Notice of the 2025 Leadership Election of the Los Angeles China Democracy Platform
洛杉矶中国民主平台负责人（2025）换届大会通知
根据本平台章程, 2023届本平台负责人今年7月到期并组织总结及选举大会，相关事宜通知如下:
一、投票资格: 已缴纳2025年度会费的洛杉矶中国民主平台成员
二、投票时间: 2025年8月2日 （星期六 ）18：00
三、投票方式及目标：现场投票、唱票、计票，并公布投票结果（新一届的五位平台负责人）
四、顾问： 林劲鹏 王丹；场地控制：金岩
五、主持人：王栋良 史庆梅
六、投票公证人：童木、周鹤；投票见证人：朱虞夫
七、唱票人：耿冠军、王应国
八、选举结果宣布人：陈维明
九、场地摄影师：黄杰瑞
十、平台财务：吴立新，会计：刘国建
十一、投票地点: 六四纪念馆 3024 Peck Rd, El Monte, CA 91732
Notice of the 2025 Leadership Election of the Los Angeles China Democracy Platform
Date: August 2, 2025
In accordance with the platform’s charter, the current leadership team (elected in 2023) will conclude its term this July. The platform will hold a leadership election and summary meeting. Details are as follows:
1. Voting Eligibility:
Members of the Los Angeles China Democracy Platform who have paid the 2025 annual membership fee.
2. Voting Time:
Saturday, August 2, 2025, at 6:00 PM
3. Voting Method & Objective:
On-site voting, vote counting and announcement of results. Five new platform leaders will be elected.
On the Future of Democracy in China: A Detailed Interpretation of the “Five-People Constitution”
Part V — Article 3 of the Constitution: The Meaning and Vision Behind the Nation’s Name
By He Qingfeng | Edited by Feng Reng | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by: Lu Huiwen
Keywords: Five-People Doctrine, Constitution, Federal Republic of China, History
Introduction
Article 3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation is a clause rich in historical depth and forward-looking vision. It not only clarifies the official name and abbreviation of the nation, but also, through the core principle of the “Five-People Doctrine,” outlines a blueprint for a federal republic committed to national unity, democratic governance, and cultural revival. This article analyzes Article 3 from four perspectives: historical background, content of the clause, design philosophy, and real-world significance. The aim is to help readers understand its spirit and value in a clear and accessible manner.
I. Historical and Cultural Foundations: The Significance of the Nation’s Name
Article 3 begins by stating that the official name of the country is “Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation,” abbreviated as “Zhonghua Federation,” “China,” or “Republic of China.” This name is not arbitrary; it is a tribute to the long history and cultural diversity of the Chinese people. The term “Chinese Nation” (中华民族) embodies the unique historical process of multi-ethnic integration over thousands of years of civilization—from the Huaxia culture of the Yellow River basin to the diverse ethnic mingling across the steppes, the Southwest, and the Western regions. By placing “Chinese Nation” at the heart of the national name, the Constitution affirms equal participation of all ethnicities in nation-building and honors the co-existence of diverse groups.
The abbreviation accommodates both “China” and “Republic of China,” providing a legal basis for potential future unification.
The designation “Federal Republic” defines the political framework of the nation. Federalism implies that within a unified national structure, regions and ethnic groups hold clear autonomous powers. This not only modernizes traditional Chinese systems such as the junxian (prefecture-county) and fanzhou (vassal) systems, but also responds to the contemporary challenges of governing a multi-ethnic state. The use of “Zhonghua Federation” or “China” retains historical identity symbols while resonating with the republican ideals pursued since the early 20th century—showing a harmonious blend of tradition and modernity.
II. The Five-People Doctrine: The Soul of National Governance
At the core of Article 3 lies the introduction of the “Five-People Doctrine” (五民主义) as the guiding principle of state governance. This doctrine—comprising People’s Governance, Democracy, Civil Rights, People’s Livelihood, and National Culture—represents a systemic vision for governance, integrating traditional Chinese political thought with modern democratic ideals.
