reignites in Los Angeles

Once upon a time, the candlelight vigil in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park served as a beacon for global resistance against CCP tyranny and a memorial for the souls of June Fourth. Yet, as the CCP brazenly tore up the Sino-British Joint Declaration and forcibly imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong, that once-free port has fallen into the clutches of authoritarian colonial rule. The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China—a bastion of democracy that stood firm for over three decades—was illegally dissolved. Its core leaders, including Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, now languish behind bars, victims of political persecution.

Today, the walls of the June Fourth Memorial in Los Angeles are adorned with historical testimonies. At the rally site, the projection screen clearly displayed: “Oppose Arbitrary Detention!” “Free Lee Cheuk-yan! Release Chiu Hsing-tung!” These words shone brightly in the dimly lit hall, like cries echoing from across the Pearl River.

II. Gathering of Democratic Pioneers: Resonance of Justice

This rally brought together the most influential leaders of the overseas democracy movement. Their speeches were not only expressions of solidarity with Hong Kong compatriots but also profound deconstructions of the CCP’s totalitarian rule.

Wang Dan: As a symbol of the 1989 student movement, he spoke emotionally about how Hong Kong’s fate mirrors that of Tiananmen Square over three decades ago. The CCP’s trials of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hing-tung are, at their core, a trial of fundamental human values.

Elmer Yuen: This renowned Hong Kong industrialist and social activist delivered a passionate speech on-site. Mr. Yuen stated bluntly that the CCP’s efforts to turn Hong Kong red are a crucial part of its global infiltration strategy. He called on the international community not only to focus on human rights but also to mount a comprehensive counterattack on both political and economic fronts. During the rally, I had the honor of taking a photo with Mr. Yuen, experiencing firsthand the sincerity of this elder statesman toward the cause of democracy.

Zheng Cunzhu and Chinese Democratic Party Activists: Mr. Zheng Cunzhu led several members of the Chinese Democratic Party to show their support. He emphasized that Hong Kong’s democratic struggle is inextricably linked to the democratization process in mainland China. As long as the CCP regime remains in power, similar tragedies will continue to unfold across the Chinese nation. I also captured a precious group photo with Mr. Zheng and several Democratic Party colleagues, symbolizing the unity of anti-communist forces both at home and abroad.

Fang Zheng: Sitting in a wheelchair, June Fourth witness Fang Zheng reminded the world with his resolute, slightly hoarse voice: Totalitarian tanks may crush legs, but they can never crush the will to pursue freedom.

III. Critique of the CCP: Institutional Thugs and Historical Criminals

We must recognize that the CCP’s persecution of Lee Cheuk-yan and Chou Hsing-tung is not merely a legal case, but a blatant act of institutional abduction.

First, the CCP has weaponized the law through its so-called “National Security Law.” In civilized societies, law serves as a shield protecting citizens’ freedoms; under CCP rule, it becomes a blade to castrate dissent. As a lawyer, Chiu Hsing-tung defends the very dignity of the rule of law. Precisely because she understands, upholds, and wields the law, the CCP feels unprecedented fear.

Second, the CCP’s tyranny stems from its profound anxiety over power. A regime touting the “rise of a great nation” fears the candle held by a woman, fears the cries of a labor union leader. This extreme insecurity reflects the complete collapse of its ruling legitimacy. They attempt to sever Hong Kong’s ties with the international labor movement by arresting Lee Cheuk-yan, and to erase Hong Kong’s historical memory by imprisoning Chow Hang-tung. Yet such measures are merely putting out the fire with boiling water.

IV. Conclusion: The Cry of the Opposition Will Become the Thunder of Governance

While imprisoned, Lee Cheuk-yan stated: “Imprisonment is part of the struggle.” “ Chiu also asserted in court: ”Freedom is not a gift.”

As a devoted reader of The Opposition magazine, I know this: Today’s rally in Los Angeles is for tomorrow’s reunion at Tiananmen Square and Hong Kong’s Government House. We record every victim’s name and condemn every dictator’s crime so that justice will no longer be delayed in history’s courtroom.

The CCP believes high walls can block the spread of freedom, yet it fails to see that the cries from within those walls have long crossed mountains and seas, echoing in every heart yearning for liberty. Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hing-tung, you are not alone. The conscience of all humanity stands shoulder to shoulder with you.

Author’s Commentary:

This spark ignited in Los Angeles is the CCP’s deepest nightmare. When democratic forces at home and abroad converge, when the spirit of June Fourth meets the backbone of Hong Kong, that rotten dictatorship will crumble in the torrent of freedom.

活动主题：声援邹魏 信仰自由

在中共的统治之下，中国希望所有的人民都只信共产党，信马列主义。但是信仰是无罪的也是高尚的。邹魏先生坚持了自己的基督信仰，被中共迫害，多次拘留，审讯，在家里也被骚扰。邹先生代表了中国群友基督徒的现状。

让我们高喊:信仰无罪，不做马列的徒子徒孙!

