作者：朱虞夫 编辑：鲁慧文 责任编辑：罗志飞

王炳章点火九州

1998年二月初，王炳章博士“风风火火闯九州”，来到杭州。那天，老友毛庆祥邀我早上去开元路口的“开元茶室”喝茶，见见民主墙时期的老朋友们。他对王博士来杭的事只字未提。 

我来到茶室，看到王东海、毛庆祥、王荣清、戚惠民等老友，但是大家都没有泡茶，甚至都没有坐下来，我感到气氛有点奇怪，但也不方便问，就自己拉一把椅子坐了下来。

不一会儿，王东海出去了，然后毛庆祥出去了，戚惠民与我在寒暄了几句也去“上厕所”了，久久不回。剩下我和王荣清面面相觑，有一句没一句的聊了一会，手足无措，实在无趣，就悻悻然各自回家了。

事后方知，当时他们是把王荣清和我带去做掩护，因为圈内一直认为王有些不可靠，而我在民主墙以后已经脱离多年，怕我们去见王博士会造成危害，也为了他们去少年宫的安全，把我们留在茶室吸引公安的注意力。

但是那天去少年宫见王博士的人没有一个认得王博士，只是感觉来人风度很好，自我介绍是“做医生的”。在谈到“那人”的谈话内容时，见过的人都提到，“那人”说要他们成立政党，但是大家都认为目前成立政党风险太大，时机不成熟，只能以后再说。基于大家尚对我有疑虑，我也不方便置喙，只是感到与王博士缘慳一面，殊为抱憾。

四月份的某天，我去王东海家（我供职的上城区房管局离他家不远，我经常顺路去他那里转转），王东海有点认真地问我：“虞夫，你对组党怎么看？”

“好啊！”我说。

“为什么？那样是不是风险太大了？”

“九州生气恃风雷，当前政治改革停滞不前，当局既想从西方得到经济利益，又不愿顺世界潮流而行，进行承诺已久的政治改革。西方白左也自欺欺人、一厢情愿地陶醉在当局的虚假宣传中，未来堪忧。当局目前还不想与西方交恶，信誓旦旦不走老路，可是只听楼梯响，不见人下来。目前组党的风险相对比较小，我们不妨促一促。

“许多年来，我们生活在这头猛兽的暴虐之下，如今它难以为继，向西方示好，说自己不再残虐老百姓，西方相信了它的说辞，以为绥靖政策有了成效。没人愿意揭破它的真面目。它占着一大块地盘在呼呼装睡，老百姓的生存环境日显窘迫，我们不妨去推它一下，要么它挪一挪身子，给老百姓让出一些活动空间，要么让它露出本来面目——吃了我们。”

“你有没有想过，组党是高压线，会坐牢的。”王东海说。

“是的，我们既然投身民运，就应该有坐牢的思想准备。既得利益集团不会轻易放弃自己的特权。听说它们最近向国际社会宣称将签署联合国的重要人权文件《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》，这是一个重大信号，有可能不久后会开放党禁，当然也有可能不开放。有人会问，既然要开放，你们何必冒这样的风险，等开放了再组党吧。问题是，它们已经在历史上玩过多次帽子手法，我们民运人士作为社会压力集团，主动提出要求，将计就计，将球踢给对方，让对方的行径暴露在众目睽睽之下。”

“台湾如果没有民进党的顽强抗争，蒋经国未必会开放党禁，一举使台湾实现了民主转型。当台湾开放党禁后，一窝蜂地许多人都去注册政党，数量令人咋舌，却没几天就关门大吉了，只有民进党赢得了人心，因为他们在白色恐怖时期努力奋斗过，坐过牢，作出过牺牲，是个有责任、有担当的政党。”

王东海认同了我的观点，虽然没有说什么，但是我知道，二月初王炳章先生播下的种子，已经开始在他们心里发芽了。他们在酝酿组党的事了。

其时，我还没有见过王有才。大约在九六年，老朋友陈立群在与我聊天时，希望我将78—79年杭州民主墙的事写点回忆录，我就写了《盗火者—杭州79民运回忆》，立群看后拿给王有才看，王有才看后对立群说“你们那时候搞得很好啊！”并有结识我的意愿，立群回复了我。

1998年6月25日，单位组织员工去中山中路的上城区房管局“普法学习”，中午我顺便去王东海家，王东海家里没人，大门、房门都开着，客厅中间的方桌上放着一沓纸，我拿起来看，一份是《中国民主党成立宣言》，另一份是向浙江省民政厅申请成立中国民主党浙江筹委会的报告，申请人王有才、王东海和林辉。大约过了十几分钟，门外走廊上有人进来，到了门口脚步停了。少顷，我听王东海在说：“这个就是朱虞夫呀。”原来走在前面的是王有才，他走到门口，看到屋里有个戴头盔的大个子，心里一惊，以为都还没去申请，警察就已经上门来了。

因缘一插图：注册多年后重逢林辉

他们三人进来后，说起这场误会，大家哈哈一笑。王有才向我说起他们三人准备下午去申请的事，问我对这事有什么看法，我想到王东海太太程云惠身怀六甲，即将临盆，如果王东海此去被扣，程云惠会陷入困境，于是我对王东海说，把你的名字换成我吧，你万一出了事，阿惠谁来照顾。不承想王东海说，我如果回不来，阿惠你来照顾，你照顾我放心的。王有才也说，这事已经定了，不要改了，我们如果进去的话，你们在外面声援接着干。

转眼一点多了，他们要去民政厅递交申请，我也要去单位了。一起走到楼下，在东太平巷窄窄的巷子里，骤起的凉风吹乱了大家的头发，我一一与他们握手告别，林辉紧紧地握着我的手，我心里涌上了“萧萧易水”的句子。

整个下午，我都牵挂着他们三人的安危，从三点后接连给王东海打了好几个电话，他都没接。直到快五点的时候，王东海接了电话，我问他申请注册的事，王东海说民政厅办事人员说，这种事没有遇到过，叫他们把申请材料放在那里，交给领导“研究研究”。民政厅对这种情况只能按《社团法》处理：需要申请人提供五十个以上成员的名单；秘书长以上人员的简历和五万元注册资金。

