时间：2026年4月2日 上午11时
地点：中华人民共和国驻奥克兰总领事馆门前

2026年4月2日上午，中国民主党新西兰党部在中华人民共和国驻奥克兰总领事馆门前举行和平抗议示威活动，就中国共产党当局长期针对海外民主人士实施威胁、恐吓及跨国镇压行为，发表严正谴责声明。

本次活动以“谴责中共威胁恐吓，制止中共跨国镇压”为主题。现场秩序井然，参与人员依法行使表达权利，集中表达对基本人权、言论自由及法治原则的坚定捍卫。

⸻

严正谴责

中国民主党新西兰党部郑重指出：中共当局通过监控、骚扰、威胁、胁迫家属等多种方式，对身处海外的民主人士实施系统性打压，已构成典型的跨国镇压行为。此类行径不仅严重侵犯基本人权，更公然违反国际法基本原则，严重冲击民主国家的主权与法治秩序。

我们对此表示最强烈的谴责与坚决反对，并要求中共当局：
• 立即停止一切针对海外人士的威胁与骚扰行为
• 立即停止任何形式的跨境执法与非法干预
• 尊重国际社会普遍承认的人权与自由原则

⸻

现场发言

中国民主党党员、现场指挥强江朋在发言中严正指出：

中共当局将其高压统治延伸至海外，通过隐蔽与公开相结合的手段，对民主人士实施持续性压迫，这种行为性质恶劣、影响深远。任何跨国镇压行为，都是对文明社会基本准则的严重破坏，必须受到坚决制止与追责。

他强调，民主国家不应成为威权势力输出恐惧的延伸空间，任何威胁行为都必须被揭露并依法应对。

⸻

总结发言

中国民主党新西兰党部负责人冯飞在总结发言中表示：

我们今天的抗议，是对中共系统性跨国镇压的公开揭露与严正回应。这不仅关乎个体权利，更关乎民主制度与国际秩序的底线。任何政权都无权在他国领土上延伸其恐吓与控制。

他进一步呼吁新西兰政府及国际社会：
• 高度重视跨国镇压问题的现实威胁
• 加强立法与执法应对机制
• 切实保障在本国境内所有人的人身安全与表达自由

⸻

立场与呼吁

中国民主党新西兰党部郑重声明：

我们将持续以和平、理性、合法的方式，揭露并反对一切形式的跨国镇压行为。任何恐吓与打压，都无法动摇我们对自由、民主与法治的坚定信念。

我们敦促国际社会采取更具约束力与执行力的措施，共同遏制威权主义对全球民主秩序的侵蚀。

⸻

中国民主党新西兰党部
2026年4月2日 奥克兰

China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch Press Release

Statement Strongly Condemning the CCP’s Transnational Repression

Time: 11:00 a.m., 2 April 2026

Location: In front of the Consulate-General of the People’s Republic of China in Auckland

⸻

On the morning of 2 April 2026, the China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch held a peaceful protest in front of the Consulate-General of the People’s Republic of China in Auckland, issuing a strong statement condemning the long-term threats, intimidation and transnational repression carried out by the Chinese Communist Party authorities against overseas democracy activists.

The event was held under the theme: “Condemn the CCP’s threats and intimidation, stop the CCP’s transnational repression.” The protest remained orderly throughout, and participants lawfully exercised their right to expression, collectively demonstrating their firm commitment to defending fundamental human rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law.

⸻

Strong Condemnation

The China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch solemnly points out that the CCP authorities have used monitoring, harassment, threats, coercion of family members and other means to carry out systematic repression against democracy activists living overseas, which constitutes a典型 form of transnational repression. Such actions not only seriously violate fundamental human rights, but also openly breach the basic principles of international law and seriously undermine the sovereignty and rule-of-law order of democratic countries.

We express our strongest condemnation and firm opposition to this, and demand that the CCP authorities:

• immediately stop all threats and harassment targeting people overseas

• immediately stop any form of cross-border law enforcement and illegal interference

• respect the human rights and freedoms universally recognised by the international community

⸻

Remarks at the Scene

China Democracy Party member and on-site commander Jiangpeng Qiang stated in his speech:

The CCP authorities have extended their high-pressure rule overseas, using both covert and overt methods to impose continuous oppression on democracy activists. This behaviour is extremely serious in nature and far-reaching in impact. Any act of transnational repression is a grave violation of the basic norms of a civilised society and must be firmly stopped and held accountable.

He stressed that democratic countries must not become an extended space for authoritarian forces to export fear, and that any threatening behaviour must be exposed and dealt with in accordance with the law.

⸻

Concluding Remarks

Fei Feng, head of the China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch, said in his concluding remarks:

Our protest today is a public exposure of, and solemn response to, the CCP’s systematic transnational repression. This concerns not only individual rights, but also the bottom line of democratic systems and the international order. No regime has the right to extend its intimidation and control onto the territory of another country.

He further called on the New Zealand Government and the international community to:

• attach great importance to the real threat posed by transnational repression

• strengthen legislative and law-enforcement response mechanisms

• effectively safeguard the personal safety and freedom of expression of all people within their own territory

⸻

Position and Appeal

The China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch solemnly declares:

We will continue, in a peaceful, rational and lawful manner, to expose and oppose all forms of transnational repression. No intimidation or suppression can shake our firm belief in freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

We urge the international community to adopt stronger and more enforceable measures to jointly curb the erosion of the global democratic order by authoritarianism.

⸻

China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch

Auckland, 2 April 2026

作者：中国民主党英国总部党员 程敏

时间：2026年3月27日

首先不可否认的一点，中国近年来在科技上的成就是世界瞩目的，无论是AI产业，机器人，电动汽车等等，都在以惊人的速度发展着，很多老中人也一如既往的为祖国的科技发展骄傲自豪。但是我不仅完全没有这种自豪感，反而忧心忡忡，这倒不是因为我作为铁杆汉奸，见不得中国人过好日子，而是我深知，中国的科技越进步，中国人未来就越惨，推翻共产党的代价也就越大，离民主也就更遥不可及了。

在几个月前，我的一位国内朋友，曾愤愤不平地给我转发了几个视频和截图，内容大概是河北强推农村“煤改气”，但每月数千元甚至上万元的取暖费用，以农村老人微薄的养老金根本无力负担，甚至入不敷出。于是河北的农村老人只能选择多穿衣服硬扛寒冬，但是零下十几度的极寒哪里是几件破棉衣扛得住的，于是实在扛不住就偷偷烧煤烧柴取暖，原本这只是一个典型的“上有政策，下有对策”的中国特色案例，但架不住近年来我党统治下的中国科技进步确实牛逼，而我党又是出了名的“干好事千疮百孔，干坏事天衣无缝”，当地政府面对这种情况，除了往常的”鼓励邻里相互监督举报“以外，竟然还机智的选择使用无人机巡逻农村，实时监控是否有农民偷偷烧煤烧柴取暖，一经发现便没收工具并处以数千元的高额罚款。以至于有一些老人竟然因为负担不起燃气费，又不敢偷偷烧柴，最终活活冻毙。在21世纪，这种事发生在任何现代国家，都会引起舆论的轩然大波，媒体和民众也会群情激愤，对政府百般问责，唯独中国，很快这件事就被全网封杀，禁止讨论，而民众也都习以为常，好像一早就知道会是这个结果似的。只能说，任何丧尽天良灭绝人性的事，只要一旦和我党沾上边，好像大家突然就恍然大悟了——是共产党干的啊！那就不奇怪了，都散了吧。

无人机监控烧煤只是“科技害民”的一个极小的例子，类似的例子数不胜数，例如我党曾经主动发表视频提及的“遥控装甲”——装备“装甲”的士兵在被俘或失去战斗力后，后方的技术人员可以选择远程操控装甲引爆销毁，如此视人命如草芥，妥妥反人类的武器，我党第一时间想到的居然是“我真牛逼，赶紧发出来让大家一起膜拜”，这种恐怖分子的思维逻辑放眼世界，也就只有我党和少数几个“正义联盟”的成员国想的出来了，真是让人叹为观止，当然在这个视频引发舆论哗然之后，我党也一如既往地光速删除了该视频。

目前世界上最火的产业毋庸多言，一定是AI产业，AI每一天的发展都是日新月异，而我党对于AI也是无比重视，但是跟其他国家希望用AI提高生产力不同，我党更希望利用AI稳固自身的统治地位，所以审查、监控肯定是重头戏，早些年我党就以举世闻名的天眼系统实时监控整个国家，未来随着AI技术的发展， 加上我党“党在法上”的权威，可想而知异见人士的处境将更加举步维艰，个人再无隐私可言，一言一行都将经过AI的首先审核，譬如微信，长期以来微信的监控更多的是在群聊的范围，也就是群组内的消息会被实时监控并且和“色情、暴力、我党负面”有关的信息会被及时屏蔽并删除，而个人私聊某种程度上还是可以发一些“大尺度”的照片，但是上个月我在与朋友私聊时，我发出的一张习近平穿肚兜的恶搞照片被自动屏蔽，之后又试了几张曾经能发出去的照片，发现也是一样的结局，可见现在审查功能已然完全延申到了私聊功能，而AI技术的进步，也意味着未来这种审查与监控的成本会下降，我党不再需要每年支出大量的人力与“维稳费”，当然这不代表我党会把省下的钱投入到民生，毕竟我党的根本利益从来就是维持共产党的统治，人民这玩意儿就跟卫生纸一样，需要的时候用一下，用完了扔进废纸篓就行了。省下来的钱用来多关几个不知好歹的异见分子，用来和“正义联盟”的兄弟们打好关系难道不香吗？

我为什么不愿意看到中国的科技进步，因为在我看来中国的根子就是歪的，所以中国的科技发展也只会在“助纣为虐”的道路上越走越远，科技越发达，中国人的未来就越绝望。像华为这种公司做到世界第一又如何呢？是中国人能买到更加便宜好用的手机？还是更好的保护用户的隐私？都不是，在一个“党领导一切”的国家里，他们只会更加卖力的维护我党的统治，充当掌控民众的爪牙，因为这既是他们赖以生存的第一准则，也是他们能够做大做强的根本法宝，所以我深切的为中国的科技进步感到悲哀。

Why I Am Unwilling to See China’s Technological Progress

Author: Cheng Min, Party Member of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters

Date: 27 March 2026

First of all, one point cannot be denied: China’s technological achievements in recent years have been remarkable by any global standard. Whether in AI, robotics, electric vehicles or other sectors, development has been advancing at an astonishing pace. Many Chinese people, as always, feel proud of their country’s scientific and technological progress. But not only do I feel no such pride at all – I am in fact deeply worried. This is not because, as a die-hard “traitor”, I cannot bear to see Chinese people live better lives. It is because I know very well that the more advanced China’s technology becomes, the worse the future for Chinese people will be, the higher the cost of overthrowing the Communist Party will become, and the further away democracy will recede.

