Category: English

English-language publications of the Free China Movement.

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.

September 5, 2026
Rapid Response: Jimmy Lai’s Imprisonment Is a Warning to Every Chinese Entrepreneur

Free China Movement Rapid Response — September 4, 2026
Jimmy Lai built extraordinary business success, then chose to defend liberty rather than purchase safety through silence. His 20-year sentence is therefore a warning not only to journalists and democracy advocates, but to every entrepreneur who depends on predictable law, secure property rights and freedom of thought.
FCM calls on business leaders in Mainland China, Hong Kong, the Republic of China on Taiwan and Chinese communities worldwide to learn from Lai’s example. Wealth creates influence, and influence can help defend political prisoners, independent information, civil society, constitutional government and the rule of law.
We honor the courage of earlier republican pioneers who risked their lives to awaken fellow Chinese, while rejecting the need to repeat the violence of past revolutions. The task today is peaceful: turn courage into institutions, institutions into rights, and rights into a free China.
FCM calls for Jimmy Lai’s immediate and unconditional release.

September 5, 2026
Jimmy Lai’s 20-Year Sentence and Renewed Appeal for Release: Why His Choice Matters for China’s Future

September 4, 2026 — News + Editorial
Hong Kong media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, 78, is serving a 20-year sentence imposed in February 2026 after convictions on national-security and sedition-related charges. His family has continued to press for his release and has warned about his health after years in custody. Lai, the founder of Apple Daily and a British citizen, has denied wrongdoing and described himself as a political prisoner.
Why it matters
Lai’s case is not only about one publisher. He was a highly successful entrepreneur who could have protected his wealth by remaining silent. Instead, he used his resources and public voice to defend press freedom, democratic participation and the rule of law.
FCM editorial
Free China Movement sees Lai’s choice in a longer tradition of civic courage. Republican pioneers such as Qiu Jin and Lin Juemin, and the martyrs remembered through Huanghuagang, accepted extraordinary personal risk in the effort to awaken fellow Chinese to constitutional government and citizenship. Their historical circumstances were different, and FCM does not equate armed revolution with today’s peaceful democratic struggle. The common thread is the willingness to put principle above personal safety and comfort.
The same moral principle appeared in the American founding generation of the eighteenth century: liberty required people willing to risk their fortunes and security for institutions that could protect future generations. Today’s Chinese entrepreneurs do not need to seek martyrdom. They can support independent information, political prisoners, civil society, constitutional research, free enterprise and the rule of law.
FCM believes a future free China should protect private property, independent courts, freedom of speech and press, peaceful political opposition, free enterprise and government accountable to citizens. Prosperity and liberty should reinforce one another.
Sources: Reuters reporting on Lai’s February 2026 sentence and subsequent decision not to appeal; UK parliamentary and public reporting on continuing calls for his release and concern over his health.

September 5, 2026
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

September 4, 2026
Xi’s Reported CEO Delegation Puts Trade at Center of Sept. 24 Washington Summit; FCM Says Human Rights Must Be on the Agenda
Event ID: P5-EVT-2026-0904-14

Reuters reported on Sept. 4 that Xi Jinping is preparing a sizable delegation of Chinese corporate executives for an expected Sept. 24 meeting in Washington with President Donald Trump. The final corporate roster and specific summit deliverables remain provisional, and Beijing had not formally confirmed all trip details in the reporting.

Why It Matters

Trade, investment, rare-earth export licensing and other economic questions are expected to feature prominently. The unusually visible corporate component also raises a parallel question: whether human rights and political imprisonment will receive comparable attention in the bilateral record.

Editorial Analysis

The Free China Movement (FCM) states that a major business delegation should be matched by a meaningful human-rights component capable of placing political imprisonment, religious freedom, freedom of expression, rule of law and transnational repression on the summit agenda.

Among the cases FCM says deserve direct attention is Dr. Wang Bingzhang (王炳章), a pioneering founder and organizer of the modern overseas Chinese democracy movement. He launched China Spring in New York in 1982 and was part of the founding governance cohort of the Free China Movement in Washington in 1998. He 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 and other verified cases of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience should not disappear from the summit agenda because trade, investment, rare-earth supplies and corporate cooperation dominate negotiations. Economic relations are consequential, but the treatment of people imprisoned following peaceful political, religious, journalistic and civic activity is also part of the bilateral record.

Sources and attribution
- Reuters, Sept. 4, 2026 — reporting on the planned Sept. 24 Washington summit and CEO delegation.
- U.S. and international public records concerning Dr. Wang Bingzhang’s detention, sentence and arbitrary-detention finding.
- Free China Movement historical archive concerning its 1998 Washington founding governance cohort.
September 4, 2026
Mainland Chinese Communist Government Accelerates LGFV Exit Ahead of June 2027 Deadline
Event ID: P5-EVT-2026-0904-10 · Date: September 4, 2026

News Summary

The Mainland Chinese Communist Government is entering the final phase of a multi-year campaign to remove local-government financing vehicles (LGFVs) from official financing-platform lists. Securities Times reported on August 21, 2026 that, under the policy commonly referred to as “Document No. 150,” local-government financing platforms are expected to exit financing-platform lists by the end of June 2027. Some localities are reportedly moving faster; Shaanxi, for example, was reported as targeting the end of 2026.

