与藏人、维吾尔人、南蒙古人并肩反对民族压迫和文化清洗
中国《民族团结进步促进法》一7月1日全球齐行动
压制并抹除少数民族文化、语言与身份
Teaching Tibetan is not a crime!教藏语不是犯罪！
身份认同是基本人权、文化不能被立法消灭、语言是民族的灵魂
全球行动，迫在眉睫！！
与我们一同抗议7月1日起生效的《民族团结进步促进法》，
该法将抹杀我们独特的文化、语言与民族身份认同。
地点：中国驻旧金山领事馆1450 Laguna St, San Francisco, CA时间：2025年7月1日（星期三）上午10时至中午12时
旧金山藏族青年代表大会北加州藏族协会BAY AREA FRIENDS OF TIBET（湾区藏人之友会）自由西藏学生会
华语青年挺藏会 译 宣Chinese Youth Stand for Tibet Translate
纪念“709”人权律师大抓捕十一周年
（2015-2026）
709人权律师大抓捕十一周年捍卫人权与正义 释放所有良心犯！
铭记2015年7月9日：中国政府大规模抓捕维权律师和人权捍卫者至今仍有人被关押、失踪、被剥夺自由！
江天勇、王全璋、李和平、谢阳、王宇、许志永、丁家喜常伯阳、王峰岭、刘四新、余文生、隋牧青还有更多未被释放的良心犯，我们不会忘记！抗议中共打压人权！争取中国人权与自由！
游行示威日期：2025年7月9日（星期三）——纪念“709”人权律师大抓捕十一周年声援中国人权律师！自由无罪 人权无罪 律师无罪
地点：中国驻旧金山总领事馆1450 Laguna St, San Francisco, CA 94115
时间：下午2:00
中国民主党纽瓦克支部 组织捍卫人权 • 争取民主 • 自由必胜
【铭记历史 拒绝遗忘——揭露中共百年暴行图片展】值此中国共产党建党纪念日前夕，我们将在加州首府举行和平公开的图片展活动，向美国社会介绍中国共产党百余年来给中国人民带来的苦难与灾难。中国共产党执政以来，先后发动土地改革、反右运动、大跃进、文化大革命等政治运动，造成无数家庭破碎和大量人员伤亡。1989年民主运动遭到武力镇压，此后言论自由、新闻自由和结社自由长期受到限制。进入二十一世纪以来，对维权人士、宗教信徒、异议人士以及不同政治观点群体的打压持续存在。网络审查、社会监控、宗教迫害、新疆人权问题、香港自由空间收缩以及针对海外异议人士的跨国打压，引起国际社会广泛关注。历史不能被遗忘，真相不能被掩盖。纪念受难者，不是为了延续仇恨，而是为了防止悲剧重演；揭露暴行，不是为了制造对立，而是为了追求自由、人权、民主和法治。我们诚挚邀请所有关心中国民主、人权与自由事业的朋友，邀请海外华人、民主人士、宗教团体、人权组织以及社会各界人士共同参与本次活动。无论您的政治立场如何，只要认同自由、尊严和基本人权的价值，都欢迎来到现场，共同见证历史、传递真相。时间：2026年6月28日（星期日）地点：加州州议会广场California State CapitolSacramento, California1315 10th St, Sacramento, CA 95814主办单位：中国民主党旧金山党部中国民主党萨克拉门托支部中国民主教育基金会活动召集：方政 郑云 卫仁喜 崔允星活动联系人：卫仁喜6263425141让我们共同铭记历史，关注人权，守护自由。自由属于人民。真相不应沉默。历史终将被记住。
走，为了孩子！——第796次茉莉花行动走，为了孩子！——声援宁波小洛熙强权之下，没有法律，只有土匪！一个五个月大的女婴——许洛熙，在2025年11月按照宁波市海曙区妇女儿童医院早产科高永嘉主任的要求，服用镇静剂并做了多项检查，随后在手术后不幸离世。家属克制情绪、整理客观经历记录只求一个公正的交代。可如今，不仅医疗真相被掩盖，宁波有关部门更是彻底撕下了法治的外衣！小洛熙的父母被宁波公安非法拘留4天！不仅如此，宁波公安甚至直接闯入家中，强行拿走了家里的电脑！这是什么？这是公权力庇护下的非法入室抢劫！这是对一个刚刚痛失幼女的家庭进行毫无人性的赶尽杀绝！小洛熙妈妈在视频里那句“宁波公职人员你们不要再去骚扰上班的奶奶！不接受私了！涉事医生必须站到法庭，接受法律的审判！”字字泣血！当一个母亲放弃私了利益、只要法律公道的时候，公职人员却在骚扰她上班的家人！走，为了孩子！我们要问：宁波政府中共，你们到底在害怕什么？！为什么要用公权力去捂住一个受难母亲的嘴？！为什么连一条合法的法律途径都不让老百姓走？！为什么要非法拘留？ 父母为死去的女儿讨公道，不接受私了、要求走法律途径，何罪之有？！为什么要抢走电脑？ 是要毁灭医疗疏忽的证据，还是要封锁家属向外界发声的渠道？！底线还要拉低多少？ 骚扰上班的奶奶，跨省拦截声援同胞，现在甚至直接非法拘留、入室搜缴——宁波公安，你们究竟是在维护治安，还是在做涉事医院和医生的“保护伞”与“家奴”？！我们的强烈抗议与诉求我们站在这里，不仅是为了小洛熙，更是为了千千万万个在中共体制下毫无安全感可言的中国孩子与父母！因为中国的孩子不安全，我们才站在这里，让全世界知道：中国没有一个人是安全的。1. 停止迫害与骚扰： 严厉谴责宁波公职人员骚扰小洛熙家属（包括其奶奶）的流氓行径！立即停止对发声群众的拦截与遣返！2. 彻查医疗真相： 拒绝任何形式的强迫私了！涉事医生必须走上法庭，接受公开、公正的法律审判！3. 保障老百姓的法律权利： 阳光是最好的防腐剂，还给老百姓走法律途径解决诉求的尊严与权利！4. 追究违法办案人员责任： 严查此次事件中滥用职权、非法入室、非法拘留的办案人员，国安与公安绝不是违法犯罪的挡箭牌！因为有人的孩子在中国不安全，所以我们必须站出来。这不仅是为了死去的五个月大婴儿许洛熙，更是为了我们的同胞每一个人的孩子，为了在中国最基本的安全感。黑伞遮不住投影的微光，强权也封不死正义的声音。活动时间：2026年6月 27日 15：30地址：洛杉矶中领馆（443 Shatto Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90020）活动发起人：高晗、赵叶、朱晓娜、牛鹏飞组织策划人：姜俊良 赵贵玲活动负责人：倪世成 牟宗强主持人：王小飞、杨丛珊摄影摄像：姜俊良、姜晓明活动义工：王府、谷江科、蔡晓丽、李楠视觉设计 ：刘敖主办：中国民主党全国委员会中国民主党全国委员会河南省工委全能基督灭共阵线
中共百年罪行系列抗议活动抗议活动信息:主办单位：中国民主党（旧金山党部） 中国民主教育基金会活动召集：方政 郑云時間: 7月1日 2026 | 上午10:00–12:00 地點: 旧金山中领馆致所有渴望自由、正义与尊严的同胞们：一个靠鲜血书写、靠谎言粉饰、靠欺骗与强权维持的政权，毫无执政合法性！自1921年至今，中共的百年历史是一部对中国人民犯下滔天罪行的历史。如今，它不仅在国内倒行逆施，更将黑手伸向海外，彻底摧毁东方之珠。今天，我们在此发出正义集结令：拒绝遗忘，拒绝恐惧！用真相撕碎红墙谎言，共同清算百年暴政！“反右”、“文革”十年浩劫，无数知识分子与无辜百姓被批斗逼死，人性泯灭。“大跃进”等导致三年大饥荒，数千万人在和平年代活活饿死。出动坦克军队屠杀学生与市民，教科书篡改抗战历史、抹去“六四”、将大饥荒粉饰为“自然灾害”，修筑网络防火墙（GFW）监控14亿人，打压维权律师与疫情吹哨人。东方之珠沦陷，香港民主已死七一国耻： 7月1日不是香港的回归，而是自由的终结！ 《国安法》与《二十三条》双剑封喉，逮捕民主人士，取缔独立媒体。充满欺骗与长臂管辖的历史：背叛人民，恐吓海外。海外跨境恐吓（抗议恶法生效）： 中共推出所谓《中华人民共和国民族团结进步促进法》，其恶法条款竟然延伸至境外！妄图以“破坏民族团结、干涉内政”为罪名，对身处海外自由世界的组织和个人进行政治恐吓与长臂管辖。我们在此强烈抗议此等跨国镇压的无耻行径，我们绝不屈服！我们的誓言与行动历史不容遗忘，罪恶必须清算！我们拒绝在沉默中走向消亡，拒绝让子孙后代继续生活在恐惧与谎言之中。无论是在国内受压迫的同胞，还是身在海外面临威胁的异见人士，请加入我们，一起推翻共产党，审判习近平！！！7月1日（上午10-12）旧金山中领馆，我们不见不散！感谢大家的积极参与！
评郑丽文访陆输诚、访美受挫与驱赶抗议者的威权嘴脸
特约评论：缪 青
导语
香港的沉沦，已经为台湾写下了一份血淋淋的政治警示录：在中共极权统治之下，没有独立主权作保障，所谓“高度自治”、所谓“和平共处”、所谓“制度承诺”，都不过是可以随时收回的政治恩赐。就在这样的历史背景下，中国国民党主席郑丽文却先赴北京面见中共党魁习近平，向北京递交政治投名状；继而又赴美国活动，在旧金山遭遇侨界冷遇，在洛杉矶面对民运人士抗议时，更放任乃至纵容现场人员强行驱赶抗议者，事后还为此辩护。郑丽文这一连串表演，已经不仅仅是个人失态或政党路线之争，而是赤裸裸暴露出国民党亲共路线的危险本质：它所兜售的所谓“和平”，并不是建立在民主、自由与主权之上的和平，而是要求台湾放下警惕、压低反抗、交出主体性的“投降式和平”。从香港看台湾，郑丽文的所作所为，正是在把台湾一步步推向“香港化”的险境。
一、香港已经把结局演示完毕：没有主权，所谓自由终究只是“恩准”
今天谈台湾前途，任何人都无法绕开香港的现实悲剧。
2020年《香港国安法》强行实施后，香港在极短时间内由一个拥有相对自由空间、法治传统和公民社会活力的国际城市，迅速沦为中共高压统治之下的政治禁区。反对派议员被清洗，立法会被重组为橡皮图章；媒体接连停刊，记者与评论人被捕入狱；公民团体纷纷解散，纪念六四、公开抗议、街头表达都被视作政治罪行。曾经写入国际文件、曾经被反复宣示的“港人治港”、“高度自治”、“五十年不变”，在中共绝对权力面前不过转瞬即碎。
