——从官本位教育到走向民主

作者：林小龙

编辑：何清风 责任编辑：鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文

引言

我曾经是一名中国的法官。在法庭与现实的双重场域中，我亲眼目睹了无数腐败的案例，也见证了许多干部的蜕变。他们中有的出身寒门，有的原本勤勉正直，但在体制逻辑与文化氛围的共同作用下，逐渐变得冷漠、贪婪，甚至与犯罪勾结。

流亡海外后，我有了更多的时间与空间去反思。在国际社会的对比之下，我更清楚地看到，中国腐败问题的特殊性与顽固性：它既不是单纯的制度缺陷，也不是个体失德，而是一种文化与体制合谋的结果。一方面，延续千年的“官本位”思想，使整个社会普遍将权力作为成功的唯一象征；另一方面，中共的独裁体制不仅没有打破这种思想，反而把它变成了巩固统治的工具。在这种环境下，底层出身的干部尤显矛盾，他们在成长经历中积累的匮乏感和身份焦虑，使他们在掌权后往往走向“反噬式压迫”。

这正是我试图揭示的主题：中国腐败的根源在于文化与体制，而摆脱腐败的唯一道路是结束独裁、走向民主。

一、官本位思想的文化基因

1. 家庭教育与社会价值的单一化

在中国，几乎所有家庭教育都绕不开一个主题：“孩子要有出息，就要考公务员。”我在司法实践中见过很多家庭，即便已经供养孩子读到研究生博士，最终的目标依旧是进入体制内。社会的评价体系单一，将“官员”视作“人上人”，而忽略其他职业的社会价值。

2. 乡土社会的心理积淀

在广大农村与底层社会，父母对子女的期望往往简单直白：“只有当官，家族才能翻身。”这种观念代代相传，逐渐形成群体性的心理积淀。孩子们在耳濡目染中成长，早早内化了“官即成功”的价值判断。

3. 社会流动焦虑

改革开放以来，社会流动的门槛逐渐提高。普通人若想改变命运，体制内的身份仍是最稳定、最可靠的路径。由此形成的“社会焦虑”，使官本位文化在现代社会愈加牢固。

二、底层出身干部的反噬逻辑

1. 匮乏记忆的补偿性心理

农民或工人家庭出身的干部，往往有着“穷怕了”的童年记忆。这种匮乏感会转化为补偿心理，使他们在掌权后急于通过权力换取财富，以弥补内心的不安全感。

2. 身份焦虑与社会区隔

他们担心被人看不起，担心被揭露“原本不过是个农民的孩子”。于是，他们会刻意通过压制底层群体来划清界限。比如，在征地拆迁、税费征收、治安管理中，底层出身的干部常常比出身优渥者更冷酷无情。这种行为是一种“身份宣誓”，以证明自己已完全脱离原阶层。

3. 权力依赖与腐败惯性

当权力成为确认身份的唯一依靠时，腐败就成为必然选择。许多落马官员都有类似经历：出身寒门，发迹之后却贪得无厌。他们的腐败，不仅是贪婪，更是心理补偿的本能反应。

三、体制与文化的共谋

作为法官，我深知：单靠法律是无法遏制腐败的，因为体制本身在助长腐败。

• 政绩导向的考核机制，逼迫干部追求短期数据，忽视长期民生。

• 社会对“官”的过度尊崇，让干部心理压力倍增，进而依赖特权。

• 缺乏有效监督，使得腐败行为可以长期隐藏，甚至被纵容。

最终，文化的执念与体制的设计结合在一起，构成了腐败的温床。

四、中共独裁体制的放大效应

1. 权力高度集中

独裁体制将所有资源与权力集中在少数人手中，使“当官”成为几乎唯一的社会上升通道。这不仅没有打破官本位，反而使它合法化、常态化。

2. 监督的缺失

没有司法独立，没有新闻自由，没有民间组织监督，权力几乎零成本滥用。在这样的体制下，腐败成为一种安全的“制度性收益”，而非高风险行为。

3. 底层群体的双重受害

最残酷的是，底层群体在这种体制下既是腐败的受害者，也是官本位文化的受害者。他们本寄希望于“草根干部”能体恤民情，但现实往往相反：草根干部最先背弃底层。这种“背叛”，是我在司法案件与现实观察中最痛心的发现。

五、走向民主的必要性

1. 民主打破官本位

民主制度通过多元价值与社会认同，让不同职业都能获得尊重。成功不再等于“当官”，工人、农民、学者、企业家都可以实现自我价值。

2. 民主遏制腐败

在民主制度下，权力分立、司法独立、媒体监督、选举问责，可以让腐败的成本高得难以承受。

3. 民主带来公平流动

个人不再依赖体制身份来改变命运，而是可以通过教育、创业、技能等多种途径实现阶层跃升。这能大大减轻干部的身份焦虑，从根本上减少“反噬”现象。

六、历史逻辑与中国的未来

从东欧到拉美，从韩国到台湾，历史已经证明：独裁与腐败如影随形，而民主与清廉相辅相成。独裁体制必然制造腐败，民主制度才能逐渐削弱腐败。

中国也不可能例外。结束中共独裁，走向民主，既是政治选择，也是历史必然。这不仅是对制度的重建，更是对文化的重塑。只有在民主环境下，才能淡化官本位，培养公民意识，重建社会信任。

结论

作为一名流亡法官，我的结论是明确的：中国官场腐败并非偶然，而是文化与体制的合谋。官本位思想提供了腐败的文化基因，而中共独裁体制提供了腐败的制度保障。底层出身干部的反噬现象，更是揭示了这一合谋的残酷逻辑。

因此，中国若要真正根治腐败，必须迈出关键一步：结束独裁，走向民主。唯有民主，才能逐渐淡化官本位文化，重建公平与正义，让干部回归公共服务的本位，让人民真正成为国家的主人。这是我林小龙作为流亡法官的亲身见证与沉痛呼吁，也是中国未来必须面对的历史课题。

The Cultural Roots and Institutional Reflections on Corruption in China’s Officialdom

— From “Official Supremacy” Education to the Path Toward Democracy

Author: Lin Xiaolong

Editor: He Qingfeng Executive Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

Abstract:

Corruption in China’s officialdom is not merely the result of individual greed or moral decline. It is an inevitable phenomenon produced jointly by deep-rooted cultural traditions and institutional structures. Culturally, the ideology of “official supremacy” is deeply ingrained; institutionally, the CCP’s dictatorial rule, through monopoly of power and lack of oversight, has normalized corruption as a systemic outcome.

