Free China Movement

Category: English — Press Releases & Statements

English-language Free China Movement press releases and statements.

  • Free China Movement Calls for Publication of the Legal Basis for Reported Larung Gar Demolitions

    PRESS RELEASE / FORMAL STATEMENT | September 6, 2026 | P5-EVT-2026-0904-12

    Press & editorial standards: Editorial Standards · Sources & Attribution · Corrections & Updates · Contact / Press

    The Free China Movement (FCM) is concerned by satellite- and source-based reporting indicating renewed demolition and clearance of residential structures at Larung Gar Buddhist Academy in Serthar County, Sichuan, during 2026.

    Radio Free Asia and the International Campaign for Tibet have reported continued demolition based on satellite imagery, visual evidence and Tibetan sources. FCM has not located a current public demolition order, land-use decision or planning authorization that independently establishes the reported scope, the number of affected residents or the government’s stated rationale. Public local records reviewed to date include infrastructure, hazard-control and administrative projects in and around Larung Gar, but those records do not themselves establish the reported residential-clearance program.

    FCM therefore calls on the responsible authorities to publish the governing legal and planning documents, maps of affected areas, data on residents and structures affected, notice procedures, compensation arrangements, relocation terms and available appeal or review mechanisms.

    Larung Gar is an internationally significant center of Tibetan Buddhist learning. Any demolition or relocation affecting a major religious community should be governed by transparent law, meaningful notice, proportionate measures, fair compensation and an effective avenue of review.

    FCM does not present the reported demolition scope or governmental motive as independently established facts where primary administrative records remain unavailable. That evidentiary gap is itself a reason for greater official transparency.

    FCM calls for protection of peaceful religious practice, Tibetan cultural and educational life, property and residence rights, and independent access to reliable information about developments at Larung Gar.

    Related: News + Editorial · Rapid Response

  • Free China Movement Condemns Hong Kong Arrests Over Prince Edward Remembrance: National Security Must Not Become a License to Criminalize Memory

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    September 5, 2026

    FREE CHINA MOVEMENT CONDEMNS HONG KONG ARRESTS OVER PRINCE EDWARD REMEMBRANCE: NATIONAL SECURITY MUST NOT BECOME A LICENSE TO CRIMINALIZE MEMORY

    WASHINGTON, D.C., September 5, 2026 — The Free China Movement strongly condemns the arrest of three people by Hong Kong national-security police over activities connected with the August 31 remembrance outside Prince Edward MTR station.

    Hong Kong authorities say two men and one woman, aged 33 to 79, were arrested on September 3 over alleged conduct including standing outside the station with bouquets and shouting slogans that police characterize as seditious. These are allegations and have not been adjudicated in court.

    “When a government becomes afraid of flowers, remembrance and peaceful words, the danger comes from a political system that has begun to treat memory itself as a security threat.”

    Holding flowers, mourning, remembering a controversial event, questioning an official historical narrative and peacefully expressing political views must never by themselves become national-security crimes.

    FCM Has Repeatedly Warned Against Turning National Security Into a Tool of Political Repression

    The Prince Edward arrests reinforce a concern the Free China Movement has repeatedly raised: national security must protect people from genuine threats; it must never become an elastic political justification for suppressing peaceful dissent, religious belief, journalism, historical remembrance or advocacy for democracy.

    FCM has challenged the use of national-security, subversion, separatism and related political charges against peaceful democratic activists and other prisoners of conscience. Its position is consistent: peacefully seeking democracy is not subversion; remembering historical injustice is not a security offense; criticizing a government is not an attack on a nation.

    Genuine espionage, terrorism and violence may properly be investigated under clearly defined laws, credible evidence, due process and independent judicial review. Stretching “national security” to encompass flowers, memorial gatherings, peaceful slogans, journalism or political criticism instead risks transforming a legitimate governmental responsibility into an instrument of repression.

    Democratic Governments Warned of This Danger

    When the National Security Law was imposed in 2020, G7 foreign ministers expressed grave concern that it would threaten fundamental rights and freedoms in Hong Kong and urged the Mainland Chinese government to reconsider. The European Union has subsequently condemned politically motivated national-security prosecutions and the shrinking space for freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and independent civil society in Hong Kong.

    Those warnings cannot simply be repeated while the boundaries of permissible expression and remembrance continue to contract. If national-security legislation can reach a person carrying flowers to remember an event authorities would prefer society to forget, democratic governments must ask where the limiting principle now lies.

    FCM Calls for Immediate Action

    • Disclose precisely what words and individual acts form the basis for each arrest.
    • Release anyone detained solely for peaceful remembrance, mourning, holding flowers or nonviolent political expression.
    • Guarantee independent legal counsel, due process, open proceedings and meaningful judicial review.
    • Stop using national-security and sedition legislation to suppress peaceful political expression and contested historical memory.
    • Restore the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association promised to Hong Kong under the Basic Law and international commitments.