The same report said that more than 82 percent of financing platforms nationwide had exited by the end of 2025. Exit is not simply a relabeling exercise. The reported conditions include clearing hidden government debt associated with the platform; stripping the enterprise of government-financing functions and converting it into a market-oriented operator responsible for its own risks; and resolving operating financial debt or obtaining consent from creditors holding at least two-thirds of the relevant financial claims.

This platform-exit drive intersects with the Mainland Chinese Communist Government’s broader hidden-debt program. Official Ministry of Finance and National People’s Congress materials state that Mainland China’s local-government hidden-debt balance stood at RMB 14.3 trillion at the end of 2023. In November 2024, authorities announced a large debt-swap and fiscal-support package, including RMB 6 trillion in additional local-government debt limits for swapping existing hidden debt over 2024–2026, and RMB 800 billion per year for five years from new special-purpose bond quotas to support debt resolution. Authorities also stated that RMB 2 trillion in shantytown-redevelopment hidden debt maturing in 2029 or later would continue to be repaid under existing contracts.

Official fiscal reports subsequently stated that these measures reduced the amount local governments would need to resolve on their own before the end of 2028 from RMB 14.3 trillion to RMB 2.3 trillion. That distinction is important: “resolution” can include debt replacement, maturity extension, lower-cost refinancing, conversion of hidden debt into explicit government debt, and continued contractual repayment. It does not necessarily mean that all liabilities are extinguished in cash by 2028.

Why It Matters

The June 2027 LGFV exit deadline and the end-2028 hidden-debt target are related but distinct. The first concerns removal of financing vehicles from the official platform system and separation of government-financing functions. The second concerns the treatment of acknowledged hidden debt. Conflating the two can create a misleading impression that all underlying obligations disappear when a platform exits.

Free China Editorial / Analysis

For citizens, creditors and taxpayers, the central question is not whether a financing vehicle has changed status, but what happens to the underlying obligation. If debt is transferred from an opaque financing vehicle into explicit government bonds, transparency may improve even though the debt remains. If maturities are extended or interest costs reduced, near-term fiscal pressure may ease without eliminating the liability.

The Free China Movement (FCM) believes the public should be able to see, in comparable form, the original obligation, the restructuring method, the successor debtor, the maturity, interest cost, collateral or guarantee arrangements, and the final fiscal burden. The Mainland Chinese Communist Government’s shift toward recognizing and converting hidden debt is potentially more transparent than leaving liabilities off the formal balance sheet, but meaningful accountability requires public disclosure sufficient to distinguish repayment from refinancing, transfer, restructuring and reclassification.

Evidence / Confidence

HIGH for the reported June 2027 platform-exit deadline, reported exit conditions, and official RMB 14.3 trillion hidden-debt figure and debt-swap framework. Interpretation of the fiscal effect is FCM analysis and is labeled accordingly.

Primary Sources
- Securities Times, August 21, 2026, “地方融资平台清理规范步入冲刺阶段.”
- National People’s Congress / Ministry of Finance, November 8, 2024, debt-swap policy materials.
- Ministry of Finance, November 9, 2024, explanation of the hidden-debt resolution package.
Related FCM Analysis