A few months ago, a friend of mine in China angrily sent me several videos and screenshots. They were about the forced implementation of the “coal-to-gas” policy in rural Hebei. But heating costs of several thousand, or even over ten thousand yuan per month, were simply beyond what elderly villagers living on meagre pensions could afford. Many could not even make ends meet. As a result, elderly people in rural Hebei could only choose to put on more layers and somehow endure the winter. But when temperatures fall to more than ten degrees below zero, a few worn cotton jackets simply are not enough. So when they could no longer bear it, some secretly burned coal or firewood to keep warm.

Originally, this was just another typical Chinese case of “where there is a policy from above, there is a countermeasure below”. But under the Party’s rule, China’s technological progress has in fact become extremely effective, and the Party has always been famous for one thing: when it tries to do something good, it is full of holes, but when it does something bad, it is airtight. Faced with this situation, local governments did not merely rely on the usual tactic of “encouraging neighbours to monitor and report one another”. They also cleverly chose to use drones to patrol rural villages and monitor in real time whether any farmers were secretly burning coal or wood for heat. Once discovered, their tools were confiscated and they were fined several thousand yuan.

As a result, some elderly people, unable to afford gas and too afraid to burn firewood in secret, were literally frozen to death. In the twenty-first century, if this happened in any modern country, it would trigger a huge public outcry. The media and the public would be furious and would demand accountability from the government. Only in China was the story quickly scrubbed from the internet, banned from discussion, while the public seemed to take it in stride, as though everyone had known from the beginning that this would be the outcome. It can only be said that any act, no matter how heartless or inhuman, once it is connected with the Communist Party, suddenly produces a kind of collective enlightenment in people: “Oh, the Communist Party did it? Then it’s no surprise. Everyone disperse.”

Drone surveillance of coal burning is only a tiny example of how “technology harms the people”. There are countless others. For example, the Party once publicly released a video about what it called “remote-controlled armour”. In this system, once a soldier wearing such “armour” is captured or loses combat capability, technicians at the rear can remotely trigger the armour to self-destruct. This is a weapon that treats human life as worthless and is plainly anti-human. Yet the Party’s first instinct was not horror, but: “We’re amazing – let’s show this off so everyone can admire us.” This kind of terrorist logic is something that, looking around the world, only the Party and a few members of its so-called “justice alliance” could come up with. It is truly astonishing. Of course, after the video caused public uproar, the Party did what it always does – it deleted the video at lightning speed.

There is no need to say much about the hottest sector in the world today: it is obviously AI. AI is developing at a breathtaking pace every single day, and the Party attaches enormous importance to it. But unlike other countries, which hope to use AI to improve productivity, the Party wants above all to use AI to consolidate its own rule. So censorship and surveillance are bound to be central. Years ago, the Party was already using its globally notorious “Skynet” system to monitor the entire country in real time. As AI technology continues to develop, combined with the Party’s doctrine that “the Party stands above the law”, one can easily imagine that dissenters will face even greater difficulty in the future. Personal privacy will cease to exist. Every word and action will first pass through AI scrutiny.

Take WeChat as an example. For a long time, WeChat’s surveillance focused mainly on group chats. Messages in groups were monitored in real time, and content related to “pornography, violence, or criticism of the Party” was promptly blocked and deleted. In private chats, however, it was still possible to send some more “sensitive” images. But last month, while chatting privately with a friend, I tried to send a parody image of Xi Jinping wearing a child’s vest, and it was automatically blocked. I then tried several other images that had previously gone through without issue, and found the same result. This shows that censorship has now fully extended into private messaging as well.

As AI technology advances, the cost of this sort of censorship and surveillance will continue to fall. The Party will no longer need to spend huge sums every year on manpower and on “stability maintenance”. Of course, this does not mean the money saved will be invested in people’s welfare. The Party’s core interest has always been the preservation of Communist rule. The people, in its eyes, are like toilet paper: useful when needed, thrown into the bin when not. Isn’t it far more appealing, from the Party’s point of view, to use the savings to jail a few more inconvenient dissidents and to strengthen ties with its “justice alliance” brothers?

Why am I unwilling to see China’s technological progress? Because in my view the foundation of China itself is crooked, and therefore its technological development will only go further and further down the road of aiding tyranny. The more advanced the technology becomes, the more hopeless the future of Chinese people will be.

What does it matter if a company like Huawei becomes number one in the world? Does that mean Chinese people get cheaper and better phones? Or that users’ privacy is better protected? Neither. In a country where “the Party leads everything”, such companies will only work harder to preserve the Party’s rule and to act as its claws in controlling the people. That is both the first principle of their survival and the fundamental secret behind their growth and power. That is why I feel such deep sorrow at China’s technological progress.

2026年3月24日

鉴于中国民主党欧洲总部拟于2026年5月10日在伦敦召开成立大会，为确保大会顺利举行，筹委会秘书处于2026年3月24日（星期二）召开了会务工作会议。

会议由中国民主党欧洲总部筹委会副主席王蕴溥主持。会上，秘书长黄华首先作了讲话，简要介绍了筹建中国民主党欧洲总部的背景及发展过程，并对未来工作进行了展望。

黄华表示，随着来自美国、台湾及欧洲各国的代表人数不断增加，参会人数已超出原先预期，因此会场座位及酒店住宿安排均已进行相应调整。秘书处当前工作压力较大，有必要设立相应职能机构，以保障大会各项工作的顺利推进。

黄华强调，会务工作应围绕“三个确保”展开：

1. 确保所有来自英国以外的代表在机场、酒店及会场之间的接送安排，统一配备专车；
2. 确保会议期间代表的人身安全，组建安保团队，并向伦敦警方进行备案；
3. 确保建立完善的突发健康状况应急处理机制，保障与会人员安全。

与会人员围绕上述事项，包括成立网络特别行动组进行了深入讨论。王蕴溥对各职能机构负责人作出了具体安排与任命。

会议最后，黄华介绍了将于今年7月13日在德国举行的首届“刘晓波人权奖”颁奖活动。该活动由“英国研究”与德国“欧洲之声”合作举办，并将在英国设立分会场。英方将全力做好相关组织工作。

与会代表：王蕴溥，黄华，卢灵飞，王魏晋，温作团，魏晨雨，胡晓，米斯宙，黄俊民

中国民主党欧洲总部筹委会秘书处供稿

Brief News: Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters Holds Meeting on Conference Affairs

24 March 2026

As the China Democracy Party European Headquarters is scheduled to hold its founding congress in London on 10 May 2026, the Secretariat of the Preparatory Committee convened a meeting on conference affairs on Tuesday, 24 March 2026, in order to ensure the smooth running of the event.

The meeting was chaired by Wang Yunpu, Vice-Chair of the Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters. At the meeting, Secretary-General Huang Hua delivered the opening remarks, briefly introducing the background and development process of the preparations for the establishment of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters, and setting out an outlook for future work.

Huang Hua stated that, as the number of representatives from the United States, Taiwan and various European countries has continued to increase, attendance has now exceeded original expectations. Accordingly, seating arrangements at the venue and hotel accommodation plans have both been adjusted. The Secretariat is currently under considerable pressure, and it is therefore necessary to establish corresponding functional bodies to ensure the smooth advancement of all conference-related work.

Huang Hua stressed that conference affairs should be organised around “three guarantees”:

To ensure transport arrangements for all representatives arriving from outside the UK between the airport, hotel and venue, with dedicated vehicles arranged in a unified manner;

To ensure the personal safety of representatives during the conference by setting up a security team and filing the necessary records with the Metropolitan Police in London;

To ensure the establishment of a comprehensive emergency response mechanism for any sudden health incidents so as to safeguard the safety of all participants.

Participants engaged in in-depth discussion on the above matters, including the establishment of a special online operations group. Wang Yunpu made specific arrangements and appointments for the heads of the various functional bodies.

At the end of the meeting, Huang Hua introduced the first Liu Xiaobo Human Rights Award ceremony, which is to be held in Germany on 13 July this year. The event is jointly organised by British Studies and Voice of Europe in Germany, and a sub-venue will also be set up in the UK. The UK side will make every effort to carry out the related organisational work.

Representatives attending the meeting: Wang Yunpu, Huang Hua, Lu Lingfei, Wang Weijin, Wen Zuotuan, Wei Chenyu, Hu Xiao, Mi Sizhou, Huang Junmin

Submitted by the Secretariat of the Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters

2026年3月7日下午，一场以“联合起来推翻中共暴政，反抗独裁、追求自由与文明”为主题的抗议活动在中国驻伦敦大使馆面前举行。活动诉求：反对独裁政权，强烈要求释放黎智英，王岸然，支持西藏，新疆，南蒙古，香港独立，支持乌克兰反击俄罗斯入侵，支持伊朗人民追求自由。

此次是由香港议会议员何永友和中国民主党欧洲总部筹委会副主席王蕴溥共同主持，并带头发表演讲。另外，有来自民主党人士、南蒙古人权保卫联盟主席、新疆维吾尔族代表，有来自日本和伊朗的同道，有热爱文明自由的记者等不同背景的人士参与了此次抗议活动。

来自美国的中国人权联盟主席金秀红，和来自德国的内蒙古人民党席海明在现场做了演讲。

抗议活动现场情绪激昂，很多标语体现文明自由价值，有中国共产党下台，有释放黎智英，有纪念刘晓波 。多位发言者在演讲中强调，人类社会的发展离不开自由、法治与公民权利，而反抗压迫、反对独裁统治，是许多国家与社会在历史中不断追求的目标。其中和平非暴力形式作为一种文明前进方式以减少牺牲。

中共对黎智英的重判，导致我们民主党人士和追求自由正义的同道强烈反对。中共对新疆的压迫控制也是恶行，中共对香港的集权控制都掀起了自由文明人士一阵阵的强烈声讨，中共在英国伦敦欲建立超级大使馆，妄图以超级大使馆为中心，一边腐蚀拉拢英国政界人士，一边窃取英国国家机密，用中共从国内老百姓身上巧取豪夺过来的钱财，妄图控制英国经济命脉，摧毁英国文明自由，其心可诛。

我们的抗议浪潮和国际形势发展相结合，非常的具有喜感。中共独裁政权的盟友正在一个个的失去，委内瑞拉，伊朗 ，古巴也在失去的路上。这些和我们的抗议浪潮前后呼应，象征着中共政权倒台倒计时。

这些迹象通通说明我们的抗议活动非常有效，我们反对独裁追求自由文明的声音传遍世界，世界人民与我们一起追求自由文明！

我们参加抗议活动有近60人，要求发表演讲的络绎不绝。他们都愤怒地阐述独裁政府的邪恶性，鼓励大家，齐心协力，推翻共产党。郭稼瑄等党员带领大家呼喊：中共下台，习近平下台等激愤口号，强烈的抗争气氛感染着每个路人，浮现在我们脸上的正义感感染着每个世人，追求自由文明是一件很值得我们每个人毕生去做的高尚的事业！