王有才的安排很有策略，这天是克林顿访华到达西安的日子，谅不至于在国际媒体的焦点关注下抓几个政治异己分子添乱。再则，其时的浙江省委书记李泽民是一个比较开明的人士，不希望开历史倒车。民主党兴，德国《镜报》记者问李鹏中国国内组党的事，李鹏说这是决不允许的，不久张德江取代李泽民，准备对浙江的民主党人展开镇压。在李鹏表态后，江泽民也说要把民主党消除在“萌芽状态”，2002年面对舆论汹汹的国际压力，余怒未消的江来浙江讲他的“三个代表”，说“有的地方出了怪事，不解决、不报告。”推脱长达半年多的民主党组党事件他一无所知。中国民主党的组党，迫使共产党将自己包装成“全民党”，抛出了所谓的“三个代表”。

王有才在去浙江省民政厅公开申请成立中国民主党的同时，已经在网上向外界作了公布，一时间成为了海外媒体的关注焦点，海外媒体纷纷来电采访报道，海外民运也十分踊跃地给予支持和谋划。王炳章先生不遗余力地联系我们，他与王希哲、连胜德是最活跃的支持者。我几乎每天都接到王炳章先生的电话，他明确告诉我这是一个转瞬即逝的窗口期，与其等着克林顿红利消退，等着他们“研究”完了腾出手来镇压，不如趁这空档做大做强。王博士说：“虞夫，你们趁着这个机会到街路上去发展中国民主党成员，见一个发展一个，抓紧做大做强，形成势了就不容易被镇压了。”

The Origins of the China Democracy Party

Author: Zhu Yufu · Editor: Lu Huiwen · Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei

Translator: Lu Huiwen

Dr. Wang Bingzhang Ignites the Nation

In early February 1998, Dr. Wang Bingzhang arrived in Hangzhou during his whirlwind tour across China, dubbed “sweeping through the nine provinces.” That day, my old friend Mao Qingxiang invited me for morning tea at the “Kaiyuan Teahouse” on Kaiyuan Road to catch up with some friends from the Democracy Wall era. He never mentioned Dr. Wang’s arrival.

At the teahouse, I saw familiar faces—Wang Donghai, Mao Qingxiang, Wang Rongqing, and Qi Huimin—but none of them were drinking tea, nor had they even sat down. I sensed something odd in the atmosphere, but didn’t press the issue. I simply pulled up a chair and sat down.

Before long, Wang Donghai left. Then Mao Qingxiang. Qi Huimin chatted briefly with me before also excusing himself “to the restroom,” and never came back. That left just Wang Rongqing and me sitting awkwardly, making small talk. Eventually, feeling out of place and without purpose, we each left in disappointment.

I later learned that they had taken Wang Rongqing and me along as decoys. Within the dissident circle, there were concerns that Wang Rongqing was unreliable, and I—having withdrawn from activism after the Democracy Wall movement—was also viewed with caution. They feared that bringing us to meet Dr. Wang might jeopardize his safety. To ensure their own meeting at the Children’s Palace would go unnoticed, they left us behind at the teahouse to distract the security police.

Ironically, none of the people who went to meet Dr. Wang actually recognized him. They only remarked afterward that the visitor was well-mannered and introduced himself as “a doctor.” In recounting the conversation, they all remembered that “this man” spoke about founding a political party. However, everyone felt the risks were too high and the timing was not right—perhaps later, they said. Since I was still viewed with some suspicion, I didn’t comment. I was simply left with a sense of regret for having missed the chance to meet Dr. Wang in person.

One day in April, I stopped by Wang Donghai’s home—my office at the Shangcheng District Housing Bureau was nearby, and I often dropped in on him during lunch breaks. That day, Wang Donghai seemed unusually serious. He asked me, “Yufu, what do you think about founding a political party?”

“Great idea,” I replied.

“Why? Isn’t that too risky?”

I said, “A nation’s vitality relies on thunder and storm. Political reform has stagnated. The regime wants economic gains from the West, but refuses to align with global democratic norms or fulfill its long-promised political reforms. Western liberals deceive themselves, indulging in the regime’s propaganda. The future is bleak. The government doesn’t want to antagonize the West just yet—it still solemnly swears ‘not to return to the old path.’ But all we hear are footsteps on the stairs—no one actually comes down. Now might be a relatively low-risk moment for us to push for action.”

“For years, we’ve lived under the tyranny of a beast. Now it’s growing weak, trying to appear benevolent to the West. It claims it no longer brutalizes its people, and the West believes it—thinking appeasement has worked. But no one wants to expose its true nature. It lies on this vast land, pretending to sleep, while ordinary people find it harder and harder to survive. We might as well give it a push—either it shifts and gives people some breathing room, or it reveals its true form: devouring us.”

“But have you thought this through?” Wang Donghai asked. “Starting a political party is a red line. You’ll end up in prison.”

“Yes,” I said. “If we commit to the democratic movement, we must be mentally prepared for prison. The vested interests won’t easily give up their privileges. I heard the regime recently claimed it would sign the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That’s a significant signal—it might mean they’ll soon lift the ban on forming parties. Of course, they also might not. Some people would ask: If the ban is going to be lifted, why take the risk now? Why not wait and start a party legally then? The problem is…”

“They’ve already played this hat trick many times throughout history,” I said. “As pro-democracy activists, we act as a pressure group. By proactively making our demands, we can turn their own strategy back on them. Let’s kick the ball into their court—let their actions be exposed to public scrutiny.”

“Look at Taiwan. If it hadn’t been for the Democratic Progressive Party’s persistent resistance, Chiang Ching-kuo might never have lifted the party ban, and Taiwan wouldn’t have made its democratic transition. When the ban was lifted, dozens of new parties popped up overnight, but most of them folded just as quickly. Only the DPP won the people’s hearts—because they had fought during the White Terror, endured prison, made sacrifices. That’s what made them a responsible and committed political party.”

Wang Donghai didn’t respond directly, but I could tell he agreed. I knew then that the seed Dr. Wang Bingzhang had planted back in early February was beginning to sprout. They were seriously considering forming a political party.

At that time, I still hadn’t met Wang Youcai. Back in 1996, my old friend Chen Liqun encouraged me to write a memoir about the 1978–1979 Hangzhou Democracy Wall movement. I wrote The Fire Thief: A Memoir of the 1979 Democracy Movement in Hangzhou. After reading it, Liqun gave it to Wang Youcai. Wang’s response was, “You guys did great back then!” and he expressed an interest in meeting me. Liqun relayed that back to me.