香港的遭遇，已经把一个最朴素、也最残酷的政治常识昭示得明明白白：在没有独立主权作为最后屏障的前提下，任何自由、法治、自治和生活方式，都只是强权暂时允许存在的“特许品”，而不是人民自己真正拥有的权利。
香港之所以沦陷，不是因为它不够繁荣，不是因为它不够文明，也不是因为香港人没有为自由抗争，而是因为它从来没有掌握决定自己命运的主权。既然主权不在香港人民手中，那么北京在统战需要时可以承诺自治，在维稳需要时也可以立刻撕毁承诺；今天可以说“高度自治”，明天就可以以“国家安全”为名将一切自由连根拔起。香港最惨痛的教训就在于：在中共统治逻辑之下，任何权利如果不是建立在人民自己掌握主权的基础上，最终都只是一纸可以随时作废的许可证。
因此，香港已经彻底打破了那种幼稚而危险的幻想——仿佛只要不刺激中共、只要与北京“理性协商”、只要接受“一个中国”的政治前提，就能够换来和平、稳定和制度保障。香港用自己的命运证明：对中共退让，不会换来自由；向极权妥协，不会换来尊严；寄望于北京守信，只会换来更彻底的控制。
二、郑丽文赴京“朝拜”，不是和平交流，而是向中共递交政治投名状
正因为香港的结局如此清晰，郑丽文在此时此刻窜访北京、面见习近平，才显得格外刺眼，也格外危险。
国民党近年来不断以“和平”“交流”“降低战争风险”为口号，试图把对中共的让步包装成“务实”，把对主权的淡化包装成“理性”，把对北京的靠拢包装成“负责任的两岸政策”。然而，问题的核心并不在于“交流”二字，而在于：一个刚刚亲手毁灭香港自由、长期对台湾实施军事威胁、外交打压与认知作战的极权政权，究竟有什么资格向台湾谈和平？
郑丽文赴北京，绝不是在平等地位上与北京进行对话，而是在中共设定的政治舞台、政治语言和政治框架中接受统战安排。习近平接见她，不是为了尊重台湾民意，不是为了寻求真正的和平，而是为了向台湾、向美国、向国际社会制造一种假象：仿佛台湾的主要在野力量愿意接受中共的政治前提，愿意把台湾前途重新拉回到“一个中国”的叙事框架之中，愿意配合北京共同压制台湾主体意识的成长。
说穿了，郑丽文此行的真正功能，不是替台湾争取和平，而是替中共的对台统战输送合法性；不是替台湾守住安全，而是在替北京修补“一国两制”彻底破产后的政治叙事裂缝。她向习近平递上的，不只是一个国民党主席的“善意”，而是一份明明白白的政治投名状：即台湾内部依然有人愿意在香港血迹未干之际，继续为中共“和平统一”的骗局背书，继续协助北京削弱台湾社会的警惕、瓦解台湾人民的防卫意志。
这种行为，已经不能用“路线分歧”轻描淡写带过。因为在香港已经沦陷、台海威胁日益升级的现实下，任何主动向中共输诚、替中共话术背书的举动，客观上都是在伤害台湾的民主安全，侵蚀台湾的主权防线。
三、旧金山洪门拒绝出席，不是礼数问题，而是对亲共路线的公开切割
郑丽文赴美后，旧金山洪门组织拒绝出席其见面会，引发舆论关注。若从浅层看，这似乎只是侨界活动中的礼节争议或沟通问题；但若放在郑丽文先赴北京、后赴美国的完整脉络中观察，就会明白，这绝非简单的人情冷暖，而是一种清晰的政治表态。
洪门及其相关侨团，在海外华人政治史中具有特殊的象征意义。其历史传统与反清、共和、辛亥革命及中华民国海外支持网络有着密切关联。也正因此，当这样一类带有强烈传统“中华民国派”色彩的侨界力量，都不愿为郑丽文站台，不愿出席其见面会时，这本身就已经说明：郑丽文这条路线，已经让越来越多的海外华人看清其危险性。
问题不在于国民党可不可以与中国大陆交流，而在于郑丽文在香港沦陷之后、在习近平不断加大对台军事与政治压力之际，依然选择主动赴京“朝拜”，并将自己包装成所谓“和平使者”。在这样的背景下，旧金山侨界对她保持距离，恰恰说明海外华人中仍有许多人清醒地意识到：今天任何替中共“和平统一”叙事背书的政治人物，实际上都在帮助中共削弱台湾主体意识，削弱国际社会对台湾的支持，削弱台湾人民保卫自由生活方式的意志。
因此，旧金山洪门拒绝出席，绝不只是一个面子问题，而是一种公开的政治切割：即使在海外传统侨界内部，也并非所有人都愿意为这种亲共、媚共、投共的路线背书，更不愿意成为中共对台统战链条上的一环。
四、洛杉矶驱赶抗议者，撕下了郑丽文“和平”伪装下的威权面具
如果说赴京面习暴露的是郑丽文的政治立场，那么洛杉矶抗议风波则暴露了她更深层的政治本质——那就是对民主社会中异议权利的蔑视，以及对威权政治逻辑的本能亲近。
在民主社会，政治人物面对抗议、质问与批评，本是再正常不过的事情。尤其对于一个刚刚与习近平会面的台湾在野党主席而言，海外民运人士、反共侨胞和关心台湾前途的人，对她提出质疑、在公开场合表达抗议，不仅正当，而且必要。因为这不是私人恩怨，而是攸关台湾命运、华人民主运动与中共统战渗透的重大公共议题。民众有权追问：香港已经变成今天这样，郑丽文凭什么还要向中共输诚？习近平已经把“一国两制”撕得粉碎，郑丽文凭什么还要兜售“和平幻觉”？
然而，郑丽文一方面对这些质问，采取的却不是公开回应，不是据理辩论，而是驱赶、隔离、压制，任由乃至纵容现场人员将抗议者强行排除出场。更恶劣的是，事后她并未表示歉意，反而为这种做法辩护，仿佛只要打着“维持秩序”的旗号，就可以合理化对反对声音的驱逐。
问题正在这里：这绝不只是一次活动现场的失控，而是一次政治本能的暴露。
因为这种逻辑与香港这些年所经历的一切，实在太相似了。香港的自由不是一天失去的，而是在一次又一次“为了秩序”“为了稳定”“为了国家安全”的名义之下，被一点点剥夺、压缩、封堵。先把抗议者说成“闹事者”，再把异议者说成“破坏稳定者”，最后再把压制包装成“必要管理”，把驱逐合理化为“维持秩序”。当一位自称“和平”的台湾政治人物，面对抗议时首先想到的不是保障对方说话的权利，而是如何让对方闭嘴、离场、消失，这就已经不是简单的个人修养问题，而是一种与威权政治高度兼容的思维方式。
郑丽文在洛杉矶驱赶抗议者，驱赶的不是几个让她难堪的反对者，而是台湾民主最宝贵的东西——异议的权利、公开批评的权利、在权势面前不沉默的权利。一个面对习近平可以笑脸相迎、面对抗议民众却冷酷驱赶的人，口中的“和平”到底是为谁服务，答案已经不言自明。
郑丽文见面会暴力驱赶抗议者现场（图片来自网络）
五、从香港看台湾：台湾独立的正当性，首先是捍卫自由与生存的正当性
也正因为如此，今天再谈台湾独立的正当性，已经不能停留在传统统独论战的层次，而必须回到一个更根本、更现实的问题：台湾为什么必须坚持主权独立？
答案并不抽象。因为只有独立主权，台湾人民才能继续掌握自己的命运，继续以自己的选票决定谁来执政，继续以自己的法律保障新闻自由、司法独立、公民抗议和社会多元。台湾经过数十年的民主化进程，已经形成一个由2300万人民共同授权、自我治理的民主共同体。台湾政府的合法性来自人民，而不是来自北京的恩准；台湾制度的运作来自台湾社会内部的宪政秩序，而不是来自某个中央政权的“特别许可”。这一点，与香港有着根本区别。
香港的自由，是北京“允许存在”的自由，所以北京可以随时收回；台湾的民主，则是台湾人民自己流血流汗争取而来的民主，所以台湾绝不能把它交还给一个从未尊重自由、从未尊重人权、从未尊重人民授权的极权政权。香港的崩塌，恰恰从反面证明了台湾独立主权的现实必要性：主权不是抽象名词，不是象征姿态，而是2300万台湾人民免于沦为第二个香港的最后防火墙。
从国际法与现实政治的角度看，台湾早已具备固定领土、常住人民、有效政府与对外交往能力等国家构成要素。台湾之所以必须坚持主权独立，不是为了追求一个虚幻名号，而是为了守住最具体的日常自由：记者能否继续报道真相，人民能否公开批评执政者，法官能否依法律而非政治命令判案，公民能否上街抗议而不被以“维持秩序”为名拖走。说到底，主权从来不是遥远的政治口号，它关乎的是一个社会明天还能不能自由呼吸、还能不能有尊严地活着。
六、结语：香港的答案已经写明，台湾绝不能重蹈覆辙
郑丽文赴京，是向中共输诚；郑丽文赴美受挫，是其亲共路线遭遇的必然后果；郑丽文驱赶抗议者，则更把她“和平叙事”背后的威权底色暴露得一览无余。她所鼓吹的，不是建立在民主、自由与主权基础上的和平，而是一种要求台湾先放下戒心、先放弃主体性、先压制反共声音、最后再接受中共政治安排的“投降式和平”。
然而，香港已经把这种道路的终点演示得清清楚楚：凡是没有主权保障的自由，最终都会沦为恩赐；凡是建立在对极权幻想之上的和平，最终都会变成更彻底的奴役。
今天台湾最不需要的，就是再去相信“只要与北京谈、只要不刺激中共、只要淡化主权就能换来安全”的陈词滥调。台湾真正需要的，是从香港的伤口中读懂现实：主权不是可有可无的口号，而是台湾民主最后的防线；独立不是抽象的姿态，而是防止台湾沦为第二个香港的唯一保障。
因此，郑丽文所代表的路线，绝不只是国民党内部的一种政策选择，而是关乎台湾是否继续作为一个自由民主共同体存在下去的根本问题。面对中共，任何以“和平”为名、以“交流”为饰、以压制异议为手段、以淡化主权为目标的政治路线，都必须被严厉揭露、坚决拒绝。
香港已经失守，台湾没有资格再犯同样的错误。 台湾的道路，绝不能通向香港；台湾的未来，更不能交到习近平和郑丽文们手中。
中国民主党旧金山宣传部部长
《北京之春》《在野党》旧金山记者站站长
缪青 撰文于旧金山 06/20/2026
编辑：黄吉洲 校对：王滨 翻译：周敏
Commenting on Zheng Liwen’s Visit to the Mainland to Express Loyalty, Setbacks in Her US Visit, and Her Authoritarian Face in Expelling Protesters