Introduction

I was once a judge in China. In the dual arenas of courtroom and reality, I personally witnessed countless cases of corruption and the transformation of many cadres. Some came from humble backgrounds, some were once diligent and upright, but under the combined influence of institutional logic and cultural atmosphere, they gradually became indifferent, greedy, even colluding with crime.

After going into exile overseas, I gained more time and space for reflection. In contrast with international society, I see more clearly the uniqueness and stubbornness of China’s corruption problem: it is neither a simple institutional flaw nor individual moral failure, but a result of the collusion between culture and system. On one hand, the millennia-old ideology of “official supremacy” makes society equate power with success; on the other, the CCP’s dictatorship has not broken this ideology, but instead turned it into a tool for consolidating rule. In this environment, cadres from grassroots backgrounds are particularly conflicted: the sense of deprivation and identity anxiety accumulated during their upbringing often lead them, once in power, to exercise “retaliatory oppression.”

This is the theme I seek to reveal: the roots of corruption in China lie in both culture and system, and the only way out is to end dictatorship and move toward democracy.

I. The Cultural Gene of “Official Supremacy”

1. Family Education and Monolithic Social Values

In China, nearly every family education revolves around one theme: “For a child to succeed, they must become a civil servant.” Even families who invest in advanced education for their children—master’s, doctoral degrees—still consider entering the bureaucracy the ultimate goal. Society’s evaluation system is singular: officials are “superior beings,” while the value of other professions is ignored.

2. Psychological Imprint of Rural Society

In rural and grassroots communities, parental expectations are blunt: “Only by becoming an official can the family rise.” Passed down through generations, this belief forms a collective psychological imprint. Children grow up internalizing the judgment that “to be an official is to succeed.”

3. Anxiety Over Social Mobility

Since reform and opening, barriers to upward mobility have grown. For ordinary people, bureaucratic status remains the most stable, reliable path to change fate. This social anxiety has only reinforced the culture of “official supremacy” in modern times.

II. The Retaliatory Logic of Grassroots Cadres

1. Compensatory Psychology of Deprivation

Cadres from farming or working-class families often carry childhood memories of poverty. This sense of deprivation transforms into a compensatory psychology: once in power, they rush to exchange power for wealth, seeking to soothe their insecurity.

2. Identity Anxiety and Social Separation

They fear being looked down upon, fear being exposed as “just a peasant’s child.” Thus, they deliberately oppress the lower classes to draw a line. In land requisitions, taxation, and law enforcement, grassroots-origin cadres are often more ruthless than those of privileged birth. Such behavior acts as an “identity declaration,” proof of total separation from their original class.

3. Power Dependence and Corruption Inertia

When power becomes the sole basis for identity, corruption becomes inevitable.

Many disgraced officials share similar backgrounds: born poor, once risen they became insatiable. Their corruption is not only greed, but also an instinctive response of psychological compensation.

III. The Collusion of System and Culture

As a judge, I know well: law alone cannot curb corruption, for the system itself fosters it.

• Performance-driven evaluations force cadres to chase short-term data at the expense of long-term welfare.

• Social reverence for officials adds psychological pressure, deepening reliance on privilege.

• Lack of effective oversight allows corruption to hide and even thrive unchecked.

In the end, cultural obsession and institutional design combine to form a breeding ground for corruption.

IV. The Amplifying Effect of the CCP’s Dictatorship

1. Extreme Centralization of Power

Dictatorship concentrates all resources and authority in the hands of a few, making “being an official” virtually the only path of social mobility. Far from breaking official supremacy, it legitimizes and normalizes it.

2. Absence of Oversight

With no judicial independence, no press freedom, no civil society supervision, power is abused at negligible cost. In such a system, corruption becomes a safe “institutionalized return,” not a high-risk act.

3. Double Victimization of the Grassroots

The cruelest reality is that the grassroots are both victims of corruption and victims of official supremacy culture. They once hoped “grassroots cadres” would empathize with them; instead, these cadres are the first to betray them. This betrayal is the most painful pattern I witnessed both in court and in society.

V. The Necessity of Moving Toward Democracy

1. Democracy Breaks Official Supremacy

Through plural values and diverse social recognition, democracy ensures all professions are respected. Success is no longer equated with “becoming an official.” Workers, farmers, scholars, entrepreneurs can all realize self-worth.

2. Democracy Curbs Corruption

Democracy introduces separation of powers, judicial independence, media oversight, and electoral accountability. These make corruption unbearably costly.

3. Democracy Ensures Fair Mobility

Individuals need not rely on bureaucratic identity to change fate, but can rise through education, entrepreneurship, skills. This reduces identity anxiety, thereby lessening the “retaliatory oppression” of grassroots-origin cadres.

VI. Historical Logic and China’s Future

From Eastern Europe to Latin America, from South Korea to Taiwan, history proves: dictatorship and corruption go hand in hand, while democracy and integrity reinforce each other. Dictatorship inevitably breeds corruption; democracy gradually reduces it.

China is no exception. Ending CCP dictatorship and moving toward democracy is not only a political choice, but a historical inevitability. This is not merely institutional reconstruction but cultural renewal. Only under democracy can “official supremacy” be weakened, civic consciousness fostered, and social trust rebuilt.

Conclusion

As an exiled judge, my conclusion is clear: corruption in Chinese officialdom is no accident, but the collusion of culture and system. The ideology of “official supremacy” supplies the cultural gene; the CCP dictatorship provides the institutional guarantee. The retaliatory behavior of grassroots-origin cadres further exposes this cruel logic.

Therefore, if China truly wishes to eradicate corruption, it must take the decisive step: end dictatorship and move toward democracy. Only democracy can gradually dissolve the culture of official supremacy, rebuild fairness and justice, restore officials to the role of public service, and make the people true masters of the nation. This is my personal testimony and painful appeal as a judge in exile—and the historical task China must face.