    FCM calls upon the G7, European Union, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and other democratic governments to publicly address these arrests and seek an explanation from Hong Kong authorities. Governments that previously warned against using national-security legislation against peaceful political activity should apply that principle consistently when remembrance itself becomes the object of national-security enforcement.

    Silence now would weaken the force of their earlier condemnations.

    “No government owns the memory of its people. Hong Kong residents have the right to remember their history, mourn their losses, ask questions and speak about their experiences without fearing that flowers or peaceful words will bring national-security police to their door.”

    Media Contact

    Free China Movement / 自由中国运动
    Email: contact@freechina.live
    Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066
    Website: https://freechina.live/

    About the Free China Movement

    The Free China Movement advocates for freedom, democracy, human rights, constitutional government and the rule of law for the people of Mainland China. FCM documents political and religious repression, supports peaceful democratic change, and advances a future in which fundamental rights are protected by constitutional institutions rather than subordinated to one-party political power.

    ###

  • Free China Movement Calls for Transparency and Due Process as Mainland China’s New Exit-Entry Regulations Take Effect

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    September 5, 2026

    Order No. 841 takes effect September 15; FCM calls for published implementation rules, judicial review, and safeguards against arbitrary or politically motivated restrictions on freedom of movement.

    WASHINGTON, D.C., September 5, 2026 — The Free China Movement (FCM) calls on the Mainland Chinese Communist Government to ensure that revised exit-entry regulations under State Council Order No. 841, scheduled to take effect September 15, are implemented transparently and are not used to expand arbitrary restrictions on the freedom of Mainland Chinese citizens to leave and return to their own country.

    Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. No Mainland Chinese citizen should lose the ability to travel abroad because of an unpublished blacklist, an unexplained administrative decision, political or religious activity, peaceful criticism of the government, or pressure imposed on family members.

    FCM’s review of Order No. 841 also underscores the importance of factual accuracy. The published regulation does not itself establish a universal new requirement that all students, doctors, university employees or private-sector workers obtain employer permission before leaving Mainland China.

    Existing passport-custody and travel-approval systems, however, already apply to various categories of Communist Party, state, public-institution, state-owned-enterprise and other designated personnel, while individual institutions may impose additional internal requirements.

    That distinction makes transparency even more important.

    FCM Calls for Six Basic Safeguards

    • Publication of implementing rules — All implementing regulations, eligibility standards and categories of persons subject to special exit controls should be publicly available.
    • Written reasons for restrictions — Whenever a passport is withheld or permission to leave Mainland China is denied, the affected person should receive written notice identifying the specific legal basis.
    • Independent judicial review — Every person subjected to an exit restriction should have access to meaningful appeal and independent judicial review.
    • An end to political exit bans — Exit restrictions must not be imposed as punishment for peaceful political activity, religious belief, journalism, legal advocacy or criticism of the government.
    • No collective punishment — Family members must not be subjected to travel restrictions or other coercive measures because of another person’s political or civic activities.
    • Public accountability — Authorities should publish annual statistics identifying the number of exit restrictions imposed and their legal grounds.

    Freedom of Movement Should Not Depend on Political Loyalty

    A modern government should not fear the free movement of its own citizens.

    Mainland China belongs to its people—not to the Chinese Communist Party, its security agencies, or any individual ruler.

    The right to leave one’s country and return to it should be protected by law, not dependent upon political loyalty or administrative discretion.

    The Free China Movement will monitor implementation of Order No. 841 after September 15 and document credible evidence of arbitrary or politically motivated restrictions affecting Mainland Chinese citizens.

    FCM also calls on democratic governments, international human-rights organizations, journalists and researchers to monitor implementation of the new regulations and distinguish carefully between restrictions contained in the published national regulation and separate passport-control or travel-approval practices imposed by particular government bodies, institutions or employers.

    Media Contact

    Free China Movement / 自由中国运动
    Email: contact@freechina.live
    Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066
    Website: https://freechina.live/

    About the Free China Movement

    The Free China Movement advocates for freedom, democracy, human rights, constitutional government and the rule of law for the people of Mainland China. FCM documents political and religious repression, supports peaceful democratic change, and advances a future in which fundamental rights are protected by constitutional institutions rather than subordinated to one-party political power.

    Free China Movement / 自由中国运动
    https://freechina.live/

  • FCM Statement: Jimmy Lai’s Choice — Business Success, Freedom and the Responsibility to Build a Free China

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — September 4, 2026

    The Free China Movement honors Jimmy Lai not merely as a Hong Kong democracy advocate, but as a remarkably successful Chinese entrepreneur who chose to place liberty, human dignity and democratic principles above personal security and material comfort.

    Lai came from Mainland China to Hong Kong with little, built successful businesses through entrepreneurship and hard work, and achieved the financial independence millions seek. He could have protected that success through silence. Instead, he used his wealth, media organizations and public voice to defend freedom of speech, freedom of the press, democratic participation and the rule of law.