Special Commentary: Miao Qing
Lead-in
The sinking of Hong Kong has already written a bloody political warning record for Taiwan: under the totalitarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), without the guarantee of independent sovereignty, the so-called “high autonomy,” so-called “peaceful coexistence,” and so-called “institutional commitments” are all nothing more than political favors that can be taken back at any time. Right against this historical background, Kuomintang Chairperson Zheng Liwen first went to Beijing to meet CCP leader Xi Jinping, submitting a political toumingzhuang (pledge of loyalty/submission) to Beijing; subsequently, she went to the United States for activities, encountering a cold reception from overseas Chinese circles in San Francisco, and when facing protests by democracy movement activists in Los Angeles, she went so far as to permit and even connive at on-site personnel forcibly expelling protesters, and even defended this practice afterward.
This series of performances by Zheng Liwen is no longer merely a personal loss of composure or a struggle over party lines, but nakedly exposes the dangerous nature of the Kuomintang’s pro-communist line: the so-called “peace” it peddles is not a peace built upon democracy, freedom, and sovereignty, but a “surrender-style peace” that demands Taiwan lower its vigilance, suppress resistance, and hand over its subjectivity. Looking at Taiwan from Hong Kong, Zheng Liwen’s actions are precisely pushing Taiwan step by step into the dangerous situation of “Hong Kong-ization.”
I. Hong Kong Has Already Finished Demonstrating the Outcome: Without Sovereignty, So-called Freedom Is Ultimately Merely “Gracious Permission”
Today, when talking about Taiwan’s future, no one can bypass the realistic tragedy of Hong Kong.
After the forceful implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law in 2020, Hong Kong, within an extremely short period, rapidly degenerated from an international city possessing relatively free space, rule of law tradition, and civil society vitality into a political forbidden zone under the high-pressure rule of the CCP. Opposition lawmakers were purged, the Legislative Council was reorganized into a rubber stamp; media outlets shut down one after another, journalists and commentators were arrested and imprisoned; civil groups disbanded one after another, and commemorating June Fourth, public protests, and street expressions were all regarded as political crimes. “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong,” “high autonomy,” and “remaining unchanged for fifty years,” which were once written into international documents and repeatedly declared, were nothing more than shattered in an instant before the absolute power of the CCP.
Hong Kong’s encounter has made a most simple and also most cruel political common sense clear and plain: under the premise of having no independent sovereignty as the final barrier, any freedom, rule of law, autonomy, and way of life are merely “licensed goods” temporarily permitted to exist by the powerful, rather than rights truly owned by the people themselves.
The reason why Hong Kong fell was not because it was not prosperous enough, not because it was not civilized enough, and nor because Hong Kong people did not fight for freedom, but because it never mastered the sovereignty to decide its own destiny. Since sovereignty was not in the hands of the Hong Kong people, Beijing can promise autonomy when united front work is needed, and can also immediately tear up the promise when stability maintenance is needed; today it can say “high autonomy,” and tomorrow it can pull up all freedoms by the roots in the name of “国家安全” (national security). The most painful lesson of Hong Kong lies in: under the CCP’s logic of governance, if any right is not built on the foundation of the people themselves mastering sovereignty, it will ultimately only be a permit that can be invalidated at any time.