Governance & Public Policy: Debt Resolution or Debt Transformation?
Legal / Institutional Analysis: Public Debt Transparency, Legislative Control & Accountability
September 4, 2026
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
September 4, 2026
PRC Authorities in Mainland China Revise Mobilization and Lawyers Laws, Expanding CCP Authority Over Defense Preparedness and the Legal Profession
News Summary
PRC authorities in mainland China adopted significant revisions to two laws in late August concerning national-defense mobilization and the legal profession.
On August 28, the Standing Committee of the PRC National People’s Congress adopted a revised National Defense Mobilization Law, effective October 1, 2026. The revision contains 14 chapters and 82 articles covering mobilization planning, reserve personnel, strategic materials, military research and production, civilian-resource requisition and compensation, information management, special measures and legal responsibility.
The law expressly provides that national-defense mobilization work shall adhere to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership. It also establishes mechanisms for collecting mobilization-related data and integrating mobilization preparations into economic and social development planning.
Once mobilization has been ordered, the law permits special measures affecting sectors including finance, transportation, telecommunications, publishing, broadcasting, information networks, energy, healthcare, food supply and commerce. It also permits restrictions on activities and movement under specified circumstances. The law states that such measures should be necessary and reasonable and terminated when no longer necessary.
At the same August 28 session, the NPC Standing Committee amended the Lawyers Law. Those amendments took effect September 1.
The revised law now expressly states that lawyers’ work shall adhere to CCP leadership. It requires law firms to establish CCP organizations under applicable Party rules and provide necessary conditions for Party activities. It also makes support for CCP leadership and the PRC’s “socialist rule of law” statutory qualifications for becoming a lawyer.
The legislation also contains provisions intended to protect lawyers’ practice rights and expand criminal-defense coverage. Those provisions should be considered alongside the new political requirements rather than omitted from an assessment of the legislation.
Why It Matters
For the Free China Movement (FCM), these two measures raise different but related questions about the institutional relationship between political power, national security and law in mainland China.
A government may legitimately maintain laws governing national-defense mobilization. Democratic constitutional governments also possess emergency powers. The fundamental issue is who controls those powers, under what conditions they may be exercised, and whether citizens have meaningful independent legal remedies when the state exceeds them.
The revised mobilization law provides for civilian-resource requisition and compensation while also establishing potentially extensive authorities once mobilization is activated. Its special-measures provisions can reach communications, transportation, finance, information networks, food and other important aspects of civilian society.
The Lawyers Law raises a different constitutional issue. Lawyers sometimes must defend individuals whose interests are directly opposed to those of the government. The independence of that professional function is particularly important in criminal, political, human-rights and national-security cases.
Making support for the ruling CCP a statutory professional qualification therefore deserves scrutiny when evaluating whether lawyers can exercise genuinely independent professional judgment.
FCM Editorial Analysis
The developments illustrate an important distinction between rule by law and constitutional rule of law in occupied mainland China.
A government can enact increasingly detailed laws governing its own exercise of power without necessarily establishing independent constitutional restraints upon that power.
National-defense mobilization may be necessary when a country confronts a genuine military emergency. But extraordinary authority should be subject to clearly defined triggering conditions, proportionality, time limits, legislative accountability, judicial review, compensation and effective remedies.
The 2026 mobilization law itself contains some limitations—including requirements concerning necessity, reasonableness, termination of unnecessary special measures, compensation and liability for abuses. Those protections matter.
The constitutional question, however, extends further: Can institutions independent of the CCP meaningfully enforce those limitations against the authorities exercising mobilization power?
The Lawyers Law presents the same institutional problem from another direction.
A lawyer does not need to agree with a client’s beliefs or conduct to defend that person’s legal rights. Nor should representation of a person accused by the government depend upon the lawyer demonstrating political loyalty to the ruling party.
FCM therefore believes that a future democratic constitutional order for mainland China should guarantee an independent legal profession, independent courts and enforceable rights of counsel.
National security and individual liberty should not be treated as mutually exclusive. A future Third Republic should possess the lawful capacity to defend the country while placing extraordinary state powers under constitutional restraints, independent judicial review and democratic civilian oversight.
Strong national defense and constitutional liberty can—and must—coexist.
Sources
- Revised National Defense Mobilization Law — official text / Beijing national-defense mobilization authority
- Ministry of Justice explanation of the revised Lawyers Law
Editorial note: FCM does not use the social-media phrase “eight evil laws” as a factual description. This article focuses on the two enacted measures whose primary legal texts and constitutional implications are sufficiently clear.
Language versions: English · 简体中文 · 繁體中文 · Français · Deutsch · Español
September 4, 2026
Rapid Response: Pacific Security Requires Warning, Transparency and Respect for Regional Sovereignty

Pacific security requires warning, transparency and respect for regional sovereignty. China should provide meaningful advance notice for missile tests that may affect Pacific states and should not pressure regional institutions over their participation arrangements. Taiwan’s allegations of threats and espionage should be independently examined.

Related News & Editorial: Pacific Leaders Raise China Missile-Test Concerns as Taiwan Alleges Pressure at Regional Forum

September 4, 2026
Pacific Leaders Raise China Missile-Test Concerns as Taiwan Alleges Pressure at Regional Forum

Source: Reuters, September 4, 2026.

News Summary

Pacific Islands Forum leaders called for greater transparency and advance notification after China’s July intercontinental ballistic-missile test over the Pacific. Forum host Palau said leaders wanted at least 24 hours’ notice consistent with international practice, while Nauru formally dissented. The summit was also marked by Beijing’s objections to Taiwan’s participation. Taiwan’s foreign minister later accused Chinese officials of threatening conduct and espionage at the gathering; those claims remain attributed to Taipei.

Why It Matters

Pacific governments are increasingly treating missile-test notification, regional sovereignty and pressure over Taiwan participation as linked questions of security and institutional autonomy. The policy issue is not whether Pacific states must align with Beijing or Taipei, but whether regional organizations can set their own participation rules and whether major powers provide advance warning for military activity that may affect neighboring states.

FCM Editorial

Free China Movement (FCM) supports transparent military-risk notification, respect for Pacific states’ sovereignty, and regional institutions’ right to determine their own participation rules without coercion. Claims of espionage or threats should be independently verified, but diplomatic pressure should not substitute for open regional decision-making. A democratic China should pursue Pacific relations through consent, transparency, development cooperation and respect for each country’s choices rather than intimidation.

Read the Reuters source report.
Rapid Response: Pacific Security Requires Warning, Transparency and Respect for Regional Sovereignty
Languages: English · 简体中文 · 繁體中文 · Français · Deutsch · Español

September 4, 2026