活动组织：中国民主人权联盟旧金山分部

活动策划：李海风 张勇

活动时间：2026年2月1日 2-4 pm

活动地点：圣何塞市政厅

联系人： 张勇 6265816991

导航地址：200 E Santa Clara St San Jose, CA 95113

党内各位同仁：

您和您的家人及朋友，

是否正在担心被ICE抓捕；

是否正备受恐惧大庭被拒的煎熬；

是否正遭遇寻求庇护的艰辛和美国梦难圆的焦虑……

为此，本期“周五江湖”特别邀请国际著名律师、美国加州、纽约和新泽西州三地执业律师陈闯创先生结合大量实际案例为我们一一释疑解惑并排忧解难。

同时还邀请了中国民主党全委会执行委员耿冠军先生就“伪民运”起诉中国民主党全委会一事做情况说明及我们的应对策略与大家展开交流和探讨。

欢迎广大党员朋友带上心中的疑问准时到场提问参会畅聊。

本期活动以AA餐叙形式展开，参会者请在今天下午四点前报备，以便提前采购食材。

时间：2026年01月30日星期五下午五点开始

地点：200 E Garvey Ave # 201, Monterey Park, CA 91755

作者：关永杰

编辑：钟然   责任编辑：胡丽莉   翻译：周敏

最近在中国大陆有一则新闻引起社会广泛关注。2026年1月8日，河南驻马店新蔡县清华园中学，13岁少年被发现死亡后，家属在遗体左胸口发现疑似针孔的圆形伤痕。位置精准、形态异常，既不像外伤，也不像常规抢救痕迹。更反常的是，家属尚未被第一时间通知，法医却迅速到场；确认死亡后，被拉走的不是殡仪车辆，而是救护车。

某些细节，出现了基本常识下的逻辑冲突。如果只是一起普通的校园意外，为什么流程完全倒置？如果只是正常的突发疾病死亡，为什么要迅速转移遗体？如果没有不可告人的目的，为什么要强压舆情封锁消息？官方通报无法解释这些疑点，而民间的质疑，却形成了严密的逻辑闭环。

这事件被广泛关注后，激发起网友再次对相关话题进行了深入的讨论。“脑死亡”时有报道，“失踪人口”在增多，而“器官移植”配型与手术却异常高效。

近些年，中国社会出现一系列令人难以理解的并行现象：青少年“意外脑死亡”事件频繁出现，多发生在校园、集体管理场所；即使是全国密布高清摄像头，但妇女与儿童的寻人信息在网络上反复出现，不但没有盼来官方的回应，而已经运营了25年的“中国寻亲网“于2025年7月15日却被关闭了服务器；多家医院公开展示器官移植成果：配型排期时间之短远超世界平均水平；手术数量密集，多器官同时移植成为某些医院的“技术亮点”；另一则国际级新闻是2017 年《柳叶刀》（The Lancet）撤回中国肝脏移植专家王海波（及其团队，包括郑树森院士）论文的重大医疗学术事件，撤稿原因是学术界质疑该论文涉及的 564 例器官移植来源不明，尽管作者声称器官全部来自公民自愿捐献，但国际医学界（包括伦理组织）认为其数据在时间跨度上与中国官方公布的捐献数据不符，作者无法提供有效的伦理证明。

令人不禁发问，这么多的器官从何而来？按照正常医学伦理，器官移植高度依赖自愿捐献，合法登记并严格管控流程。可现实中，中国却长期存在一个无法被解释的矛盾——捐献数据无法支撑如此庞大的移植规模。

器官匹配、买卖、移植这一整个流程，海陆空联动高效运送、医术高超经验丰富的医生，这些只是基本要求，肯花钱应该也能做到。最难完成的是：至少要有大规模目标对象的人体生物数据，才能快速与需求者配型；监狱里的犯人、学校里的学生、社会上的器官捐献志愿者，什么样的组织掌握这些人的数据？什么样的组织才有这雄厚的软硬件实力？在人口失踪或离奇死亡事件发生并引起舆情的时候，什么样的组织才能在短时间内管控媒体、封口禁声、平息事态？

答案只有一个：国家机器。

更令人不寒而栗的是现实中的反差，学校饮用水收费、热水澡收费、吹空调收费、午休也收费，却能“免费体检”“统一抽血”“集中建档”。

当今中国出现了这样一句流传语——“孩子长不大，老人不会死。”

这并不是调侃讽刺，而是一种极度恐怖的现实隐喻：孩子在最健康的年纪消失，而权贵阶层却能不断“延寿”，活到150岁已经不是梦。

多年来，关于“活摘器官”的指控被贴上“谣言”“阴谋论”的标签。现在结合前文的叙述，并回顾一下之前相关事件被曝光后的官方通报，哪一次能够逻辑自洽？

真相已经浮现，世界不应沉默。

（照片由活动方提供）

2026年1月18日，多个组织在网上发起抗议活动，同时举行的城市包括洛杉矶、旧金山、法兰克福。旧金山湾区的抗议活动由中国民主人权联盟发起，在圣何塞市政厅前举行。主题是：守护孩子生命   追问校园真相   抗议中共活摘器官

活动参与者有：李海风、张勇、张辉、蔡晓莉、邱光辉。

发言者来自不同背景，但目标一致：呼吁国际社会展开独立调查，呼吁更多幸存者站出来，呼吁世界不要再以“内政”为借口对这反人类罪行视而不见。这并不是孤立事件，这是国家犯罪（State Crime）。

Why Do the Children Die? Where Do the Organs Come From? — Who is Manufacturing This Heinous Crime?