    Now 78, Lai is serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed in February 2026. FCM calls for his immediate and unconditional release and for full protection of his health and legal rights.

    From the pioneers of the Republic to Jimmy Lai

    More than a century ago, pioneers of the Chinese republican movement — including Qiu Jin, Lin Juemin and the martyrs remembered through the Huanghuagang uprising — accepted extraordinary personal risks in the effort to awaken fellow Chinese to constitutional government and citizenship. Sun Yat-sen, Huang Xing and others devoted years of their lives, resources and personal security to the republican cause.

    Their historical circumstances were different from Lai’s, and FCM does not equate armed revolution with today’s peaceful democratic struggle. What connects them is the willingness to place principle above personal comfort and to act before political change appears safe or inevitable.

    There is also a parallel with the American founding generation of the eighteenth century, whose members understood that declarations of liberty required people willing to risk their fortunes and security for institutions that would protect future generations.

    FCM therefore calls on entrepreneurs, executives, investors and professionals in Mainland China, Hong Kong, the Republic of China on Taiwan and Chinese communities worldwide to consider what responsibility accompanies wealth and influence.

    A Free China should protect private property, free enterprise, independent courts, freedom of speech and press, peaceful political opposition, freedom of association and government accountable to citizens. These principles are not anti-business; they are foundations of durable prosperity.

    FCM does not ask today’s entrepreneurs to seek martyrdom. We ask them to find the courage to act peacefully, lawfully and persistently: support independent information, defend political prisoners, strengthen civil society, fund constitutional research and refuse to let commercial interests silence conscience.

    The pioneers of the Republic awakened one generation. Jimmy Lai’s example can help awaken another. Our generation’s responsibility is to turn courage into institutions — and institutions into a free China.

    Free enterprise needs the rule of law. Innovation needs freedom of thought. Prosperity needs secure rights. China’s future needs freedom.

  • FCM Calls for Human-Rights Delegation and Political-Prisoner Agenda at Expected Xi–Trump Washington Summit

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — Sept. 4, 2026
    Event ID: P5-EVT-2026-0904-14

    As preparations proceed for the expected Sept. 24 meeting between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, including reporting that Xi plans to bring a substantial delegation of Chinese corporate executives, the Free China Movement (FCM) states that human rights should be visibly represented alongside trade and investment.

    FCM supports inclusion of a dedicated human-rights delegation or substantive human-rights component alongside the business discussions, addressing political prisoners, prisoners of conscience, religious freedom, freedom of expression, rule of law and transnational repression.

    FCM specifically highlights Dr. Wang Bingzhang (王炳章), who launched China Spring in New York in 1982, became a pioneering organizer of the modern overseas Chinese democracy movement, and joined the founding governance cohort of the Free China Movement in Washington in 1998. Wang was sentenced to life imprisonment in February 2003 and has spent more than twenty-three years under that sentence. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found his detention arbitrary.

    FCM’s position is that Wang’s case, together with other verified long-held political-prisoner and prisoner-of-conscience cases, should be raised in the summit’s human-rights record. The presence of corporate executives demonstrates the importance attached to commerce; the summit should also demonstrate that people imprisoned following decades of advocacy for democracy and fundamental freedoms have not been forgotten.

    Related News & Editorial: Xi’s Reported CEO Delegation Puts Trade at Center of Sept. 24 Washington Summit; FCM Says Human Rights Must Be on the Agenda

  • Free China Movement Calls for Independent Lawyers and Constitutional Limits on PRC Mobilization Powers in Mainland China

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — September 4, 2026

    The Free China Movement (FCM) calls for protection of lawyers’ professional independence and enforceable constitutional limits on national-defense mobilization powers following major legal revisions adopted by PRC authorities in mainland China on August 28, 2026.

    The revised National Defense Mobilization Law, effective October 1, expressly places national-defense mobilization under Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership and establishes an extensive framework covering mobilization planning, reserve personnel, strategic materials, military production, civilian-resource requisition, special measures and legal responsibility. The revised Lawyers Law, effective September 1, states that lawyers’ work shall adhere to CCP leadership, requires CCP organizations in law firms, and makes support for CCP leadership and the PRC’s “socialist rule of law” statutory qualifications for lawyers.

    FCM rejects the proposition that national security requires unchecked political power. A free mainland China must be capable of defending itself, but no ruling party should stand above the Constitution, no emergency should extinguish independent judicial review, and no lawyer should be required to demonstrate loyalty to a political party in order to defend a citizen before the state.