活动最后，组织者表示，此次集会是一场和平的公共表达，希望通过这样的活动，让更多人关注自由、人权与民主的价值，并推动全球社会在尊重法治与人类尊严的基础上不断进步。

现场总指挥：卢灵飞
副总指挥：王魏晋
中国民主党代表演讲人员名单：王蕴溥，卢灵飞，王魏晋，赵武，黄俊，李泽生

党部参加活动人员名单：王蕴溥，卢灵飞，王魏晋，丁晨光，王涛，吴小海，黄天，黄俊，苏积树，张学美，张涛世 常宝柱，许少男，张石头，黄晓凤，米斯宙，俞杰辉，吴志芬，李申耀，周勇 钱越，杨沁龙，石晓丹，王世渠 ，黄俊民 ，杨云，韦崇华，温作团，赵武 杨体和，钟淑琴，李泽生，徐伟华，威尔逊，刘志文，谢清怡，郭稼瑄，李濤，郝男

在曼城的民主党党员周凤雄和邬勇也在中国驻曼城领事馆前发起了抗议活动。

中国民主党欧洲总部筹委会和中国民主党英国总部共同供稿

Unite to overthrow CCP tyranny, resist dictatorship, and pursue freedom and civilisation

On the afternoon of 7 March 2026, a protest under the theme of “Unite to overthrow CCP tyranny, resist dictatorship, and pursue freedom and civilisation” was held in front of the Chinese Embassy in London. The demands of the event included opposition to dictatorship, a strong call for the release of Jimmy Lai and Wang Anran, support for Tibet, Xinjiang, South Mongolia and Hong Kong independence, support for Ukraine’s resistance against Russian invasion, and support for the Iranian people in their pursuit of freedom.

The protest was jointly chaired by Hong Kong councillor Ho Wing-yau and Wang Yunpu, Vice-Chair of the Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters, both of whom also took the lead in delivering speeches. Participants included democracy activists, the Chairman of the Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center, a Uyghur representative from Xinjiang, supporters from Japan and Iran, as well as journalists who value civilisation and freedom, among others from a wide range of backgrounds.

Jin Xiuhong, Chair of the China Human Rights Alliance from the United States, and Xi Haiming of the Inner Mongolian People’s Party from Germany also delivered speeches at the event.

The protest was highly charged, and many of the slogans reflected the values of civilisation and freedom, including “Down with the Chinese Communist Party”, “Free Jimmy Lai”, and “Remember Liu Xiaobo”. In their speeches, many speakers stressed that the development of human society depends on freedom, the rule of law and civil rights, and that resisting oppression and opposing dictatorship have long been goals pursued throughout history by many nations and societies. They also emphasised peaceful and non-violent action as a civilised path forward that minimises sacrifice.

The heavy sentence imposed by the CCP on Jimmy Lai has provoked strong opposition from members of the China Democracy Party and all those who pursue freedom and justice. The CCP’s repression and control in Xinjiang is also an evil act, and its centralised control over Hong Kong has triggered wave after wave of condemnation from those who stand for freedom and civilisation. The CCP’s attempt to establish a “mega embassy” in London is likewise an outrage: it seeks to use the embassy as a centre from which to corrupt and co-opt British politicians, steal British state secrets, and, with money extorted from ordinary people in China, attempt to control the lifeblood of the British economy and destroy Britain’s civilisation and freedom. Its intentions deserve full condemnation.

The way our wave of protest echoes broader international developments carries a certain bitter irony. The allies of the CCP dictatorship are being lost one by one: Venezuela, Iran and Cuba are all on that path. These developments resonate with our protests before and after, symbolising the countdown to the collapse of the CCP regime.

All these signs show that our protest activities are highly effective. Our voices against dictatorship and in pursuit of freedom and civilisation are spreading across the world, and people everywhere are joining us in this common cause.

Nearly sixty people took part in the protest, and there was a constant stream of people asking to speak. They angrily described the evil nature of dictatorial government, encouraged unity, and called on everyone to work together to bring down the Communist Party. Party members such as Guo Jiaxuan led the crowd in chanting slogans including “Down with the CCP” and “Xi Jinping step down”. The powerful atmosphere of resistance affected every passer-by, and the sense of justice on our faces moved all who saw us. The pursuit of freedom and civilisation is a noble cause, one well worth devoting our lives to.

At the end of the event, the organisers stated that this gathering was a peaceful act of public expression. Through such activities, they hope to encourage more people to pay attention to the values of freedom, human rights and democracy, and to promote continued progress in global society on the basis of respect for the rule of law and for human dignity.

Chief Commander on Site: Lu Lingfei

Deputy Commander: Wang Weijin

List of China Democracy Party speakers: Wang Yunpu, Lu Lingfei, Wang Weijin, Zhao Wu, Huang Jun, Li Zesheng

List of party members participating in the event: Wang Yunpu, Lu Lingfei, Wang Weijin, Ding Chenguang, Wang Tao, Wu Xiaohai, Huang Tian, Huang Jun, Su Jishu, Zhang Xuemei, Zhang Taoshi, Chang Baozhu, Xu Shaonan, Zhang Shitou, Huang Xiaofeng, Mi Sizhou, Yu Jiehui, Wu Zhifen, Li Shenyao, Zhou Yong, Qian Yue, Yang Qinlong, Shi Xiaodan, Wang Shiqu, Huang Junmin, Yang Yun, Wei Chonghua, Wen Zuotuan, Zhao Wu, Yang Tihe, Zhong Shuqin, Li Zesheng, Xu Weihua, Wilson, Liu Zhiwen, Xie Qingyi, Guo Jiaxuan, Li Tao, Hao Nan

In Manchester, party members Zhou Fengxiong and Wu Yong also launched a protest outside the Chinese Consulate-General.

Jointly submitted by the Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters and the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters

杭州市拱墅区行人民政府（政复议局）：

申述人陈树庆，杭拱政复[2006]67号的行政复议申请人（以下称申请人）。

2006年3月2日下午，根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第四十七条的规定，申请人到杭州市拱墅区行政复议局查阅并复制本行政复议案被申请人杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局的《行政复议答复书》和其他有关材料。

在收到上述《答复书》等有关材料之前，申请人在与被申请人交涉中从未收到如此详细的被申请人关于其履职的书面理由和依据，同时发现对本案《行政复议申请书》中提出的被申请复议的行政行为不合理、不合法主张，《答复书》既无认可也没有反驳与否定，现申请人对《答复书》进行必要的事实补充说明及针对性申述。

一、关于申请人的除名、视同缴费年限问题，《行政复议答复书》写有“1995年7月申请人被做除名处理，故被申请人对其视同缴费年限认定为0年0个月，申请人的连续工龄应从其参加养老保险之日1992年4月起计算。”

首先，拱墅区半山商业综合公司《关于对陈树庆除名处理的批复》里对申请人除名的理由“1995年7月1日离岗至今”还是当月匆匆忙忙做出的除名决定，如果扣除的视同缴费期间为1995年7月1日所谓“离岗”至做出决定期间，当然名正言顺，但扣除的是我在单位1991年12月至1992年3月无任何过错的4个月上班期间，是否适当？

1995年7月拱墅区半山商业综合公司《关于对陈树庆除名处理的批复》，里面所描述“该员于95年7月1日离岗至今”是虚构的、不符合我与该公司约定。 实际情况是单位本身经营长期不善（老国有商业单位受大量专业市场、综合市场个体商贩的冲击），早在一年多以前已停发工资，随后我提出承包业务，但因没有提供我为单位创收所需要的条件（看中的营业场地被别人租走），只好约定允许申请人陈树庆自谋生计，人事关系继续挂靠在单位并代为缴纳社保，当然实际费用都由陈树庆自己提供（见申请人前些天家中翻箱倒柜才找出的，在本《申述》的附件：陈树庆向单位支付的代缴社保费用《杭州市工商企业统一收款收据》0077295号为证），这种情况下，当然就不存在所谓的“离岗”还是“在岗”问题了。在通知我“除名”前我没有告知将要除名的理由及维权途径，我当时也只是把它当作单位的单方面解约行为，将“除名”与辞退、辞职之间的实际意思与后果没有去认真了解与分辨。

虽然这种“除名”从一定程度也反映了社会法治不健全情况下，公民个体法治意识尤其是维权意识欠缺情况下的弱势。总之，由于申请人对于自己职工权利的无知及所谓“除名”后疏于维权，也由于扣除的视同缴费年限实际只有4个月，所以在本案提出的复议请求按24年4个月的缴费年限办理养老金审定中，并没有包含这4个月的视同缴费期间。既然被申请人在《行政复议答复书》把这个问题提出来了，申请人也不妨做出补充说明并提供足以推翻“除名”事实的证据，在复议程序中如果能够对此问题做出公正解决当然最好，如果不予理会或在形式上继续认同被申请人关于本案“除名”及4个月视同缴费清零的认定，因无关本案大局，申请人愿意采取“对方不再提，我方不再究”的行为立场。

二、《答复书》对于被申请人“约而不守”损害政府行为信赖利益保护原则问题避而不谈。

当初缴费的时候，被申请人没有告知包括申请人在内的缴费人所谓“服刑期间违规参加基本养老保险”问题，假装不知“违规收费”，作为政府行为对社保缴费来者不拒；现在要其支付法定社会保险责任的时候，突然变卦，找理由说“违规”了，是因为缴费人的“违规缴费”。时到今日，被申请人作为专业的（也是应知的）涉嫌故意或明显过失的“知规不告”并“违规收费”不用承担“违规”的责任，反而让外行的、积极履约缴费的社保受益人即本案申请人陈树庆来承担以“违规”为名的毁约损失。更何况所谓的“违规”绝不能等同于“违法”，中华人民共和国没有任何一条法律明确规定“服刑期间不得参与社会保险”或规定社会保险机构“对服刑期间参与社会保险的可以取消并拒绝承担届时保险责任”，被申请人的行为，放到任何一个讲道理、行法治的文明时代，放在任何一个讲道理、行法治的文明地方，都会因其显失公平，看作权力强势的任意和荒唐，严重损害了政府的社会公信力！

三、在本案申请人到被申请人的窗口办理退休手续时，一再（口头）提请被申请人考虑我国已经签署、有的已经批准的人权公约，里面有关于禁止强迫无偿劳动及人人普适的社会保险规定，当时有其科长级的工作人员笑答我“扯远了！”，我权当其不知或开玩笑而已。现在，申请人在《行政复议申请书》中正式详列了《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》、《世界人权宣言》、《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》有关条款及内容，但《答复书》继续无视行政行为（包括具体行政行为与抽象行政行为）不得与法律相抵触原则、无视国家已经签署和批准生效的国际公约。