• People’s Governance (民治): Citizens Governing the State
This concept emphasizes that state power derives from the people, who are not only the foundation of the nation but also active participants in governance. It echoes the democratic spirit of “of the people, by the people, for the people” in the West while aligning with China’s traditional “people-oriented” (民本) philosophy. Under this framework, governance must be accountable, transparent, and participatory, allowing citizens direct involvement through elections, public hearings, and more. Federalism enables broader local autonomy, ensuring that the voices of all ethnicities and regions are heard. The state exists because of its citizens, and its power originates from them.
• Democracy (民主): Realizing a Democratic Republic
Democracy is one of the central pillars of the Five-People Doctrine. Declaring the nation a “federal republic” signals a commitment to power separation and the rule of law. Second, it responds to citizens’ demands for fairness and participation. In modern society, people increasingly expect political involvement, protection of rights, and quality of life. Article 3’s principles—people’s governance, democracy, civil rights, and welfare—commit to building a citizen-centered society. This not only strengthens governmental legitimacy but also lays a foundation for lasting stability.
Finally, it supports cultural revival and the growth of national soft power. In the era of globalization, cultural identity is crucial to national strength. By affirming cultural development in its Constitution, the nation boosts citizens’ cultural confidence and its international image.
Conclusion
With concise language, Article 3 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation outlines a grand national vision. It centers on the “Chinese Nation,” embracing its historical and cultural diversity. It frames the nation as a “Federal Republic,” balancing unity and pluralism. Guided by the Five-People Doctrine, it answers citizens’ calls for governance, rights, and welfare.
This clause is not just a constitutional principle—it is a declaration of the Chinese Nation’s future. By understanding its content and design, we glimpse a hopeful prospect: a nation devoted to democracy, fairness, and cultural renewal.
He Qingfeng, founder of the Five-People Doctrine and author of the Five-People Constitution.
Breeding Poison in the Bureaucracy: Today’s Officials Are Today’s Bandits
By Zhao Jie
Editor: Feng Reng | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by: Lu Huiwen
Key Words: Shi Yongxin, Breeding Poison (Yang Gu), Stability Maintenance (Weiwen), Political Achievements, Buddhism
Recently, news broke that Shi Yongxin is under investigation. Honestly, I’m not surprised at all. People have been digging up dirt on this so-called monk for over a decade. The internet has been full of allegations and hard evidence—yet not only did nothing happen to him, he actually thrived. He went from a “meditative monk” to a “CEO monk,” living in villas, riding in luxury cars, holding press conferences abroad. At this point, he might as well change his Dharma name to “Shi · Executive.”
Image from China News
The moment I saw the news, my mind flashed back to a Legal Report episode I saw over ten years ago. It was about a police chief in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia—who turned out to be the biggest mob boss in town, running prostitution, gambling, and drugs for more than a decade. By day, he led the police in cracking down on crime. By night, he ran the rackets himself. What’s more absurd? Everyone knew it, and yet no one touched him—until it became impossible to cover up.
Back then, I wondered how people like that survive. Now I get it. It’s not that no one discovered them. It’s that no one wanted to deal with them. And don’t even mention that tired line, “Justice may be late, but it never misses.” The more I hear it, the more cynical I become.
This is what we call “breeding poison” (养蛊)—treating the people as human fodder to raise a jar of venomous insects. Anyone who’s read The Grave Robbers’ Chronicles knows: you throw a bunch of deadly bugs in a sealed jar and let them devour each other. The last one standing is the king parasite.
Isn’t that exactly what’s happening in our system? The so-called selection of officials isn’t about choosing the virtuous—it’s a poison-breeding experiment. You throw a bunch of people in, and whoever can out-greed, out-scheme, and out-stabilize the others gets promoted. Those who are clean, who stand by their principles? They get pushed out early.