Author: Guan Yongjie

Editor: Zhong Ran   Responsible Editor: Hu Lili   Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: The mysterious death of a 13-year-old student in Henan has sparked public questioning regarding campus safety, the source of organ transplants, and information blockades. Multiple abnormalities point toward systemic issues. Citizens in various locations have launched protests, calling on the international community to conduct independent investigations and hold those accountable for potential state crimes.

Recently, a news story in Mainland China has garnered widespread social attention. On January 8, 2026, at Qinghuayuan Middle School in Xincai County, Zhumadian, Henan, a 13-year-old boy was found dead. His family discovered a circular scar resembling a needle puncture on the left side of his chest. The position was precise and the shape abnormal; it looked neither like an external injury nor a mark from conventional emergency rescue. Even more unusual was the fact that while the family was not notified immediately, a forensic doctor arrived on the scene with remarkable speed. Once death was confirmed, the vehicle that took the body away was not a hearse from a funeral home, but an ambulance.

Certain details present logical conflicts with basic common sense. If this were merely an ordinary campus accident, why was the protocol completely inverted? If it were a sudden death from natural causes, why the rush to remove the body? If there were no hidden motives, why the heavy-handed suppression of public opinion and the information blockade? Official reports cannot explain these doubts, yet the skepticism of the public has formed a tight logical loop.

Following the widespread attention on this incident, netizens have once again engaged in deep discussions on related topics. Reports of “brain death” appear frequently, “missing persons” cases are on the rise, while “organ transplant” matching and surgeries remain abnormally efficient.

In recent years, a series of incomprehensible parallel phenomena have emerged in Chinese society: “accidental brain death” among teenagers occurs frequently, mostly in schools or collective management facilities. Despite the dense nationwide network of high-definition surveillance cameras, information regarding missing women and children appears repeatedly online without receiving official responses. Furthermore, the “China Missing Persons Network,” which had operated for 25 years, had its servers shut down on July 15, 2025. Meanwhile, multiple hospitals publicly showcase their organ transplant achievements: the waiting time for matching is far shorter than the global average, the volume of surgeries is dense, and simultaneous multi-organ transplants have become “technical highlights” for certain hospitals.

Another international-level news item involves the 2017 retraction of a paper by Chinese liver transplant expert Wang Haibo (and his team, including academician Zheng Shusen) by The Lancet. The retraction was due to the academic community’s questioning of the unknown source of the 564 organ transplants involved in the paper. Although the authors claimed the organs all came from voluntary citizen donations, the international medical community (including ethical organizations) believed the data did not align with official Chinese donation figures over that period, and the authors could not provide valid ethical proof.

One cannot help but ask: where do so many organs come from? According to standard medical ethics, organ transplantation relies heavily on voluntary donation, legal registration, and strictly controlled processes. However, in reality, China has long harbored an unexplainable contradiction—donation data cannot support such a massive scale of transplants.

The entire process of organ matching, trading, and transplantation requires highly efficient land, sea, and air logistics and highly skilled, experienced doctors. These are basic requirements that might be achieved with enough money. The most difficult part to accomplish is this: there must be a large-scale database of human biological data of target subjects to quickly match them with recipients. Prisoners in jails, students in schools, organ donation volunteers in society—what kind of organization possesses the data of these people? What kind of organization has such profound hardware and software capabilities? When disappearances or mysterious deaths occur and trigger public outcry, what kind of organization can control the media, silence the public, and suppress the situation in such a short time?

There is only one answer: The State Machine.

Even more chilling is the contrast in reality: schools charge fees for drinking water, hot baths, air conditioning, and even noon breaks, yet they provide “free physical exams,” “unified blood draws,” and “centralized health filing.”

A saying is currently circulating in China: “The children do not grow up, and the elderly do not die.”

This is not a sarcastic joke; it is a terrifying metaphor for reality: children disappear in their healthiest years, while the elite class can continuously “extend their lives,” making the dream of living to 150 years a reality.

For years, allegations regarding “forced organ harvesting” were labeled as “rumors” or “conspiracy theories.” Now, combining the preceding narrative and reviewing previous official reports after such incidents were exposed, which one of them has ever been logically self-consistent?

The truth has surfaced; the world should not remain silent.

(Photo provided by the organizers)

On January 18, 2026, several organizations launched protest activities online. Cities holding simultaneous protests included Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Frankfurt. The protest in the San Francisco Bay Area was initiated by the China Democracy & Human Rights Alliance and held in front of San Jose City Hall. The theme was: Protect the Lives of Children, Seek the Truth of the Campus, Protest the CCP’s Forced Organ Harvesting.

Participants included: Li Haifeng, Zhang Yong, Zhang Hui, Cai Xiaoli, and Qiu Guanghui. The speakers came from different backgrounds but shared a common goal: calling on the international community to launch an independent investigation, calling for more survivors to stand up, and calling on the world to stop using “internal affairs” as an excuse to turn a blind eye to these crimes against humanity. This is not an isolated incident; this is state-sponsored crime.