作者：张致君

编辑：何清风 责任编辑：鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文 校对：冯仍

“有人爱拿算盘当正义，拨得响，便以为天理也该进项；只是到最后，账上盈余，头上却少了几颗。”

城里风声异样。传说国用亏虚，像老屋梁上忽见裂缝，先召木匠，再召鼓手，鼓手负责把锣敲响，叫四邻围观：屋梁要救，人人出力。什么叫出力？就是有人递钉子，有人献肩膀，更精明些的，便把旁人家的门板拆了拿来加固。门板一拆，门后的人就站在风里，衣角被掀起，和贴在墙上的票据似的。

票据会说话：公平稳定。说得越多，越像旧年熟词，贴在每一出整顿的门框上。整顿总要有对象，于是有人开始清点：谁家账面干净，谁家账面油光；谁家最肥，谁家最不易叫喊。清点完毕，纸上画圈，圈里不写名字，只写“某某企业的某某人士”；圈外自然是掌声。掌声与圈，彼此成全。

自古清账与清人，常是一条路上的两口井：一口口沿宽，叫法；一口口沿窄，叫势。先让人低头去看法，看完便顺势跌入势。跌下去的人，不一定有罪，却一定有价，价目贴在另一张账上，名为“没收”。没收是好字，和失而复得一样；只是失的是人，得的是物。旁人若问：为何？答曰：历史有先例。说罢，便把厚厚一本史书翻到几页熟处，指给你看：某年“整风”，某年“公私合营”，某年“三反五反”，某年“运动”，每一页都很整齐，整齐得看不见血。血一旦溅上去，过几日也会被删去，字仍是黑，纸仍是白，只余几处皱折，像被谁攥过。

闲时茶楼有两位先生谈话。一位长衫，一位夹克。长衫沉吟道：“如今讲‘依法依规’，应不至于走老路。”夹克点头如捣葫芦：“自然，自然。”正点得欢，茶博士端来一碟花生，泛着油光，像刚抄完家的清单。夹克忽然压低声音：“只是你听没听说，某地有位‘领衔人物’，忽而‘轻生’。”长衫忙摆手：“嘘，茶楼墙薄。”墙果然薄，薄得能把人心的风声都漏出去。风声绕一圈，又从告示牌上吹回来：正在调查，切勿传谣。于是两位先生不再谈，埋头剥花生，花生壳落在桌上，凋零的如同两封无人敢收的信。

传言多处出，证据总在别处。别处往往是在程序那里。程序是个慈祥的长者，说话慢，步子稳；只是他站台时常背光，你只看见一个黑影，再听见几句熟词，便自觉安心。安心久了，胆子也就小了，眼睛也就近了，只看见脚下那条配合的线：照这线走，谁也不找你麻烦；偏离一步，便有温柔的手搭在你肩上，笑道：还是进去吧。

有一次，我看最高领袖召开 “营商环境推介会”。场上灯光明亮，背景板上写着“护航发展”。“护航”二字写得很宽，像两张手掌，掌心却并不柔软。主持人高声念：优化、升级、共赢、普惠。台下的掌声像潮，潮里却夹着沙。散会时，角落里一位穿西装的伙计悄悄把名片塞给参会的人，名片上印着“专项服务”。他们低声问他何谓专项。他眨眨眼：“你懂的。风向来了，先把帽子戴好；若帽子来不及戴，就把头低下。”要是问那头要低多久。他说看天色——天若阴，低久一点；天若晴，也不要抬太高。说罢，他抬手比划一个高度，刚及胸口。

我忽然想起旧时一条规矩：抬棺不过胸。便觉背脊微凉。

所谓“没收”，也讲究姿势。有的姿势是自愿，有的姿势是依法，还有一种姿势，名叫配合调查。被配合者常常在镜头前点头，说“相信组织、服从安排”，像扭开了机器人的开关。在场的人点头，屏外的人也点头；点头的海洋里，只有几个孩子抬着眼睛，不懂大人们在同意什么。孩子问我：“阿姨，什么是没收？”我想了想，说：“你把心爱的玻璃球借给隔壁一阵子，后来他说那球本在他家祖谱上，写着‘公共’，你便把球留下也不是，还回也不是。”孩子点点头，又问：“那我以后还借吗？”我呐呐不能答，只得把他领到窗边，指着天说：“风在那儿，现在先别玩球。”

有人喜欢把“清欠”写在红纸上贴满街，用来“刮骨疗毒”。毒字可怖，人人避之不及；于是“疗”变得无限正当。只是疗得久了，骨便薄，薄到风一吹就嗦嗦响。响声被解释为“换骨”的征兆，便更要再刮几刀，好让大家听个明白。明白也好，疼也好，都是写进统计里的两列数据：一列叫“治理成效”，一列叫“个案处置”。至于那些空下来的椅子，桌上的相框，半页未签完的合同，统统被擦拭得干干净净，摆进展示柜，配上灯光，题名曰“警示”。灯光很亮，人影却淡，淡得像被水洗过三十遍的真相。

我想起旧年见闻。老会计做账一辈子，识得钱的冷暖。世上的钱有两种，一种走在账上，一种走在人身上。走在账上的，总要对得平衡；走在人身上的，多半没有凭据。我问他如今是哪一种多。他叹道：“如今钱走在说辞上。”说辞是软的，钱是硬的；硬物一旦被软物包住，便不再有响声。没有响声，便没有人看它走到哪里去了。等到要用的时候，便说“亏虚”。亏虚也好，是个正经病名；接下来就要配药。药名一个比一个雅：整顿、净化、规范、提质。吃药的人，常常不是生病的人；生病的人，反倒坐在桌前敲碗：再来一剂。

我知道几家做生意的，忽然学会了沉默。昔日谈笑，今朝谨慎，话到嘴边，先用眼睛度量一下四周：是否安全。安全这个词，在这些年里越长越大，几乎占满了门面。门面里的人把安全当拐杖，拄着走，走久了，忘了脚本可以用来自行。脚一旦忘了，就需要被带路；带路的人自有地图，地图上每一块空白都写着待开发。于是路越走越直，直到尽头，出现一道门：配合、承诺、共享、交割。门后还有门，门后的人皆笑，说欢迎回到大家庭。大家庭的饭菜热气腾腾，只是上桌之前先要缴纳。缴纳的名目多：心意、责任、政治、信任。名目越多，胃口越小；最后人人只剩一口汤，端着碗，谢恩。

生意人追问：为何屡见不鲜？我只好指给他看一条旧时的河。河边立着一块碑，上刻：某年公私合营。再往下游，是某年专项运动；再下游，是某年“严打”；再远些，是若干轮“整肃”。河从碑旁绕过，浑而不止。每到拐弯处，河水总要掀一层浪，把岸上的摊子打翻几个。摊主多半不懂水文，只会收拾残局，换地再摆。摆了几回，耳聪些的，学会了看天色；看久了，眼神便像旧镜，光亮里夹着裂纹。

开会的领袖下文说：“这都是谣言。”我笑而不答。谣言这物事，在历史上与真相常作邻居；隔着一道薄墙，墙薄到风可过。风若从谣间吹来，真相的烛火就摇；从真间吹去，谣言的尘土就飞。执烛的人于是愤怒，要把风抓住。风抓不住，便抓人。抓到的是衣角、影子、姓名、章程；抓不到的是那只捏在暗处的手：是谁在拨算盘？算盘打得正，事情便也正；打得响，事情便也响。只是算盘再会打，终究算不出一件事：人的胆寒。胆寒一来，市井无语，坊间失笑，灯火早早关门。关门之后，谁还敢为一纸契据去撑天？