These parasites don’t rise on popular will. They rise on political backing and dirty tactics. And who pays the price? We do. It’s our land they seize, our businesses they monopolize, our schools they control, our healthcare they profit from. Even religion becomes a tool in their hands.
But here’s the cruelest irony: after leeching off us for decades, these parasites don’t get taken down by the people—but by the very hand that raised them.
As long as they’re useful, they’re the regime’s enforcers—used to maintain stability, generate income, fabricate achievements. But once they grow too bold, too independent, or just become too much of a liability, that hand comes down and chops them off. Then the authorities loudly declare: “Look! We’re cracking down! Justice is here!”
And we, the people? After decades of being drained, we’re expected to applaud our own “liberation” from the monster they bred. That’s what I call double exploitation: first, they harvest the fruits of “raising poison,” then they milk applause for “removing poison.”
Justice that always arrives late is no justice—it’s a reward for evil. When someone commits crimes for over a decade and only gets caught at the end, it’s not justice—it’s a farce. You gave them years to accumulate wealth, secure promotions, build influence. By the time you finally “bring the hammer down,” their roots are deep, their network extensive, their power unshakable.
And then you splash it all over the evening news, claiming, “No one escapes the law.” To me, that’s a joke. That final strike isn’t about justice. It’s performance. It’s a reset. A reshuffling of cards.
Think eliminating the king parasite fixes anything? The bug may be dead, but the jar remains. And the hand that bred it is already nurturing the next one.
Many people already know how this works. They just don’t dare speak up. Speaking the truth doesn’t earn praise—it gets you in trouble.
Still, I want to say it. I remember a line from the old play The Bandits in Office:
“Today’s officials may have been yesterday’s bandits.”
—“Wrong! Today’s officials are today’s bandits!”
Some people never “turned bad”—they were always bad. They just got wrapped in legitimacy. They got tamed and trained by the system, turned into obedient tools.
But no matter how obedient a tool is—it’s still a bandit. And no matter how ornate the robe, it cannot hide the stench of poison.
What truly needs to be uprooted is not the parasite—but the hand that breeds them.
And here lies the deeper tragedy: under the CCP’s system, even faith isn’t spared. Whether Buddhism, Christianity, or any other belief—if it wants to survive, it must ultimately “submit to Party leadership.” The independence of faith, the existence of any sacred space—these have become unattainable luxuries.
In such a structure, “faith” is merely another card in the regime’s “stability maintenance” deck. As long as the Communist Party rules, there will be no truly pure faith—and no truly sacred ground.
Protest Against the CCP’s Cyber Tyranny, Defend Freedom of Speech
By He Qingfeng | July 27, 2025
Editor: Li Congling | Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei | Translated by: Huiwen Lu
Key Words: CCP Cyber Tyranny / CCP’s Online Tyranny, Freedom of Speech,Digital Shackles / Digital Chains, Real-Name Registration System / Internet Real-Name Policy, Digital Tyranny / Digital Authoritarianism
Ugandan dictator Idi Amin once chillingly declared: “You have freedom of speech, but I can’t guarantee your freedom after speech.” This blood-curdling statement is no longer a distant tale from Africa—it is the harsh reality of cyberspace in China today!
In China, the so-called “real-name registration system” has become an invisible digital shackle. Cloaked in the rhetoric of “safety” and “order,” it serves as a tool for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to monitor thought, suppress speech, and silence the truth. Real-name registration turns every act of speaking out into a dangerous gamble: your account might be deleted for a single post, you might be summoned for “tea” over a true statement, or even tracked, threatened, or “disappeared” for expressing dissent. This is not freedom—it is a noose in the digital age! The real-name system is not about safety; it is about control!
Rather than protecting citizens, the real-name system reduces every internet user to a traceable number. Every word you say, every idea you express may be recorded, scrutinized, and used against you. It strips away the right to anonymous speech, chokes the free flow of ideas, turns truth into taboo, and makes criticism a crime. Under this cyber tyranny, citizens’ freedom of speech is mercilessly trampled, and the space for public discourse has shrunk to a suffocating minimum.