国家签署尤其是已经批准的国际公约，是向包括中国人民在内的全世界公开承诺，任何在具体案件适用法律时对这些公约的漠视，不仅有损于国内的法治实现，也势必严重损害国家的国际信誉和国际形象。社会的文明进程到了二十一世纪都已经过了二十多年，无论国家工作人员还是国家机关在行使权力时，如果还继续忽视本国已经签署及批准的国际公约的作用与效力，其知识面、其能力、其格局，能说是合格的吗？

四、《答复书》无视机关事业单位大量违法使用劳务派遣工的虚假务工（实际务工与包括登记社保在内挂名务工不一致）并严重违反“同工同酬”的法律规定，只对于本案申请人服刑期间的社保缴费作“违规”认定。实质上是同样的“社保代缴”，这种双重标准不仅有违于法治社会“政府行为法无授权不可为，公民行为法无禁止即自由”的基本原则，与古代封建专制主义社会权力恣意的“只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯”有何区别？

五、毋庸置疑，违反联合国宪章及联合国两个人权公约、违反普世文明价值的监狱强迫无偿劳动，在我们国家要保持改革开放或进一步扩大开放的过程中，是必须做出根本性的改观甚至废除的。这也正是国家司法部、外交部等的发言人在接受相关采访或主动播报时一再（掩饰性地）强调“新疆没有强迫劳动”、“中国没有强迫劳动”的原因。申请人在坐牢期间与同室服刑人员晚上按规定收看中央电视台新闻联播，每每看到听到这种“没有强迫劳动”的发言或宣称，都会群起而笑之，“中国没有强迫劳动？只要有监狱的地方就有强迫劳动，至少我们所在的乔司监狱一直以来都在强迫劳动”，当然除了我自己看到、听到不少关于强迫劳动的一些“手段”，接下来如果有必要，还不妨让“大家都来讲故事”说说他们坐牢的亲身感受（包括强迫无偿劳动），让有关经济问题学者来谈谈“监狱强迫无偿劳动”对市场公平竞争、对社会就业形势及劳工权益的冲击、劳改产品对中国商品出口的作用与影响等等，在这里怕太“离题”也限于篇幅点到为止，先不再展开更加具体、充分的讨论。

如果从本行政复议案申请人人陈树庆的个案开始，希望逐步推广到普遍承认过去服刑期间的社保缴费有效，甚至允许广大服刑人员出狱后补缴服刑期间的社保缴费不足年限让刑满释放人员真正向其他公民一样都能公平地老有所养，不仅有利于服刑人员在监狱的安心改造，也有利于刑满获释人员的安置及回归社会正常生活，避免部分人员走投无路下可能的铤而走险。在现行刑罚制度及执行状态与将来废除监狱强迫无偿劳动之间，建立一个合理的缓冲与过渡期。

综上，申请人恳请杭州市拱墅区人民政府（行政复议局）在审定本行政复议案时，对于申请人在《行政复议申请书》中提出的问题与理由，就被申请人在《行政复议答复书》中既不认可也不反驳的行为，予以必要的注意。这种对于法律适用争议焦点的拒绝回答：如果是因为不能，说明其行政行为的合法性与合理性经不起推敲；如果是不屑，那是权力的傲慢，更应该予以防止。

盼望本案最终能做出合法、公正、周全的行政复议决定。

此致
敬礼！

申请人 陈 树 庆

2026年 3 月 3 日

附：
1、本对《行政复议答复书》的申述副本1分
2、《杭州市工商企业统一收款收据》0077295号复印件2分

Statement in Response to the Reply on Administrative Reconsideration

To: People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou (Administrative Reconsideration Bureau)

Applicant: Chen Shuqing, applicant in the administrative reconsideration case Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2006] No. 67 (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”).

On the afternoon of 2 March 2006, in accordance with Article 47 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Applicant went to the Administrative Reconsideration Bureau of Gongshu District, Hangzhou, to inspect and obtain copies of the “Reply on Administrative Reconsideration” issued by the respondent, the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Hangzhou, as well as other relevant materials in this reconsideration case.

Before receiving the above Reply and related materials, the Applicant had never, in any dealings with the Respondent, received such a detailed written explanation of the Respondent’s performance of its duties and the basis for this. The Applicant also noted that, with regard to the claims in the “Application for Administrative Reconsideration” concerning the irrationality and illegality of the administrative acts being challenged, the Reply neither acknowledged nor refuted or rejected them. The Applicant therefore now submits the following necessary supplementary factual explanations and targeted representations in respect of the Reply.

I. On the issues of the Applicant’s removal from the staff register and his deemed contribution years

The “Reply on Administrative Reconsideration” states:

“In July 1995 the Applicant was removed from the staff register. The Respondent therefore determined his deemed contribution years as 0 years and 0 months, and the Applicant’s continuous length of service should be calculated from the date he joined the pension insurance scheme, namely April 1992.”

Firstly, the “Approval on the Removal of Chen Shuqing from the Staff Register” issued by Gongshu District Banshan Commercial Comprehensive Company gives as the reason for removal that “he has been absent from his post since 1 July 1995”. The decision to remove him was rushed through in that same month. If the period to be deducted as deemed contribution years were the time from the so-called “leaving his post” on 1 July 1995 to the date the decision was made, this would at least be logically consistent. However, what has been deducted are the four months between December 1991 and March 1992, during which I was working normally for the company with no fault on my part. Is such a deduction appropriate?

The description in the July 1995 “Approval on the Removal of Chen Shuqing from the Staff Register” – “this employee has been absent from his post since 1 July 1995” – is fabricated and does not accord with what was agreed between myself and the company.

In reality, the company’s operations had been poor for a long period (as an old state-owned commercial unit it was heavily impacted by the rise of various specialist markets and large integrated private markets). More than a year earlier, it had already stopped paying wages. I then proposed to take on operations on a contract basis, but, as the company failed to provide the conditions I needed to generate revenue for it (the premises I had my eye on were rented out to someone else), we instead agreed that I would be allowed to seek my own means of livelihood, whilst my personnel relationship would remain attached to the company and it would pay my social insurance contributions on my behalf. In practice, of course, the contributions were funded by me personally (see the “Hangzhou Industrial and Commercial Enterprises Unified Receipt No. 0077295” for social insurance contributions paid by me to the company on my behalf, which I only managed to find recently by turning the house upside down – this is attached to this Statement).

Under such circumstances, the distinction between being “on post” or “off post” simply did not exist. I was not informed in advance of the reasons for my removal or of any channels through which I could defend my rights. At the time, I treated it merely as a unilateral termination of the employment relationship by the company and did not carefully consider or distinguish the real meaning and consequences of “removal” as opposed to dismissal or resignation.

To some extent, this kind of “removal” reflects both the shortcomings of the rule of law in society, and the weakness of individual citizens’ legal awareness and, in particular, their awareness of how to safeguard their rights.

In short, because I was ignorant of my rights as an employee and failed to defend them after this so-called “removal”, and also because the period of deemed contributions actually deducted came to only four months, in this reconsideration case my request that my pension entitlement be assessed on the basis of 24 years and 4 months of contributions does not include these four months of deemed contribution.

Since the Respondent has raised this issue in the Reply on Administrative Reconsideration, the Applicant may as well provide a supplementary explanation and evidence sufficient to overturn the “removal” as fact. If this matter can be fairly resolved within the reconsideration procedure, so much the better. If it is ignored or if, at least formally, the Respondent’s determination regarding “removal” and the clearing of the four months of deemed contributions is upheld, then, as it does not affect the overall substance of the case, the Applicant is willing to adopt the stance that “if the other party does not raise it further, I will not pursue it further”.

II. The Reply avoids addressing the issue of the Respondent’s breach of promise and the principle of protecting legitimate expectations in relation to government conduct

At the time of paying contributions, the Respondent never informed contributors, including the Applicant, of any issue of “unlawful participation in basic pension insurance while serving a sentence”. It feigned ignorance of “irregular charges” and, in its capacity as a government body, accepted social insurance contributions from all who came.

Now that it is required to fulfil its statutory social insurance responsibilities, it suddenly goes back on its word and looks for reasons to claim “irregularity”, blaming it on the contributor’s “irregular payment of contributions”.

To this day, the Respondent, as the specialist body (and one that should certainly know better), does not bear any responsibility for the “irregularities” stemming from its deliberate or grossly negligent failure to inform contributors of the relevant rules and from charging contributions that it now labels “irregular”. Instead, it is the layperson, the Applicant – who has made active and good-faith payments – who is made to bear the losses of this breach under the guise of “irregularity”.

Moreover, so-called “irregularity” absolutely cannot be equated with “illegality”. Nowhere in the law of the People’s Republic of China is there any clear provision that “persons serving sentences may not participate in social insurance”; nor is there any law stating that social insurance bodies may “cancel participation and refuse to bear insurance responsibilities when they fall due” in respect of those who have contributed whilst serving sentences.

Placed in any civilised era that values reason and the rule of law, and in any civilised place that values reason and the rule of law, the Respondent’s conduct – obviously and seriously unfair – would be regarded as arbitrary and absurd behaviour by a powerful authority, causing serious harm to the social credibility of government.

III. The Reply ignores the applicability of human rights treaties already signed and, in some cases, ratified by China

When the Applicant went to the Respondent’s service counter to handle retirement procedures, he repeatedly (verbally) urged the Respondent to take into account the international human rights conventions that China has signed and, in some cases, ratified – in particular the provisions on the prohibition of forced unpaid labour and on the universal right of everyone to social security. A section-level member of staff replied with a laugh: “You’re going too far!” I took that to mean either ignorance or a joke.

Now, in the “Application for Administrative Reconsideration”, the Applicant has formally and in detail listed the relevant provisions and contents of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yet the Reply continues to ignore the principle that administrative acts (including both specific and abstract administrative acts) must not conflict with the law, and it ignores the international treaties that the State has signed and ratified and which are in force.

When a State signs, and especially when it ratifies, an international convention, it is making a public commitment to the whole world, including to the Chinese people. To ignore these conventions in the application of law to specific cases not only undermines the realisation of the rule of law domestically, but also inevitably does serious damage to the country’s international reputation and image.

We are now more than twenty years into the twenty-first century. If, when exercising their powers, State officials and organs continue to disregard the role and effect of the international conventions their country has signed and ratified, can we really say they are competent – in terms of their knowledge, their capability and their vision?

IV. The Reply ignores the widespread unlawful use of agency workers by public bodies and institutions

The Reply ignores the widespread unlawful use of agency workers by public bodies and institutions, in which the reality of the work performed and the nominal employment records (including registration for social insurance) do not match, and which severely breaches the legal requirement of “equal pay for equal work”. Yet it only identifies the Applicant’s social insurance contributions during his time in prison as “irregular”.

In essence, both are the same kind of “social insurance paid on behalf of others”. Such double standards not only contravene the basic rule-of-law principle that “what is not authorised for government action by law must not be done, and what is not prohibited by law for citizens is permitted”, but are hardly distinguishable from the arbitrary exercise of power in a feudal autocracy – the old rule that “officials may set fires, but commoners may not even light lamps”.