活动召集｜赢学与润学

——关于“斩杀线”与底层困境的一次诚实讨论

这几年，中文互联网上流行着两门“显学”。

一门叫 赢学——

无论现实多么艰难，总有人告诉你“一切都在变好，我们赢麻了”。

另一门叫 润学——

当看不到未来，有人开始认真研究：如何离开，去一个规则更稳定、机会更可预期的地方生活。

一边是不断被强调的宏大胜利，

一边是越来越具体的个人退路。

在这两种看似对立的叙事背后，其实是同一个问题：

普通人，到底还能不能跨过越来越高的“斩杀线”，活得有安全感和尊严？

这不是一场立场辩论，而是一次关于现实处境的坦诚对话。

我们更关心的，是这些问题

• 如果一个社会需要“赢学”来安抚情绪，这说明了什么？

• 如果越来越多人认真研究“润学”，这又意味着什么？

• 当向上流动变难、向外流动变多，社会结构会发生什么变化？

• 有没有一种可能，让人不必靠精神胜利感活着，也不必靠离开来寻找未来？

我们希望带走的，不只是情绪

我们无法在一场活动里解决结构性难题，

但我们可以先做到一件事：

把那些被调侃、被压抑、被私下讨论的话题，认真说出来。

也许真正的改变，就始于不再假装一切都“赢麻了”，

也始于承认：不是每一个想“润”的人，都是轻易做出的选择。

时间：1月31日周六 下午2点

地点：丁胖子广场

形式：圆桌讨论 + 自由发言

活动召集人：张俊杰、袁平

活动组织人：丁海峰、谢志诚

活动策划人：张致君、周云龙

欢迎把这条信息转给同样关心这些问题的朋友。

这不是一场宏大叙事的复读会，

而是一次关于现实生活的对话。

编辑：周志刚   责任编辑：钟然   校对：冯仍   翻译：吕峰

最近这一阵子，国际新闻看下来，真有点“独裁者排队倒下”的感觉。

德黑兰枪声：不再恐惧的伊朗人

就在今年1月，伊朗的局势已经到了失控的边缘。这场从去年底爆发的抗议，起因还是老生常谈的经济崩溃——通胀率飙升，老百姓连基本的生活物资都买不起。但这一次，火苗迅速烧成了大火。

细节比以往任何一次都更惨烈。据报道，德黑兰的抗议已经蔓延到180多个城市。虽然伊朗当局故技重施，在1月8日实施了全国断网，并出动安全部队开枪镇压，但是这次年轻人没退缩。最震撼的消息是，有视频流出显示德黑兰郊区的停尸房里堆满了遇难者的遗体，民间传闻遇难人数甚至超过了万人。

这次抗议有一个细节很关键：口号变了。以前大家可能还只是喊喊“要面包”，现在满大街喊的是“打倒哈梅内伊”。更重要的是，像阿卜达南这样的城市，安全部队竟然因为无法维持局面而选择了撤离。当暴力工具开始失效，当恐惧不再能吓住老百姓，这个神权独裁政权的倒计时就已经开始了。

纽约囚服：马杜罗的神话破灭

如果说伊朗还在“挣扎”，那委内瑞拉的马杜罗则是彻底“凉了”。2026年1月3日，美军发动了名为“绝对决心”的突袭行动，在加拉加斯直接抓捕了马杜罗及其夫人，并迅速把他们押解到了纽约。

这个细节非常具有讽刺意味：一个曾经在电视上指点江山、大谈反美的独裁者，几天后竟然身穿囚服、戴着手铐出现在纽约的法庭上。马杜罗一直觉得只要抓牢军方、搞定选举，就能靠石油财富一直统治下去。但他忽略了，当国家通胀到钞票不如废纸、数百万人流亡海外时，他的统治根基早已腐烂。

马杜罗的倒台给全世界的独裁者提了个醒：在这个时代，没有谁是绝对安全的。即便你自诩有强大的武装，但在失去民心和国际社会合法性之后，崩溃往往就在一夜之间。

全球趋势重点：独裁者的生存空间在缩小

这两个事件连在一起看，其实释放了一个信号：独裁统治的“红利期”结束了。

过去独裁政权靠三招：封锁消息、经济收买、武力镇压。但现在，虽然有高科技监控，但去中心化的信息传播依然挡不住；全球经济进入下行周期，独裁者没钱收买人心了；而当镇压的代价大到连士兵都不愿开枪时，独裁政权的死穴就被点中了。

展望国内：中国高压效应已经形成

回过头来看看中国。虽然现在国内看起来风平浪静，各方面的控制手段也比伊朗、委内瑞拉高明得多，但逻辑其实是一样的。

过去大家愿意听话，是因为日子还能过，有一种“拿自由换面包”的默契。但现在经济慢下来了，年轻人找工作难，这种默契就开始裂了。再加上那种无孔不入的监控，短期看确实有效，但长期看，它就像个高压锅，把所有的不满都闷在里面，压力只会越来越大。

看未来的中国民主，我觉得没必要认为一夜之间天翻地覆，它更多的是一种“憋不住”的过程。当大家发现原本那套法子不灵了，当每个人开始意识到自己的尊严和权利不能永远被代表时，改变就会发生了。

历史这东西，一旦开了倒车，最后总会撞到墙。那些看起来铁板一块的墙，其实裂缝早就在里面长出来了。总结来看： 中国的民主化，可能不会是委内瑞拉那种戏剧性的“外力突袭”，而更像是一种“冰川崩裂”的过程——起初是看不见的裂纹，接着是咔咔作响的断裂，最后是不可阻挡的崩塌。

Lu Chao: The Coming Twilight of Authoritarianism

Editor: Zhou Zhigang   Responsible Editor: Zhong Ran   Proofreader: Feng Reng   Translator: Lyu Feng

Abstract: Recent intensifying protests in Iran and the arrest of Venezuela’s president indicate that authoritarian regimes may be approaching the end of their rule.

