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.

在中国浙江，有一位名字与“民主”和“坚韧”紧密相连的学者与活动家——陈树庆。他曾是浙江大学的理学硕士，本可以拥有平稳的学术生涯或优渥的中产生活，但他选择了投身中国民主运动。为此，他多次身陷囹圄，目前仍因“颠覆国家政权罪”在狱中服刑。

目前中共当局正通过另一种隐蔽而卑劣的手段对他进行“社会性追杀”：剥夺其合法的养老金待遇。

一、 经济清算：生存权的政治剥夺

陈树庆先生长期坚持自由发声，其被剥夺养老金并非孤立的行政错误，而是中共针对政治异议人士的一种系统性经济迫害。

• 法律的名义，政治的刀锋： 当局常利用模糊的行政规定，将政治罪名与社会保障挂钩。对于像陈树庆这样曾被开除公职或在刑期中的异议人士，政府通过拒绝承认其视同缴费年限或直接停发待遇，试图截断他们的最后生活来源。

• 株连式的困顿： 养老金不仅是个人的晚年保障，更是家庭的支撑。剥夺陈树庆的养老金，不仅是对他个人的惩罚，更是对其家属的变相株连，意在通过制造极度的生活贫困来摧毁异议人士的意志。

二、 今天2026年1月18日民主党人士在中国驻伦敦大使馆面前的抗议

面对这一践踏人权的行为，我们英国的中国民主党成员发起了强烈的抗议与声援活动：

严正指出：养老保险是公民依照宪法和劳动法律享有的基本权利，具有财产属性，不应因公民的政治观点或刑事处罚而被非法剥夺。

其实中国共产党是很脆弱的，他们害怕人民发声，害怕人民抗议，害怕我们散发传单让市民知晓，今天我们在英国的中国民主党人士在中国驻伦敦大使馆面前勇敢的站出来为陈树庆呐喊加油，强烈要求中共正常发放他的养老金，保证其人身尊严.

养老金是劳动的积淀，是人的基本尊严底线。中共对陈树庆养老金的劫掠，实质上是对全社会契约精神的破坏，是对每一个劳动者未来保障的威胁。

我们民主党重申：政治观点可以不同，但基本人权不容践踏！ 

中国民主党英国总部组织信息

活动总指挥：卢灵飞

副指挥： 王魏晋

党部参加活动人员名单 

卢灵飞 王魏晋 俞杰辉 吴志芬 谢清怡 李泽生  李申耀 杨沁龙

Dignity Cannot Be Harvested: Protesting the CCP’s Deprivation of Chen Shuqing’s Pension Rights

In Zhejiang, China, there is a scholar and activist whose name is closely bound up with “democracy” and “resilience” – Chen Shuqing. Once a Master of Science at Zhejiang University, he could have enjoyed a stable academic career or a comfortable middle-class life, but instead he chose to devote himself to China’s democracy movement. For this, he has repeatedly been imprisoned and is currently still serving a sentence for “subversion of state power”.

The Chinese Communist authorities are now subjecting him to another covert and despicable form of “social execution”: stripping him of his lawful pension entitlements.

I. Economic liquidation: stripping the right to subsistence for political reasons

Mr Chen Shuqing has long insisted on speaking out for freedom. The deprivation of his pension is not an isolated administrative mistake, but a systematic form of economic persecution directed by the CCP against political dissidents.

• In the name of law, with a political blade:

The authorities often exploit vague administrative provisions to link political charges with social security. For dissidents like Chen Shuqing, who have been dismissed from public posts or served prison terms, the government refuses to recognise deemed contribution years or simply cuts off benefits altogether, in an attempt to sever their last means of subsistence.

• Impoverishment by association:

A pension is not only an individual’s guarantee in old age, but also a pillar for the family. Stripping Chen Shuqing of his pension is not only a punishment of him personally; it is also a disguised form of collective punishment against his family, designed to break the will of dissidents by plunging them into extreme material hardship.

II. Today’s protest in front of the Chinese Embassy in London – 18 January 2026

In the face of this gross violation of human rights, we members of the China Democracy Party in the UK have launched a strong protest and solidarity action:

We solemnly state: pension insurance is a basic right enjoyed by citizens under the Constitution and labour laws, and has the nature of property. It must not be illegally stripped away because of a citizen’s political views or criminal convictions.

The Chinese Communist Party is, in truth, extremely fragile. It fears the people raising their voices, it fears people taking to the streets, it fears us handing out leaflets and informing the public. Today, members of the China Democracy Party in the UK have stood bravely outside the Chinese Embassy in London to speak out and cheer for Chen Shuqing, and to demand in the strongest terms that the CCP resume normal payment of his pension and guarantee his human dignity.