V. On forced unpaid labour and the need for reform

There is no doubt that forced unpaid labour in prisons – in breach of the UN Charter, the two UN human rights covenants and universally recognised civilised values – must undergo fundamental reform, and even abolition, if our country is to maintain or further expand its policy of reform and opening up.

This is precisely why spokespersons for the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other bodies have repeatedly (and defensively) insisted in interviews or official briefings that “there is no forced labour in Xinjiang” and “there is no forced labour in China”.

During my imprisonment, my fellow inmates and I were required to watch the CCTV Evening News every night. Whenever we heard these claims that “there is no forced labour in China”, there would be peals of laughter in the cell: “No forced labour in China? Wherever there is a prison, there is forced labour. At the very least, here in Qiaosi Prison, we have always been subjected to forced labour.”

Besides the many “methods” of forced labour that I have seen and heard in person, it would, if necessary, be entirely possible to let “everyone tell their stories” about their own experience of imprisonment (including forced unpaid labour). One could also invite economists and other scholars to discuss the impact of “forced unpaid prison labour” on fair market competition, the employment situation and workers’ rights, as well as the role and influence of prison-labour products on China’s exports.

To go into detail on all of this here would risk straying too far from the subject and would also exceed the limits of this document, so I shall leave it at that for now.

Starting from this individual administrative reconsideration case regarding myself, the Applicant, I would hope that we can gradually move towards universal recognition of the validity of social insurance contributions made during periods of imprisonment, and even to allowing former inmates, after release, to make up any insufficient contributions for the period they were in prison, so that those who have served their sentences can, like all other citizens, enjoy a fair and secure old age.

This would not only help those in prison to focus on rehabilitation, but would also facilitate the resettlement and social reintegration of those released, reducing the risk that some, finding themselves with no way out, might be driven to desperate acts. It would, in other words, create a reasonable buffer and transition between the current system and practice of punishment and the eventual abolition of forced unpaid labour in prisons.

In summary, the Applicant respectfully requests that, when reviewing this administrative reconsideration case, the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou (Administrative Reconsideration Bureau), give due attention to the issues and arguments raised in the “Application for Administrative Reconsideration”, and to the Respondent’s failure, in the Reply, either to acknowledge or to refute them.

If this refusal to respond to the key points of contention regarding the application of law is due to an inability to do so, it shows that the legality and rationality of the administrative act cannot withstand scrutiny. If it is due to disdain, it is an expression of the arrogance of power and should all the more be guarded against.

The Applicant looks forward to a lawful, fair and thorough administrative reconsideration decision in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Applicant: Chen Shuqing

3 March 2026

Attachments:

1. One copy of this Statement in Response to the Reply on Administrative Reconsideration
2. Two copies of the photocopy of “Hangzhou Industrial and Commercial Enterprises Unified Receipt No. 0077295”

2026年2月14日下午，由中国民主党欧洲总部筹委会和中国民主党英国总部共同发起的一次活动。当日城市仍带着冬日寒意，我们一群关心民主与人权的在英人士，聚集在中国驻伦敦大使馆门前，举行和平抗议活动，声援被中共香港当局重判的香港传媒人黎智英，表达我们民主党人士对中共当局打压新闻自由与基本权利的强烈不满。我们手持“释放黎智英”“自由万岁”标语，高喊口号，强烈谴责中共以国家安全法重判黎智英，扼杀香港自由。

然而，他没有离开。

在风雨最急的时候，黎智英选择留在香港，继续公开发声，继续经营媒体，继续承担风险。他曾多次表示，若为了安全而离开，就是对信念的放弃。在许多人纷纷远走他乡之时，他选择留下，与香港市民共同面对命运。

这种选择，不只是个人的坚持，更是一种信念和信仰——宁可承受牢狱之苦，也不愿在关键时刻沉默。

为新闻自由承担代价

作为《苹果日报》的创办人，黎智英长期支持香港的新闻自由与公民权利。在香港政治环境急剧变化之际，他成为当局重点打击的对象。重判的背后，不仅仅是对一位企业家的审判，更是对独立媒体与不同声音的压制。

我们站在使馆外，不只是为一个人发声，而是为“说真话的权利”发声。

当一个原本可以选择安逸生活的人，甘愿承担风险与代价，这种选择本身就说明了信念的分量。正因如此，他的案件牵动着无数关心自由与法治的人。

记住选择的意义

历史往往由关键时刻的选择构成。黎智英原本可以远离风暴，却选择留下；可以沉默，却选择发声；可以安逸，却选择承担。

今天我们在寒风中站立，不只是表达抗议，更是在提醒世界：自由并非抽象的口号，而是有人愿意为之付出代价的信念。

只要还有人愿意记住这种选择，愿意为此发声，希望就不会熄灭！

中国民主党欧洲总部筹委会副主席王蕴溥主持了此次抗议活动，并做了演讲。他号召所有党员脚踩中共党旗，并带领大家呼喊口号，充分表达了对中共独裁统治的愤怒！

抗议现场，接收了三名新党员入党。

此外曼彻斯特的民主党人士也在该城大使馆面前进行了抗议活动。

现场总指挥 ：中国民主党英国总部党员 卢灵飞

伦敦参加抗议活动的党员：卢灵飞 王蕴溥 黄天 谢清怡 黄俊民 李申耀 许少男 丁晨光 吴小海 张学美 黄晓凤 米斯宙 李涛 常宝柱 刘志文 苏积树

曼城参加抗议活动的党员：楊體龢 锺淑琴 周鳳雄 李泽生

本次活动演讲人员： 王蕴溥 卢灵飞 黄天 许少男 吴小海 李申耀 黄晓凤

中国民主党欧洲总部，中国民主党英国总部联合供稿

Roar on the Streets of London: Protesting the CCP’s Heavy Sentence on Jimmy Lai, a Hero Who Would Rather Die Than Surrender Hong Kong’s Freedom

On the afternoon of 14 February 2026, an event jointly initiated by the Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters and the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters took place in London. Though the city still carried the chill of winter, a group of us in the UK who care about democracy and human rights gathered outside the Chinese Embassy in London to hold a peaceful protest.

We stood in solidarity with Hong Kong media owner Jimmy Lai, who has been heavily sentenced by the CCP-controlled authorities in Hong Kong, and expressed our strong indignation as China Democracy Party members at the regime’s suppression of press freedom and basic rights.

We held placards reading “Free Jimmy Lai” and “Long Live Freedom”, chanted slogans, and strongly condemned the CCP for using the National Security Law to impose a heavy sentence on Jimmy Lai and strangle Hong Kong’s freedoms.

Yet he did not leave.

At the most dangerous and turbulent moment, Jimmy Lai chose to remain in Hong Kong, to continue speaking out publicly, to continue running his media, and to continue shouldering the risks. He has repeatedly said that to leave for the sake of safety would be to abandon his beliefs. At a time when many chose to go into exile, he decided to stay and face fate together with the people of Hong Kong.

That choice is not merely an act of personal perseverance, but an expression of conviction and faith – a willingness to endure prison rather than fall silent at a critical moment.

Paying the price for press freedom

As the founder of Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai long supported press freedom and civil rights in Hong Kong. As the political environment in Hong Kong changed rapidly, he became a prime target for the authorities.

Behind the heavy sentence is not only the trial of a businessman, but a blow aimed at independent media and dissenting voices.

Standing outside the embassy, we were not only speaking out for one man, but for the right to tell the truth.

When someone who could have chosen a comfortable life willingly accepts risk and sacrifice, that choice itself shows the weight of their convictions. That is why his case has stirred the hearts of countless people who care about freedom and the rule of law.

Remembering the meaning of that choice

History is often shaped by decisions made at critical moments. Jimmy Lai could have stayed away from the storm, yet chose to remain; he could have remained silent, yet chose to speak; he could have chosen comfort, yet chose to shoulder responsibility.

Our standing in the cold wind today is not only an act of protest, but also a reminder to the world: freedom is not an abstract slogan, but a belief for which some are willing to pay a real price.

So long as there are people willing to remember such choices, and willing to speak out for them, hope will not be extinguished.

Vice-Chair of the Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters, Wang Yunpu, chaired the protest and delivered a speech. He called on all party members to step on the CCP flag and led everyone in chanting slogans, fully expressing their anger at the CCP’s dictatorial rule.

Three new party members were admitted during the protest.

At the same time, members of the China Democracy Party in Manchester also held a protest outside the consulate in that city.

General Coordinator on site:

Lu Lingfei, party member of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters

China Democracy Party members participating in the London protest:

Lu Lingfei, Wang Yunpu, Huang Tian, Xie Qingyi, Huang Junmin, Li Shenyao, Xu Shaonan, Ding Chenguang, Wu Xiaohai, Zhang Xuemei, Huang Xiaofeng, Mi Sizhou, Li Tao, Chang Baozhu, Liu Zhiwen, Su Jishu

China Democracy Party members participating in the Manchester protest:

Yang Tihe, Zhong Shuqin, Zhou Fengxiong, Li Zesheng

Speakers at this event:

Wang Yunpu, Lu Lingfei, Huang Tian, Xu Shaonan, Wu Xiaohai, Li Shenyao, Huang Xiaofeng

Joint release by the China Democracy Party European Headquarters and the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters.

作者：中国民主党英国总部党员 程敏

时间：2026.2.12

中国有一句老话——野蛮其体魄，文明其精神，原本指的是希望现代中国公民能够具有健康强壮的身体，同时又有文明人的思维方式和逻辑。但是在我党几十年如一日兢兢业业的洗脑下，前者有没有达成见仁见智，毕竟食品安全问题在我国从来都是个大问题，至于后者，我只能说是南辕北辙，别说文明的探讨，粉红群体在辩论政治话题时能在五句话内不骂对方是汉奸死全家，在我看来就算是素质比较高的了。 

不过我党对此其实也是又爱又恨。毕竟我党真正需要的从来就不是有独立思考能力的现代公民（废话，你们都独立思考了，我还怎么忽悠），而是爱主如命，忠诚服从，哪怕被主人一脚踹飞也能自主导航回家摇尾乞怜，却转过头对邻人狺狺狂吠的神犬，为什么说是神犬呢？因为自古以来，养狗看家护院都是需要喂养的，但我党并不喂养，反而是神犬们每天奔波工作，叼来食物侍奉锦衣玉食的主人，可谓是中国传统特色。

近日来，中国的视频创作平台“哔哩哔哩”上有一位叫“斯奎奇大王”（也称牢A）的博主火爆全网，此人自称在美医学专业留学生，他的视频主要内容就是通过第一人称视角，以“斩杀线”这一理论基础，向受众“揭秘”美国社会各个阶层耸人听闻的恐怖现实。短短时日，牢A在简中互联网如彗星般崛起，收获了数百万粉丝，影响力巨大，甚至连官媒的央视记者，也操着一口蹩脚的英文在正式采访场合向美国高级官员询问关于“斩杀线”的问题，但可能是因为美国人英语太差，双方基本各说各的，驴唇不对马嘴，最后美国官员无奈说道“我不知道你在说啥，我估计你也不知道”。而经过官媒的“润色”，此事竟成为“牢A理论”又一坚实的证据，引起其信众的又一轮狂欢，甚至连我几位并不关心政治的朋友，都微信询问我国外是不是真的人间地狱，每个人都活在斩杀线的阴影下，真是让人哭笑不得。 