On June 25, 1998, our workplace had arranged a “Legal Awareness Training” session at the Shangcheng District Housing Bureau on Zhongshan Middle Road. During lunch, I stopped by Wang Donghai’s home. No one was there—the front and inner doors were open. On the table in the center of the living room lay a stack of papers. I picked them up. One was the Declaration on the Founding of the China Democracy Party; the other was an application to the Zhejiang Provincial Civil Affairs Bureau to establish the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party. The listed applicants were Wang Youcai, Wang Donghai, and Lin Hui.

Reunited with Lin Hui after many years since registration.

About ten minutes later, I heard footsteps in the hallway. Someone stopped at the doorway. A moment later, I heard Wang Donghai say…

“This must be Zhu Yufu,” I heard Wang Donghai say. It turned out the man approaching the doorway was Wang Youcai. He had stopped in his tracks at the sight of a large man wearing a helmet sitting in the room, startled—he thought the police had already shown up before they even submitted the application.

The three of them entered, and when the misunderstanding was cleared up, we all laughed. Wang Youcai then explained their plan to submit the application to the Civil Affairs Bureau that afternoon and asked what I thought of it. I immediately thought of Donghai’s wife, Cheng Yunhui, who was heavily pregnant and nearing delivery. If anything were to happen to Donghai, she’d be left in a very difficult situation. So I told Donghai, “Let me take your name instead. If something happens to you, who’s going to take care of Ah Hui?” But to my surprise, Donghai replied, “If I don’t come back, you take care of Ah Hui. I trust you with that.” Wang Youcai added, “The decision has already been made. Don’t change it. If we end up inside, you all keep the work going from the outside.”

By 1 p.m., it was time for them to head to the Civil Affairs Bureau, and I needed to return to work as well. We all walked downstairs together. In the narrow alley of Dongtaiping Lane, a sudden cool breeze blew, rustling our hair. I shook hands with each of them to say goodbye. Lin Hui held onto my hand tightly—at that moment, the ancient line “the wind whistles at the Yi River” surfaced in my heart.

All afternoon, I worried about their safety. After 3 p.m., I called Donghai several times, but he didn’t pick up. Finally, just before 5 p.m., he answered. I asked how the application went. Donghai said the staff at the Civil Affairs Bureau told them they’d never dealt with this kind of request before. They were asked to leave the materials for further review by higher-ups. The officials said the only way to process it was under the “Regulations on the Registration of Social Organizations,” which required a list of more than 50 founding members, resumes of all officers above the rank of Secretary-General, and a minimum of 50,000 RMB in startup funds.

Wang Youcai had timed this well. That day, President Clinton was arriving in Xi’an on his state visit to China, making it unlikely that the authorities would arrest political dissidents and create international headlines. Moreover, Zhejiang’s Party Secretary at the time, Li Zemin, was known to be relatively open-minded and unlikely to backtrack on reform.

As news of the China Democracy Party’s formation spread, a reporter from Germany’s Der Spiegel asked Li Peng about it. Li Peng responded, “This will never be allowed.” Shortly after, Zhang Dejiang replaced Li Zemin and began preparing a crackdown on the CDP in Zhejiang. After Li Peng’s remarks, Jiang Zemin declared that the CDP must be eliminated “in the bud.” In 2002, still seething, Jiang visited Zhejiang under mounting international pressure and gave a speech about his “Three Represents” theory. He said, “Strange things have happened in some places—unresolved and unreported,” distancing himself from the party formation incident, as if he had known nothing about it for over half a year. Ironically, the CDP’s very existence forced the Communist Party to rebrand itself as the “party of the people” and roll out the so-called “Three Represents” theory.

Even as Wang Youcai submitted the application to the Zhejiang Civil Affairs Bureau, he had already made the move public online. Within hours, it became a focal point for overseas media. Calls and requests for interviews poured in. Overseas pro-democracy activists rallied in support and began strategizing. Dr. Wang Bingzhang was tireless in his efforts to coordinate with us. Alongside Wang Xizhe and Lian Shengde, he was among our most active overseas supporters. I received calls from Dr. Wang almost daily. He told me in no uncertain terms: “This is a brief window of opportunity. Don’t wait for the Clinton honeymoon to end, or for them to ‘finish reviewing’ and come down hard on you. Use this breathing space to expand quickly.” He said, “Yufu, go out there on the streets and recruit CDP members. Meet one, develop one. Grow fast. Once you gain momentum, it won’t be so easy for them to crush you.”

⸻

作者：胡丽莉 责任编辑：罗志飞

2025年6月1日，在气温高达九十多华氏度的加州耶莫小镇，烈日炙烤下的莫哈维沙漠中却人声鼎沸——来自世界各地的民主人士齐聚雕塑公园，共同纪念“六四”事件36周年，并见证新雕塑《历史的垃圾》的落成。

美西时间下午两点，活动在“六四”纪念碑前正式开始。民众们首先为在追求自由道路上牺牲的先烈默哀祈祷。随后，多位中国民主党成员登台发言，缅怀亡者、声讨暴政。演讲在民主人士陈闯创先生激昂有力的呼喊中达到高潮：“勿忘六四，血债血偿，推翻暴政，中共必亡！”呐喊响彻沙丘，撼动人心。

活动中，新党员在纪念碑前庄严宣誓，立志为中国民主事业奋斗终身。

下午四时许，来宾与参与者共同合唱了1989年中华民国为声援中国学运而创作的歌曲《历史的伤口》。随后，全体人员为“六四”死难者默哀，向历史致敬。

接着，由“六四”学运领袖王丹、中国民主党全委会执行长陈闯创、《历史的垃圾》雕塑捐助者冯艳飞、台湾政治大学国家发展研究所教授李酉潭、台湾时事评论者八炯等嘉宾共同为雕塑揭幕。

该雕塑出自艺术家陈维明之手，以重型铲车为主体，铲斗与车轮之下压着马克思、列宁、斯大林、希特勒、毛泽东、邓小平等11位象征极权的历史人物头像。作品寓意这些以极权统治人类、带来深重灾难的独裁者终将被扫入历史的垃圾堆。

来自古巴、美国、新西兰、台湾、香港等地的民主人士及89学运前辈轮番发言，分享经验期许未来。他们的声音汇聚成坚定的力量，为现场参与者注入了新的勇气与希望。

民主未至，奔赴不息；自由未得，抗争不止。
在庄严与激昂交织的氛围中，纪念仪式圆满落幕。

Never Forget, Never Give Up

— Commemorating the 36th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre and the Unveiling of The Trash of History

By Hu Lili Edited by Luo Zhifei Translator: Lu Huiwen

On June 1st, 2025, in the sweltering heat of Yermo, California—where temperatures soared above 90°F—voices of conscience echoed across the Mojave Desert. Pro-democracy advocates from around the world gathered at the Liberty Sculpture Park to commemorate the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and witness the unveiling of a powerful new sculpture: The Trash of History.