    FCM Calls For

    1. An independent legal profession. Lawyers must be free to represent clients—including defendants in political, human-rights and national-security cases—according to law and professional ethics rather than political-party loyalty.
    2. Constitutional limits on mobilization and emergency powers. Extraordinary powers must be authorized by law, triggered by clearly defined conditions, necessary and proportionate, limited in duration and subject to transparent democratic oversight.
    3. Independent judicial review and due process. Citizens, organizations and businesses affected by requisition, restrictions or other extraordinary measures must have access to independent courts and effective remedies.
    4. Protection of property and just compensation. Any lawful requisition or expropriation of civilian resources must be documented, reviewable and accompanied by fair and enforceable compensation rights.
    5. Democratic civilian accountability. National-defense mobilization must ultimately be accountable to constitutional civilian institutions rather than unchecked party authority.

    A Third Republic Constitutional Commitment

    FCM calls for a future democratic Third Republic to constitutionally guarantee an independent judiciary and legal profession; civilian and legislative control over national-defense mobilization; narrowly defined emergency powers; judicial review of extraordinary measures; due process and just compensation for requisitioned property; and enforceable remedies against unlawful government action.

    National security and individual liberty are not mutually exclusive. Strong national defense is more legitimate and sustainable when power is constrained by constitutional law, independent courts and democratic accountability.

    The Chinese people and the Chinese nation must not be conflated with the current PRC/CCP authorities governing mainland China. FCM supports the ability of a future free mainland China to defend the country while rejecting unchecked party-state authority over citizens, lawyers and civilian society.

    Related FCM analysis: PRC Authorities in Mainland China Revise Mobilization and Lawyers Laws, Expanding CCP Authority Over Defense Preparedness and the Legal Profession

    Primary sources: National Defense Mobilization Law · NPC Standing Committee decision amending the Lawyers Law

    Media Contact
    Free China Movement
    contact@freechina.live
    +1 (571) 895-7066

    Language versions: English · 简体中文 · 繁體中文 · Français · Deutsch · Español

  • FCM Statement: Reported Loss of Consciousness by Pastor Sun Chenghao Demands Immediate Medical Transparency

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — September 2, 2026

    Free China Movement is deeply concerned by a September 1 ChinaAid report stating that the wife of imprisoned house-church pastor Sun Chenghao said his health has deteriorated in prison and that the family was recently informed he suddenly lost consciousness.

    According to ChinaAid, Sun was detained in December 2023 after a religious-exchange trip to South Korea and was sentenced in November 2025 to four years and six months in prison plus a 10,000-yuan fine. Family and legal objections to the charge remain source-attributed.

    The immediate issue is humanitarian and verifiable: a reported loss of consciousness in custody requires prompt medical evaluation, necessary treatment, meaningful family communication, access to counsel and enough reliable medical information to establish Sun’s present condition.

    This concern is not hypothetical. China’s recent human-rights record contains repeated cases in which detained dissidents and prisoners of conscience became gravely ill amid disputes over delayed, inadequate, restricted or opaque medical care. Cao Shunli died in 2014 after Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reported that repeated family requests for necessary treatment had been denied. In 2017, Liu Xiaobo was transferred from prison for treatment only after he had advanced liver cancer, while rights groups called for him to be allowed to seek medical care freely and transparently.

    FCM is also deeply concerned about Dr. Wang Bingzhang, the veteran democracy advocate serving a life sentence since 2003. Amnesty International documented serious deterioration in his health as early as 2004, including loss of consciousness and a stroke while he was held in solitary confinement. His case is a continuing reminder that medical opacity in long-term political imprisonment can compound punishment and place life itself at risk.

    For that reason, the reported loss of consciousness involving Sun Chenghao cannot be treated as a routine prison-health matter or deferred until a crisis becomes irreversible. The Mainland Chinese Communist Government should not wait for another dissident, religious believer or prisoner of conscience to become critically ill before allowing meaningful medical access, family communication and credible outside scrutiny.

    FCM Calls For

    1. Prompt, independent and medically appropriate evaluation and treatment for Sun Chenghao.
    2. Meaningful communication with his family and access to legal counsel.
    3. Sufficient current medical information to establish his condition while respecting legitimate medical privacy.
    4. No retaliation against family members, lawyers, church members or others seeking information about his health.
    5. Credible independent verification of any material deterioration in his condition.

    FCM emphasizes that the current report of loss of consciousness comes through Sun’s family and ChinaAid. Until independent or official confirmation is available, that specific medical claim remains clearly attributed. That evidentiary caution does not reduce the urgency of obtaining reliable medical information.

    Sources: ChinaAid — Sun Chenghao · Amnesty International — Cao Shunli · Human Rights Watch — Liu Xiaobo · Amnesty International — Wang Bingzhang

    Related FCM coverage: News + Editorial · Rapid Response

    Other editions: English · 简体中文 · 繁體中文 · Français · Deutsch · Español

    Media Contact
    Free China Movement
    contact@freechina.live
    +1 (571) 895-7066

  • The Cost of Believing Beijing: A Warning Free China Voices Gave Washington Decades Ago

    Free China Movement Editorial / Policy Statement

    Miles Yu’s recent critique of what he calls the dangerous mythology of “closed-door diplomacy” with the Mainland Chinese Communist Government raises a question Washington should have confronted long ago: how many broken assurances are required before policy stops treating an authoritarian regime’s promises as a substitute for verifiable conduct?