In recent weeks, following international news has given a distinct sense that “dictators are falling one after another.”

Gunfire in Tehran: An Iran No Longer Afraid

As early as January this year, the situation in Iran had already reached the brink of losing control. The protests, which erupted at the end of last year, were once again triggered by a familiar cause: economic collapse—soaring inflation and the inability of ordinary people to afford even basic necessities. This time, however, the spark quickly turned into a raging fire.

The details are more brutal than in any previous wave of unrest. Reports indicate that protests in Tehran have spread to more than 180 cities nationwide. Although Iranian authorities resorted to their usual tactics—imposing a nationwide internet shutdown on January 8 and deploying security forces to suppress the demonstrations with live ammunition—this time, young people did not retreat. The most shocking reports include videos allegedly showing morgues on the outskirts of Tehran filled with the bodies of victims, with unconfirmed accounts from civil society claiming that the death toll may have exceeded ten thousand.

One detail of this round of protests is particularly significant: the slogans have changed. In the past, crowds might have merely demanded “bread,” but now the streets are echoing with chants of “Down with Khamenei.” Even more telling is that in cities such as Abadan, security forces reportedly withdrew after being unable to maintain control. When the instruments of violence begin to fail, and when fear can no longer intimidate the population, the countdown to the collapse of a theocratic authoritarian regime has already begun.

The New York Prison Uniform: The Shattering of the Maduro Myth

If Iran can still be said to be “struggling,” then Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro is already finished. On January 3, 2026, the U.S. military launched a raid codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, capturing Maduro and his wife directly in Caracas and swiftly transferring them to New York.

The symbolism of this moment is deeply ironic. A dictator who once lectured the world on television, railing against the United States and boasting of his power, appeared only days later in a New York courtroom wearing a prison uniform and shackled in handcuffs. Maduro long believed that as long as he maintained a firm grip on the military and managed electoral procedures, Venezuela’s oil wealth would allow him to rule indefinitely. What he failed to recognize was that when inflation rendered banknotes worth less than waste paper and millions of citizens fled the country, the foundations of his rule had already rotted beyond repair.

Maduro’s downfall delivers a stark warning to authoritarian rulers worldwide: in this era, no one is absolutely secure. Even those who pride themselves on commanding formidable armed forces may find that once popular support and international legitimacy are lost, collapse can come almost overnight.

Global Trend in Focus: The Shrinking Survival Space of Dictatorships

Viewed together, these two events send a clear signal: the so-called “dividend period” of authoritarian rule has come to an end.

In the past, authoritarian regimes relied on three main tools: information control, economic co-optation, and violent repression. Today, however, each of these pillars is eroding. Even with advanced surveillance technologies, decentralized information flows can no longer be fully contained. As the global economy enters a downturn, dictators increasingly lack the financial resources to buy loyalty. And when the cost of repression becomes so high that even soldiers hesitate to pull the trigger, the regime’s fatal vulnerability is exposed.

Looking Inward: China’s High-Pressure Effect Has Taken Shape

Turning back to China, the surface may still appear calm. Its systems of control are, in many respects, more sophisticated than those of Iran or Venezuela. Yet the underlying logic is the same.

In the past, people were willing to comply because life was still manageable—there existed an implicit bargain of “trading freedom for bread.” Now, as economic growth slows and young people struggle to find jobs, that tacit agreement is beginning to crack. At the same time, pervasive surveillance may seem effective in the short term, but in the long run it functions like a pressure cooker, trapping all discontent inside. The pressure can only continue to build.

When considering China’s future democratization, there is no need to imagine a sudden overnight upheaval. It is more likely to be a gradual process of “no longer being able to hold it in.” When people realize that the old methods no longer work, and when individuals begin to understand that their dignity and rights cannot be indefinitely substituted or represented by others, change will occur.

History has a way of asserting itself. Once it is forced into reverse, it eventually crashes into a wall. Those walls that appear solid and impenetrable often already contain growing cracks within. In summary, China’s path toward democratization is unlikely to resemble Venezuela’s dramatic, externally driven “sudden strike.” Instead, it may unfold more like a glacial collapse: invisible fissures at first, followed by audible cracking, and finally an unstoppable breakdown.