At 2:00 PM (PDT), the event officially commenced in front of the Tiananmen memorial. Attendees began with a moment of silence and prayer for those who gave their lives in the pursuit of freedom. One by one, members of the China Democracy Party took the stage to honor the fallen and denounce tyranny. The event reached an emotional crescendo with a stirring speech from democracy activist Mr. Chen Chuangchuang, who shouted:

“Never forget June Fourth! Blood debts must be repaid! Overthrow the tyranny! The CCP must fall!”

His rallying cry pierced the desert silence and stirred every heart.

During the ceremony, new party members stood solemnly before the memorial and took an oath of lifelong commitment to the cause of democracy in China.

Around 4:00 PM, attendees joined together in a collective rendition of The Wound of History—a song composed by the Republic of China in 1989 to support the Chinese student movement. This was followed by another solemn moment of silence in honor of those killed on June 4th, a gesture of reverence toward history and its sacrifices.

The unveiling of the sculpture then began, led by key guests including Tiananmen student leader Wang Dan; Chen Chuangchuang, Executive Director of the China Democracy Party Coordinating Committee; sculpture donor Feng Yanfai; Professor Lee Yu-tan of National Chengchi University; and Taiwanese political commentator Ba Jiong.

Created by renowned artist Chen Weiming, The Trash of History features a massive bulldozer crushing the heads of eleven figures beneath its wheels and scoop—faces representing tyrants such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Deng Xiaoping. The sculpture is a bold statement: those who rule through absolute power and bring catastrophe to humanity will, inevitably, be cast into the dustbin of history.

Democracy activists and 1989 movement veterans from Cuba, the United States, New Zealand, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and beyond each took to the microphone to share their reflections and hopes for the future. Their voices formed a collective strength that renewed the courage and resolve of all who were present.

民主未至，奔赴不息；自由未得，抗争不止。
在庄严与激昂交织的氛围中，纪念仪式圆满落幕。

Democracy has yet to arrive, but the march does not cease.

Freedom is not yet won, but the struggle never stops.

Amid an atmosphere charged with solemn remembrance and unyielding defiance, the commemoration concluded with honor and hope.

文/王梦梦 责任编辑：罗志飞

【在野党2025年6月25日讯】（王梦梦洛杉矶报导）2025年6月21日（周六）下午，多位民主人士与洛杉矶华人社群在好莱坞星光大道集会，声援台湾民众“罢免中共代理人”运动。与会者呼吁全球华人认清中共渗透伎俩，守护台湾民主防线。

本次集会以“We Support——声援台湾大罢免，清理中共代理人”为主题，由多个人权团体、民主组织联合举办，现场挥舞着台湾国旗与横幅，口号此起彼落：“我们支持台湾罢免中共代理人！”“台湾属于台湾人民，不属于中共！”

中共渗透台政界 民主制度岌岌可危

组织者指出，近年来中共以和平、民族之名，派遣政治代理人进入台湾政坛，企图操控民主制度。房兰峰表示：“这些代理人假借和平、服务之名，实则是中共在台湾的桥头堡，我们必须揭露他们的伪装。”

旅美台湾政治学者、活动顾问李酉潭教授也指出：“极权中共政权是全体中国人的敌人，只有宪政民主，才能带来真正的台海和平。”

中国民主人权联盟代表彭小亮表示：“台湾是中国最后一片净土，如果台湾失守，民主华语社会将彻底崩溃，中共的黑手将伸向全球每一个角落。”

台海若陷落 港式悲剧恐再现

集会发言人纷纷提及2019年香港反送中运动的悲剧，提醒台湾民众保持警觉。主持人郭斌指出：“香港已经沉沦，我们不能让台湾重蹈覆辙。中共是靠霸凌统治的政权，绝不能用民主选票让它合法化。”

与会者还揭露，中共不仅操弄媒体、散布假消息、制造社会分裂，还试图通过操控罢免程序来瓦解民主基础。

2025年6月21日，洛杉矶居民在好莱坞星光大道集会支持台湾罢免中共代理人

国际社会应关注台湾命运

活动最后，现场群众高喊口号：“中共滚出中国！”“守护台湾，就是守护我们的未来！”表达坚定反共立场。

组织方呼吁国际社会与全球华人持续关注台湾民主局势，支持台湾人民用选票清除中共代理人。正如集会主办方所说：“罢免中共代理人不仅是台湾的战斗，更是全体热爱自由的人们的共同使命。”

2025年6月21日，洛杉矶居民在好莱坞星光大道集会游行与路人互动

Not Alone: Los Angeles Chinese Rally in Solidarity with Taiwan, Chant “CCP Out of China!”

By Wang Mengmeng Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Lu Huiwen

The Opposition, June 25, 2025

LOS ANGELES, June 21 — On a blazing Saturday afternoon, Chinese dissidents and members of the local Chinese diaspora gathered on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame to show their strong support for Taiwan’s growing movement to recall Chinese Communist Party (CCP) proxies. The demonstrators called on Chinese communities around the world to recognize the CCP’s infiltration tactics and to defend Taiwan as the final line of defense for democracy in the Chinese-speaking world.

The event, themed “We Support—Standing with Taiwan to Remove CCP Proxies,” was jointly organized by multiple human rights and democracy advocacy groups. Participants waved Taiwanese flags and banners as the crowd rang out with chants:

“We support Taiwan’s movement to recall CCP agents!”

“Taiwan belongs to the people of Taiwan—not the CCP!”

CCP Infiltration Undermines Taiwan’s Democracy

Organizers warned of the CCP’s increasingly aggressive efforts to penetrate Taiwan’s political system under the guise of peace and national unity.