Therefore, Hong Kong has completely shattered that naive and dangerous illusion—as if as long as one does not stimulate the CCP, as long as one “rationally negotiates” with Beijing, and as long as one accepts the political prerequisite of “One China,” one can exchange it for peace, stability, and institutional guarantees. Hong Kong has proved with its own destiny: yielding to the CCP will not exchange for freedom; compromising with totalitarianism will not exchange for dignity; placing hopes on Beijing keeping its word will only exchange for more thorough control.
II. Zheng Liwen’s Journey to Beijing to “Worship” Is Not a Peaceful Exchange, but Submitting a Political Pledge of Loyalty to the CCP
Precisely because Hong Kong’s outcome is so clear, Zheng Liwen’s sneaking visit to Beijing and meeting with Xi Jinping at this very moment appears exceptionally eyesore-inducing and exceptionally dangerous.
In recent years, the Kuomintang has continuously used “peace,” “exchange,” and “reducing the risk of war” as slogans, attempting to package concessions to the CCP as “pragmatism,” package the dilution of sovereignty as “rationality,” and package leaning toward Beijing as a “responsible cross-strait policy.” However, the core of the problem does not lie in the word “exchange,” but lies in: what qualification on earth does a totalitarian regime, which just personally destroyed Hong Kong’s freedom and has long implemented military threats, diplomatic suppression, and cognitive warfare against Taiwan, have to talk about peace with Taiwan?
Zheng Liwen’s journey to Beijing is absolutely not conducting a dialogue with Beijing on an equal status, but is accepting united front arrangements within the political stage, political language, and political framework set by the CCP. Xi Jinping receiving her is not out of respect for Taiwan’s public opinion, and not to seek true peace, but to manufacture an illusion for Taiwan, the United States, and the international community: as if Taiwan’s main opposition force is willing to accept the CCP’s political prerequisites, willing to pull Taiwan’s future back into the narrative framework of “One China,” and willing to cooperate with Beijing to jointly suppress the growth of Taiwan’s subjective consciousness.
To put it bluntly, the true function of Zheng Liwen’s trip is not to strive for peace on behalf of Taiwan, but to supply legitimacy to the CCP’s united front work against Taiwan; it is not to hold the line of safety for Taiwan, but to repair the political narrative cracks after the complete bankruptcy of “One Country, Two Systems” on behalf of Beijing. What she handed to Xi Jinping was not merely the “goodwill” of a Kuomintang chairperson, but a clear and plain political pledge of loyalty (toumingzhuang): that is, there are still people inside Taiwan who are willing to continue endorsing the CCP’s “peaceful reunification” scam while the bloodstains of Hong Kong are not yet dry, and continue assisting Beijing to weaken the vigilance of Taiwanese society and disintegrate the defense will of the Taiwanese people.
This kind of behavior can no longer be lightly brushed aside as a “line divergence.” Because under the reality that Hong Kong has already fallen and the Taiwan Strait threat is escalating day by day, any action of actively expressing loyalty to the CCP and endorsing the CCP’s discourse is objectively harming Taiwan’s democratic security and eroding Taiwan’s sovereignty defense line.
III. The San Francisco Hung Moon’s Refusal to Attend Is Not a Matter of Courtesy, but a Public Severance from the Pro-Communist Line
After Zheng Liwen arrived in the US, the San Francisco Hung Moon organization’s refusal to attend her meeting triggered public opinion attention. If looked at from a shallow layer, this seems to be merely a courtesy controversy or communication issue in overseas Chinese community activities; but if placed within the complete context of Zheng Liwen first going to Beijing and then going to the US to observe, one will understand that this is absolutely not simple human warmth or coldness, but a clear political statement.
The Hung Moon and its related overseas Chinese groups hold special symbolic significance in the political history of overseas Chinese. Its historical tradition is closely connected with anti-Qing, republicanism, the 1911 Revolution, and the overseas support network of the Republic of China. Precisely because of this, when this category of overseas Chinese community forces carrying a strong traditional “Republic of China faction” color is unwilling to stand platform for Zheng Liwen and unwilling to attend her meeting, this itself has already explained: this line of Zheng Liwen’s has already made more and more overseas Chinese see through its danger.
The problem does not lie in whether the Kuomintang can exchange with mainland China, but lies in the fact that Zheng Liwen, after the fall of Hong Kong and at a time when Xi Jinping is continuously increasing military and political pressure on Taiwan, still chose to actively go to Beijing to “worship” and package herself as a so-called “messenger of peace.” Under such a background, the San Francisco overseas Chinese circle keeping their distance from her precisely explains that among overseas Chinese, there are still many people who soberly realize: today, any political figure who endorses the CCP’s “peaceful reunification” narrative is actually helping the CCP weaken Taiwan’s subjective consciousness, weaken international society’s support for Taiwan, and weaken the Taiwanese people’s will to defend their free way of life.
Therefore, the San Francisco Hung Moon’s refusal to attend is absolutely not just a matter of face, but a public political severance: even inside the traditional overseas Chinese circles, it is not the case that everyone is willing to endorse this kind of pro-communist, communist-flattering, and communist-submitting line, much less willing to become a link in the CCP’s united front chain against Taiwan.
IV. The Expulsion of Protesters in Los Angeles Tore Off the Authoritarian Mask Under Zheng Liwen’s Disguise of “Peace”
If it is said that going to Beijing to face Xi exposed Zheng Liwen’s political stance, then the protest turmoil in Los Angeles exposed her deeper political nature—that is, contempt for the right to dissent in a democratic society, and an instinctive closeness to the logic of authoritarian politics.
In a democratic society, political figures facing protests, questioning, and criticism is originally a most normal thing. Especially for a Taiwanese opposition party chairperson who just met with Xi Jinping, overseas democracy movement activists, anti-communist overseas Chinese, and people who care about Taiwan’s future raised doubts to her and expressed protests in public venues, which was not only legitimate but also necessary. Because this is not a personal grievance, but a major public issue vital to Taiwan’s fate, the Chinese democracy movement, and the CCP’s united front penetration. The masses have the right to press questions: Hong Kong has already become like this today, on what grounds does Zheng Liwen still want to express loyalty to the CCP? Xi Jinping has already torn “One Country, Two Systems” completely to shreds, on what grounds does Zheng Liwen still want to peddle the “hallucination of peace”?
However, toward these questionings, what Zheng Liwen adopted was instead not public response, not arguing based on reason, but expulsion, isolation, and suppression, allowing and even conniving at on-site personnel forcibly excluding protesters from the venue. What is even worse is that afterward she did not express apologies, but instead defended this kind of practice, as if as long as one holds high the banner of “maintaining order,” one can rationalize the eviction of opposing voices.
The problem is precisely here: this is absolutely not just a single out-of-control event at an activity scene, but an exposure of political instinct.
Because this kind of logic is truly too similar to everything Hong Kong has experienced over these years. Hong Kong’s freedom was not lost in one day, but was bit by bit deprived, compressed, and blocked under the name of “for order,” “for stability,” and “for national security” time and time again. First describing protesters as “troublemakers,” then describing dissenters as “stability destroyers,” and finally packaging suppression as “necessary management” and rationalizing eviction as “maintaining order.” When a Taiwanese political figure who claims “peace,” when facing protests, first thinks not of protecting the other party’s right to speak, but how to make the other party shut up, leave the venue, and disappear, this is already not a simple problem of personal cultivation, but a way of thinking highly compatible with authoritarian politics.
Zheng Liwen expelling protesters in Los Angeles did not expel a few opponents who made her embarrassed, but expelled the most precious thing of Taiwan’s democracy—the right to dissent, the right to publicly criticize, and the right not to remain silent before power. For a person who can greet Xi Jinping with a smiling face but coldly expel protesting citizens when facing them, whom on earth does the “peace” in her mouth serve? The answer is already self-evident.
Scene of violent expulsion of protesters at the Zheng Liwen meeting (Image from the internet)
V. Looking at Taiwan from Hong Kong: The Legitimacy of Taiwan’s Independence Is, First of All, the Legitimacy of Defending Freedom and Survival
Also precisely because of this, talking about the legitimacy of Taiwan’s independence today can no longer stay at the level of the traditional unification-independence debate, but must return to a more fundamental and more realistic question: Why must Taiwan insist on sovereign independence?
