作者：中国民主党英国总部党员程敏
一．绝对的权力掌控
众所周知，在中国共产党拥有绝对的权力，对社会方方面面的掌控力度放眼五千年历史也是独此一家，在这种掌控力度下， 说一句为所欲为绝不是夸大，相反，中共建政数十年来从大跃进到文革，再到八九六四事件，从习近平修改宪法实现连任实现皇帝美梦再到2022年的白纸革命，中国的基本盘始终未曾动摇，也反映了共产党统治的稳固性。所以，在如此强力的极权体制下，中共出于自身利益做出任何极端行为，都不令我意外。
二．媒体和民众基本丧失监督权
习治下的中国，言论自由空间相较于胡温时期再次大幅收窄。如果说胡温时期的言论自由是一条臭不可闻的水沟，但还有几条诸如南方系的清道夫在言论管控的夹缝中勉强游动，偶尔还能看到媒体对于公权力滥用的质问与抨击，例如2011年甬台温铁路列车追尾事故，多位记者义愤填膺地轮番质问官方救援行动罔顾生命，结果发言人情急之下竟说出“至于你信不信，我反正信了”的荒唐发言。而前中国国家总理温家宝还曾忧国忧民的“真切”表情而在民间喜提“影帝”的称号，彼时的中国，媒体还能隐约行使“第四权力”，人民也不会对政府俯首帖耳。
但今日之中国，习近平早已大权独揽，唯我独尊，共产党的统治逻辑也从前些年的”党内民主“退化到了今日的“顺昌逆亡”，人民面对社会问题和公权力滥用也是敢怒不敢言，谁也不敢做出头鸟，每当有恶性社会事件发生时，人们总是对房间里的大象视而不见，只敢将矛头对准资本和中下级官员，比如近期发生的甘肃天水儿童“血铅超标”事件，如果不是联合国介入发表文章表示关切，中共大概率不会提级调查，而是会和以前的所有类似事件一样，通过删帖，禁言，对受害者施压来强行压制舆论，再找几个替死鬼出来平息民愤，等待风波逐渐平息。而媒体也都是噤若寒蝉，不敢对官方有任何质疑，一切唯官媒马首是瞻，所以说一句中国人已经基本丧失对公权力的监督权我认为并不为过。
三．各种交叉证据以及蛛丝马迹
我相信中国存在活摘器官的第三点，是出于国际组织甚至中共自己公开的各种相关数据和报告，以及大量存在的影像及文字资料，比如韩国调查记者暗访天津某医院拍摄的《Investigative Report 7》，揭露了自2000年以来约有20000名韩国人在中国接受了器官移植手术。而中国政府对此的解释是器官移植手术存在，但都来源于合法捐赠，而这一说法也遭到多个国际机构的质疑，例如捐赠者数量与移植手术数量完全不匹配，等待匹配与移植的时间太短，不符合常理，而有鉴于器官移植本身的时效性非常严格，另外有大量的交叉证据也一直佐证这件事，例如中国肝脏移植专家郑树森发表的器官移植论文中因为有高达500余例手术无法提供器官来源而被撤销论文，再考虑到中国自2000-2017年间捐献器官总数为14000–16000例，再联想到韩国，台湾，日本等地多年来都有“换器官来中国”的传统，就难免会让人产生怀疑了，这些证据虽然无法单独构成活摘器官的“铁证”，但当它们交叉出现时，就形成了一个无法忽视的逻辑闭环。尤其是在一个信息高度不透明、外部监督无从进行的独裁政体中，我们有充足理由对其“合法供体”说法持强烈怀疑。
总结
那么，基于我对中国政府有组织活摘人体器官的怀疑，我们应该如何对待这种极其恶劣和恐怖的政府行为呢？我认为，一方面我们应该谴责抨击这种由国家政府主持的践踏生命与人权的恐怖行为，呼吁更多的国际组织干预与制裁，令中国政府投鼠忌器。另一方面，我们应当建立档案，收集整理一切可信度高的相关资料，帮助受害者讨回公道。而第三，也是很多人会忽视的一点，我认为一切指控都要基于逻辑与证据，对于公权力的合理怀疑可以适当放宽限制，但在没有任何实际证据的基础上，不要贸然给所有器官移植甚至失踪案件都扣上一顶“被活摘了”的帽子，这样只会影响我们自身言论的可信度，同时也是对那些真的被摘取了器官的受害者的侮辱与否定，中共是一碗墨水，掺入清水也无济于事，相反，如果我们在谴责与指控中混入大量的情绪输出与谣言，却会轻易自污，我们不要做墨水，去做清水吧！
Reflections on the Allegations of Organ Harvesting by the Chinese Government
By Cheng Min, Member of the UK Headquarters of the China Democracy Party
1. Absolute Power and Control
It is widely recognised that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wields absolute power, exercising control over all aspects of Chinese society in a way that is arguably unparalleled in the last five thousand years of Chinese history. Under such a regime, the phrase “doing whatever it pleases” is not an exaggeration. On the contrary, the history of the CCP’s rule—from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution to the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989, and from Xi Jinping’s constitutional amendment enabling indefinite re-election to the White Paper Movement in 2022—demonstrates the resilience of the regime’s grip on power. Given the authoritarian nature of this system, I am not surprised by any extreme action the CCP may take to serve its own interests.