我愿意给未来的事留一行字：做账要清，做事要清，做人更要清。只是“清”这个字，落在不同的手上，就有不同的温度。落在铁手上，叫清算；落在纸手上，叫清理；落在温手上，才是清明。清明远了，清算近了；近得像那张忽然递来的纸：配合。配合之后，门可开；再配合，窗可关。窗一关，屋里只剩一盏灯，灯下只照见账本。账本翻了一页又一页，页页有章，章章有痕。痕迹像鱼骨，卡在喉咙，咳不出，咽不下。

写到这里，想起街口的那家铺子。掌柜原先爱把算盘挂在门梁下，日头一晒，珠子透亮；如今算盘不见了，门梁却更低，低得进门要弯腰。弯腰久了，人会忘记直立。忘记直立的人，最合适和功绩合影。合影上人人端正，背景板写着：风清气正、法治保障、稳中向好。我也站在那合影里，学着把笑挂在嘴边。摄影师喊三声，我在第三声里听见一点细碎的回响，是旧年的木头被拧紧的呻吟。那声音极小，小到只够我自己听。听完，我不自觉地把头又低了一寸。

头低了，我就能从狗洞里钻出去。我也确实钻了出去，经年累月的，腰又直不起来。

我去寻医：可有良方治我的驼背？

寻来寻去就只得到两句话：第一把账本摊在阳光下，第二把帽子从人头上摘下来。

阳光能照见数目，帽子也许能保住人。

若还要第三句，便是：让人先安，国用自会慢慢安；切莫反过来，把“安”先写在账上，再去找人头去补缺。

但这些都由不得从狗洞里爬出来的人做主。我的驼背，又什么时候能治好？

“A Ruler’s Words Are No Jest” — Of Ledgers and Heads

Summary:

I watched as the supreme leader convened a “Business Environment Promotion Conference.” The lights on stage were bright, the backdrop read “Safeguard Development.” I know several businessmen who, all of a sudden, had learned the art of silence. Where once there was laughter, now there was caution. Before a word is spoken, eyes first scan the surroundings: is it safe?

Author: Zhang Zhijun

Editor: He Qingfeng Executive Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

“Some love to treat the abacus as justice; the louder the beads click, the more they believe heaven’s principle must also be accounted for. Yet in the end, the surplus shows up on the ledger, while a few heads go missing.”

The city feels uneasy. Rumor says the state finances are in deficit—like spotting a crack on an old roof beam. First they summon the carpenter, then the drummer; the drummer’s task is to bang the gong, draw in the neighbors: the beam must be saved, everyone must help. What is help? Some hand over nails, some lend their shoulders; the shrewder ones dismantle someone else’s door panel for reinforcement. Once the panel is gone, those behind the door are left in the draft, their hems fluttering like unpaid bills pasted to a wall.

The bills speak: fairness, stability. The more often these words appear, the more they sound like stock phrases from years past, posted on the frames of every new “rectification.” And rectification always needs a target. So counting begins: whose books are clean, whose books shine with grease; who is fattest, who will cry the least. When the tally is done, circles are drawn. Inside, no names, only “so-and-so from such-and-such enterprise.” Outside, naturally, there is applause. Applause and circles, each sustaining the other.

From of old, settling accounts and settling people have been like two wells along the same road: one wide-mouthed, called Law; the other narrow, called Power. First people are made to lower their heads to look into the Law; when done, they fall straight into Power. Those who fall may not be guilty, but they are surely of value—the price tag posted on another ledger, called “Confiscation.” Confiscation sounds righteous, like something regained; only what is lost are people, what is gained are things. If others ask why, the answer is: history provides precedent. A thick history book is flipped to familiar pages: this year “Rectification,” that year “Public-Private Partnership,” another year the “Three-Anti, Five-Anti,” another the “Movements.” Each page looks neat—so neat you cannot see the blood. When blood does splash, a few days later it is erased. The words remain black, the paper white, only a few wrinkles left, as if clenched in someone’s fist.

In idle hours, two gentlemen converse at a teahouse. One in a long gown, the other in a jacket. The gown muses: “Now that they speak of ‘ruling according to law,’ surely we won’t tread the old path.” The jacket nods furiously: “Of course, of course.” Just then, the teahouse boy brings peanuts, their oily sheen like a freshly seized household inventory. The jacket suddenly lowers his voice: “But have you heard? Somewhere, a ‘leading figure’ suddenly ‘took his own life.’” The gown quickly waves his hand: “Hush, the teahouse walls are thin.” And thin they are—thin enough for whispers of the heart to slip out, then circle back on the bulletin board: “Under investigation, do not spread rumors.” So the two gentlemen talk no more, burying themselves in peanuts. Shells fall on the table like two letters no one dares to receive.

Rumors sprout in one place, proof lies elsewhere—most often in procedure. Procedure is a kindly elder, speaking slowly, stepping steadily. Yet when on stage he always stands against the light; you see only a shadow, hear only familiar phrases, and feel at ease.

Ease long enough breeds timidity; timidity narrows the gaze until one sees only the line of compliance at one’s feet: follow it, no one troubles you; stray a step, and a gentle hand lands on your shoulder, smiling: better come inside.

Once, I watched the supreme leader at the “Business Environment Promotion Conference.” The lights were bright, the backdrop read “Safeguard Development.” The word “safeguard” was written wide, like two palms, but the palms were not soft. The host intoned: optimization, upgrading, win-win, inclusivity. Applause surged like tides, yet within the tide was sand. At dispersal, a man in a suit quietly slipped business cards into hands: “Special Services.” They asked softly what that meant. He blinked: “You know. When the wind shifts, wear the hat; if you cannot in time, lower your head.” And how long must the head stay down? He said it depends on the sky—longer if overcast, shorter if clear, but never too high. He raised his hand, indicating chest height.

I suddenly recalled an old rule: coffins must not be lifted above the chest. A chill ran down my spine.

So-called confiscation also has its poses. Some voluntary, some “by law,” others called “cooperating with investigation.” The “cooperating” often nod on camera, declaring “faith in the organization, obedience to arrangements”—like a robot switch being flicked on. Those present nod; those behind screens nod; an ocean of nods, while only a few children look up, not understanding what the adults are agreeing to. A child asked me: “Auntie, what is confiscation?” I thought and said: “You lent your favorite marble to the neighbor, and later he claims it’s in his family’s genealogy marked ‘public.’ You cannot keep it, nor return it.” The child nodded, then asked: “So should I lend again?” Tongue-tied, I led him to the window: “Look at the wind there—best not to play marbles for now.”