“These so-called representatives speak of peace and service, but in reality they’re beachheads for Beijing’s control,” said Fang Lanfeng, one of the event’s speakers.

Professor Lee Yu-tan, a political scientist from Taiwan and an advisor to the event, emphasized:

“The authoritarian CCP regime is the common enemy of all Chinese people. Only constitutional democracy can bring true peace across the Taiwan Strait.”

Peng Xiaoliang, a representative of the China Democracy and Human Rights Alliance, stressed the global stakes of Taiwan’s fate:

“Taiwan is the last uncorrupted land for Chinese democracy. If it falls, the entire democratic Chinese-speaking world collapses. The CCP’s shadow will reach every corner of the globe.”

“Hong Kong Has Fallen—Taiwan Must Not Be Next”

Speakers repeatedly invoked the 2019 Hong Kong protests as a warning to Taiwan.

“Hong Kong has already fallen,” said emcee Guo Bin. “We cannot let Taiwan follow. The CCP is a regime of bullying and violence—we must never legitimize it with democratic votes.”

Protesters also pointed out how the CCP manipulates media, spreads disinformation, and creates social rifts. Some warned that the CCP may even attempt to hijack the recall process itself in order to erode Taiwan’s democratic institutions from within.

Photo: On June 21, 2025, Los Angeles residents rally on Hollywood Boulevard in support of Taiwan’s movement to recall CCP proxies.

International Community Urged to Stand with Taiwan

The event concluded with the crowd chanting:

“CCP out of China!”

“Defend Taiwan—defend our future!”

Organizers issued a final call to action, urging the international community and Chinese diaspora worldwide to keep close watch on Taiwan’s democracy and to stand firmly with the Taiwanese people in their effort to purge CCP proxies from their electoral system.

As the rally’s organizers declared:

“This is not just Taiwan’s battle—it is a shared mission for all who cherish freedom.”

Photo: June 21, 2025—Los Angeles residents march and engage with pedestrians on Hollywood Boulevard in support of Taiwan’s democratic defense.

作者：王治水（国内中国民主党早期创党领袖） 编辑：熊小芳 责任编辑：鲁慧文

亲爱的海内外同胞们:

我们中国民主党人创立民主党的宗旨是建立一个真正民主制度的国家，以道治国。何谓道？我们认为,顺其自然规律治理社会就是道。老子说：“上善治水,水善利万物而有静,居众人之所恶,故几于道矣。”翻译过来就是：水的属性是趋下,最好的政治制度就像治理水一样,水疏导好了,万物得以滋润而繁茂；水平静,并且停留在人们不喜欢的低处,因而接近了道。孔子梦寐以求的理想社会就是：“朝闻道,夕死可矣。”历代的文人都苦口婆心地劝说帝王要爱民,但有几人能做到呢？历史上做得好的要算商汤和周文、武二王了。魏征在谏唐太宗李世民时说：“民犹水也,君犹舟也；水可载舟,亦可覆舟,民可畏也。”当时那句话是打了引号的,可见此话已留传很久了。孟子说：“民为贵,社稷次之,君为轻。”可是在明太祖朱元璋时期，他命令,任何书籍上决不容许出现这十个字。

纵观华夏历史,从秦起,就是一部几乎家天下的杀戮史,就是一部“狡兔死,走狗烹；高鸟尽,良弓藏；敌国破,谋臣亡”的血泪史。刘邦诛杀功高盖主的韩信；明太祖毒杀刘伯温；毛泽东弄死彭德怀、刘少奇等等,无一不是为了家天下的永续,但哪一个做到了呢？中共顽固元老陈云说：“看来还是把权力交给我们的后一代为好。”他肯定忘记了历史。秦始皇想要“一世、二世、以至万世。”仅仅只三十多年,便丢了江山。汉四百多年,晋一百多年,唐二百多年,宋四百多年,元九十多年,明二百多年,清二百多年,袁世凱八十三天,苏联七十多年。现在世上纵横比较看来,唯有民主制度才能长治久安。民主制度,就是我们老祖宗渴慕的道。

什么是民主制度呢？狭义地来说,民主制度就是民众真正当家作主或叫主权在民的制度。广义地来说,就是天下非一人之天下,非二人之天下；非一家之天下,非二家之天下；非一党之天下,非二党之天下。天下者,乃天下人共有之天下,唯有德才兼备者通过公平、公正、定期地实行竞选,大多数人表决通过者,才能荣居为为民众服务的总统宝座。总统任期只能一届或二届；四年或八年,五年或十年。这在制定宪法中必须是刚性的，决不能让任何总统多留恋一天。如果这点做好了,每一个公民都能竞选各级公职,那么,国家就能长治久安。

亲爱的海内外同胞们，中国只要实现了民主制度,一切问题就将迎刃而解。那时,我们可以聘请海内外优秀教师，并培训自己的老师，教育好我们的后一代。提高高国民道德素质和文化水平，一切为了民生,民众的生活好起来，我们也能过上欧美人那样体面的生话。

亲爱的海内外同胞们，民主制度是我们民众获得尊严与幸福的泉源。让我们勇敢地联起手来,摧毁反动的专制独裁制度,建立起真正的民主制度吧。唯有民主制度才能救中国。

王治水

2025年4月6日

Only a Democratic System Can Save China

By Wang Zhishui | Editor: Xiong Xiaofang | Chief Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen

Dear compatriots at home and abroad,

We, members of the China Democracy Party, founded this party with the mission to establish a truly democratic nation governed by Dao (the Way). What is Dao? We believe that governing society according to the natural order is Dao.

As Laozi said:

“The highest virtue is like water. Water benefits all things and flows in humble places that others disdain. Thus, it is close to the Dao.”

In political terms, this means: just as water flows downward and nourishes everything quietly, the best political system should be one that guides and supports the people without force, humbly remaining in the background. That is true governance by Dao.

Confucius once dreamed of an ideal society where: “If one hears the Way in the morning, one can die content in the evening.”

For generations, Chinese scholars have pleaded with emperors to care for the people. Yet how many rulers truly listened? In history, only a few such as King Tang of Shang or Kings Wen and Wu of Zhou are remembered for placing the people first.

Wei Zheng once warned Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty: “The people are like water; the ruler is like a boat. Water can carry the boat, but it can also overturn it.”