2. The Loss of Media and Public Oversight
Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China’s already limited space for free speech has shrunk dramatically compared to the Hu-Wen era. If we liken the Hu-Wen period’s freedom of speech to a filthy, stinking gutter, at least there were still a few independent-minded media outlets—such as those under the Southern Media Group—doing their best to survive in the cracks. Occasionally, the media even managed to question and criticise abuses of state power. For example, in the wake of the Wenzhou high-speed train crash in 2011, outraged journalists publicly grilled officials on the government’s disregard for human life. The spokesperson famously blurted out, “Whether you believe it or not, I believe it.” Meanwhile, Premier Wen Jiabao’s performative empathy earned him the popular title of “best actor.” At that time, the media still had some vestige of a fourth estate, and the public did not fully bow down to authority.
But in today’s China, Xi Jinping holds power like an emperor, commanding absolute loyalty. The Party’s internal democracy has regressed into a “submit or perish” dynamic. When social problems arise or abuses of power occur, citizens remain silent for fear of reprisal. Whenever a major scandal erupts, the public deliberately ignores the elephant in the room, instead directing their anger at capitalists or lower-level officials. Take, for example, the recent blood lead poisoning incident affecting children in Tianshui, Gansu. If not for the intervention of the United Nations, it is likely the central government would not have launched a higher-level investigation. As with many past cases, the typical response would have been censorship, suppression of victims, and token scapegoats to pacify public anger. The media is now completely silent, taking cues only from state-run outlets. In this climate, I believe it is fair to say the Chinese people have lost nearly all ability to supervise or hold government power to account.
3. Cross-Corroborated Evidence and Circumstantial Clues
My belief in the existence of organ harvesting in China stems from a range of sources, including international reports, government data, and both video and written records. For instance, the Korean documentary Investigative Report 7—based on an undercover investigation at a hospital in Tianjin—revealed that since 2000, over 20,000 South Koreans have received organ transplants in China. In response, the Chinese government claimed all organs came from legal donations. However, this explanation has been widely questioned by international bodies: the number of transplants far exceeds the number of known donors, and the waiting times for matched organs are implausibly short given the strict timing required for viable transplants.
Further supporting evidence includes the retraction of liver transplant specialist Zheng Shusen’s academic paper due to his inability to disclose the source of over 500 organs. Between 2000 and 2017, China officially reported only 14,000 to 16,000 organ donations. Yet it is well known that patients from South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have travelled to China for organ transplants. These contradictions raise serious doubts. While no single piece of evidence conclusively proves forced organ harvesting, the sheer weight of cross-referenced data forms a troubling and hard-to-ignore logical framework. In a regime that is both opaque and immune to external oversight, we have every reason to strongly doubt the claim that all organ sources are lawful.
4. Conclusion
Given the reasons outlined above, how should we respond to what would be an unspeakably grave crime by a government—namely, the organised harvesting of human organs? First, we must condemn and expose these inhumane violations of life and human rights, urging greater international scrutiny and sanctions that might deter the Chinese government from acting with impunity. Second, we must document and archive credible information to support future justice for victims.
Third—and this point is often overlooked—we must maintain our credibility by grounding all accusations in logic and evidence. While it is reasonable to adopt a lower threshold of suspicion when dealing with abuses of state power, we must not rush to label every transplant or missing persons case as organ harvesting without firm proof. Doing so would weaken the credibility of our movement and dishonour the true victims of such crimes.
The Chinese Communist Party is like a bowl of black ink—adding clean water changes nothing. But if we allow emotional outbursts and unverified rumours to contaminate our accusations, we risk smearing ourselves and diluting the moral clarity of our cause. Let us not become part of the darkness. Let us strive to be the clear water.