Some like to plaster “Debt Clearance” on red paper all over town, a “bone-scraping cure.” The word “poison” terrifies, so everyone accepts the “cure” as just. But prolonged cure thins the bones, until the slightest breeze makes them rattle. The rattling is explained as a sign of “rebirth,” requiring still more scraping, so all may hear. Clarity or pain, all logged in statistics: one column “results of governance,” another “individual cases handled.” The empty chairs, half-signed contracts, photos scrubbed clean and placed under glass with bright lights—titled “Warning.” The lights shine bright, but the shadows faint, like truth washed thirty times in water.

I recall an old accountant’s words. After a lifetime with ledgers, he knew money’s chill and warmth. There are two kinds of money, he said: one runs on ledgers, the other on people. Ledger money must balance; people-money seldom leaves receipts. Which kind prevails now? He sighed: “Now money runs on words.” Words are soft, money is hard; once the hard is wrapped in the soft, no sound remains. Without sound, none can trace where it flows. When the time comes to use it, they say “deficit.” Deficit sounds like a proper diagnosis; next comes the prescription. The medicines bear elegant names: rectification, purification, standardization, quality improvement. Yet those forced to take them are often not the sick; the sick, instead, sit at the table banging their bowls: another dose!

I know businessmen who, suddenly, learned silence. Where once they laughed, now they measure safety with their eyes. Safety has grown so large these years, filling the whole shopfront. Inside, people walk with safety as a crutch; long enough, they forget feet can walk on their own. Forgetting feet, they need a guide; the guide has his map, each blank space marked “to be developed.” The path grows straighter until at its end stands a door: cooperation, commitment, sharing, delivery. Behind it, more doors, and people smiling: welcome back to the family. The meals steam hot, but before sitting you must pay. Payment names are many: goodwill, responsibility, politics, trust.

The more names, the smaller the appetite; in the end, each is left with only a mouthful of soup, bowl in hand, giving thanks.

Businessmen ask: why so often? I point them to an old river. A stele by its bank reads: such year, Public-Private Partnership. Downstream: such year, Special Campaign. Further: such year, “Strike Hard.” Further still: rounds of “Rectification.” The river curves past the stele, turbid and unceasing. At each bend, the waves topple stalls ashore. Stallkeepers, ignorant of hydrology, only gather what remains and set up again. After several times, the sharper ones learn to watch the sky; long enough, their eyes become like old mirrors—gleaming yet cracked.

At the close of the conference, the leader declared: “All this is rumor.” I smiled without reply. Rumor and truth have long been neighbors in history, separated by a thin wall. Thin enough for wind to pass. If wind blows from rumor, truth’s flame flickers; if from truth, rumor’s dust stirs. The candle-bearer, angered, tries to catch the wind. Wind cannot be caught, so people are caught instead—grabbing hems, shadows, names, regulations. What cannot be caught is the hand flicking the abacus in the dark. If the abacus beats in tune, matters are said to be in order; if it beats loudly, matters are declared sound. Yet no abacus, however deft, can calculate one thing: human dread. With dread, the marketplace falls silent, jokes vanish, lights are doused early. Afterward, who dares uphold the sky for a contract?

For the future, I wish to leave this line: books must be kept clean, deeds must be kept clean, above all, people must be kept clean. Yet the word “clean” changes temperature by whose hand it falls into. In iron hands, it is “settlement”; in paper hands, “tidying”; in warm hands, true “clarity.” Clarity drifts far, settlement comes near; as near as that paper suddenly handed over: cooperation. Cooperate, the door opens; cooperate again, the window shuts. Once shut, only a lamp remains, its light falling on ledgers. Pages turn, stamped and marked. The traces like fishbones, stuck in the throat—neither coughed out nor swallowed down.

I think of a shop I once saw. Its owner used to hang an abacus on the door beam, beads glowing in the sun. Now the abacus is gone, and the beam lower—so low one must bow to enter. Bow long enough, one forgets to stand straight. Those who forget to stand are best suited for merit photos. In the photo, everyone sits proper, backdrop reading: Integrity, Rule of Law, Steady Progress. I too stand in the photo, practicing a smile. At the count of three, I hear on the third beat a faint echo—the creak of old wood being tightened. The sound is faint, enough only for me to hear. On hearing it, I lower my head another inch.

Lowering it, I find I can crawl out through the doghole. And crawl I did, but years bent, my back cannot straighten.

I sought a doctor: is there a cure for my hunch?

After much searching, only two prescriptions: first, lay the ledger open under sunlight; second, remove the hat from people’s heads. Sunlight can reveal the numbers; the hat, perhaps, can save the head.

If there must be a third, it is this: let the people rest first, and the state accounts will settle in time. Do not reverse it, writing “peace” first into the books, then seeking heads to make up the shortfall.

But such choices are not made by those crawling from dogholes.

When will my bent back ever be healed?

作者：毛一炜

编辑：冯仍 责任编辑：鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文

中共权贵家族在海外的隐秘布局揭示了红二代如何利用政治背景攫取财富，并稳固家族利益。这不仅是个体特权，更折射出制度性腐败与权力滥用。红二代通过掌握资源、金融规则和国际网络，将政治优势转化为经济收益，并在制度保护下合法化运作。普通民众却无法享有同等机会，监督和问责机制在权贵面前形同虚设。

以温家宝之子温云松为例，他在2005年成立私募股权基金“新天域资本”，启动资金主要来自境外投资者，包括日本软银SBI控股和新加坡淡马锡基金。江泽民孙子江志成的基金同样吸引外国资本，为家族利益服务。这些事实显示，权力不仅可以直接获取经济优势，更能通过制度漏洞被掩护，而社会大众却无法监督或追责。

“编程随想” 整理的中共太子党家族谱系表

红二代在海外的财富布局不仅是经济行为，更体现制度对权贵的保护。中共通过内部规则、信息封锁和海外投资渠道确保家族利益不受外界干扰。社会公众无从知晓，责任无法追究，公平与正义被系统性蚕食。这种隐秘运作模式暴露出中共体制本质：权力为少数人服务，制度漏洞让特权阶层凌驾于法律和监督之上。

同时，红二代利用海外教育、金融和投资经验，将国际资本与中共内部资源结合，实现财富和影响力叠加。这种制度性优势让权贵家族遥遥领先，也加固权力结构的封闭性，使社会资源配置不公平成为常态。普通民众在教育、金融和商业机会上的劣势被固化，社会阶层流动性受限，权力与财富高度集中，进一步加剧社会不平等。

这种现象对社会的影响深远。权力保护下的特权阶层逃避监督，阻碍社会透明和民主发展；制度漏洞让公共资源被少数人占据，社会公平受侵蚀；权力和财富的集中加剧民众的不满，却在体制下无法表达。红二代海外生活的特权不仅反映家族私利，更暴露了中共制度对公民权益的系统性忽视。