The answer is not abstract. Because only with independent sovereignty can the Taiwanese people continue to master their own destiny, continue to decide who governs with their own votes, and continue to protect press freedom, judicial independence, civic protest, and social pluralism with their own laws. After decades of democratization process, Taiwan has already formed a democratic community authorized jointly by 23 million people and self-governing. The legitimacy of the Taiwan government comes from the people, not from Beijing’s gracious permission; the operation of Taiwan’s system comes from the constitutional order inside Taiwan society, not from the “special permission” of some central regime. This point has a fundamental difference from Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s freedom is a freedom “permitted to exist” by Beijing, so Beijing can take it back at any time; Taiwan’s democracy, however, is a democracy strived for by the Taiwanese people themselves through sweating and bleeding, so Taiwan absolutely cannot hand it back to a totalitarian regime that has never respected freedom, never respected human rights, and never respected the authorization of the people. The collapse of Hong Kong precisely proves from the negative side the realistic necessity of Taiwan’s independent sovereignty: sovereignty is not an abstract noun, not a symbolic posture, but the final firewall for 23 million Taiwanese people to avoid degenerating into a second Hong Kong.
From the perspective of international law and realistic politics, Taiwan has long possessed the constituent elements of a state, such as fixed territory, permanent population, effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The reason why Taiwan must insist on sovereign independence is not to pursue an illusionary title, but to hold the line for the most concrete daily freedom: whether journalists can continue to report the truth, whether the people can publicly criticize those in power, whether judges can adjudicate cases according to law rather than political orders, and whether citizens can go onto the streets to protest without being dragged away under the name of “maintaining order.” To put it down to the bottom line, sovereignty is never a distant political slogan; what it concerns is whether a society can still breathe freely tomorrow and whether it can still live with dignity.
VI. Conclusion: Hong Kong’s Answer Has Already Been Written Clearly; Taiwan Absolutely Cannot Repeat the Same Mistake
Zheng Liwen going to Beijing is expressing loyalty to the CCP; Zheng Liwen encountering setbacks in her US visit is the inevitable consequence suffered by her pro-communist line; Zheng Liwen expelling protesters, furthermore, exposes the authoritarian background color behind her “peace narrative” completely and thoroughly. What she advocates is not a peace built upon the foundation of democracy, freedom, and sovereignty, but a “surrender-style peace” that demands Taiwan first lay down its guard, first give up its subjectivity, first suppress anti-communist voices, and finally accept the CCP’s political arrangements.
However, Hong Kong has already demonstrated the end point of this kind of road clearly and plainly: any freedom without the guarantee of sovereignty will ultimately degenerate into a favor; any peace built upon illusions toward totalitarianism will ultimately turn into more thorough servitude.
What Taiwan needs least today is to go and believe again the clichés of “as long as we talk with Beijing, as long as we do not stimulate the CCP, and as long as we dilute sovereignty, we can exchange it for safety.” What Taiwan truly needs is to read and understand reality from the wounds of Hong Kong: sovereignty is not an optional slogan, but the final line of defense for Taiwan’s democracy; independence is not an abstract posture, but the sole guarantee to prevent Taiwan from degenerating into a second Hong Kong.
Therefore, the line represented by Zheng Liwen is absolutely not just a policy choice inside the Kuomintang, but a fundamental issue concerning whether Taiwan continues to exist as a free and democratic community. Facing the CCP, any political line that takes “peace” as its name, takes “exchange” as its decoration, takes suppressing dissent as its means, and takes diluting sovereignty as its goal must be severely exposed and resolutely rejected.
Hong Kong has already fallen; Taiwan has no qualification to make the same mistake again. Taiwan’s road must absolutely not lead to Hong Kong; Taiwan’s future, even more so, cannot be handed into the hands of the likes of Xi Jinping and Zheng Liwen.
Director of the Publicity Department of the China Democracy Party in San Francisco Chief of the San Francisco Reporter Station of Beijing Spring and The Opposition Party Written by Miao Qing in San Francisco, 06/20/2026
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Zhou Min
「民主前輩筆下的民主中國之路」活動圓滿落幕
【在野黨雜誌社 張致君洛杉磯訊】由公民抵抗協會主辦的「民主前輩筆下的民主中國之路：轉型正義、憲政重建與民主未來」活動，於 2026 年 6 月 20 日下午在洛杉磯六四紀念館順利舉行。本次活動邀集多位 長期關注中國民主化、人權運動與憲政轉型的民主前輩、公共知識分子與海外華人社群代表，共同探討中國未來民主轉型的制度方向與歷史責任。
本次活動分為主題演講、民主前輩論壇與民主思辨辯論賽三個主要環節。活動首先由六四學運 領袖封從德進行主題演講，從中國民主運動的歷史脈絡出發，回顧海外民運、憲政重建與轉型 正義之間的關係，並指出中國未來如果要真正走向自由民主，不能只停留在反對極權的層次，更必須提前思考制度重建、國家定位與公民社會的承接能力。
隨後進行的「民主前輩論壇」，邀請朱虞夫、蘇曉康、王應國、李亞輝、林勁鵬等嘉賓，分別從國外民運人士處境、流亡經驗、南方民運歷程、民主轉型後的政治安排，以及海外民主運動的未來方向等角度發言。與會者普遍認為，中國民主化不是單一事件，而是一個需要思想準備、組織準備與制度準備的長期工程。海外華人社群雖然身在自由世界，但仍有責任保存歷史記憶、傳承民主經驗，並為中國未來的制度轉型提出具體方案。
「民主思辨辯論賽」則以「中國大陸民主化後應恢復 1946 年《中華民國憲法》，還是重新制定新憲法？」為辯題展開討論。正反雙方分別就法統延續、憲政正當性、民主授權、轉型成本、國家重建與現實可行性等問題進行攻防。現場討論氣氛理性而熱烈，與會者也透過提問參與討論，使這場辯論不只是立場交鋒，更成為一次關於中國民主轉型路線的公共思辨。
公民抵抗協會理事長王苡儒表示，本次活動的意義不在於立即得出唯一答案，而在於讓不同世代、不同經驗與不同政治主張的民主人士，能夠在同一個公共空間中理性討論中國未來。無論是恢復 1946 年《中華民國憲法》，還是重新制定新憲法，真正重要的是中國未來必須回到自由、民主、憲政、法治與人權的軌道上，並且讓人民重新成為國家的主人。
未來公民抵抗協會將持續在海外華人社群推動公民教育、民主思辨、歷史記憶保存與中國民主化相關公共討論，讓自由的火種在不同城市、不同世代之間繼續傳遞。雖然中國民主化的道路仍然漫長，但每一次討論、每一次集會、每一次公開辯論，都是在為未來累積思想與力量。唯有持續對話、持續組織、持續培養公民精神，民主中國的道路才會一步一步被走出來。
活動資訊
活動名稱：【2026 自由民主論壇】第一場
特別議題：「四六憲法」與華人民主轉型的憲政想像時間：2026 年 6 月 20 日（星期六）13:00－16:00
地點：洛杉磯六四紀念館 (3024 Peck Rd, El Monte, CA 91732)
主辦單位：公民抵抗協會、自由雕塑公園、中國議會、夜航人 YouTube 頻道新聞聯絡人：公民抵抗協會理事長王苡儒
「民主前輩筆下的民主中國之路」於六四紀念館合影。
民主思辨辯論賽現場，與會者圍繞「恢復 1946 年《中華民國憲法》，還是重新制定新憲法」展開討論。
蘇曉康分享中國民主運動經驗、轉型正義與憲政重建的思考。
編輯：張致君 校對：王濱 翻譯：周敏
“The Road to a Democratic China in the Writings of Democratic Predecessors” Event Successfully Concludes
【Opposition Party Magazine Journalist Zhang Zhijun Reports from Los Angeles】 Hosted by the Citizens Resistance Association, the event “The Road to a Democratic China in the Writings of Democratic Predecessors: Transitional Justice, Constitutional Reconstruction, and Democratic Future” was successfully held on the afternoon of June 20, 2026, at the Los Angeles June Fourth Memorial Museum. This event gathered multiple democratic predecessors, public intellectuals, and overseas Chinese community representatives who have long focused on China’s democratization, human rights movements, and constitutional transition, to jointly explore the institutional direction and historical responsibility of China’s future democratic transition.
This event was divided into three main segments: keynote speech, democratic predecessors forum, and democratic speculative debate. The event first began with a keynote speech by June Fourth student movement leader Feng Congde, who proceeded from the historical context of the Chinese democracy movement, reviewed the relationship among the overseas democracy movement, constitutional reconstruction, and transitional justice, and pointed out that if China is to truly move toward freedom and democracy in the future, it cannot merely stay at the level of opposing totalitarianism, but must advance-think about institutional reconstruction, national positioning, and the undertaking capacity of civil society.