A pension is the accumulation of a lifetime’s labour – it is the basic bottom line of human dignity. The CCP’s plundering of Chen Shuqing’s pension is, in essence, an attack on the very spirit of social contract, and a threat to the future security of every worker.

We in the China Democracy Party reaffirm: people may hold different political views, but basic human rights must not be trampled.

Organisational information of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters

Event Commander: Lu Lingfei

Deputy Commander: Wang Weijin

List of party members taking part in the event:

Lu Lingfei

Wang Weijin

Yu Jiehui

Wu Zhifen

Xie Qingyi

Li Zesheng

Li Shenyao

Yang Qinlong

2026年1月17日，伦敦 / 曼彻斯特

2026年1月17日，中国民主党英国总部在英国多地发起针对中国政府拟在伦敦铸币场旧址建设“超级大使馆”的抗议行动。当天，伦敦与曼彻斯特两地同步举行示威活动，吸引了来自不同社群的大量参与者，并引发英国社会与国际媒体的高度关注。

背景：争议中的“超级大使馆”计划

近年来，中国政府计划在伦敦塔桥附近的铸币场旧址（Royal Mint Court）建立规模空前的新驻英大使馆。该计划因建筑体量巨大、安保设施高度封闭、地理位置敏感而持续引发争议。英国多家媒体及人权组织指出，该项目不仅可能对周边社区生活造成长期影响，更引发了关于跨国镇压、情报活动、人权与言论自由的广泛担忧。

在此背景下，中国民主党英国总部认为，这一计划并非单纯的外交建设，而是中共在海外进一步扩展政治与安全影响力的重要象征，值得英国社会高度警惕。

伦敦现场：人潮汇聚，诉求清晰

1月17日下午，伦敦铸币场旧址周边逐渐被抗议人群包围。来自中国民主党英国总部、香港民主社群、维吾尔社群、西藏社群以及多个人权组织的参与者陆续抵达，现场人群规模不断扩大。

抗议者手持大量横幅、海报与标语，内容涵盖反对中共极权统治、反对跨国打压、支持中国与香港民主运动、呼吁英国政府维护人权与国家安全等议题。多语种标语在现场随处可见，显示出此次行动的国际性与跨社群特征。

现场秩序井然，警方在周边维持交通与安全，但并未干预示威活动。多位抗议者表示，希望通过和平、公开的方式，让英国社会更清楚地认识到“超级大使馆”背后所代表的政治意义。

英国政界发声：反对意见进入主流政治议程

在伦敦铸币场旧址外的抗议活动中，英国保守党领导人Kemi Badenoch也就“超级大使馆”计划公开表态。她表示，首相在本月晚些时候计划访问中国之前，应明确拒绝该大使馆项目。

Badenoch在现场对媒体指出：“我认为我们需要发出一个信号，我不知道Keir Starmer首相的想法是什么。”她强调，“在他对大使馆说不之前，他不应该去北京。”

她的表态被视为英国主流政治力量首次在公开场合，将“超级大使馆”问题与国家安全、外交立场及对华政策直接挂钩，使这一争议从民间抗议层面，进一步上升至国家政治决策层面的讨论。

曼彻斯特同步行动：南北呼应

在伦敦抗议进行的同时，中国民主党英国总部党员及支持者在曼彻斯特中国总领馆门前举行了同步游行示威。示威者沿既定路线行进，高举标语，高喊口号，与伦敦主会场形成南北呼应。

这一跨城市联动的抗议方式，显示出组织的动员能力，也强化了行动的象征意义——反对中共极权扩张的声音，并不局限于伦敦一地，而是遍布英国各地。

视觉焦点：反共宣传与“魔鬼造型”引发强烈关注

在伦敦主会场，中国民主党英国总部精心策划的反共宣传展示成为全场最受瞩目的焦点之一。尤其是以“魔鬼”形象进行反讽的行为艺术，通过夸张的造型、象征性的道具和强烈的视觉对比，直观呈现了中共政权在抗议者眼中所代表的压迫、谎言与恐惧。

这一形象化表达迅速吸引了大量媒体镜头。多家电视台和摄影记者长时间围绕拍摄，采访组织者与参与者。一些路过的英国市民也被吸引驻足，主动向抗议者询问活动背景，现场形成频繁的交流。