控诉这种制度暴行，不只是揭露红二代的特权，更是对权力结构的质问：账谁来结？名如何藏？责由谁挡？中共用制度保护少数权贵，牺牲公共利益，掩盖真实历史与社会不公。这种不透明、不受约束的权力模式，是制度腐败的核心，也是社会公平被侵蚀的根源。

红二代海外生活不仅是特权展现，也是制度性腐败的缩影。社会必须正视这种跨国财富与权力结合，不仅反映权贵家族私利，也暴露中共制度对民众权益的系统性忽视。控诉制度暴行，不仅要记录个案，更要揭示结构性问题，让真相被看见，让权力滥用被监督。每一个跨国财富和权力网络背后，都是制度漏洞和社会不公的真实写照。

The Overseas Privileges of Zhongnanhai’s “Second Red Generation”

Summary:

This article reveals how the “Second Red Generation” of Zhongnanhai exploits political backgrounds and systemic loopholes to amass wealth overseas, using funds and transnational capital to consolidate family interests. Ordinary citizens have no way to supervise, while fairness and justice are systematically eroded. This is not merely individual privilege, but a microcosm of the CCP’s systemic corruption, reflecting the social injustice caused by the extreme concentration of power and wealth.

Author: Mao Yiwei

Editor: Feng Reng Executive Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

⸻

The secret overseas arrangements of CCP elite families reveal how the “Second Red Generation” converts political background into wealth and secures family interests. This is not merely individual privilege but reflects systemic corruption and abuse of power. By controlling resources, financial rules, and international networks, the princelings transform political advantage into economic gains, legalized under systemic protection. Ordinary people, however, cannot enjoy the same opportunities; mechanisms of supervision and accountability are meaningless in the face of privilege.

Take the case of Wen Yunsong, son of Wen Jiabao, who in 2005 founded the private equity fund “New Horizon Capital.” Its startup capital came mainly from overseas investors, including Japan’s SoftBank SBI Holdings and Singapore’s Temasek Fund. Jiang Zhicheng, grandson of Jiang Zemin, established a similar fund attracting foreign capital, serving family interests. These cases demonstrate that power not only yields direct economic advantages but also exploits systemic loopholes, hidden from public oversight or accountability.

(Reference: “Program Think” compilation of CCP princeling family genealogies)

The overseas wealth networks of the “Second Red Generation” are not merely economic activities but also an embodiment of systemic protection for the powerful. Through internal rules, information blockades, and overseas investment channels, the CCP ensures that elite family interests remain shielded from outside interference. The public cannot know, responsibility cannot be pursued, and fairness and justice are systematically eroded. This hidden operational model exposes the essence of the CCP system: power serves a minority, while systemic loopholes allow privileged groups to rise above law and oversight.

Meanwhile, the “Second Red Generation” leverages overseas education, finance, and investment experience, merging international capital with CCP internal resources to achieve compounded wealth and influence. This systemic advantage places elite families far ahead, while reinforcing the closed nature of the power structure. Social resource allocation becomes inherently unfair, mobility between classes is restricted, and the concentration of power and wealth intensifies inequality.

The impact on society is profound. Privileged groups shielded by power evade oversight, obstruct transparency, and hinder democratic development. Systemic loopholes allow public resources to be monopolized by a few, corroding social fairness. The concentration of power and wealth fuels public resentment, but within the system there is no channel for expression. The overseas privileges of the “Second Red Generation” are not only about family interest but also expose the CCP system’s systemic disregard for citizens’ rights.

To condemn these systemic abuses is not merely to expose princeling privilege but to question the structure of power itself: Who will settle the accounts? How are the names concealed? Who bears responsibility? The CCP protects a handful of elites through systemic design, sacrificing public interest while covering up true history and social injustice. This opaque and unrestrained mode of power is the core of systemic corruption and the root cause of eroded social fairness.

The overseas lifestyles of the “Second Red Generation” are not only displays of privilege but microcosms of systemic corruption.

Society must confront this fusion of transnational wealth and power, which not only reflects elite family interests but also exposes the CCP system’s systemic disregard for the rights of its people. To denounce systemic abuses is not only to document individual cases but also to reveal structural problems—so that truth may be seen, and the abuse of power may be subject to oversight. Behind every network of cross-border wealth and power lies a systemic loophole and a true portrait of social injustice.

作者：钟然

编辑：罗志飞 责任编辑：鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文 校对：冯仍

2022年11月24日发生在新疆乌鲁木齐市吉祥苑小区的火灾，造成10人死亡。

火灾未能及时扑灭导致严重后果，疑似因小区封控消防车无法到达最佳救援点。

2022年11月25日，乌鲁木齐市发生多起抗议封控的示威活动。

2022年11月26日晚，南京传媒学院学生自发聚集悼念乌鲁木齐火灾遇难者，“白纸革命”就此引燃。

2022年11月26日深夜，上海市民自发聚集在乌鲁木齐中路悼念火灾遇难者。

上海市民在“乌鲁木齐中路”路牌下手举白纸高喊口号，抗议灭绝人性的清零政策和极端严酷的言论压制。

大批警察随后驱逐人群强行清场，部分抗议者遭到殴打和逮捕。

Memories of “Urumqi” in 2022

Author: Zhong Ran

Editor: Luo Zhifei. Executive Editor: Lu Huiwen. Translator: Lu Huiwen

On November 24, 2022, a fire broke out in the Jixiangyuan residential compound in Urumqi, Xinjiang, causing 10 deaths.

The fire was not extinguished in time, leading to serious consequences, allegedly because fire trucks were unable to reach the best rescue point due to community lockdowns.

On November 25, 2022, multiple protest demonstrations against lockdowns broke out in Urumqi.

On the evening of November 26, students at Nanjing Communication University spontaneously gathered to mourn the victims of the Urumqi fire. The “White Paper Revolution” was ignited from there.

Late at night on November 26, citizens in Shanghai spontaneously gathered on Urumqi Middle Road to mourn the victims of the fire.

Holding up blank sheets of paper under the “Urumqi Middle Road” street sign, Shanghai residents shouted slogans to protest the inhumane zero-COVID policy and the extremely harsh suppression of free speech.

A large number of police then dispersed the crowd by force, with some protesters beaten and arrested.