Subsequently conducted was the “Democratic Predecessors Forum,” which invited guests including Zhu Yufu, Su Xiaokang, Wang Yingguo, Li Yahui, and Lin Jinpeng to speak respectively from the angles of the situation of overseas democracy movement activists, exile experiences, the course of the Southern democracy movement, political arrangements after democratic transition, as well as the future direction of the overseas democracy movement. Attendees generally believed that China’s democratization is not a single event, but a long-term project that requires ideological preparation, organizational preparation, and institutional preparation. Although the overseas Chinese community is physically in the free world, they still have the responsibility to preserve historical memory, pass down democratic experience, and propose concrete plans for China’s future institutional transition.
The “Democratic Speculative Debate” then unfolded discussion around the debate topic: “After mainland China’s democratization, should it restore the 1946 ‘Constitution of the Republic of China’, or draft a new constitution?” The affirmative and negative sides carried out offense and defense respectively regarding questions such as legal tradition continuity, constitutional legitimacy, democratic authorization, transition cost, national reconstruction, and realistic feasibility. The atmosphere of the discussion on-site was rational and enthusiastic, and attendees also participated in the discussion through questioning, making this debate not just a clash of positions, but furthermore a public speculation regarding the route of China’s democratic transition.
Wang Yiru, Chairperson of the Citizens Resistance Association, stated that the significance of this event does not lie in immediately arriving at a unique answer, but lies in allowing democratic figures of different generations, different experiences, and different political propositions to be able to rationally discuss China’s future within the same public space. Whether it is restoring the 1946 “Constitution of the Republic of China” or re-drafting a new constitution, what is truly important is that China’s future must return to the track of freedom, democracy, constitutionalism, rule of law, and human rights, and let the people become the masters of the country once again.
In the future, the Citizens Resistance Association will continuously promote civic education, democratic speculation, historical memory preservation, and public discussions related to China’s democratization within the overseas Chinese community, allowing the sparks of freedom to continue to pass down between different cities and different generations. Although the road of China’s democratization is still long, every discussion, every assembly, and every public debate is accumulating thought and strength for the future. Only by continuous dialogue, continuous organization, and continuous cultivation of civic spirit will the road to a democratic China be walked out step by step.
Event Information
Event Name: 【2026 Freedom and Democracy Forum】 First Session
Special Topic: “The 1946 Constitution” and the Constitutional Imagination of Chinese Democratic Transition
Time: June 20, 2026 (Saturday) 13:00－16:00
Location: Los Angeles June Fourth Memorial Museum (3024 Peck Rd, El Monte, CA 91732)
Organizers: Citizens Resistance Association, Liberty Sculpture Park, China Parliament, Night Navigator YouTube Channel
Press Contact: Wang Yiru, Chairperson of the Citizens Resistance Association
Group photo of “The Road to a Democratic China in the Writings of Democratic Predecessors” at the June Fourth Memorial Museum.
At the scene of the democratic speculative debate, attendees surrounded “Restoring the 1946 ‘Constitution of the Republic of China’, or drafting a new constitution” to unfold discussion.
Su Xiaokang shares China democracy movement experience, transitional justice, and reflections on constitutional reconstruction.
Editor: Zhang Zhijun Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Zhou Min
之一：国共内战。
八年抗战，不是中国的耻辱而是光荣。但是此后的国共内战，则是一场彻头彻尾的国耻。当打败共同的敌人后，即便在国际社会的帮助下，我们竟然没有智慧和诚意找到一个和平建国的可行办法。淮海大陆，140万中国儿女在自己的土地上自相残杀！当一个中国农民的孩子把刺刀恶狠狠地捅进另外一个中国农民的孩子胸膛的时候，无论是毛还是蒋，都注定被钉在历史的耻辱柱上。几年前，《大决战》上映，面对这种手足相残，电影院里一片欢呼，这欢呼，是这种耻辱的更耻辱的注解。
之二：北韩冤魂。
无论那场战争，胜也罢，败也罢。一个不争的事实是：我们把半个韩国的人民圈于一个人类最残暴的政权下60年！是我们使他们在暗无天日的人间地狱中受尽煎熬！历史不会原谅我们的！感谢美国吧，使我们的罪孽减少了一半。
之三：反右。
摆出谦虚的态度，希望大家多提意见。实际却是“引蛇出洞”，好一网打尽。世界上，除了纳粹德国对犹太人的欺骗，有比这更无耻的事情吗？
之四：三年饥荒。
这场饥荒的耻辱是如此的强烈，以至于其始作俑者都要以“自然灾害”来掩饰——这其实使耻辱更加强烈。在饥荒的时候，我们在大批出口粮食；在饥荒的时候，我们拿出了比苏联债务更多的钱去援助第三世界；在饥荒的时候，凤阳书记感喟：多好的劳苦人民啊，宁可饿死也不抢国家粮食…这话反过来就是：多奸的政府啊，看着老百姓饿死也不打开仓救济。
之五：十年文革。
那是一场活动，也是一场耻辱。一个民族做了这样的事情，就根本没有资格再自吹自擂。提起日本侵略者，中国人会把一堆的贬义词奉上。可是，日本人最起码没有这样对待日本人吧？什么样的民族会把自己的国家精英关进牛棚？什么样的民族会把自己的社会脊梁摧残殆尽？什么样的民族会鼓吹“知识越多越反动”？答案已经有了：中国人！
之六：篡改历史。
中国其实是最没有资格指责日本篡改历史的。中国的历史教科书，把对中国有天高地厚之恩，存亡续绝之义的盟友描绘成野心狼。中国的历史教科书，闭口不提为国血战捐躯的国军将士的赫赫功勋。中国的历史教科书，把在东北犯下滔天大罪的苏联当成恩人。中国的教科书，竟然指责美国扔下原子弹。
之七：中国农民。
在奴隶时代，人生下来就被区分为贵族和奴隶。在中国，人生下来就被区分为农村户口和城市户口。如果你不幸成为前者，那么你生而低人一等，无法享受和后者一样的公民权。无法享受和后者一样的医疗、教育、社会保障。生为农民，你将承担城市人三倍的赋税，将无法自由迁移，无法和城市人享受同样的工作待遇，你甚至不拥有世代耕种的土地，因为那是国家的。这样的制度，这样一个现代的农奴制度，存在了近60年。在21世纪，依然存在。一个民族的奇耻大辱。
之八：一九八九。
我无意讨论这件事情的是是非非，那太危险（这种危险本身也是一种国耻），我只想问一句：难道我们——不仅是政府，还包括这个国家所有的人，都没有能力和智慧和平解决这件事情，而必须用这样一种惨烈的方式吗？当一个民族只会用枪杆子，而不用正义和真理的力量去解决问题的时候，难道不是一种耻辱吗？
之九：克拉玛依大火，九江决口，SARS，矿难。
这似乎不是一件，但从更深一点的层次，它们的性质完全是相同的。他反映了一个自诩为人民代言人，自诩为人民利益代表的政权，堕落到了何等的地步。
克拉玛依的那句：让领导先走，已经彻底撕毁了一个执政党当年成立时赤裸裸的信念。九江决口后的庆祝晚会里那群众鱼贯呼万岁的镜头，让世界为之呕吐。SARS从星星之火累及世界，是中国对世界人民犯下的罪行。至于最后一项，我们经历了太多的苦难，以至于很多人已经习惯性的麻木了。
之十：审查，屏蔽。
21世纪，一个宪法保障人民公民权的国家，一个宪法保障人民言论自由的国家。竟然不允许自己的公民在网络这个虚拟的世界自由表达自己的观点。一个帖子竟然仅仅因为含有敏感词而被屏蔽，一个有完全行为能力和思考能力公民的观点竟然需要被审查！中国的公民是什么？是昏智还是幼童？需要别人来“导向”，来代替我们思考！真是极烂极冥的，如果有人惧怕真相，那么我高度怀疑：他其实知道自己蛮横的，并不是真理。
转载自“全球热门网” http://w8.smirt.ch/
编辑：钟然
校对：王滨
翻译：戈冰
Abstract: This article enumerates issues including the Chinese Civil War, the Anti-Rightist Movement, the Great Famine, the Cultural Revolution, history education, the household registration (hukou) system, the 1989 incident, and speech censorship, criticizing the problems and lessons within modern Chinese history and its social system.