We are not numbers! We are not slaves!
We are living individuals, and we have the right to speak anonymously, the right to tell the truth, the right not to be intimidated or tracked! The internet should be fertile ground for free thought, not a prison of authoritarian control. We refuse to be shackled by “real-name” mandates! We refuse to let freedom of speech become an empty slogan!
Today, we raise our voices!
We protest on behalf of everyone who has had posts deleted, accounts banned, been summoned for interrogation, or detained because of the real-name system. We cry out for every soul afraid to speak the truth but yearning to breathe freely. We call for:
• Abolition of the real-name registration system! Return the internet to a space where we can breathe freely!
• Defense of freedom of speech! Let truth no longer be a crime, let criticism no longer be a risk!
• An end to digital tyranny! Let every person speak freely online without fear of losing their freedom after speaking!
Our slogans are loud and resolute:
“We want to speak, and we want to survive after speaking!”
We call on all those who value freedom and seek truth to join us, to resist cyber tyranny together, to defend freedom of expression together!
This is not only a battle against the real-name system—it is a full rejection of authoritarian masquerade!
Let us act and show the world:
Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and truth will ultimately break through the digital prison!
“We want to speak, and we want to survive after speaking!”
“Abolish the real-name system, defend freedom of speech!”
“Reject the digital noose, protect the right to truth!”
Let us fight together—for a free internet, and for a free China!
August 1st San Francisco Mobilization: Protest the CCP’s Party Army, Call for Nationalization of the Military [August 1st Mobilization Order]
Demand the Nationalization of the Military! Protest the CCP’s Party Army!
In China, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was supposed to belong to the nation and the people. However, under the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it has been reduced to a tool of one-party rule—a so-called “party commands the gun” Party Army. The annual “August 1st Army Day” is no longer a day for all citizens to commemorate, but has become a propaganda day for the CCP to consolidate its rule and flaunt its machinery of violence.
This year on August 1st, we will not remain silent!
We call on all Chinese at home and abroad who love freedom and pursue democracy, as well as international friends who support China’s democratization, to join our protest!
Event Details Time: Friday, August 1, 2025, 12:00 PM Location: Chinese Consulate, San Francisco
Our Demands: 1. Demand the nationalization of the military! The military must serve the country and the people, not any political party. The illegal system of “the Party commands the gun” must be abolished immediately! 2. Condemn the CCP’s Party Army! The CCP military not only suppresses rights defenders at home, but also monitors dissidents abroad, committing serious acts of transnational repression! 3. Hold the military accountable for repression and crimes! From the Tiananmen Massacre to suppressing rights movements, persecuting Hongkongers, and operating concentration camps in Xinjiang—these atrocities all bear the bloody hands of this Party Army!
We firmly believe: The people’s military must be freed from Party control. The nation’s military power must be subject to constitutional and public oversight!
Please help spread the word and join us. Bring banners, protest signs, recording devices, and raise your voice with us!
August 1st is not the CCP’s holiday—it is the people’s cry for justice! Only when the Chinese military is nationalized can the Chinese people have a future!
Explaining the Future of Chinese Democracy through the Five-People Constitution – Part IV Article 2 of the Constitution: The Cornerstone of Civil Governance and Freedom
Explaining the Future of Chinese Democracy through the Five-People Constitution – Part IV Article 2 of the Constitution: The Cornerstone of Civil Governance and Freedom
By He Qingfeng Editor: Feng Reng | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by Lu Huiwen
Introduction: A Democratic Vision Built by Citizens
The Five-People Constitution constructs a constitutional framework for China’s democratic future based on five core principles: civil governance, democracy, civil rights, people’s livelihood, and national identity. Article 1 clearly states: “Humanity precedes the state, and the people govern the state,” establishing the principle of citizens as the foundation of the nation. Article 2 further clarifies the nature and purpose of the state:
“The Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation is a country jointly established by all citizens living within its territory, for the purpose of a free, democratic, equal, and harmonious life. The fundamental purpose of state power is to protect all citizens’ legitimate rights from infringement. Regarding private rights, anything not prohibited by law is permitted.”