    The Free China Movement welcomes the fact that increasingly prominent American policy voices are challenging assumptions that dominated United States policy toward Beijing for decades.

    But this debate did not begin today.

    As early as the period surrounding the 1997 Hong Kong handover, Free China activists warned that democratic governments should not assume that promises made by the Chinese Communist Party would protect freedom once political control had passed to Beijing. Contemporary media records document Shengde Lian and other democracy activists publicly opposing Hong Kong’s transfer to Communist rule.

    Those concerns became even more urgent as Washington embraced a strategy based on economic integration.

    In 2000, during the congressional battle over Permanent Normal Trade Relations, Free China Movement leaders were among democracy activists publicly urging Congress not to grant Beijing permanent trade treatment without meaningful political and human-rights accountability. On May 18, 2000, Shengde Lian addressed a Capitol Hill demonstration calling on Congress to reject PNTR.

    Economic engagement without enforceable political conditions could strengthen the Communist system much faster than it would liberalize it.

    Similar concerns were raised by Chinese democracy advocates around China’s accession to the World Trade Organization and the decision to award Beijing the Olympic Games. FCM’s exact archival record on those two episodes is still being re-verified, so this statement does not rely on an unverified claim about a specific FCM document or event.

    Those questions deserve renewed examination today.

    The historical argument for engagement was not irrational. Many American leaders sincerely believed that international commerce, information flows, a growing middle class and participation in global institutions would create incentives for political moderation. Others argued that engagement offered greater leverage than isolation.

    History nevertheless requires policymakers to judge policies by results rather than intentions.

    The Mainland Chinese Communist Government received access to global markets, investment, technology and international institutions on an unprecedented scale. Yet political liberalization did not follow the trajectory many advocates predicted. Hong Kong’s promised autonomy was progressively curtailed; repression of dissidents, religious believers and civil-society organizations continued; and the Communist Party developed far greater economic, technological and international power.

    That history gives Miles Yu’s argument significance beyond one article.

    The fundamental problem is not whether diplomacy with Beijing should occur. Diplomacy between governments is necessary. The problem is diplomacy based upon unverifiable assurances, secrecy and the repeated hope that the Communist Party will eventually become something fundamentally different from what its institutions and conduct demonstrate it to be.

    A different standard

    • Trust must be replaced by verification. Commitments involving human rights, trade, security or international agreements should have measurable benchmarks and transparent reporting.
    • Engagement must carry consequences. Repeated violations cannot simply produce another round of private assurances.
    • Chinese citizens must not be confused with the Communist regime that rules them. America and other democracies should deepen engagement with independent Chinese thinkers, democracy advocates, human-rights defenders, religious communities and civil society.
    • Policy must look beyond managing the Communist regime and begin thinking seriously about China’s democratic future. A peaceful transition toward a free, constitutional and democratic China should be regarded as a legitimate long-term international interest rather than an unspeakable subject.
    • Free China should become part of the mainstream policy conversation. Supporting the Chinese people’s right to constitutional government, political pluralism, freedom of expression and peaceful democratic change is not hostility toward China. It is confidence in the Chinese people.

    FCM does not ask American policymakers to accept every conclusion offered by Chinese democracy activists.

    We ask something more basic: listen to the evidence.

    When people who had experienced Communist rule warned Washington in the 1990s that Beijing’s political promises should not be accepted without safeguards, their concerns were frequently treated as secondary to the optimism of the engagement era.

    When democracy activists warned during the PNTR debate, and more broadly around WTO entry and the Beijing Olympics, that economic integration alone would not democratize the Communist Party, those arguments often remained outside the political mainstream. FCM’s verified public record is strongest at present for the 1997 Hong Kong and 2000 PNTR episodes; additional FCM archival verification for WTO/Olympics remains underway.

    A quarter-century later, many of the assumptions behind that policy are being reconsidered across the American political spectrum.

    That reconsideration is overdue.

    Free China Movement therefore welcomes serious voices—including Miles Yu and others—who are willing to examine the record critically. We encourage scholars, former officials, members of Congress, administrations of either party, journalists and policy institutions to go further: study the warnings that Chinese democracy advocates made at the time, compare them with what subsequently happened, and bring the democratic future of China into mainstream policy discussion.

    The strategic choice should not be reduced to accommodation with Beijing or conflict with China.

    There is another possibility: a free China

    A China governed by constitutional institutions rather than one-party dictatorship.

    A China in which political power belongs ultimately to its citizens.

    A China capable of peaceful relations with Taiwan and its neighbors because its government derives legitimacy from its own people rather than nationalism and coercion.