This famous quote was already ancient in Wei Zheng’s time, showing how long this truth had been understood. Mencius declared: “The people are the most important, the state comes second, and the ruler is the least.”

But under Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang of the Ming Dynasty, even printing these ten characters was banned.

Looking back at China’s history, from the Qin Dynasty onward, it has largely been a bloody saga of power inherited through families—a history where “once the cunning hare is caught, the hound is slaughtered; once the enemy is defeated, the strategist is discarded.”

Liu Bang executed Han Xin for being too successful;

Emperor Zhu poisoned Liu Bowen;

Mao Zedong purged Peng Dehuai and Liu Shaoqi—all in the name of preserving family power.

Yet none of them succeeded in securing a dynasty that lasted forever.

Even Chen Yun, a hardline CCP elder, once said: “It’s best to pass power on to our next generation.”

He clearly forgot history Qin Shi Huang aimed for “eternal rule,” but lost the empire within 30 years.

• Han: 400+ years

• Jin: 100+ years

• Tang: 200+ years

• Song: 400+ years

• Yuan: 90+ years

• Ming: 200+ years

• Qing: 200+ years

• Yuan Shikai: 83 days

• Soviet Union: 70+ years

Across history and across the world, one truth stands out: Only democracy can bring lasting peace and stability. Democracy is the modern realization of our ancestors’ yearning for the Dao.

So, what is democracy?

In a narrow sense, democracy is the system where the people truly hold power—where sovereignty resides with the people.

In a broader sense, it means the nation does not belong to one person, two people, one family, or one party. The nation belongs to all its people.

Only those with both virtue and talent, elected through fair, open, and regular elections, can rightfully serve the public as president.

A president should serve only one or two terms—four or eight years, five or ten years at most.

This must be a rigid clause in the constitution.

No president should stay in office a single day longer.

When this is ensured, every citizen can compete for public office, and the nation will find long-term stability.

⸻

Dear compatriots,

Once democracy is achieved, all problems in China can begin to be resolved. We can invite outstanding teachers from around the world, train our own educators, and provide the next generation with high-quality education. With improved public morality and cultural literacy, and with policies centered on the people’s wellbeing, we can build a life for Chinese citizens as dignified as that in the West.

Democracy is the source of dignity and happiness for the people.

Let us join hands bravely, tear down the authoritarian dictatorship, and establish a truly democratic system. Only a democratic system can save China.

⸻

Autocracy has ruled for a thousand years,

Countless lives still suffer in despair.

Talents rise with each new era,

But none can last beyond a fleeting flair.

作者：鲁慧文 责任编辑：罗志飞

2025年6月13日湖南卫健委、长沙公安局与中南大学组成调查组，认定罗帅宇系自杀，无刑事案件，至此罗帅宇案件在全国上下的一片哗然中画上终止符。

调查组结果公布前的一个月左右时间里罗帅宇案件在中国内地各大主流媒体与自媒体一度形成热议，多日霸屏微博热搜榜，罗父罗母及海内外关注罗帅宇事件的人们一度对罗帅宇案件得以受理抱有较大期待。

实习医生罗帅宇坠楼事件回顾：

罗帅宇，1996年出生，系湖南长沙中南大学湘雅二医院从事肾移植方向的实习医师，他于2024年5月8日在学校宿舍楼坠亡，时年28岁。案发时长沙警方及医院联动调查认定其为“跳楼自杀”，排除了他杀嫌疑，这直接爆发疑点并引起社会舆论。

家属和网民提出多个疑点，认为该案可能涉及他杀或被“灭口”：

1. 坠楼环境异常：罗帅宇坠落点位于离宿舍墙7米外的一个仅80厘米宽的狭窄通道，跨护栏难度极大，引发“自杀不合逻辑”质疑。

2. 现场疑似打斗迹象：宿舍内床单凌乱、眼镜碎裂、抽屉被翻，存在血迹，家属称现场不符典型自杀场景。

3. 其未提前留言准备跳楼：其家属表示，他曾在直播中强调“不会自杀”，其言辞与刑侦报告有严重偏差。

4. 举报转账及资料删除说法：家属称医院曾以“劳务报酬”为名向其账户转账超40万元，并在其死亡后快速收回电脑并删除资料。

5. 媒体与官媒对比：自由媒体及家属坚称这些线索极可能与其举报医院涉及非法器官移植有关，相信其死亡另有内情。反之，官方称其死亡与举报活动无关。

2025年6月13日最新官方发布回应与调查结论：

1、综合调查结果：湖南卫健委、长沙公安局与中南大学组成调查组，认定罗帅宇系自杀，无刑事案件，且未发现器官移植相关违法行为。

2、数据核查结果：家庭存疑的50例器官捐赠资料，经查均可追溯至中国人体器官分配系统，属合法范畴。

3、关键否认：警方认为其死亡前曾发短信告知同事“把电脑文件交纪委”未真实发送，电脑资料未被清空，家属或出现误解。

罗帅宇事件最新官方回应的发布是罗帅宇案件的彻底终结，也是中国独裁体制下司法不公的深度体现，同时罗帅宇“自杀”事件也标志着中共独裁统治维稳战略系统的重大升级。罗帅宇案从案发到此次最新官方回应发布的一年多时间里都是各大官方媒体、民间媒体的禁忌话题，一直被以封口、删帖、限流等方式压制，最新官方回应发布前的一段时间里官方对于罗帅宇话题处于完全开放讨论状态，主流媒体和个人媒体争相报道，并一度以多个话题霸屏微博热搜榜数日，造成一种冤案得以昭雪正义终将到来的假象，并且以很高位的官方介入姿势调查，并给出一个令人唏嘘的结论。

中国政府维稳手段升级，从之前的掩盖真相压制言论转而为告诉你有此事的存在，大家讨论的事是真实的，最终高调介入并告诉你事情是正常的，不再掩盖真相，而是重新定义黑与白。

Hunan Health Commission, Changsha Public Security Bureau, and Central South University Conclude: Lou Shuaiyu Died by Suicide

By Lu Huiwen Edited by Luo Zhifei Translator: Lu Huiwen

On June 13, 2025, a joint investigation team composed of the Hunan Provincial Health Commission, Changsha Public Security Bureau, and Central South University officially concluded that Lou Shuaiyu died by suicide and that no criminal case was involved. With this announcement, the highly publicized Lou Shuaiyu case was brought to an abrupt close amid widespread national controversy.