This article is citizen-centered and upholds the supremacy of liberty and rights, providing value-based guidance for public authority. This article will unpack Article 2, analyze its deeper meaning within the framework of Five-Peopleism, and explore its significance for the future of Chinese democracy, aiming to evoke resonance and anticipation for constitutional ideals.
Core Concept of Article 2: A Nation Built by Citizens
Article 2 opens by defining the Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation as a country “jointly established” by “all citizens” for a life of “freedom, democracy, equality, and harmony.” This continues the logic of Article 1—that the state is not an abstract entity, but a community voluntarily formed by citizens with shared goals. The phrase “jointly established” highlights the essence of civil governance: the state is not an externally imposed authority but a governance platform actively created by the people.
This design fundamentally overturns traditional notions of the state. Citizens are no longer passive subjects but creators, owners, and sovereigns of the nation. The goals—freedom, democracy, equality, harmony—clarify the value orientation of the state. Freedom guarantees individual autonomy; democracy ensures the primacy of public will; equality eliminates institutional privilege and discrimination; harmony promotes social unity. Together, these principles represent the core of Five-Peopleism: civil governance through collective participation, democracy via elections and oversight, civil rights to ensure freedom and equality, people’s livelihood for a harmonious society, and national unity through the “Federal Republic of the Chinese Nation.”
The Essential Purpose of State Power: Protecting Citizens’ Rights
The heart of Article 2 lies in stating that “the fundamental purpose of state power is to protect all citizens’ legitimate rights from infringement.” This aligns with the five fundamental rights laid out in Article 1: the right to life, liberty, property, resistance to oppression, and electoral participation. It underscores that the legitimacy of government and other public institutions lies in protecting citizens’ rights, not ruling over them.
Public authorities are not only guardians of rights but must also be institutionally designed to prevent any infringement from the state, organizations, or individuals. This principle imposes clear constraints: all public power must operate strictly within the constitutional framework. Any action beyond the protection of citizens’ rights is unlawful.
In other words, the function of government and public authorities is not to dominate or control, but to serve and empower. This principle guides later sections of the constitution: public institutions must be citizen-centered and ensure comprehensive rights protection through power division, transparency, and citizen participation.
Supremacy of Private Rights: Anything Not Prohibited by Law Is Permitted
Article 2 also establishes protection for private rights:
“Regarding private rights, anything not prohibited by law is permitted.”
This principle expresses freedom in its fullest form—citizens have complete autonomy in areas not explicitly forbidden by law. It both guarantees individual liberty and fundamentally restricts the power of the state.
While traditional constitutional systems protect rights by enumerating them, Article 2 adopts an open-ended principle, pushing the boundaries of freedom to the maximum: as long as it is not illegal, citizens are free to pursue personal goals, express opinions, create wealth, and form communities.
This principle also embodies the fusion of civil governance and civil rights within Five-Peopleism. Civil governance calls for self-management and self-determined lifestyles, while civil rights ensure that such autonomy is legally protected.
This design not only grants citizens unlimited possibilities but also places higher demands on public institutions: legislation must be cautious; laws must not arbitrarily restrict freedom and must reflect public will through democratic processes. The baseline for public power is clear—any law that limits private rights must justify its necessity and legality; otherwise, it is unconstitutional.
Implications for Public Institutions
Article 2 provides a clear constitutional framework for subsequent articles. First, public institutions must be democratic—formed through citizen elections—ensuring that executive and legislative bodies reflect public will. Democracy is not just about elections; it is also about participatory governance, including initiatives, referendums, and oversight to ensure that the exercise of public power aligns with the goal of “protecting citizens’ rights.”