媒体密集报道，舆论迅速扩散

当天，现场聚集了大量英国本地与国际媒体，包括电视、网络媒体与平面媒体。多名记者表示，这场抗议在规模、视觉呈现和议题深度上都极具新闻价值。

活动结束后，相关影像与报道迅速在社交媒体上传播，使“超级大使馆”议题再次进入英国公众讨论视野。一些评论指出，此次抗议不仅是针对一项建筑计划，更是围绕英国如何面对来自极权国家的长期影响力挑战展开的公共讨论。

影响与意义：民主力量的公开表达

中国民主党英国总部在活动中强调，此次行动的核心目标并非针对中国人民，而是明确反对中共政权的极权统治及其在海外的延伸。组织方表示，希望英国政府在审议相关项目时，充分考虑人权、安全与民主价值，而不仅仅是经济或外交层面的因素。

分析人士认为，这场跨城抗议体现了流亡民主力量在海外持续发声的能力，也反映出英国社会内部对中共问题的关注正在不断加深。对于中国民主党而言，此次行动不仅是一次抗议，更是一次向国际社会展示其立场与存在感的重要时刻。

结语

随着夜幕降临，伦敦与曼彻斯特的示威活动在和平氛围中结束，但围绕“超级大使馆”计划的争议仍在继续。1月17日的抗议行动，已成为英国反对中共极权扩张力量的一次集中展示，也为未来相关公共讨论留下了清晰而醒目的注脚。

中国民主党英国总部组织信息

组织者

• 中国民主党英国总部街头活动总指挥：王魏晋
• 中国民主党英国总部活动副总指挥：卢灵飞、范可为、杨体和

党员参与名单
• 王魏晋
• 卢灵飞
• 范可为
• 俞杰辉
• 吴志芬
• 谢清怡
• 戴超
• 黄天
• 王涛
• 李申耀
• 吴小海
• 吴冉
• 张学美
• 许少男
• 张石头
• 周勇
• 钱越
• 杨沁龙
• 丁晨光
• 杨云
• 顾晓锋
• 兰子明
• 李涛
• 王世渠
• 威尔逊
• 程敏
• 成小丹
• 韦崇华
• 杨体和
• 钟淑琴
• 邬勇
• 周凤雄
• 赵武
• 郭稼瑄
• 王建
• 黄林
• 杨溯

Opposing the “Mega Embassy” Project. China Democracy Party UK Headquarters Launches Cross-City Protests in London and Manchester

17 January 2026, London / Manchester

On 17 January 2026, the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters launched protest actions in multiple locations across the UK against the Chinese government’s plan to build a “mega embassy” on the site of the former Royal Mint in London. On that day, simultaneous demonstrations were held in London and Manchester, drawing large numbers of participants from different communities and attracting significant attention from British society and international media.

Background: A “mega embassy” project under controversy

In recent years, the Chinese government has planned to establish an unprecedentedly large new embassy on the former Royal Mint Court site near Tower Bridge in London. Due to the vast scale of the planned building, its highly fortified security facilities and sensitive location, the project has continuously sparked controversy. Numerous British media outlets and human rights organisations have pointed out that this project may not only have a long-term impact on the daily lives of nearby communities, but has also triggered widespread concerns about transnational repression, intelligence activities, and issues relating to human rights and freedom of expression.

Against this backdrop, the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters believes that this plan is not a simple diplomatic construction project, but an important symbol of the CCP further expanding its political and security influence overseas, and that it warrants a high degree of vigilance from British society.

London: Crowds gather, demands are clear

On the afternoon of 17 January, the area around the former Royal Mint Court site gradually filled with protesters. Participants from the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters, Hong Kong pro-democracy communities, Uyghur and Tibetan communities, as well as multiple human rights organisations, arrived one after another, and the size of the crowd continued to grow.

Protesters held a large number of banners, posters and placards, covering themes such as opposition to CCP authoritarian rule, opposition to transnational repression, support for the democracy movements in China and Hong Kong, and calls for the British government to uphold human rights and national security. Multilingual slogans could be seen everywhere, highlighting the international and cross-community nature of this action.

The protest remained orderly. Police maintained traffic and security in the surrounding area but did not intervene in the demonstration. Many protesters stated that they hoped, through peaceful and open means, to help British society better understand the political significance represented by the “mega embassy” project.

Voices from British politics: Opposition enters the mainstream political agenda

During the protest outside the former Royal Mint Court site in London, UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch also spoke publicly about the “mega embassy” plan. She stated that the Prime Minister should clearly reject the embassy project before his planned visit to China later this month.

Speaking to the media at the scene, Badenoch said: “I think we need to send a signal. I don’t know what Prime Minister Keir Starmer thinks.” She stressed: “He should not be going to Beijing until he says no to the embassy.”