其实牢A的斩杀线理论无疑是经不起推敲的，因为这根本都算不上理论，他的视频内容更像是故事会大合集，寻找一些历史上耸人听闻的真实案件或者干脆就是谣言阴谋论，改个时间地点姓名一股脑安在美国头上，再振振有词“我亲眼所见”，粉红们顿时欣喜若狂，四处奔走相告“对上了，都对上了！”，跟什么对上了呢？当然是我党一直宣传的“美国人民身处水深火热了”。至于所谓的斩杀线，也就是普通的美国人甚至中产阶级财务状况会在因为意外达到某一个临界值下，突然受到来自社会的一系列“组合拳”，导致万劫不复，再难翻身。 

姑且不说欧美社会有各种针对性的福利政策兜底，也不说这种所谓理论有多么肤浅，我只想谈谈为什么会有如此多的中国人（主要集中在社会底层）对于大洋彼岸的美国人处于斩杀线下显得如此狂热亢奋呢？

其实也很好理解，简单来说，国内现实的经济大环境持续变差，诸如房价暴跌，失业率居高不下，生活成本过高等困境压得人喘不过气，这种困境无法通过个人努力解决，而人们甚至不被允许公开讨论任何社会负面新闻，此时美国斩杀线理论横空出世，对这些人来说正如天降甘霖，给茫然痛苦的底层粉红打了一剂精准高效的强心剂——我虽然住在北京的地下室，一天工作12个小时，看不起病，买不起房，养不起孩子，每天吃拼好饭，但我至少还活着啊！比活在斩杀线下的美国底层强太多了！

往往相信斩杀线理论的人其实有很多共同特点，比如爱党，爱华为，爱中医，爱俄罗斯等等，这是因为爱这些东西的人往往不用逻辑思考，而是盲目的接受并相信一切灌输给他们的信息，而受限于中国庞大的言论审查制度，以及中共炉火纯青的“感恩教育”灌输，他们所爱的这些东西，无一不是中国的“政治正确”，也就是“爱中共所爱”。是我党一手把他们洗成了只会盲听盲信的傻子，又为了维护中央集权的权威性和合法性，亲手将军国主义的毒瘤思想塞进他们的脑子里，导致相当一部分中国人在21世纪居然成了反对日本军国主义，但支持希特勒和斯大林的中国特色军国主义接班人。甚至近年来态势愈演愈烈，连胡锡进这种著名的御用“左派叼盘侠”也被网民打成了右派，而常年发表“欧美水深火热”观点的博主波士顿圆脸也因为质疑牢A，也被反复批斗。

老实说，作为一个反贼，这种情况的发生让我既痛快又痛苦，痛快的是这些著名的中共叼盘侠为了赚钱助纣为虐，变着法地洗白中共，洗脑民众，如今遭受来自底层基本盘的反噬实在大快人心，痛苦的是至少胡锡进这些人当年是靠着真假参半的新闻来忽悠民众，而今时今日，如牢A之流，仅凭不露脸的讲故事段子就能收获数百万狂热粉丝，且这些人还会自发的为了维护这样的货色而四处攻击指责他人，随意扣帽子打成汉奸，此情此景颇有文革再现的荒谬感。可想而知这些中国网民今时今日的素质已经低到何等地步。 一根棍子分左右，但是当右边半边被整个折断扔掉以后，那么原本中间靠左的部分自然也就成了如今的“右”，胡锡进之流就成了如今棍子的右端，那么以后的中国又会走向哪里呢？随着中共对互联网的管制日渐加强，洗脑越发严密，媒体沦为彻底的喉舌，会不会有一天连马屁拍得不够用力，语气显得不够真诚也会成为被认为是”叛徒“得理由呢？我觉得答案是肯定的。

On the Viral “Kill Line Theory” and the Successes and Failures of the Party’s Brainwashing

Author: Cheng Min, Party Member of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters

Date: 12 February 2026

There is an old saying in China – “strengthen the body, civilise the spirit”. Originally it meant that modern Chinese citizens should have healthy, strong bodies and, at the same time, the thinking and logic of civilised people. But after decades of diligent brainwashing by the Party, whether the first goal has been achieved is debatable – food safety has never stopped being a major problem in our country. As for the second, I can only say we are heading in precisely the opposite direction. Never mind “civilised discussion”: in my view, if a “little pink” can get through five sentences of a political argument without cursing the other side as “traitors who should see their whole family die”, that already counts as relatively high quality.

The Party itself, in fact, both loves and hates this situation. After all, what it really needs has never been modern citizens with independent thinking (obviously – if you all think for yourselves, how am I supposed to fool you?), but rather “divine dogs” who love their master as their life, are utterly loyal and obedient, and who, even if they are booted out of the house, can automatically navigate back, tail wagging and begging for approval, while turning around to viciously bark at the neighbours. Why do I call them “divine dogs”? Because throughout history, guard dogs had to be fed. Our Party, however, does not feed its dogs; instead, the “divine dogs” rush about working every day, bringing food back to serve their master in his silks and brocades. That, you might say, is a fine Chinese traditional characteristic.

In recent days, on the Chinese video platform Bilibili, a creator by the name of “King Squeech” (also known as “Prison A”, Lao A) has gone viral. He claims to be a medical student studying in the United States. The main content of his videos is to use a first-person narrative and the so-called “kill line” as a theoretical foundation to “reveal” all kinds of horrifying realities faced by different social strata in the United States. In a very short time, Lao A has risen on the Simplified Chinese internet like a comet, gaining millions of followers and enormous influence.

Even state media journalists from CCTV have got involved: one of them, in halting English, actually asked a senior US official in a formal interview about the “kill line”. Perhaps because the American’s English was “too poor”, the two of them essentially talked past each other, with completely mismatched questions and answers, until the US official finally said in frustration, “I don’t know what you’re talking about – and I suspect you don’t either.” After being “polished” by state media, however, this episode was packaged as yet another solid piece of evidence for “Lao A’s theory”, triggering a new round of ecstasy among his followers.

Even a few of my friends who don’t usually care about politics started messaging me on WeChat to ask if life abroad is really a living hell, with everyone living under the shadow of the “kill line”. It was both funny and depressing.

In reality, Lao A’s so-called “kill line theory” simply cannot withstand scrutiny – because it doesn’t even qualify as a theory. The content of his videos is more like a giant compendium of horror stories: he digs up some shocking real cases from history, or simply borrows rumours and conspiracy theories, changes the time, place and names, dumps them all onto the United States, and then confidently declares, “I saw this with my own eyes.” The “little pinks” are immediately overjoyed and run around shouting, “It all matches, it all checks out!”

What does it match? Naturally, it lines up perfectly with the Party’s long-standing propaganda that “the American people are living in the depths of misery”. As for the so-called “kill line”, the idea is that ordinary Americans, even the middle class, once their financial situation reaches a certain critical point because of some accident, will suddenly be hit by a string of blows from society – a “combination punch” – from which they can never recover, condemned to eternal ruin.

Setting aside the various welfare policies that exist across Western societies as a safety net, and setting aside how shallow this “theory” actually is, I only want to talk about one question: why are there so many Chinese people (concentrated mainly at the bottom of society) who are so fanatically excited by the idea of Americans “living under the kill line”?

The answer is not hard to understand. Put simply, the economic environment in China has been deteriorating for a long time. House prices are collapsing, unemployment remains high, the cost of living is suffocatingly high. These problems cannot be solved through individual effort, and people are not even allowed to openly discuss negative social news.

At this moment, the “American kill line theory” appears out of nowhere. For these people, it is like timely rain falling from the sky – a precisely targeted, highly effective shot of adrenaline for the bewildered and suffering grassroots “little pinks”:

Yes, I may be living in a basement in Beijing, working twelve hours a day, unable to afford medical treatment, unable to buy a home, unable to raise children, eating cheap “pre-made meals” every day – but at least I’m still alive! That’s so much better than those Americans beneath the kill line!

Those who embrace the kill line theory often share many characteristics: they love the Party, love Huawei, love Traditional Chinese Medicine, love Russia and so on. Why? Because people who love these things typically do not engage in logical reasoning. They blindly accept and believe everything that is fed to them.

And due to China’s enormous system of speech censorship and the CCP’s highly refined “gratitude education”, every one of these things they “love” belongs to China’s “political correctness” – that is, they “love what the CCP loves”.

It is the Party that has painstakingly brainwashed them into fools who can only obey and believe. In order to defend the authority and legitimacy of centralised power, it then personally implants the tumour of militarist thinking into their minds, with the result that a significant number of Chinese people in the twenty-first century actually oppose Japanese militarism while supporting Hitler and Stalin’s brand of “militarism with Chinese characteristics”.

In recent years, this trend has only grown more intense. Even someone like Hu Xijin, the famous pro-regime “leftist plate-licker”, has been labelled a “rightist” online. And “Boston Round Face”, a blogger who has long pushed the “the West is in misery” narrative, has been repeatedly struggled against simply for questioning Lao A.

To be honest, as someone opposed to the regime, this situation fills me with both satisfaction and pain.

It is satisfying because these famous regime lackeys have, in order to make money, been whitewashing the CCP and brainwashing the public in all sorts of ways. To see them now bitten back by the very grassroots base they helped to create is really quite gratifying.

It is painful because at least people like Hu Xijin used to fool the public with a mixture of truth and lies in their news. Now, figures like Lao A can harvest millions of fanatical followers simply by telling faceless stories, and these followers in turn take the initiative to attack and denounce others in order to defend such a person, slapping the “traitor” label on anyone at will. The whole scene reeks of a Cultural Revolution-style absurdity.

You can well imagine just how low the overall quality of many Chinese netizens has sunk.

A stick has a left and a right end. When the right-hand half has been snapped off and thrown away, the part that was originally slightly left of centre naturally becomes the new “right”. People like Hu Xijin have now become the right-hand end of today’s stick. So where will China head from here?

As the CCP tightens its grip on the internet, intensifies its brainwashing, and reduces the media to nothing more than a megaphone, will we reach a point where even praise that is not effusive enough, or a tone that does not sound sufficiently sincere, becomes grounds for being branded a “traitor”?

I think the answer is yes.