作者：陈树庆  
编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏  

 早在两千多年前，《史记·李斯列传》与《史记·秦始皇本纪》就记载了“以吏为师”的典故，讲的是以政府工作人员为主体的政府工作，无论是社会道德，还是执行国家的法令，应做全社会的表率，其中最基本的，就是“无信不立”！按照现在的说法，政府要有公信力，尤其在处理老百姓的各种日常事务中，应确保民众对政府信赖利益的保障原则。

 社会养老保险作为社会保障体系的核心组成部分，不仅关系到亿万民众的切身利益，更直接关联着政府在公众心中的信誉与权威。政府作为社会养老保险制度的设计者、推行者和最终责任承担者，其政策的连续性、执行的透明度以及承诺的兑现程度，都深刻影响着民众对制度的信任度，进而构成政府公信力的重要基石。

 当政府能够通过完善的制度设计确保养老保险基金的稳健运行，通过公平的待遇调整机制保障参保人员的合理权益，通过畅通的信息渠道让公众清晰了解政策内容与资金流向时，民众便会对政府的治理能力和责任担当产生积极认知，这种认知转化为对政府的信任，促使社会形成可靠的预期和良好的秩序。反之，若养老保险政策朝令夕改、执行过程中官吏们凭借“根据相关政策”的一句笼统托词，可以言而无信、约而不守，或基金管理存在漏洞导致支付能力受质疑，公众对政府的信任便会受到冲击，引发对公共政策的普遍疑虑，小到民众的生活，大到社会的稳定与发展就失去指望，所谓的礼崩乐坏、法制颓废和无可救药了，往往从此得以萌生与蔓延。

 因此，社会养老保险制度的有效运行与政府公信力的建设之间存在着密不可分的正向互动关系，前者的完善是后者提升的重要途径，而后者的坚实则为前者的可持续发展提供了根本保障。本文作者陈树庆，就自己在办理社会养老保险时所遭遇的情况进行维权，不妨就政府公信力这个问题，首先撕开一层面纱：

《政府信息公开申请书》

杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局：

 申请人陈树庆，男，浙江省杭州市人，现住杭州市拱墅区大关苑东五苑6幢5单元202室，身份证号330106196509260073，联系电话15958160478。

 至2025年12月17日，申请人陈树庆已达法定退休年龄60周岁+3个月，实际已缴社会保险统筹24年4个月，超过了15年的最低缴费年限。2025年12月17日上午9时许，申请人到贵局（拱墅区人社局）设在拱墅区政务服务中心的办公场所办理退休手续，办事人员以陈树庆曾经因遭2007年“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑4年和2016年“颠覆国家政权罪”判刑10年6个月为由，社保缴费年限扣除两项刑期累加，剩余缴费年限只有九年多，不足最低缴费年限15年的规定，拒不办理申请人的退休资格，只是一味要求申请人对服刑期间已交的社会保险先行退费。

（图为拱墅区政府信息公开申请表）

由此，申请人产生两项疑惑并提出相应的两项政府信息公开事项：

一、20多年来，申请人、申请人家属、申请人工作或社保挂靠的单位替申请人缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日申请人最后一次刑满释放后，到贵局设在拱墅区香积寺东路58号的政务服务中心几次补缴中间断交的最近几年（这其中就包括部分刑期内的期间）社保费用也都顺利完成。贵局在收取保险缴费的时候好好的，现在要贵局履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以所谓“相关政策”为托词，拒不履行贵局应负的社会保险责任，让申请人对政府信赖利益的保护原则顿生疑惑。为此，申请人提出的第一项要求政府信息公开事项是：服刑期间已经缴纳社保的期限无效并退回缴费的具体法律（包括政策）依据，包括法律（政策）的具体名称，第几条第几款。当然，答复函中对这些法律（政策）的内容予以清晰载明，则更好。

 二、贵局在政务服务中心的工作人员让申请人先退费，口头答应退费后才能续办申请人退休资格和待遇的其他审定工作，申请人认为，退完刑期内的已缴费社保费用，剩余期限已远远不足办理退休的最低缴费年限15年的规定，届时申请人不仅现在办不了退休，连接下来的现实经济负担和最终养老社会保险结果也是无从确信和依托。为此，申请人提出的第二项要求政府信息公开事项是：1、具体退费流程，根据缴费人不同而确定的不同缴费时段，各时段具体退费数额（或退费内容与计算标准）；2、退费完毕后的详细善后流程与结果预判，同时注明所依据的法律（政策）的条款及内容则更好。

 本《政府信息公开申请书》恳请贵局以书面的形式具体明确答复，请求不要再派员含糊其辞的“根据相关政策”及可以不认账、不负责任的任何口头“咨询”或“建议”。 

 申请人：陈树庆 

申请日期： 2025年12月 21 日

 注：本《政府信息公开申请书》已于2025年12月21日寄发拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局。 

Chen Shuqing: Social Pension Insurance and the Credibility of the Government

Author: Chen Shuqing
Editor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min

As early as over two thousand years ago, the Records of the Grand Historian: Biographies of Li Si and the Records of the Grand Historian: Annals of Qin Shi Huang recorded the allusion of “taking officials as teachers” (yi li wei shi). It speaks of government work, with government personnel as the main body, being a role model for the whole society, whether in social morality or in the execution of national laws and decrees. Among these, the most fundamental is: “Without credibility, one cannot stand” (wu xin bu li)! According to modern parlance, the government must have credibility; especially in handling various daily affairs of the common people, it should ensure the principle of protecting the public’s reliance interests in the government.

Social pension insurance, as a core component of the social security system, not only concerns the vital interests of hundreds of millions of people but is also directly linked to the reputation and authority of the government in the hearts of the public. As the designer, promoter, and ultimate bearer of responsibility for the social pension insurance system, the government’s policy continuity, transparency of execution, and the extent to which promises are fulfilled all profoundly affect the public’s level of trust in the system, which in turn constitutes an important cornerstone of government credibility.