In the month leading up to the release of the report, Lou’s case had become a major point of debate across mainstream and independent media in mainland China, dominating trending topics on Weibo for several days. Lou’s parents, as well as concerned supporters at home and abroad, had high hopes that the case would receive fair and transparent handling.

Background: The Death of Medical Intern Lou Shuaiyu

Lou Shuaiyu, born in 1996, was a 28-year-old medical intern specializing in kidney transplants at the Xiangya Second Hospital affiliated with Central South University in Changsha, Hunan. On May 8, 2024, he fell to his death from a campus dormitory building. Authorities from the local police and hospital quickly declared the cause to be suicide and ruled out foul play—an assessment that triggered widespread public skepticism and scrutiny.

Key Doubts Raised by Family and the Public

Many questioned the suicide ruling and suspected foul play or silencing efforts:

1. Suspicious Fall Site: Lou’s body was found in a narrow passageway only 80 cm wide, located 7 meters from the dorm wall. The distance made the idea of a voluntary jump seem implausible.

2. Signs of a Struggle: Inside the dorm, his bed was in disarray, his glasses were shattered, drawers were rummaged through, and blood was found—elements inconsistent with a typical suicide scene, according to his family.

3. No Prior Indication of Suicide: Lou had reportedly stated during a livestream, “I will never kill myself,” a statement that stood in stark contrast to official findings.

4. Large Transfers and Data Deletion: The family claimed the hospital had transferred over 400,000 yuan to Lou’s account under the label of “labor compensation,” and that after his death, his computer was swiftly retrieved and its contents deleted.

5. Discrepancy Between State and Independent Media: While family members and independent outlets believed Lou’s death might be linked to his whistleblowing on illegal organ transplant practices, state media firmly denied any connection, asserting the cause of death was unrelated.

The Official Conclusions Released on June 13, 2025

1. General Findings: The joint investigation concluded Lou died by suicide, found no criminal elements, and detected no illegal organ transplant activities.

2. Verification of Organ Data: The 50 questionable transplant cases raised by the family were verified and deemed traceable within China’s official organ allocation system, thus considered legal.

3. Rebuttal of Key Claims: Authorities stated that Lou’s alleged final message—telling a colleague to submit his computer files to disciplinary authorities—was never actually sent. They also claimed that his computer had not been wiped, suggesting the family may have misunderstood.

Commentary: A Case Closed, A System Exposed.

The government’s final statement not only closed the Lou Shuaiyu case but also exposed the deeper systemic flaws of justice under authoritarian rule in China. It revealed a sophisticated evolution in the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda and “stability maintenance” apparatus.

From the time of Lou’s death to the release of the official report over a year later, discussion of the case remained taboo across state and private media. Posts were deleted, accounts censored, and discussion throttled. Yet in the weeks leading up to the June 13 announcement, the topic was unexpectedly opened to broad public discourse.

Major media outlets and influencers began reporting freely, and Lou’s name once again dominated trending lists—creating an illusion of justice in motion and resolution on the horizon.

Then came the official conclusion—a high-profile government investigation that ultimately declared nothing abnormal.

This marks a new strategy in state control: no longer merely burying the truth, but acknowledging the facts—only to redefine them.

The state now tells you: Yes, this did happen. Yes, you are allowed to talk about it. But in the end, we will tell you what it means.

Black is white.

Wrong is right.

And justice, once again, becomes a tool of control rather than truth.

作者 胡丽莉   编辑：罗志飞    责任编辑：鲁慧文

2025年5月，《新黄河》记者刘成伟报道了刘东林“指居”监视居住死亡案，揭开了长达数年的隐秘黑幕。刘东林因早前涉及的一起案件被石家庄公安实施“指定居所监视居住”，在2019年10月8日在监视居住处死亡，后未经尸检便火化遗体。家属多年来四处控告，始终无人接应。直到媒体曝光最高检才启动核查，但办案权仍交由地方检察院，未能摆脱地方保护主义的操控，调查迟缓。而几乎在同一时间，石家庄公安迅速成立“5·11专案组”，对案件代理律师、关注记者以及协助家属的正义市民展开报复性调查、监听、传唤，甚至以“寻衅滋事”“妨害作证”等罪名打击。这起报道及相关网络讨论很快被全网删除，舆论场迅速被清空封禁。

行唐县公安局对刘东林的指定居所监视通知书   （图片来源 新黄河）

刘东林指定居所监视居住的银河宾馆原址，如今招牌已摘掉（图片来源 搜狐网）

2025年6月17日400公里外更加令人发指的暴家案在等待939天后终于迎来庭审，相关报道刚刚发布就被“和谐”。2022年7月受害人暴继业在拒绝签署伪造口供后与家人一起被带到指定居所，此后连续十多天持续遭受非人虐待，十余名警察用PVC管和木棍抽打脚底、碾压手背直致昏厥，被反复扇耳光至口鼻流血。其儿子暴韶瑞更是被用手摇电话电击生殖器，施暴者威胁“电废你”。另一个儿子，33岁的退伍水兵暴钦瑞，在“指定居所监视居住”的第13天突然猝死，尸检显示身体多处电击及限制性体位导致的严重损伤。

多年前在海军某部服役的暴钦瑞 （图片来源  财新网）

2023年9月14日，新乐宾馆一楼，部分房间的四壁均为软包墙。暴继业称，他们曾在这里被监视居住。（图片来源 南方周末）

“5·25”专案期间，侦查人员对犯罪嫌疑人进行电击时使用的手摇电话机（图片来源 南方周末）

令人愤怒的是，参与刑讯的耿春远等警察如此对待暴家众人并非为了还原事实、伸张正义，而是为了讨好上级、掩盖自身非法办案行为，迅速结案以“完成任务”。主导刑讯的任力鹏在供述中坦承：暴继业“若不认，就没法交差”。这说明刑讯逼供根本不是为了查明真相，而是为了做案子、做成绩，可见刑讯逼供完全是为私利服务，而牺牲的是无辜生命与法律尊严。

2025年2月13日至14日，8名“5·25”专案办案人员在保定市中级人民法院法警训练基地受审（图片来源 南方周末）

两起案件如出一辙：暴力、伪案、保护主义、对揭露者的打压。这绝不是偶发事件，而是制度性病灶的集中体现——地方公安对权力的无限滥用，司法机关与之沆瀣一气，缺乏监督和制衡，使得酷刑逼供、非法监视居住、迫害正义力量成了“默认配置”。