【本报伦敦讯】 2026年2月7日，正值中国农历年腊月二十，英伦大地春寒料峭。在伦敦著名的地标性广场——莱斯特广场（Leicester Square），一场由中国民主党英国总部组织的特殊募捐活动正顶着连绵不断的冬雨庄重进行。

此次活动是为积极响应中国民主党全国联合总部的号召，旨在春节期间为国内因捍卫人权、追求民主而遭受迫害的民运前辈及其家属筹集紧急援助资金。在这万家团圆的时刻，伦敦街头的这一抹身影，为冰冷的雨幕增添了一份沉甸甸的道义温情。

细雨中的坚持：让被遗忘者重回视野
当天的伦敦天空阴云密布，细密的雨丝伴随着刺骨的寒风。尽管天气恶劣，英国总部的多名党员依然准时集结。他们撑起雨伞，在广场一角拉开了印有募捐诉求的横幅。雨水打湿了衣襟，也模糊了传单上的字迹，但党员们传递真相的声音却在广场上回荡。

正如联合总部在公告中所言：“民主不会自行到来，它来自一代又一代人的承担。”活动现场，党员们耐心地向过往行人讲述那些因坚持政治主张而身陷囹圄、甚至献出生命的先驱故事。这不仅是一场经济上的驰援，更是一场对抗遗忘的战斗。他们要让世界知道，在东方那片土地上，仍有许多家庭因为对自由的向往而承受着常人难以想象的经济压力与生活困境。

众生相：雨幕下的冷暖与共鸣
莱斯特广场周边游人如织。在湿滑的街道上，路人的反应勾勒出一幅复杂的社会图景。

一些行色匆匆的本地民众被党员们的执着所打动，停下脚步询问细节。当得知募捐是为了援助那些因言获罪者的家属时，不少人报以敬意，并慷慨解囊，将湿润的英镑纸币投入募捐箱。
而在过往的华人面孔中，情感则更为复杂：有的人在看到横幅后神色匆匆离去，似乎在刻意回避；但更多的人选择了注目与倾听。一位带着孩子路过的华人家长，在听完讲解后，特意让孩子亲手投下捐款，并轻声解释道：“我们要记得那些为了大家说话的人。”这份跨越地域的同情心，在阴冷的雨天里显得尤为珍贵。

慷慨解囊：党内成员的家国情怀
此次募捐活动不仅吸引了社会各界的目光，更在党内掀起了一股感人的捐款热潮。英国总部的党员们以身作则，纷纷伸出援手，用实际行动诠释了“同袍之谊”。

在此次党内捐款名单中，米斯宙先生表现出极高的人道主义精神，带头捐款。
此外，王魏晋、温作团、熊志兵、杨云、李泽生、谢琳、黄华、吕建启、王蕴溥、赵武，杨体和、钟淑琴、卢灵飞、张学美等党员纷纷捐款。

Conscience in the London Rain: China Democracy Party UK Headquarters’ Spring Festival Fundraiser in Leicester Square

[London] On 7 February 2026, the twentieth day of the twelfth month in the Chinese lunar calendar, a chill still lingered over the UK. In Leicester Square, one of London’s most iconic public spaces, a special fundraising event organised by the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters was taking place with solemn resolve in the midst of relentless winter rain.

This initiative was launched in active response to the call of the China Democracy Party National United Headquarters. Its purpose was to raise emergency relief funds over the Spring Festival period for veteran democracy activists and their families in China who have been persecuted for defending human rights and pursuing democracy. At a time when families are gathering in celebration, these figures on a London street added a heavy yet humane warmth to the cold curtain of rain.

Perseverance in the drizzle: bringing the forgotten back into view

The sky over London that day was thick with clouds, fine rain carried on a biting wind. Despite the harsh weather, several members of the UK Headquarters assembled on time. Under their umbrellas, they unfolded banners setting out the aims of the fundraising in one corner of the square. Rain soaked their clothes and blurred the text on the leaflets, but the voices of the party members, sharing the truth, continued to echo around the square.

As the United Headquarters had stated in its announcement: “Democracy does not arrive of its own accord; it is borne by generation after generation.” At the scene, party members patiently explained to passers-by the stories of those pioneers who ended up behind bars – or even paid with their lives – because they stood by their political convictions. This was not only financial assistance, but also a struggle against forgetting. They wanted the world to know that, in that land to the east, there are still many families who, because of their yearning for freedom, are enduring economic pressure and hardship that most people can scarcely imagine.

Faces in the crowd: coldness, warmth and resonance beneath the rain

The area around Leicester Square was crowded with visitors. On the slick pavements, the reactions of passers-by sketched out a complex social picture.

Some local residents, hurrying along, were moved by the persistence of the party members and stopped to ask questions. When they learned that the fundraising was to support the families of those imprisoned for their words, many responded with respect and gave generously, placing damp banknotes into the collection box.

Among the Chinese faces passing by, emotions were more complex. Some, on seeing the banner, left quickly, seemingly keen to avoid engagement; but many more chose to look and to listen. One Chinese parent passing with a child, after hearing the explanation, deliberately asked the child to place the donation into the box personally, quietly adding: “We must remember those who speak up for everyone.” This cross-border empathy was particularly precious on such a cold and rainy day.

Giving generously: party members’ sense of duty towards country and compatriots

This fundraising event not only drew the attention of wider society, but also stirred a moving wave of donations within the Party itself. Members of the UK Headquarters led by example, each extending a helping hand and demonstrating through concrete action their sense of solidarity.

Among the internal donors, Mr Mi Sizhou showed an exceptional humanitarian spirit by taking the lead in making a contribution. In addition, party members including Wang Weijin, Wen Zuotuan, Xiong Zhibing, Yang Yun, Li Zesheng, Xie Lin, Huang Hua, Lü Jianqi, Wang Yunpu, Zhao Wu, Yang Tihe, Zhong Shuqin, Lu Lingfei and Zhang Xuemei also donated. 

杭州市拱墅区人民政府：

申请人：陈树庆，男，浙江省杭州市人，现住杭州市拱墅区大关苑东五苑6幢5单元202室，身份证号330106196509260073，联系电话15958160478.

申请审查的文件：《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件-浙人社函[2010]358号-关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函（此件依申请公开）》。

申请审查的事实和理由：

2026年1月25日，申请人陈树庆向杭州市拱墅区人民政府邮寄递交了《行政复议申请书》，请求被申请人杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心履行法定社会保险责任，按照申请人的《浙江省职工基本养老保险历年参保证明》所表明的累计缴费24年4个月的年限，为申请人办好退休资格确认、核定退休金额并发放退休金。2026年2月3日经拱墅区行政复议局同意，申请人将本行政复议的被申请人变更为杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局。2026年2月4日，申请人陈树庆收到《行政复议受理通知书》杭拱政复[2026]67号。

根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第十三条“公民、法人或者其他组织认为行政机关的行政行为所依据的下列规范性文件不合法，在对行政行为申请行政复议时，可以一并向行政复议机关提出对该规范性文件的附带审查申请：……（二）县级以上地方各级人民政府及其工作部门的规范性文件；……”，本复议案申请人陈树庆，对制作日期是二〇一〇年九月三十日的《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件-浙人社函[2010]358号-关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函（此件依申请公开）》文件（以下简称《浙人社函[2010]358号》），特提出范性文件的附带审查。

《浙人社函[2010]358号》规定：一、根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》、《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》等法律法规规定，被判处拘役、有期徒刑及以上刑罚或被劳动教养人员（以下简称“服刑在教人员”），其被羁押和在监所服刑或劳动教养期间（以下简称“服刑在教期间”），不能以城镇个体劳动者身份参加或继续参加职工基本养老保险。

申请人陈树庆认为上述《浙人社函[2010]358号》不合法的理由如下：

根据中华人民共和国政府1997年10月27日签署、全国人民代表大会常务委员会2001年2月28日批准的已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》“第九条：本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障，包括社会保险”的规定。 申请人陈树庆认为，“服刑在教人员”并不因为服刑或劳教而变得不是“人”，从而丧失了“本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障，包括社会保险”的基本人权。因此《浙人社函[2010]358号》因为与已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》相抵触，应该审定为无效或者建议有权处理机关对此类在新的时代已经明显过时且违法的“规范性文件”及时清理与清除。

申请人认真查阅《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》、《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》，上述两项法律及一项地方性法规，里面并没有任何条文里有《浙人社函[2010]358号》所言的“被判处拘役、有期徒刑及以上刑罚或被劳动教养人员（以下简称‘服刑在教人员’），其被羁押和在监所服刑或劳动教养期间（以下简称‘服刑在教期间’）不能以城镇个体劳动者身份参加或继续参加职工基本养老保险。”之规定。申请人陈树庆认为，政府机关无论是抽象行政行为还是具体行政行为，对法律的理解或解释，如果可以超越法律白纸黑字的明确内涵而无中生有出任何内容并声称该内容是根据《某某》、《某某》等法律的规定，本身就是一种严重的违法行为。如果可以这样，法律作为其中一项最重要的手段，要将政府权力关进笼子就会形同虚设；而政府机关利用自己摆脱了法律文字的限制“天马行空”不着边际的理解或诠释包括政策，反倒可以随时随刻去捆绑人民的权利和自由，不仅从根本上掏空与损害了法律的规则确定性，也显然与与法治社会的初衷包括立法“制约权力，保障权利”的初衷背道而驰。申请人希望通过本申请作废《浙人社函[2010]358号》，同时也能提醒其他政府各部门要严格依法审慎自己的行为，切莫一再做出类似的荒唐行径。若有确实需要也合情合理的行政管理措施，现行法律没有明确规定的或者规定得不够完善的，除非紧急情况（如战争、灾害等）确保正当动机的不得已处置行为，在其他任何情形都切莫擅自超越并滥用法律，而是应该通过合法程序启动相关立法提案或修改法律的建议，同时继续严格遵守“法无授权不可为”的法治底线。

2013年12月28日，全国人民代表大会常务委员会通过了关于废止有关劳动教养法律规定的决定，这意味着1957年8月1全国人大常务委员会批准公布《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》在实施50多年后被依法废止。因其符合我国政府已经签署的联合国《公民权利及政治权利公约》第九条“非依法定理由及程序，不得剥夺任何人之自由”“任何人因逮捕或拘禁而被剥夺自由时，有权申请法院提审，以迅速决定其拘禁是否合法，如属非法，应即令释放”及第十四条“任何人受刑事控告或因其权利义务涉讼须予判定时，应有权受独立无私之法定管辖法庭公正公开审问”，作为中国大陆人权事业一项进步不仅造福于国人，该举措还受到国内外一致的好评也造就我国随后几年很好的政治、经济与外交格局，G20时受到各国政要的广泛支持及参与就是最好的例证。劳动教养都已经废除十几年了，但包含劳动教养内容的《浙人社函[2010]358号》还不合时宜地被政府机关及其工作人员援引及适用，显然根据现行有效法律的要求，《浙人社函[2010]358号》也是必须与时俱进尽快予以清理、清除的。