    A China that contributes to international institutions while accepting the same rules expected of other nations.

    For decades, many Western policymakers asked how to change the behavior of the Communist Party.

    It is time also to ask a larger question: how can the democratic world help create the conditions in which the Chinese people themselves can peacefully determine China’s future?

    That is the Free China question.

    And after thirty years of misplaced confidence in authoritarian promises, it deserves a place at the center—not the margins—of the international policy debate.


    Original sources

    Miles Yu, The Washington Times: “The dangerous delusion of quiet diplomacy with China”, August 31, 2026.

    Miles Yu on X: Chinese-language post and framing of the article.

    Source note: Miles Yu’s article and social-media post are cited as the current policy-discussion trigger. Their inclusion does not imply that every claim or formulation in the source is adopted by Free China Movement.


    Free China Movement
    Email: contact@freechina.live
    Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066

    Other editions: English · 简体中文 · 繁體中文 · Français · Deutsch · Español

  • From a Death in a Xinjiang Prison to the Abduction of Dr. Wang Bingzhang: The World Must Confront Repression at Home and Across Borders

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    September 2, 2026

    Free China Movement Calls for International Scrutiny of Luo Chuanmei’s Reported Death in Custody and Renewed International Action for Dr. Wang Bingzhang

    WASHINGTON — The reported death of Luo Chuanmei in a Xinjiang prison, followed by reports that her family was informed only after her remains had been cremated, raises questions that cannot be answered by silence from prison authorities.

    Public reporting based on Falun Gong and Xinjiang-victim documentation says Luo Chuanmei, an Urumqi resident and Falun Gong practitioner, died on October 3, 2025 while imprisoned in Xinjiang. Those sources report that her family was not notified until after prison authorities had cremated her body. No public official prison medical or death record has been located by FCM. These circumstances therefore require independent scrutiny rather than unqualified assumptions about cause of death.

    Where are the medical records? What was the cause of death? When did her condition become life-threatening? Was adequate medical treatment provided? Why was her family reportedly denied an opportunity for independent examination before cremation?

    The Free China Movement calls for international attention to these questions and for the Mainland Chinese Communist Government to disclose the complete circumstances surrounding Luo Chuanmei’s reported death, preserve all relevant medical and prison records, permit her family access to those records, and allow credible independent scrutiny.

    But the international community must understand that this case raises a larger issue: the danger does not stop at China’s borders.

    Dr. Wang Bingzhang: A Warning the World Failed to Resolve

    More than two decades ago, the world was given a warning in the case of Dr. Wang Bingzhang, one of the pioneers of the overseas Chinese democracy movement.

    In June 2002, Dr. Wang Bingzhang disappeared while in Vietnam with Zhang Qi and Yue Wu. The official Chinese account later maintained that the three had been kidnapped for ransom and subsequently rescued by Chinese police. After Zhang Qi and Yue Wu were released, however, they alleged that Chinese agents had abducted the three in Vietnam and forcibly taken them into China. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China subsequently recorded those allegations and reported that Wang was missing for approximately six months before Chinese authorities acknowledged holding him.

    Wang was tried behind closed doors in January 2003 and sentenced on February 10, 2003 to life imprisonment after conviction on espionage and terrorism-related charges. Amnesty International documented the conviction, and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention later declared Wang’s detention arbitrary and requested that the government remedy the situation.

    The source presented to the UN Working Group alleged that Wang, Yue and Zhang were seized in Mong Cai, Vietnam, transferred across the border and ultimately placed in Chinese custody. The Chinese government presented a different account. This unresolved contradiction is precisely why the case warrants continuing international scrutiny.

    For more than twenty years, the fundamental question has remained: how could a prominent overseas Chinese democracy activist disappear from another sovereign country, emerge in the custody of the Mainland Chinese Communist Government, receive a life sentence after a closed trial, and then largely disappear from sustained international attention?

    What Happened to Wang Bingzhang Must Never Become Normal

    The Wang Bingzhang case should have been treated as an international alarm.

    When an authoritarian state can reach beyond its borders to seize, forcibly return, threaten or intimidate political opponents, the issue is no longer solely China’s internal human-rights situation. It becomes an issue of international security, national sovereignty and the protection of people living in free societies.

    Overseas Chinese democracy activists are not the only people potentially vulnerable. Journalists investigating China, human-rights researchers, former political prisoners, religious-freedom advocates, Tibetan, Uyghur and Hong Kong activists, family members of dissidents, and people who work or have worked with human-rights organizations must be able to rely on democratic governments to protect them against foreign intimidation.

    “The disappearance of Dr. Wang Bingzhang from Vietnam should have been a warning to every democratic government. When an authoritarian regime is credibly accused of reaching across another country’s border for a political opponent, the victim is not only one dissident. The sovereignty and security of every free country are being tested.”