When the government can ensure the stable operation of the pension insurance fund through perfect institutional design, protect the reasonable rights and interests of participants through fair benefit adjustment mechanisms, and allow the public to clearly understand policy content and fund flows through open information channels, the people will develop a positive perception of the government’s governance capacity and sense of responsibility. This perception translates into trust in the government, prompting society to form reliable expectations and a good order. Conversely, if pension insurance policies change unpredictably, if officials rely on the vague pretext of “according to relevant policies” during the execution process to be untrustworthy or fail to keep agreements, or if loopholes in fund management cause the ability to pay to be questioned, public trust in the government will be impacted. This triggers general suspicion toward public policies; ranging from the lives of individuals to the stability and development of society, hope is lost. What is called the collapse of rites and music, the decadence of the legal system, and hopelessness often germinates and spreads from this.

Therefore, there is an inseparable positive interactive relationship between the effective operation of the social pension insurance system and the construction of government credibility. The perfection of the former is an important way to enhance the latter, while the firmness of the latter provides the fundamental guarantee for the sustainable development of the former. The author of this article, Chen Shuqing, is defending his rights regarding the situation he encountered when handling his social pension insurance. One might as well tear open a layer of the veil regarding this issue of government credibility:

Application for Disclosure of Government Information

To: Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau

Applicant: Chen Shuqing, Male, native of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. Current residence: Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Daguan Yuan East Fifth Park, Gongshu District, Hangzhou. ID Number: 330106196509260073. Contact Number: 15958160478.

By December 17, 2025, the applicant, Chen Shuqing, had reached the statutory retirement age of 60 years + 3 months, and had actually paid into the social insurance pool for 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum payment period of 15 years. At approximately 9:00 AM on December 17, 2025, the applicant went to your bureau’s (Gongshu District HRSSB) office located in the Gongshu District Government Service Center to handle retirement procedures. The staff member, on the grounds that Chen Shuqing had been sentenced to 4 years for the “crime of inciting subversion of state power” in 2007 and 10 years and 6 months for the “crime of subverting state power” in 2016, deducted the social security payment years cumulative to the two prison terms. The remaining payment years were only nine-plus years, failing to meet the minimum payment period requirement of 15 years. They refused to process the applicant’s retirement eligibility and merely kept demanding that the applicant first refund the social insurance already paid during the period of imprisonment.

(Image: Gongshu District Government Information Disclosure Application Form)

From this, the applicant has two doubts and proposes two corresponding items for government information disclosure:

I. For over 20 years, the applicant, the applicant’s family, and the units where the applicant worked or where his social security was affiliated paid social insurance for the applicant. Never did they encounter a clear notification that payments could not be made during imprisonment. Even after the applicant was released from his last prison term on March 10, 2025, he went several times to your bureau’s government service center located at No. 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District, to make up payments for the disconnected social security fees of the past few years (which included portions of the time during the prison term), and all were completed successfully. Your bureau was fine when collecting the insurance payments, but now when it is time for your bureau to fulfill the insurance responsibilities, you suddenly change face, using so-called “relevant policies” as a pretext to refuse to fulfill the social insurance responsibilities that your bureau should bear. This makes the applicant suddenly doubt the principle of protecting the public’s reliance interests in the government. To this end, the first item the applicant requests for government information disclosure is: The specific legal (including policy) basis for the invalidity and refund of social security payments already made during the period of imprisonment, including the specific name of the law (policy) and the specific article and clause. Of course, it would be even better if the reply letter clearly states the content of these laws (policies).

II. The staff at your bureau’s government service center asked the applicant to refund the fees first, orally promising that other verification work for the applicant’s retirement eligibility and benefits could only continue after the refund. The applicant believes that after refunding the social security fees paid during the prison term, the remaining period will be far less than the 15-year minimum payment period required for retirement. At that time, the applicant will not only be unable to retire now, but will also have no certainty or reliance regarding the subsequent actual economic burden and the final social pension insurance outcome. To this end, the second item the applicant requests for government information disclosure is: 1. The specific refund process, the different payment periods determined based on different payers, and the specific refund amounts (or refund content and calculation standards) for each period; 2. The detailed follow-up process and result prediction after the refund is completed, with the clauses and content of the relied-upon laws (policies) noted.

This “Application for Disclosure of Government Information” sincerely requests your bureau to respond specifically and clearly in writing. Please do not again send personnel to use vague phrases like “according to relevant policies” or any oral “consultation” or “suggestion” that can be disavowed or be irresponsible.

Applicant: Chen Shuqing Date of Application: December 21, 2025

Note: This “Application for Disclosure of Government Information” was sent to the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau on December 21, 2025.