Number One: The Chinese Civil War.
The Eight-Year War of Resistance Against Japan was not a shame for China, but a glory. However, the Chinese Civil War that followed was an absolute and thorough national shame. After defeating our common enemy, even with the assistance of the international community, we unexpectedly lacked the wisdom and sincerity to find a feasible way to build a peaceful nation. Across the Huaihai plains, 1.4 million sons and daughters of China slaughtered one another on their own land! When the child of one Chinese peasant viciously plunged a bayonet into the chest of another Chinese peasant’s child, both Mao and Chiang were destined to be nailed to the pillar of historical shame. A few years ago, when the movie The Decisive Engagement was released, the cinemas erupted into cheers in the face of this fratricide. These cheers serve as an even more shameful footnote to this disgrace.
Number Two: The Lost Souls of North Korea.
Regardless of whether that war was won or lost, an indisputable fact remains: we penned the people of half of the Korean Peninsula under one of the most brutal regimes in human history for 60 years! It is we who caused them to suffer endlessly in a dark, hell on earth! History will not forgive us! Thank the United States, for they halved our sins.
Number Three: The Anti-Rightist Movement.
Adopting a humble posture, we expressed hope that everyone would offer more input. The reality, however, was “luring the snake out of its hole” so as to wipe them all out in one dragnet. In this world, other than Nazi Germany’s deception of the Jewish people, is there anything more shameless than this?
Number Four: The Three Years of Famine.
The shame of this famine is so intense that its perpetrators had to cover it up as “natural disasters”—which, in fact, makes the shame even more intense. During the famine, we were exporting grain in large quantities; during the famine, we gave more money to aid the Third World than the total amount of our debt to the Soviet Union; during the famine, the Party Secretary of Fengyang lamented with deep emotion: “What wonderful working people, they would rather starve to death than rob state grain…” Turned around, these words mean: “What a treacherous government, watching the common people starve to death yet refusing to open the granaries to provide relief.”
Number Five: The Ten Years of the Cultural Revolution.
That was a movement, and it was also a shame. Once a nation has done such a thing, it is utterly unqualified to brag about itself ever again. When mentioning the Japanese invaders, Chinese people will bestow a pile of derogatory terms upon them. However, at the very least, the Japanese did not treat other Japanese that way, did they? What kind of nation locks its own national elite into cowsheds? What kind of nation utterly destroys its own social backbone? What kind of nation propagates that “the more knowledge you have, the more reactionary you are”? The answer is already there: the Chinese people!
Number Six: Falsifying History.
China is actually the least qualified to accuse Japan of falsifying history. China’s history textbooks depict an ally, to whom China owes gratitude as high as the sky and as deep as the earth for saving it from extinction, as an ambitious wolf. China’s history textbooks remain completely silent about the glorious achievements of the National Revolutionary Army (Nationalist) generals and soldiers who fought bloody battles and sacrificed their lives for the country. China’s history textbooks treat the Soviet Union, which committed monstrous crimes in Northeast China, as a benefactor. China’s textbooks even go so far as to condemn the United States for dropping the atomic bombs.
Number Seven: The Chinese Peasants.
In the era of slavery, people were differentiated into aristocrats and slaves from birth. In China, people are differentiated into rural household registration (hukou) and urban household registration from birth. If you unfortunately become the former, then you are born inferior, unable to enjoy the same civil rights as the latter. You are unable to enjoy the same medical care, education, and social security as the latter. Born as a peasant, you will bear three times the tax burden of urbanites, you will be unable to migrate freely, you will be unable to enjoy the same employment treatment as urbanites, and you do not even own the land you cultivate generation after generation, because it belongs to the state. Such a system, such a modern serfdom system, has existed for nearly 60 years. In the 21st century, it still exists. A monstrous shame and deep humiliation for a nation.
Number Eight: Nineteen Eighty-Nine.
I have no intention of discussing the rights and wrongs of this event; that is too dangerous (and this danger itself is also a form of national shame). I only want to ask one question: Is it possible that we—not only the government, but also all the people of this country—lacked the ability and wisdom to resolve this matter peacefully, making it necessary to resort to such a tragic and violent method? When a nation only knows how to use the barrels of guns, rather than the power of justice and truth to resolve problems, is that not a shame?
Number Nine: The Karamay Fire, the Jiujiang Dike Breach, SARS, and Mine Disasters.
These do not seem to be a single event, but from a slightly deeper level, their nature is completely identical. They reflect the extent to which a regime, which flaunts itself as the spokesperson for the people and the representative of the people’s interests, has degenerated.
That phrase from Karamay, “Let the leaders leave first,” has thoroughly torn to shreds the naked conviction upon which the ruling party was originally founded. The scene during the celebratory gala after the Jiujiang dike breach, where the masses filed past shouting “long live,” made the world vomit. SARS spreading from a single spark to afflict the whole world was a crime committed by China against the people of the world. As for the last item, we have experienced so much suffering that many people have already become habitually numb.
Number Ten: Censorship and Blocking.
In the 21st century, a country whose constitution guarantees its people’s civil rights, a country whose constitution guarantees its people’s freedom of speech, unexpectedly does not allow its own citizens to freely express their viewpoints in the virtual world of the internet. A post can actually be blocked simply because it contains sensitive words, and the viewpoint of a citizen with full capacity for civil conduct and independent thought actually needs to be censored! What are the citizens of China? Are they dim-witted or young children? Needing others to “guide” them and think on our behalf! It is truly utterly rotten and thoroughly dark. If someone fears the truth, then I highly suspect that he actually knows he is being overbearing, and that he does not possess the truth.
Reproduced from “Global Hot Net” http://w8.smirt.ch/
Editor: Zhong Ran
Proofreader: Wang Bin
Translator: Ge Bing
作者：田永德
杭州民运前辈徐光出狱了，瘦成了一道闪电，只有八十多斤，要知道曾经的他有一百五十多斤。
我与杭州前辈们的交集缘于2006年上海开六国峰会。当时，我在上海宝山打工，上海开六国峰会，而我被上海有关方面认定为不稳定因素。在与我沟通无果后，转而向我老板施压，为了不连累给我工作机会的老板，最终我妥协——在上海开六国峰会期间，我离开上海一个月。于是，我开始了“在祖国的大地上流浪”的生存模式（这句话是现在不活跃的一位朋友说的）。期间，我去了安徽，北京。密切关注我行程的警察知道我在北京后，惊慌失措，强烈要求我离开北京。一番讨价还价后，我到了杭州。
当朱虞夫大哥第一次刑期的七年结束后，我赶上了杭州前辈们为他接风。那一年，王荣清前辈向杭州朋友们介绍我是内蒙古民主党人，基于对民主党了解的浅薄，我谨慎表示我目前还不是民主党人，但我对杭州的前辈们表示最大的敬意。
2007年五月，我去杭州旅游，杭州有关部门像疯了一样，非要赶走我和胡俊雄这两个外地人，这件事导致的直接后果是，出狱不久的朱虞夫大哥被判刑两年，而我则是在杭州朋友的帮助下，顺利躲了一夜，然后离开杭州，去了成都。
2007年年底，吕耿松大哥被抓，我又从杭州跑到北京，想要为吕耿松大哥做点什么，希望能赶在开庭前让他出狱。为此，在熟人的指点下，我给毛泽东的秘书李锐先生写了一封信，希望他能过问此事，因为熟人告诉我，李锐与当时的浙江省委书记赵洪祝关系密切。事实证明，没有任何作用。而我只能在北京杭州两地来回跑，也只找了点小钱，以求慰藉我心。
2008年，我在北京由高洪明先生介绍加入中国民主党，同时接受了他的指派，回内蒙古领导并发展党员。（只是后来我每次回去都被当地国保暗示我应该离开，队长甚至说，我被内蒙古公安厅盯着，所以也就继续“在中国的大地上流浪”着）。只是，每每看到杭州前辈们前仆后继飞蛾扑火般坐牢，让我难以承受。最难过的时候是，王荣清和王东海两位前辈去世后，当时在上海的我没办法去参加葬礼，因为我楼下有两个不明身份的人，监控了我整整两个月。为了不被上海再次赶走，我只好装孙子，这也成为我感觉愧对杭州前辈们的一件很重要的事。
徐光大哥在我眼里，就是一个大大咧咧的人，不管啥事都不放在心上。但他的底色就是那样的，就像朱虞夫大哥坐牢期间，他把朱虞夫的儿子招聘到自己的环保检测公司上班，丝毫不在意国保的施压。可是，就是这个大大咧咧的人，居然绝食了那么久，他甚至是想要用生命告诉中共，我，是你们永远打不倒的人！要知道，他有着优渥的生活，完全可以不这样。虚与委蛇？不是他的底色！于是，看着这个甚至有点粗糙的汉子，我知道了我的渺小。但，我对前辈们的敬意，更甚。
我感觉，杭州前辈们把同中共的斗争当作了自己的生活姿态，并不在意自己活得如何。就像吕耿松大哥，中共在他刑满释放后，给他送达剥夺政治权力通知，他一把撕了，全然不在乎。而他的妻子汪雪娥大姐，则是在吕耿松坐牢期间，卑鄙的国保忽悠她，让她和老吕离婚时，霸气十足地说了一句话：我们家老吕是全天下最好的男人！打压？仅此而已！我从汪雪娥大姐的身上，看到了杭州民主党人的风骨，因为她的丈夫就是顶天立地的男人，她的丈夫的兄弟也是如此。斗争而已，有什么大不了！
最近，徐光出狱了，我的两位兄长昝爱宗，邹巍还在坐牢。而我，特别担心的并不是这两位，而是徐光大哥。一百五十多斤的汉子，瘦成八十多斤，我特别担心他的脏器会出现不可逆损伤甚至病变。我已经失去了好几位让我敬重的杭州朋友，我不想看到徐光再有什么让我担忧的结果，因此写下这些文字，以抒胸臆。
民运同中共的斗争之残酷与艰辛远超所有人想象，但我从来没有看到杭州的前辈们有谁退缩过。海外的有些现象让我只能更加沉默，但幸好有杭州前辈们的珠玉在前，督促着我不能真正停下脚步。毕竟，斗争已经成为他们的生活姿态，我又有什么资格停滞不前呢？
编辑：胡丽莉
校对：王滨
翻译：戈冰
Author: Tian Yongde
Abstract: The author recalls his experiences interacting with the seniors of the Hangzhou democracy movement, praising the integrity and character of individuals such as Xu Guang, Lv Gengsong, and Zhu Yufu, who held fast to their beliefs and remained fearless in the face of suppression, while expressing deep concern and respect for Xu Guang’s physical condition after his release from prison.