    Repression at Home and Intimidation Abroad Are Part of the Same Problem

    A reported prison death in Xinjiang and the alleged cross-border abduction of a democracy activist from Vietnam are separated by geography, time and circumstances. But they raise a common question: what happens when state power operates without meaningful independent accountability?

    Inside China, that danger can take the form of secretive detention, politically driven prosecutions, denial of meaningful access to counsel, opaque prison conditions or unanswered questions surrounding deaths in custody.

    Outside China, it can take the form of surveillance, threats against relatives, coercion, harassment, pressure on diaspora communities and other forms of transnational repression. In the most extreme cases, credible allegations of cross-border abduction demand investigation.

    “Repression does not become acceptable simply because it crosses a border. A government that attempts to export fear into another country is attacking not only its critics but the freedom and sovereignty of the country in which those critics live.”

    FCM Calls for International Action

    The Free China Movement calls upon the United Nations, the United States, European democracies, Canada, Australia, Japan and other democratic governments to take coordinated action.

    • Demand transparency in the reported death of Luo Chuanmei. Authorities should disclose the cause and circumstances of death, relevant prison and medical records, treatment history and the circumstances surrounding notification of her family and cremation.
    • Renew international action for Dr. Wang Bingzhang. His case should not disappear into history because he has already spent more than two decades in prison. Governments should raise his continued imprisonment directly and publicly and call for his release.
    • Reexamine the circumstances of Wang’s disappearance from Vietnam. The allegations that Wang, Zhang Qi and Yue Wu were abducted and forcibly transported into China deserve continuing historical and governmental scrutiny.
    • Establish stronger mechanisms against transnational repression. Democratic governments should systematically document threats, coercion, surveillance, attempted forced returns and suspected abductions directed at diaspora activists and human-rights defenders.
    • Protect people who expose human-rights abuses. Governments should maintain clear reporting and protection channels for Chinese dissidents, journalists, researchers and current or former employees and partners of human-rights organizations who face threats connected to their work.
    • Coordinate internationally. Cross-border repression exploits gaps between jurisdictions. Democracies should share information, investigate suspected operations jointly and impose lawful consequences where responsibility can be established.

    The World Should Not Wait for the Next Wang Bingzhang

    For decades, democratic governments have too often responded to individual cases after the victim has already disappeared, been imprisoned or been threatened. Prevention must become part of human-rights policy.

    When credible evidence suggests that an authoritarian government is attempting to intimidate or reach political opponents outside its territory, governments should treat the matter simultaneously as a human-rights issue, a law-enforcement issue and a sovereignty issue.

    Dr. Wang Bingzhang has already lost more than two decades of freedom. His case must not become merely another entry in an archive. And Luo Chuanmei must not become merely another name on a list of people reported to have died behind prison walls.

    “The world should not wait for another dissident to disappear across a border before taking this threat seriously. Protecting those who speak for democracy and human rights is not charity toward Chinese dissidents. It is part of defending the sovereignty and freedom of democratic societies themselves.”

    The Free China Movement calls for renewed international attention to Dr. Wang Bingzhang, full transparency and independent scrutiny concerning the reported death of Luo Chuanmei, and coordinated democratic action against transnational repression directed at Chinese dissidents and human-rights defenders worldwide.


    Related coverage
    News + Editorial: Luo Chuanmei Reportedly Dies in Xinjiang Prison; Family Says It Learned Only After Cremation

    Media Contact
    Free China Movement
    Email: contact@freechina.live
    Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066

  • When Hong Kong Silences Democratic Voices, Free Societies Must Carry Their Words Further

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    September 2, 2026

    Free China Movement Says New York Actions for Chow Hang-tung and Hong Kong Political Prisoners Show Why June Fourth Memory and Suppressed Democratic Speech Must Be Preserved

    WASHINGTON — The Free China Movement today welcomed peaceful actions by Chinese democracy activists in New York who brought the words of Hong Kong democracy advocate Chow Hang-tung and the cases of Hong Kong political prisoners into public spaces thousands of miles from the courtroom where those voices are increasingly constrained.

    On August 29, participants associated with the China Democracy Party gathered in Times Square and publicly read portions of Chow Hang-tung’s mitigation statement in the Hong Kong Alliance national-security case, according to reporting based in part on information and images supplied by participants.

    A separate action in Flushing organized by members of the China New Democratic Party expressed support for defendants in the Hong Kong Alliance case and other political prisoners.

    The Free China Movement emphasizes that these were separate actions by separate organizations. FCM does not claim an organizational relationship with either group.

    What connects them is more important: people enjoying freedom outside Hong Kong used that freedom to keep the words and experiences of people facing imprisonment inside Hong Kong from disappearing.

    The Importance Is Not the Size of the Crowd

    A demonstration does not become historically important simply because thousands of people attend it, nor does a small demonstration become insignificant because only a handful participate.

    The more important question is: What does an action preserve, transmit and make possible?