——写在香港民主党解散之后

作者：张致君 编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：钟然 校对：王滨 翻译：周敏

2025年12月14日，香港民主党宣布解散。

在任何一个正常的政治体制中，反对派的存在，从来不是威胁。恰恰相反，它是一种证明——证明权力仍然承认自身有限，证明制度仍然相信辩论，证明统治仍然愿意被质询、被监督、被纠错。而当一个政权不再允许反对派存在，它真正表达的只有一件事：它已经不再需要被解释。

香港民主党的角色，从来不是推翻秩序。它所做的，只是提醒秩序仍需回应人民。

12月14日，这个成立逾三十年、曾是香港立法会最大反对党的政党，走到了终点。据路透社报道，民主党高层曾被中国官员或中间人接触，被明确告知：若不解散，将面临被捕等严重后果。这不是一次政治竞争的失败，而是一次制度性“清场”的完成。

民主党成立于1994年，诞生于香港仍被视为一个“可以讨论未来”的地方。它长期作为反对派领头羊，主张民主改革，维护自由、人权与法治——这些在过去曾被写入香港政治语言的词汇，如今却变得危险。

2020年，民主党公开反对《国安法》。同年，自行规划初选。结果并非选举失败，而是政治后果：时任党主席胡志伟被捕，反对派整体被视为“风险源”。

2021年，北京彻底重塑香港选举制度，只允许经审查的“爱国者”参选。反对派从议会被逐步清除，不是因为输了选票，而是因为失去了被允许存在的资格。政治不再是竞争，而变成筛选。最终的结局，并不突然。

2025年2月，民主党宣布启动解散程序；4月，授权中委会处理解散与清盘。而12月14日，只是制度逻辑的最后一步。一个不再允许反对派存在的体制，并不是更稳定，而是更脆弱。

因为反对派真正的功能，从来不是夺权，而是让权力记住：它仍然需要解释自己。

当反对派被清除，权力不再需要回答“为什么”；当议会只剩一种声音，错误也失去了被纠正的路径；当制度不再容许不同意见，社会便只剩下顺从与沉默。

而沉默，并不等于认同。香港民主党的解散，并不意味着它曾经代表的价值消失了。它只意味着，这些价值已经无法在公开政治中被表达。在一个仍然自信的制度里，反对派是被容忍的；在一个失去安全感的体制里，反对派是必须被消灭的。

历史会记住的，并不只是一个政党的终结，而是一个城市何时、如何，被剥夺了说“不”的权利。当反对派不再存在，问题从来不是“谁赢了”，而是：这个制度，已经不打算再回答任何人。

When the Opposition is Purged, the System No Longer Needs to Explain Itself

— Written Following the Dissolution of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong

Abstract: The dissolution of the Democratic Party in 2025 marks the institutional clearing of Hong Kong’s opposition. This was not a failure of election, but the result of political screening. As opposing voices vanish, power no longer requires explanation, and the system moves toward fragility and silence.

Author: Zhang Zhijun Editor: Li Congling Executive Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Zhou Min

On December 14, 2025, the Democratic Party of Hong Kong announced its dissolution.

In any normal political system, the existence of an opposition is never a threat. On the contrary, it is a testament—proof that power still acknowledges its own limits, that the system still believes in debate, and that the rule is still willing to be questioned, supervised, and corrected. When a regime no longer permits the existence of an opposition, it truly expresses only one thing: it no longer needs to be explained.

The role of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong was never to overthrow the order. What it did was merely to remind the order that it still needed to respond to the people.

On December 14, this political party—established over thirty years ago and once the largest opposition party in the Legislative Council—reached its end. According to reports from Reuters, high-ranking members of the Democratic Party had been contacted by Chinese officials or intermediaries and were explicitly told: if they did not dissolve, they would face serious consequences, including arrest. This was not a defeat in political competition, but the completion of an institutional “clearing.”

The Democratic Party was founded in 1994, born at a time when Hong Kong was still regarded as a place where one “could discuss the future.” It long served as the leader of the opposition, advocating for democratic reform and defending freedom, human rights, and the rule of law—vocabulary that was once inscribed in Hong Kong’s political language but has now become dangerous.

In 2020, the Democratic Party publicly opposed the National Security Law. In the same year, it organized its own primary elections. The result was not an electoral failure, but political consequences: then-party chairman Wu Chi-wai was arrested, and the opposition as a whole was deemed a “source of risk.”

In 2021, Beijing completely reshaped Hong Kong’s electoral system, allowing only vetted “patriots” to run for office. The opposition was gradually purged from the council, not because they lost votes, but because they lost the qualification to be permitted to exist. Politics ceased to be competition and became screening. The final ending was not sudden.

In February 2025, the Democratic Party announced the commencement of dissolution procedures; in April, it authorized the Central Committee to handle the dissolution and liquidation. December 14 was merely the final step of the institutional logic. A system that no longer allows for an opposition is not more stable, but more fragile.

Because the true function of the opposition has never been to seize power, but to make power remember: it still needs to explain itself.

When the opposition is purged, power no longer needs to answer “why”; when only one voice remains in the council, errors lose their path to correction; when the system no longer tolerates differing opinions, society is left with nothing but compliance and silence.

And silence does not equal consent. The dissolution of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong does not mean the values it once represented have vanished. It only means those values can no longer be expressed in public politics. In a system that remains confident, the opposition is tolerated; in a system that has lost its sense of security, the opposition must be eliminated.

What history will remember is not just the end of a political party, but when and how a city was stripped of its right to say “no.” When the opposition no longer exists, the question is never “who won,” but rather: this system no longer intends to answer anyone.