刘东林案尽管已上达最高检，但最终仍被交回地方检察机关处理，而当地的司法机关恰恰就是想把命案“掩埋”在本地；暴家案中，公开曝光更高强度的刑讯细节后，地方公安不是追责施暴者，而是街头抓证人、封口打压。这种上下呼应的沉默与压制，不仅是对法治的侮辱，更是对道德底线的践踏。

“指定居所监视居住”本身就游走在法律与黑狱之间，而地牢、刑椅、电击生殖器等酷刑手段，更彻底击穿了“依法治国”的底线。检察机关对公安系统失去制衡能力，反而沦为他们的保护伞，监督机制早已形同虚设。最终真正被打击的，不是犯罪者，而是伸张正义的人。

在国际场合高举“人权”“法治”旗帜的中国政府，在本国却默许甚至操控着对公民的非人待遇。从身体的伤害，到信息的封锁，从记者、律师被监听传唤，到家属四处申冤无门，基本人权被系统性剥夺，公民沦为国家机器下毫无保障的“执法对象”。

一个正常国家的治理，绝不能建立在恐惧、暴力和谎言的基础上。而今天的中国，正在以极快的速度背离现代法治、人权与民主的基本共识。

这些案件提醒我们：今日中国，不是法治崩坏，而是专制统治下对法治的有意识毁灭；不是偶发悲剧，而是制度性暴力的必然产物。那些凌驾于法律之上的暴力机器，那些把生命当作维稳代价的权力者，正是制造一切恐惧、谎言与苦难的根源。

我们必须直面这个事实：中国的执政党，正是这一切罪行的始作俑者与庇护者。只有当权力受到真正的制约，只有当人民敢于集体发声、拒绝沉默，正义才不再遥远。

不要再对暴政抱有幻想，不要再为体制粉饰和平。愤怒不是煽动，控诉不是犯罪。让我们以公民的名义，向不义之政发出最清晰的回响：

你们的谎言，我们不信；你们的暴力，我们不怕；你们的统治，终将被历史审判。

Rule-of-Law Governance Has Become a Farce: The Dead Are Voiceless, the Living Are Gagged

By Hu Lili   Editor: Luo Zhifei   Final Editor: Lu Huiwen   Translator: Lu Huiwen

In May 2025, New Yellow River reporter Liu Chengwei exposed the death of Liu Donglin while under residential surveillance at a designated location (RSDL). Liu, implicated in an earlier case, died on 8 October 2019 inside the RSDL site in Shijiazhuang. His body was cremated without an autopsy. For years his family petitioned in vain. Only after the media spotlight did the Supreme People’s Procuratorate order a review—yet jurisdiction was handed back to the local procuratorate, leaving the investigation mired in local protectionism. 

RSDL notice issued by Xingtang County Public Security Bureau for Liu Donglin

Former site of the Galaxy Hotel, where Liu was held under RSDL—its sign has now been removed

Almost simultaneously, Shijiazhuang police created a “5·11 Task Force” to retaliate: they investigated, wire-tapped, and subpoenaed the victim’s lawyers, the reporter, and citizens who assisted the family, charging them with “picking quarrels” and “obstructing testimony.” The report and all online discussion were swiftly scrubbed from the internet.

Four hundred kilometres away, another atrocity finally reached trial on 17 June, after 939 days of delay—only for the news to be “harmonised” within hours. In July 2022, Bao Jiye refused to sign a fabricated confession and was taken—together with his family—into RSDL. For more than ten days they were tortured: police beat the soles of their feet with PVC pipes, crushed their hands with wooden rods, and slapped them until blood streamed from their noses and mouths. His son Bao Shaorui was shocked on the genitals with a hand-crank telephone; officers threatened to “fry” him. Another son, Bao Qinrui, a 33-year-old navy veteran, died suddenly on the 13th day of detention; the autopsy revealed multiple electric burns and positional asphyxia injuries.

Bao Qinrui during his navy service (photo: Caixin)

Room with padded walls at Xinle Hotel, where the Baos were held (photo: Southern Weekly)

Hand-crank telephone used to torture suspects during the “5·25 Task Force” (photo: Southern Weekly)

Lead interrogator Ren Lipeng later confessed that the goal was not truth but performance: “If Bao Jiye wouldn’t confess, we couldn’t close the case.” Torture was merely a shortcut to meet quotas—human life and legal dignity be damned.

On 13–14 February 2025, eight members of the “5·25 Task Force” stood trial at the Bailiff Training Base of Baoding Intermediate Court (photo: Southern Weekly)

The two cases are strikingly similar: violence, fabricated charges, local cover-ups, and reprisals against whistle-blowers. They are not accidents but symptoms of a systemic rot—unchecked police power, collusion within judicial bodies, and the collapse of oversight.

Even after reaching the Supreme Procuratorate, Liu Donglin’s case was kicked back to the very county that tried to bury it. In the Bao case, detailed revelations of torture were met not with punishment of the perpetrators but with gag orders and arrests of witnesses.

RSDL itself straddles the line between legality and a black jail; torture devices—dungeons, restraint chairs, electric shocks to genitals—obliterate any pretense of “rule by law.” Procurators who should restrain the police have become their shield. Ultimately, the ones punished are not criminals but those who seek justice.

While Beijing waves the banners of “human rights” and “rule of law” abroad, it tacitly condones, even orchestrates, inhuman treatment of citizens at home: physical abuse, information blackout, surveillance of reporters and lawyers, petitioning families left unheard. Basic rights are systematically stripped away; citizens reduced to mere “targets” of enforcement.

A functioning state cannot be built on fear, violence, and lies. Yet today’s China is hurtling away from modern ideals of law, rights, and democracy.

These cases remind us: the problem is not a breakdown of law, but its deliberate destruction under authoritarian rule; not random tragedy, but the inevitable product of systemic violence.

The Chinese Communist Party is both architect and guardian of this cruelty. Justice will remain distant until power is truly checked and citizens speak together in defiance of silence.

Do not cling to illusions about benign autocracy. Anger is not sedition; accusation is not a crime. In the name of citizenship, let us answer tyranny with the clearest echo:

We refuse your lies.

We fear not your violence.

Your rule will stand trial before history.