    In Hong Kong, the political environment that once allowed enormous June Fourth candlelight vigils in Victoria Park has been dismantled. The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China was forced to dissolve amid national-security pressure. Its former leaders have faced years of imprisonment and prosecution.

    Chow Hang-tung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho have now faced prosecution arising from the Alliance’s activities.

    Under those circumstances, reading Chow’s words publicly in New York takes on meaning beyond an ordinary demonstration.

    “The importance of these New York actions is not the size of the crowd. It is that words the authorities would rather contain were carried from a Hong Kong courtroom into a free public square.”

    That is something authoritarian governments have historically found difficult to control.

    They can restrict a courtroom. They can close an organization. They can prohibit a vigil. They can imprison an organizer. But once testimony, memory and political ideas cross borders, they become much harder to erase.

    June Fourth Memory Is Part of This Struggle

    The Hong Kong Alliance was inseparable from Hong Kong’s extraordinary role in preserving the memory of the June Fourth massacre.

    For decades, Hong Kong citizens gathered publicly to remember those killed in Beijing in 1989 and to demand accountability and democratic reform in China.

    Suppressing the Alliance therefore does not merely eliminate another political organization. It attacks an institution that helped transmit historical memory from one generation to another.

    This is why the responsibility of overseas Chinese communities and democracy organizations has grown. When a vigil cannot be held in Hong Kong, it can be held elsewhere. When a political prisoner cannot address the public freely, that person’s words can be read elsewhere. When archives, testimony or historical records are endangered, copies can be preserved elsewhere. And when authorities attempt to make a political movement disappear from public memory, people living in free societies can refuse to participate in that forgetting.

    “Beijing can close a courtroom door, but it should not be allowed to close the historical record. A prison sentence can restrict a person’s freedom. It must not be allowed to erase that person’s words from history.”

    Overseas Democracy Organizations Have a Larger Responsibility

    These New York actions also point toward an important question for the overseas Chinese democracy movement itself.

    Organizations do not have to become one organization to work toward common democratic objectives. They do not have to conceal their disagreements. They do not have to exaggerate their numbers or claim relationships that do not exist.

    A mature democratic movement should be capable of something more difficult: cooperation while preserving institutional independence.

    Different organizations can preserve political-prisoner records, commemorate June Fourth, defend freedom of religion and expression, support democratic prisoners, document repression and respond to urgent events while remaining organizationally distinct.

    That is not weakness. It is democratic pluralism in practice.

    The Free China Movement believes the future strength of the Chinese democracy movement will depend not simply on individual leaders or organizations, but on whether democratic forces can develop durable institutions, trustworthy historical records and practical mechanisms for cooperation across generations, cities and countries.

    From Hong Kong to New York — and Beyond

    The Mainland Chinese Communist Government has succeeded in drastically narrowing the space for organized democratic activity in Hong Kong.

    But repression inside one jurisdiction does not have to determine what the rest of the world remembers. Indeed, repression can create the opposite obligation.

    “When democratic voices are silenced in Hong Kong, people living in freedom have a responsibility to carry those voices farther. Freedom should not end at the border where repression begins.”

    The principle applies beyond Chow Hang-tung or the Hong Kong Alliance. It applies to political prisoners throughout China. It applies to independent journalists whose reporting is removed. It applies to religious believers whose communities are dismantled. It applies to lawyers whose ability to speak publicly is restricted. And it applies to the historical record of the 1989 democracy movement itself.

    Every dictatorship depends, to some degree, not merely upon controlling what people can do today but upon controlling what future generations remember about yesterday.

    Preserving memory is therefore not separate from democratic action. It is democratic action.

    What the Free China Movement Calls For

    The Free China Movement calls on overseas Chinese democracy organizations, human-rights groups, universities, libraries, archives, journalists and democratic governments to systematically preserve court statements and testimony from Hong Kong political prisoners; maintain verified records of prisoners of conscience; preserve endangered publications and organizational archives; continue public June Fourth commemorations wherever peaceful assembly remains possible; translate important testimony so that it can cross linguistic and national boundaries; and cooperate across organizations without erasing institutional independence or manufacturing political unity.

    We also urge journalists not to measure the significance of overseas Chinese democratic activity only by attendance numbers.

    Sometimes the historically important question is not how many people stood in a square. It is whether someone carried forward the words that another government was trying to silence.

    The August 29 actions in New York did exactly that.

    The Free China Movement will continue documenting those voices, preserving the historical record, and supporting peaceful efforts to ensure that China’s unfinished struggle for democracy cannot be erased by imprisonment, censorship or time.


    Related coverage
    News + Editorial: New York Democracy Activists Read Chow Hang-tung’s Court Statement and Rally for Hong Kong Political Prisoners
    Rapid Response: New York Actions Carry Chow Hang-tung’s Words Beyond Hong Kong

    Media Contact
    Free China Movement
    Email: contact@freechina.live
    Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066