 

 

闻道读书会 第十八期

 

主题：亲历乌克兰战场

 

时间：2025 年 8 月 29 日（周五） 7:00–9:00 pm

 

地点：2077 Gold St, Alviso, CA 95002

 

 

分享人：Edwin (联线分享)

 

香港人

参与雨伞运动、反送中运动

2019 年离开香港赴英国

2023 年加入乌克兰海军陆战队，并已晋升为军官

2024 年在乌克兰加入中国民主党

 

相关报道：自由亚洲电台专访

 

 

 

分享人：Atticus Freeman （现场分享）

 

1985 年 4 月出生于辽宁省北部的一个锡伯族聚居农村

2003 年以优异成绩考入北京大学，大学期间创作长篇小说《青春，我们逃无可逃》，批判教育体制的专制与压抑

2007 年主动退学，一边打工一边穷游新疆、西藏、云南、广西等地，并持续写作批判专制文章

2008–2019 年担任图书编辑，出版包括《南渡北归》在内的数十部揭露历史真相的书籍

2020–2024 年任职 Apple，期间由上海调至美国加州

2023 年 5 月，申请加入美国海军

2024 年 3 月，通过美国入籍考试后，申请加入乌克兰国际志愿军团

2024 年 4 月起在乌克兰服役，参与前线作战，并于同年 9 月底进入乌军单位

目前专注于帮助有志华人参军及培训

 

这是两位来自香港与中国大陆的普通人，在追寻自由的道路上，最终走上乌克兰前线的真实见证。

 

他们将与我们分享：

战场上的亲身经历

对自由与抗争的思考

华人在国际战场中的责任与选择

Bay Area San Francisco

Wendao Reading Club – Session 18

Theme: Firsthand Experience on the Ukrainian Battlefield

Date & Time: Friday, August 29, 2025, 7:00–9:00 pm

Venue: 2077 Gold St, Alviso, CA 95002

Speaker

Edwin (Online Sharing)

Hong Kong native

Participant in the Umbrella Movement and the Anti-Extradition Movement

Left Hong Kong for the UK in 2019

Joined the Ukrainian Marine Corps in 2023 and has since been promoted to officer

Joined the China Democracy Party in Ukraine in 2024

Featured in an interview by Radio Free Asia

Atticus Freeman (In-Person Sharing)

Born April 1985 in a Xibe ethnic village in northern Liaoning Province

Admitted to Peking University in 2003 with outstanding academic performance

During college, wrote the novel Youth, We Cannot Escape, criticizing the authoritarian and repressive education system

Voluntarily dropped out in 2007; worked odd jobs while traveling across Xinjiang, Tibet, Yunnan, and Guangxi, continuing to write critical essays on authoritarianism

From 2008–2019, worked as a book editor, publishing dozens of titles exposing historical truths, including Southward Migration, Northward Return

From 2020–2024, employed at Apple, transferred from Shanghai to California

In May 2023, applied to join the U.S. Navy

In March 2024, after passing the U.S. naturalization exam, applied to join the Ukrainian International Legion

From April 2024, served on the frontlines in Ukraine, and by September joined a regular Ukrainian military unit

Currently dedicated to helping Chinese volunteers enlist and train for military service

This event presents the real-life testimony of two ordinary individuals—one from Hong Kong and one from mainland China—who, in their pursuit of freedom, ultimately found themselves on the frontlines of Ukraine.

They will share with us:

Firsthand experiences from the battlefield

Reflections on freedom and resistance

The responsibilities and choices of Chinese people on the international stage

1989年8月23目，200萬波羅的海三國人民手拉着手，跨越愛沙尼亞、拉脱維亞與立陶宛，組成了長達675公裹的人鏈，和平抗議蘇聯的統治，最終促成三國獨立。

2019年8月23日，數十萬香港人重現這段歷史，拉起“香港之路”，在極權陰影下堅守自由的邊界。

而今，中國自由之路正由無數勇敢的雙手接力。手與手相連，心與心相系，這是跨越時空的信念—一自由不會缺席，未來必將到來。

中國民主黨全聯總美西黨部（舊金山）

自由鐘民主基金會（舊金山）中國民主人權聯盟（舊金山）

運動發起：廖軍/黄宗獻

活動召集：丁多 9096169665 馮長通 9512275493 劉亮 9515571619

活動組織：鳳照 5316668973 黄椿榮 2135759928 謝永祥 6269979973

叢連山 6265368733 李建偉 6265581660

活動攝影：劉亮

特邀嘉賓：中國民主黨聯合總部主席 鄭存柱

中國民主黨創黨人 朱虞夫

活動時間：2025年8月23日（星期六）4:00PM

活動地點：舊金山中國領事館（1450 Laguna St San Francisco CA 94115）

San Francisco August 23 China’s Chain of Freedom Activity Notice

On August 23, 1989, 2 million people of the three Baltic countries hand in hand across Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, forming a chain of 675 kilometers of people, peacefully protesting against the rule of the Soviet Union, and finally promoting the independence of the three countries.

On August 23, 2019, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people reappeared this history, pulled up the “Hong Kong Road” and adhered to freedom under the shadow of totalitarianism.

Now, China’s road to freedom is being relayed by countless brave hands. Hands are connected, and hearts are connected. This is a belief that crosses time and space – freedom will not be absent, and the future will come.

China Democracy Party United Headquarters Western US Headquarter (San Francisco)

Liberty Bell Democracy Foundation (San Francisco)

Chinese Democracy & Human Rights Alliance (San Francisco)

Activity Initiator: Liao Jun/Huang Zongxian

Activity convocation: Ding Duo 9096169665 Feng Changtong 9512275493 Liu Liang 9515571619

Activity Organization: Fengzhao 5316668973 Huang Chunrong 2135759928 Xie Yongxiang 6269979973

Conglian Mountain 6265368733 Li Jianwei 6265581660

Activity photography: Liu Liang

Special Guest:

Zheng Cunzhu, Chairman of United Headquarters of China Democracy Party

Zhu Yufu, the founder of China Democracy Party

Activity time: August 23, 2025 (Saturday) 4:00PM

Activity location: Chinese Consulate in San Francisco (1450 Laguna St San Francisco CA 94115)

记者：李聪玲

编辑：胡丽莉 责任编辑：张致君 翻译：吕峰

2025年8月16日下午，中国民主党全国委员会联合洛杉矶港台专项声援组，在中共驻洛杉矶总领馆门口举行集会，声援仍被羁押的香港媒体人黎智英。活动主题为“Free Jimmy Lai”，吸引了民主人士及多位关心自由与人权的海外华人前来参加。集会于下午3时30分正式开始，会场悬挂着“黎智英无罪”“释放黎智英”的标语，并摆放印有黎智英肖像的大型横幅。与会者高喊口号，呼吁国际社会关注黎智英案件及香港民主运动的处境。