早在两千多年前，先贤孔子《论语·尧曰》就写道:“不教而诛谓之虐。” 现代文明社会基于“法无德不立”的精神，只要是对于公民的权利和自由依法要加以限制或惩罚性制裁的内容，无论是具体条款还是整部法律，都遵循了“不溯既往”、“法未公布不生效”的基本原则。《浙人社函[2010]358号》标注为（此件依申请公开），当然，依申请公开不等于公布。《浙人社函[2010]358号》虽无《中华人民共和国立法法》规定的法律地位及效力，但也涉及广泛人员权利义务，这种“依申请公开”的规定，在未被申请公开前让利害相关人茫然无知，本案申请人也是在近几个月办理退休手续时多次交涉索取无果的情况下向拱墅区人社局提出《政府信息公开申请》后才得到的。这种若隐若现的政策形式，就为胥吏弄权甚至寻租提供了手段与机会，而胥吏弄权尾大不掉，恰恰又是我国历史数千年以来善政难以落实或不能持久、而弊政却积重难返、各朝代走向衰败灭亡的重要原因之一。申请人认为，政务活动中的“依申请公开”只能限于具体行政行为中涉及商业秘密或个人隐私的信息，限于向有利害关系也依法符合申请资格的人员依申请公开。至于抽象行政行为，希望各级国家机关在今后制定规范性文件时，除了涉及国家秘密内部执行不公开也不得对抗不知情的外部相对人，其它所有的规范性文件都应该向立法学习而公开发布。所以申请人不仅请求在本案清除这个“依申请公开”的《浙人社函[2010]358号》，还恳请彻底杜绝“依申请公开”形式的任何规范性文件再次出现。

此致

敬礼！

申请人：陈树庆

2026年2月5日

Chen Shuqing: Application for Incidental Review of a Normative Document in Administrative Reconsideration

To: People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou

Applicant: Chen Shuqing, male, resident of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Daguan Yuan East Fifth Estate, Gongshu District, Hangzhou.

ID number: 330106196509260073

Contact number: 15958160478

Normative document for which review is requested:

“Reply on Issues Relating to Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This document is disclosed upon application)” – Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358, issued by the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security.

Facts and grounds for which review is requested:

On 25 January 2026, I, the applicant Chen Shuqing, submitted by post to the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou, an “Application for Administrative Reconsideration”, requesting that the respondent – the Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Centre, Hangzhou – perform its statutory social insurance responsibilities and, in accordance with my “Certificate of Participation in Zhejiang Provincial Basic Pension Insurance for Employees – Cumulative Years of Contributions”, which shows a total contribution period of 24 years and 4 months, complete the confirmation of my retirement eligibility, determine my retirement benefits, and pay my pension.

On 3 February 2026, with the consent of the Gongshu District Administrative Reconsideration Bureau, I changed the respondent in this administrative reconsideration case to the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Hangzhou. On 4 February 2026, I received the “Notice of Acceptance of Administrative Reconsideration” (Document No. Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] 67).

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which states:

“Where a citizen, legal person or other organisation, when applying for administrative reconsideration of an administrative act, considers that any of the following normative documents on which the administrative act is based is illegal, they may, at the same time, request the administrative reconsideration organ to conduct an incidental review of that normative document: …

(2) Normative documents issued by people’s governments at or above the county level and their working departments; …”

I, the applicant in this reconsideration case, hereby submit an application for incidental review of the normative document dated 30 September 2010, namely Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358 issued by the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security: “Reply on Issues Relating to Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This document is disclosed upon application)” (hereinafter referred to as “Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358”).

Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358 stipulates:

“I. In accordance with the provisions of the Labour Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Zhejiang Provincial Regulations on Basic Pension Insurance for Employees and other laws and regulations, persons who have been sentenced to criminal detention, fixed-term imprisonment or a heavier criminal penalty, or who have been subjected to re-education through labour (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘persons serving sentences or in re-education’), may not, during the period in which they are held in custody or serving sentences in places of detention or undergoing re-education through labour (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘period of serving sentence or re-education’), participate in or continue to participate in basic pension insurance for employees in the capacity of urban self-employed workers.”

I, the applicant Chen Shuqing, consider Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358 to be unlawful for the following reasons:

According to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was signed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on 27 October 1997 and approved by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 28 February 2001 and has legal effect in China, “Article 9: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.”

I, the applicant, believe that “persons serving sentences or in re-education” do not, by virtue of serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labour, cease to be “persons”, and therefore do not lose the basic human right to “social security, including social insurance” which the Covenant recognises for “everyone”. Accordingly, Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358 conflicts with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which already has legal effect, and should therefore be found invalid, or the competent authority should be advised to promptly clean up and abolish this type of “normative document”, which is clearly outdated and unlawful in the present era.

I have carefully consulted the Labour Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Zhejiang Provincial Regulations on Basic Pension Insurance for Employees. None of the provisions in these two laws and one local regulation contain the rule set out in Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358, namely that:

“Persons who have been sentenced to criminal detention, fixed-term imprisonment or a heavier criminal penalty, or who have been subjected to re-education through labour (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘persons serving sentences or in re-education’), may not, during the period in which they are held in custody or serving sentences in places of detention or undergoing re-education through labour (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘period of serving sentence or re-education’), participate in or continue to participate in basic pension insurance for employees in the capacity of urban self-employed workers.”

I, the applicant, believe that when a government body, whether in an abstract administrative act or a specific administrative act, interprets or understands the law in a way that goes beyond the clear, black-and-white wording of the law and fabricates provisions from thin air while claiming that such content is “based on” the provisions of such-and-such laws, this in itself constitutes a serious violation of the law.

If this were permissible, then the law – as one of the most important means of “locking state power in a cage” – would be rendered meaningless. Government bodies, freed from the constraints of legal text, would instead be able to give their own unrestrained and arbitrary interpretations – including of “policy” – and could at any time use such interpretations to tie up and restrict the rights and freedoms of the people. This would not only hollow out and undermine the certainty of legal rules at a fundamental level, but would also obviously run counter to the original intent of a law-based society and of legislation itself, namely “to restrict power and safeguard rights”.

Through this application to invalidate Document No. Zhe Ren She Han [2010] 358, I also hope to remind all other government departments that they must strictly examine their own conduct in accordance with the law, and must not repeatedly engage in similar absurd acts. Where there is indeed an actual need for reasonable and appropriate administrative measures, and current law does not clearly provide for such measures or provides for them only incompletely, then – except in urgent circumstances (such as war, disasters, etc.) where unavoidable actions are taken with justifiable intent – in all other situations government bodies must not arbitrarily exceed or abuse the law, but should instead initiate relevant legislative proposals or recommendations to amend the law through lawful procedures, while continuing to strictly uphold the law-based bottom line that “what is not authorised by law must not be done”.

On 28 December 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted a decision abolishing the relevant legal provisions on re-education through labour. This meant that the “Decision of the State Council on the Issue of Re-education through Labour”, which had been approved and promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 1 August 1957 and implemented for more than fifty years, was lawfully repealed.

This was in line with China’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Government of the People’s Republic of China signed on 5 October 1998, including Article 9, which states that “No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law” and that “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall

經中國民主黨在英國、德國、荷蘭、法國四國組織負責人協商一致，現正式宣布成立中國民主黨歐洲總部籌備委員會。

籌備委員會擬於在2026年適當時機在英國倫敦召開「中國民主黨歐洲總部成立大會」。大會期間，將重點審議並發布《中國民主黨歐洲總部成立宣言》，審議《過渡期組織章程》，並就總部組織架構設置及相關人事安排等事項進行討論與決定。

鑒於中國境內尚不具備自由結社與安全選舉的現實條件，海外亦暫不具備完善、統一的黨員資格審查制度與運行環境，中國民主黨歐洲總部在成立初期將實行過渡性授權體制，不構成永久性權力結構。任何現階段所設立之職務，均屬民主托管性質的職責授權，而非個人權力或既得地位。

中國民主黨歐洲總部是一個獨立的政治組織。本總部願意和任何以中國民主黨名義和在遵循1998年6月25日中國民主黨公開宣言所表明的基本綱領和宗旨開展活動的組織建立合作關系。中國民主黨歐洲總部吸納一切讚成、支持黨的基本綱領和宗旨並願意作出貢獻的人進入黨內，團結聯合一切讚成黨的政治目標和政策的人士。

中國民主黨歐洲總部籌備委員會組成人員共7人如下：

•    籌委會主席：王冠儒（英國）

•    籌委會副主席：

o    王蘊溥（英國）

o    王國興（荷蘭）

o    姜福禎（荷蘭）

o    劉偉民（法國）

•    籌委會秘書長：黃華（英國）

•    籌委會媒體顧問：潘永忠（德國）

公告發布人：黃華（英國）

會議助理：溫作團（英國）

聯系郵箱：ukheadquarterscdp@gmail.com

特此公告。

註：線上與會者：姜福禎、劉偉民、潘永忠。

Announcement on the Establishment of the Preparatory Committee for the China Democracy Party European Headquarters

Following unanimous consultation among the leaders of the China Democracy Party organisations in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and France, it is hereby formally announced that the Preparatory Committee for the China Democracy Party European Headquarters has been established.

The Preparatory Committee intends, at an appropriate time in 2026, to convene the “Founding Congress of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters” in London, United Kingdom. During the Congress, the following key items will be reviewed and adopted: the “Founding Declaration of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters”, the “Transitional Organisational Charter”, as well as decisions on the organisational structure of the Headquarters and related appointments.

In light of the fact that conditions for free association and secure elections do not yet exist inside China, and that overseas there is likewise not yet a complete and unified system for party membership vetting and organisational operation, the China Democracy Party European Headquarters will, in its initial phase, implement a transitional system of delegated authority, which does not constitute a permanent power structure. Any positions established at this stage are democratic, custodial forms of delegated responsibility, and do not represent personal power or vested status.

The China Democracy Party European Headquarters is an independent political organisation. The Headquarters is willing to establish cooperative relations with any organisation acting in the name of the China Democracy Party which carries out activities in accordance with the basic programme and aims set out in the public declaration of the China Democracy Party dated 25 June 1998. The China Democracy Party European Headquarters welcomes into the Party all those who agree with and support the Party’s basic programme and aims and are willing to contribute, and will unite with all those who endorse the Party’s political objectives and policies.

The Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party European Headquarters consists of seven members as follows:

•  Chair of the Preparatory Committee:

– Wang Guanru (United Kingdom)

•  Vice-Chairs of the Preparatory Committee:

– Wang Yunpu (United Kingdom)

– Wang Guoxing (Netherlands)

– Jiang Fuzhen (Netherlands)

– Liu Weimin (France)

•  Secretary-General of the Preparatory Committee:

– Huang Hua (United Kingdom)

•  Media Adviser of the Preparatory Committee:

– Pan Yongzhong (Germany)

Notice issued by: Huang Hua (United Kingdom)

Meeting Assistant: Wen Zuotuan (United Kingdom)

Contact email: ukheadquarterscdp@gmail.com

Hereby announced.

Note: Online participants: Jiang Fuzhen, Liu Weimin, Pan Yongzhong.