Second, public power must be limited—strictly confined to the scope of rights protection. Any expansion of power must be constitutionally restrained.
Moreover, public institutions must embody equality and harmony through fair policy and resource distribution, promoting unity and eliminating class and ethnic divides. Citizen participation must be central throughout—through referendums or civic councils—in major decisions. This ensures that public institutions are not only tools for citizens but also platforms for practicing civil governance.
Significance for the Future of Chinese Democracy
Article 2, by affirming the citizen as the sovereign and protecting private rights to the fullest, provides profound insights for the future of Chinese democracy.
First, it challenges the traditional “state supremacy” mindset, placing the citizen above the state and granting them the right to construct and govern it. This design counters authoritarian suppression of liberty and, by emphasizing equality and harmony, prevents the fragmentation seen in Western democracies caused by excessive individualism.
Second, “anything not prohibited by law is permitted” is especially vital in the context of technology and globalization. Emerging challenges such as AI and data privacy threaten civil liberty, and Article 2 draws a clear red line for public institutions: unless explicitly forbidden, citizens enjoy full freedom in digital spaces and economic activity—so long as they do not infringe others’ rights or social order. This openness fosters innovation and integrates Chinese democracy into the global civilization.
Finally, Article 2 gives public institutions a mission—not to rule or enslave, but to protect. This provides a “third way” for Chinese democracy: it avoids the inefficiency and populist risks of Western representative systems, and it breaks free from the oppression of authoritarian regimes. Through co-creation by citizens and a rights-first principle, the Five-People Constitution outlines a future of freedom and order for China.
Conclusion: A Constitutional Beacon of Freedom and Civil Governance With “citizens jointly building the state” and “anything not prohibited by law is permitted” at its core, Article 2 of the Five-People Constitution establishes civil governance as the principle of public institutions and freedom as their foundation. It not only guides the design of state power but lays the cornerstone for the future of Chinese democracy. Under this article’s guidance, public institutions become extensions of citizen will, rights become the constitutional bottom line, and freedom becomes the soul of society.
He Qingfeng, founder of Five-Peopleism and author of the Five-People Constitution A man of integrity, sleeves full of wind—He Qingfeng.
By Wang Lianjiang Chief Editor: Lu Huiwen Translator: Lu Huiwen
I am Wang Lianjiang, a member of the China Democracy Party. On May 31, 2025, at Liberty Sculpture Park, I participated in a vigil commemorating the Tiananmen Massacre.
Here, I call upon all conscientious Chinese citizens: Do not be the screws that hold up the Chinese Communist Party. Withdraw from the CCP, Withdraw from the People’s Liberation Army, Withdraw from the civil service, Withdraw from the police, Withdraw from urban management forces!
Let us stand on the side of the people, Let us stand on the side of freedom and justice.
(By Zhang Xinggui, Member of the China Democracy Party)
Edited by Hu Lili | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by Lu Huiwen
Throughout history, the term “Hanjian”—traitor to the Han people—has carried deep shame and pain. It has referred to those who betrayed the nation and colluded with foreign enemies. But is this definition truly comprehensive? Does it reflect who actually causes the greatest harm to the nation? When we look back at history, especially during times of suffering and turmoil, we find that many of those labeled as “traitors” were merely trying to survive, protect their families, or prevent greater disasters. Meanwhile, those who held immense power often, even in times of peace and with full control over resources, ignored the people’s hardships, exploited the masses, and sold out national interests.
So, I propose a new standard of judgment: the real traitors are not those who, in chaotic times, collaborated with foreign regimes for survival, but those rulers who betray their people and disregard their well-being.
Traditionally, the label “Hanjian” has been applied to Han Chinese individuals who sided with enemy forces during national crises, placing personal gain above the greater good of the nation. They were condemned by history and became the target of universal scorn. Yet reality is often more complex than labels. Many so-called traitors were in fact ordinary people stripped of rights, local gentry forced to compromise to prevent greater harm, or reformers who dared to introduce advanced systems. Their choices may not have been noble, but they were not necessarily shameful. Their motives were often not betrayal, but the pursuit of a sliver of survival.