Xu Guang, a senior of the Hangzhou democracy movement, has been released from prison. He has become as thin as a flash of lightning, weighing only a little over eighty catties—one must keep in mind that he used to weigh over a hundred and fifty catties.
The intersection between myself and the Hangzhou seniors originated in 2006 during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. At that time, I was working as a migrant worker in Baishan, Shanghai. As Shanghai was hosting the SCO summit, I was designated by the relevant authorities in Shanghai as an unstable element. After communication with me yielded no results, they turned to pressure my boss. In order not to implicate the boss who had given me a job opportunity, I ultimately compromised—I would leave Shanghai for one month while the SCO summit was being held. Thus, I began a survival mode of “wandering across the land of the motherland” (a phrase coined by a friend who is no longer active now). During this period, I went to Anhui and Beijing. The police, who were closely monitoring my itinerary, threw themselves into panic and disarray upon learning I was in Beijing, and intensely demanded that I leave. After a round of bargaining, I arrived in Hangzhou.
When Big Brother Zhu Yufu finished the seven years of his first prison sentence, I managed to catch up with the Hangzhou seniors hosting a welcome-back dinner for him. That year, Senior Wang Rongqing introduced me to the Hangzhou friends as a member of the Democracy Party from Inner Mongolia. Based on my shallow understanding of the Democracy Party, I cautiously stated that I was not yet a member of the Democracy Party at present, but I expressed my highest respect to the seniors in Hangzhou.
In May 2007, I went to Hangzhou for tourism. The relevant departments in Hangzhou acted as if they had gone mad, absolutely insisting on expelling the two of us outsiders, Hu Junxiong and myself. The direct consequence brought about by this incident was that Big Brother Zhu Yufu, who had not been out of prison for long, was sentenced to two years in prison; as for me, with the help of Hangzhou friends, I successfully hid for a night, and then left Hangzhou for Chengdu.
At the end of 2007, Big Brother Lv Gengsong was arrested. I rushed from Hangzhou to Beijing again, wanting to do something for Big Brother Lv Gengsong, hoping to get him out of prison before the court went into session. To this end, under the guidance of an acquaintance, I wrote a letter to Mr. Li Rui, the former secretary to Mao Zedong, hoping he could look into this matter, because the acquaintance told me that Li Rui had a close relationship with Zhao Hongzhu, who was the Secretary of the Zhejiang Provincial Party Committee at the time. Facts proved that it was of absolutely no use. Consequently, I could only run back and forth between Beijing and Hangzhou, and managed to find only a small amount of money, merely seeking to bring some solace to my own heart.
In 2008, I was introduced by Mr. Gao Hongming in Beijing to join the China Democracy Party. At the same time, I accepted his assignment to return to Inner Mongolia to lead and develop party members. (It was just that afterward, every time I went back, I was dropped hints by the local Domestic Security Department [Guobao] that I should leave. The captain even said that I was being watched by the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department, so I just continued “wandering across the land of China.”) However, time and again, seeing the Hangzhou seniors wave after wave going to prison like moths to a flame was more than I could bear. The most painful time was when the two seniors, Wang Rongqing and Wang Donghai, passed away; at that time, being in Shanghai, I had no way to attend their funerals because there were two unidentified individuals downstairs who monitored me for two full months. In order not to be driven out of Shanghai again, I had no choice but to play the coward, which has also become a major matter for which I feel I have failed the Hangzhou seniors.
In my eyes, Big Brother Xu Guang has always been a casual, easygoing person who never takes anything to heart. But his true colors are exactly like that. For instance, while Big Brother Zhu Yufu was in prison, he hired Zhu Yufu’s son to work at his own environmental testing company, utterly indifferent to the pressure from the Domestic Security Department. Yet, it was this very easygoing man who actually went on a hunger strike for so long; he even wanted to use his life to tell the Chinese Communist Party (CCP): I am someone you will never defeat! One must know that he lived a well-to-do life and absolutely did not have to be this way. Dealing with them superficially through false compliance? That is not in his character! Thus, looking at this man who was even a bit rough around the edges, I came to realize my own smallness. But my respect for the seniors grew even greater.
I feel that the Hangzhou seniors have taken the struggle against the CCP as their very stance of life, completely uncaring of how they themselves live. Take Big Brother Lv Gengsong for example: after he completed his prison sentence, the CCP served him a notice of deprivation of political rights, and he tore it to pieces in one swift motion, utterly unconcerned. As for his wife, Big Sister Wang Xue’e—when the despicable Domestic Security Department tried to hoodwink her while Lv Gengsong was in prison, urging her to divorce Old Lv, she said a phrase with absolute, domineering pride: “Our Old Lv is the best man in the whole world!” Suppression? That’s all it amounts to! From the person of Big Sister Wang Xue’e, I saw the integrity and character of the Hangzhou Democracy Party members, because her husband is a man who stands tall between heaven and earth, and her husband’s brothers are the same. It is merely a struggle, what is the big deal!
Recently, Xu Guang was released from prison, while my two elder brothers, Zan Aizong and Zou Wei, are still in prison. Yet, the one I am particularly worried about is not those two, but Big Brother Xu Guang. A man of over a hundred and fifty catties has withered down to a little over eighty catties; I am deeply worried that his internal organs might suffer irreversible damage or even pathological changes. I have already lost several Hangzhou friends whom I deeply respected, and I do not want to see any more outcomes regarding Xu Guang that would cause me grief. Therefore, I write these words to express what is in my heart.
The cruelty and hardship of the democracy movement’s struggle against the CCP far exceed anyone’s imagination, but I have never seen a single one of the Hangzhou seniors flinch or back down. Certain phenomena overseas leave me with no choice but to remain even more silent, but fortunately, the flawless examples set by the Hangzhou seniors stand before me, urging me that I cannot truly halt my steps. After all, struggle has already become their stance of life—what right do I have to stand still and make no progress?
Editor: Hu Lili
Proofreader: Wang Bin
Translator: Ge Bing
© 1998–2026 在野党(Opposition Party).