        主持人王尊福首先介绍了黎智英的生平与贡献。黎智英生于广东，少年时期偷渡赴港，从基层纺织工人一步步成长为成功企业家。他在上世纪九十年代创办壹传媒与《苹果日报》，长期坚持敢言敢写、揭露权贵腐败，是香港新闻自由的重要象征。黎智英不仅是企业家，更是民主运动坚定的支持者。他支持“反送中”运动，多次公开批评中共专制。2020年港版国安法实施后，黎智英遭到拘捕，其创办的《苹果日报》被迫停刊，成为香港新闻自由遭受重创的标志性事件。

        主持人王灵特别提到，黎智英目前的案件正在进入关键阶段。本应在8月15日完成的结案陈词，因黎智英在庭上出现心悸与身体不稳的症状，被迫延至8月18日继续进行。法官已要求为他配戴心脏监测仪并服药接受治疗。事实上，自2020年被捕至今，他已在狭小阴暗的环境中被羁押超过五年，其中多数时间被单独监禁，健康急剧恶化，体重骤降，昔日“肥佬黎”的身影已不复存在。如果法院认定他“串谋勾结外国势力”罪名成立，他将面临最高无期徒刑。对于77岁的黎智英而言，这几乎等同于“死在狱中”。然而，他始终坚持：“没有自由的生命，只是苟活。”宁愿“站着死，也不愿跪着生”。

        在随后的发言环节，多位与会人士先后登台表达声援之意。郑敏指出，黎智英的遭遇正是香港沦陷于极权统治的缩影，国际社会不能沉默。马群表示，中共的重判是对全世界新闻自由的威胁，必须以行动声援。黄吉洲强调，黎智英无罪，他所坚持的只是言论自由与普世价值。陀先润则呼吁国际社会持续对中共施压，要求无条件释放所有良心犯。李延龙表示，支持黎智英，就是支持全体华人追求自由的权利。姚庆古在发言中提到，黎智英选择坚守真理与自由，不仅是为香港，更是为整个华人社会点燃希望的火炬。

        活动现场中国民主党党员们高举横幅“坚持民主理念，争取自由未来”，强调海外民主力量不会屈服于中共的威胁打压。发起人赵杰表示：黎智英的遭遇提醒世人，今日香港的牢笼，可能成为明日全中国的现实。唯有团结，坚持抗争，才能迎来真正的自由。

        本次活动由王灵、赵杰发起，中国民主党全国委员会主办，洛杉矶港台专项声援组协办；倪世成担任活动负责人；张致君、韩震担任策划；王灵、王尊福与赵杰共同主持；摄影由陀先润与卓皓然负责；摄像由苏一峰负责；李聪玲担任本次活动义工负责人，李延龙等人参与义工工作。

集会最后在“释放黎智英”的口号声中结束。参与者纷纷表示，将继续推动国际关注黎智英的案件，坚守新闻自由与民主价值，直至黎智英以及所有被不公囚禁的政治犯获得自由的那一天。

Los Angeles Rally in Support of Jimmy Lai

Reporter: Li Congling

Editor: Hu LiliManaging responsible Editor: Zhang Zhijun Translation: Lyu Feng

On the afternoon of August 16, 2025, the China Democracy Party National Committee, together with the Los Angeles Hong Kong–Taiwan Solidarity Group, held a rally in front of the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles to support Hong Kong media figure Jimmy Lai, who remains in detention.

The event, themed “Free Jimmy Lai,” drew democracy advocates and many overseas Chinese concerned about freedom and human rights. The rally officially began at 3:30 p.m., with banners reading “Jimmy Lai Is Innocent” and “Release Jimmy Lai” displayed alongside a large banner bearing his portrait. Participants chanted slogans, calling on the international community to pay close attention to Jimmy Lai’s case and the plight of the Hong Kong democracy movement.

At the rally, host Wang Zunfu first introduced the life and contributions of Jimmy Lai. Born in Guangdong, Lai smuggled into Hong Kong as a teenager and rose from a grassroots textile worker to a successful entrepreneur. In the 1990s, he founded Next Digital and Apple Daily, both of which became symbols of Hong Kong’s press freedom through their fearless reporting and exposure of corruption among the powerful. Lai was not only a businessman but also a staunch supporter of the pro-democracy movement. He openly supported the 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill Movement and repeatedly criticized the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian rule. After the imposition of the Hong Kong National Security Law in 2020, Lai was arrested, and Apple Daily was forced to shut down—an event widely seen as a devastating blow to press freedom in Hong Kong.

Host Wang Ling specifically emphasized that Lai’s trial is now entering a critical stage. The closing arguments, originally scheduled for August 15, had to be postponed to August 18 due to Lai experiencing heart palpitations and physical instability in court. The judge has ordered him to wear a cardiac monitor and take prescribed medication. Since his arrest in 2020, Lai has spent more than five years in detention under harsh conditions, most of which in solitary confinement. His health has deteriorated sharply, and his once robust figure—nicknamed “Fat Lai”—has wasted away. If convicted of “conspiring to collude with foreign forces,” he faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. For the 77-year-old Lai, this is tantamount to a “death in prison.” Yet, he has stood firm, insisting: “A life without freedom is merely survival.” He would “rather die standing than live kneeling.”

During the speeches that followed, several participants voiced their support. Zheng Min pointed out that Lai’s ordeal epitomizes Hong Kong’s fall into authoritarian rule, and that the international community must not remain silent. Ma Qun stressed that Beijing’s heavy sentencing poses a threat to global press freedom, and that concrete action is needed in solidarity. Huang Jizhou reaffirmed that Lai is innocent and that what he upholds is simply free speech and universal values. Tuo Xianrun urged the international community to maintain pressure on Beijing and demand the unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience. Li Yanlong declared that supporting Jimmy Lai means supporting the Chinese people’s right to pursue freedom. Yao Qinggu highlighted that Lai’s choice to stand firm for truth and liberty was not only for Hong Kong, but also to ignite hope for the entire Chinese community.

At the scene, members of the China Democracy Party raised banners reading “Uphold Democratic Ideals, Strive for a Free Future,” stressing that the overseas democracy movement will not bow to Beijing’s threats and repression. Organizer Zhao Jie remarked: “Jimmy Lai’s plight is a reminder to the world: the prison of Hong Kong today could become the reality of all China tomorrow. Only through unity and persistent resistance can true freedom be achieved.”

This event was initiated by Wang Ling and Zhao Jie, hosted by the China Democracy Party National Committee and co-organized by the Los Angeles Hong Kong–Taiwan Solidarity Group. Ni Shicheng served as the event director; Zhang Zhijun and Han Zhen were in charge of planning; the rally was jointly hosted by Wang Ling, Wang Zunfu, and Zhao Jie. Photography was handled by Tuo Xianrun and Zhuo Haoran; videography by Su Yifeng. Li Congling served as volunteer coordinator, with Li Yanlong and others assisting in volunteer work.