In contrast, those who sat in palaces of power—holding national resources and the reins of decision-making—yet still turned a blind eye to the people’s needs and trampled justice during peaceful times, are the ones we must truly be wary of. They were entrusted to protect the people’s welfare, yet betrayed that trust at crucial moments—even selling out the country’s interests. Cloaked in patriotic rhetoric, they engaged in acts that harmed the nation and its people. They proclaimed loyalty to the nation, but their corruption, repression, and incompetence dragged the country into decline. These individuals may not have openly joined foreign enemies, but their erosion of national foundations and betrayal of the public interest is more disgraceful than those who compromised to survive. They are the ones who truly bring shame to the nation and suffering to the people.
In the late Qing dynasty, some high officials, facing foreign invasions, scrambled to cede territory and pay reparations in exchange for temporary peace, just to preserve their own positions and wealth. How is this any different from directly siding with invaders? In more recent times, some rulers have chanted slogans of enriching the nation and empowering the people, while secretly exploiting the public, driving citizens into hardship. They turn basic needs—housing, healthcare, pensions, food safety—into profit machines for the elite. These officials who abuse power and ignore public welfare may not have colluded with foreign enemies, but their actions corrode the nation from within and injure the people profoundly. They intensify social injustice, erode public trust—is that not also a form of betrayal?
True traitors don’t need to raise a white flag to surrender—they may hide behind high walls, using power and selfishness to consume the nation’s hope. They control fiscal resources, monopolize public benefits, and deepen the burden on ordinary people, fueling social fragmentation. This internal harm is sometimes more destructive than foreign invasion. They impose harsh rule at home while making generous concessions abroad, all for empty diplomatic clout—yet it’s always the silent taxpayers who suffer. This kind of self-serving governance is a betrayal of national duty. They may not hold foreign passports, but they have long since betrayed their own people. Are such rulers not even more contemptible traitors?
A real “Hanjian” is not defined by whether they cooperated with foreign enemies, but by whether they betrayed their people and violated the fundamental interests of the nation. Those ordinary people surviving in the margins, those who compromised out of pressure—are not criminals. A person who yields to survive may have his reasons. One who invites foreign resources for development may have vision. But those in high positions, entrusted with public duty, who abandon that duty and ignore the people’s needs, have no excuse. Their betrayal is inexcusable. They are the true traitors worthy of public contempt.
We must be vigilant of such traitors. More importantly, we must use our eyes to discern them, our voices to condemn them, and our actions to resist them. As ordinary citizens, we may lack overwhelming power, but we possess conscience—and responsibility. Every time we stand up, even if it’s just sharing a piece of truth, supporting a media outlet, or joining in public accountability—we are already dismantling the wall of silence that these traitors depend on. Only then can we ensure that those who betray the people have nowhere to hide.
If there is another life, I don’t want— I don’t want to keep my eyes shut in the dark, Don’t want to learn to speak within high walls, Don’t want to be taught to forget through books, Don’t want to learn to live Obediently and humbly amid lies.
I don’t want to see again— Books turning to ashes in flames, Thoughts torn to shreds behind bars, People dancing in shackles inside the wall, Yet never hearing the wind from beyond it.
If there is another life, Let me bathe in the sunlight of freedom. Let truth, like a rushing wind, Shatter every sealed door and window. I would choose the harder road— To no longer feign sleep, no longer bow, No longer sing hymns over ruins.
If there is another life, Let no bubbles obscure the bloodstained truth. Let history openly recall every scar. Let every lost name Be softly spoken by someone.
— Wang Chengguo Written in Los Angeles, July 20, 2025
Edited by Wang Mengmeng Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen Translated by Lu Huiwen