Her statement has been seen as the first time that a major force in British mainstream politics has, in a public setting, directly linked the “mega embassy” issue to national security, foreign policy and the UK’s stance towards China. This has pushed the controversy beyond the level of grassroots protest and into the realm of national political decision-making.

Manchester: A parallel action echoing the south from the north

While the London protest was under way, party members and supporters of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters held a simultaneous march and demonstration in front of the Chinese Consulate-General in Manchester. Protesters followed a pre-arranged route, holding placards and chanting slogans, forming a north–south echo with the main rally in London.

This cross-city, coordinated protest approach not only demonstrates the organisation’s mobilising capacity, but also strengthens the symbolic message of the action – that opposition to the CCP’s authoritarian expansion is not confined to London, but is present across the UK.

Visual focus: Anti-CCP messaging and “devil imagery” draw strong attention

At the main London venue, the anti-CCP visual displays carefully prepared by the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters became one of the most eye-catching focal points of the day. In particular, the use of “devil” imagery as satirical performance art – through exaggerated costumes, symbolic props and stark visual contrasts – vividly conveyed how the CCP regime is seen by protesters as representing oppression, lies and fear.

This visual expression quickly drew intense media attention. Numerous TV crews and photojournalists spent a long time filming at the scene and interviewing organisers and participants. Many British passers-by were also drawn to stop and watch, and they took the initiative to ask protesters about the background to the event, leading to frequent exchanges on site.

Heavy media coverage and rapid spread of public debate

On the day, the site drew a large number of British and international media outlets, including television, online and print media. Many journalists said that in terms of scale, visual presentation and the depth of the issues involved, this protest was of significant news value.

After the event, footage and reports were quickly circulated on social media, bringing the “mega embassy” issue once again into the field of public debate in the UK. Some commentators noted that this protest was not only about a construction project, but formed part of a wider public discussion on how the UK should respond to the long-term influence operations of an authoritarian state.

Impact and significance: An open expression of democratic forces

During the event, the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters stressed that the core aim of this action was not to target the Chinese people, but to clearly oppose the CCP’s authoritarian rule and its overseas extensions. The organisers stated that they hope the British government, when considering this project, will fully take into account human rights, security and democratic values, rather than focusing solely on economic or diplomatic factors.

Analysts believe that this cross-city protest reflects both the continued ability of exiled democratic forces to speak out overseas and the growing concern within British society about the CCP issue. For the China Democracy Party, this action is not only a protest, but also an important opportunity to present its stance and presence to the international community.

Conclusion

As night fell, the demonstrations in London and Manchester ended peacefully, but the controversy over the “mega embassy” project continues. The protest actions of 17 January have become a concentrated display of the forces opposing the CCP’s authoritarian expansion in the UK, and have left a clear and striking mark for future public debates on this issue.

Organisational information of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters

Organisers

• Chief Commander of Street Activities, China Democracy Party UK Headquarters: Wang Weijin

• Deputy Commanders of Activities, China Democracy Party UK Headquarters: Lu Lingfei, Fan Kewei, Yang Tihe

List of participating party members

• Wang Weijin

• Lu Lingfei

• Fan Kewei

• Yu Jiehui

• Wu Zhifen

• Xie Qingyi

• Dai Chao

• Huang Tian

• Wang Tao

• Li Shenyao

• Wu Xiaohai

• Wu Ran

• Zhang Xuemei

• Xu Shaonan

• Zhang Shitou

• Zhou Yong

• Qian Yue

• Yang Qinlong

• Ding Chenguang

• Yang Yun

• Gu Xiaofeng

• Lan Ziming

• Li Tao

• Wang Shiqu

• Wilson

• Cheng Min

• Cheng Xiaodan

• Wei Chonghua

• Yang Tihe

• Zhong Shuqin

• Wu Yong

• Zhou Fengxiong

• Zhao Wu

• Guo Jiaxuan

• Wang Jian

• Huang Lin

• Yang Su

（奥克兰，2026年1月17日）

2026年1月15日至1月17日，应新西兰伊朗社区邀请，中国民主党新西兰党部参加了在奥克兰举行的反对独裁统治、支持自由与民主的系列声援活动。活动地点分别位于中国驻奥克兰总领事馆门前及奥克兰Aotea Square广场，吸引了来自多个族群、不同背景的民众共同参与。

本次活动以声援伊朗国内广大民众持续进行的反独裁抗争为核心，强烈谴责以暴力、恐惧和压迫维系统治的专制政权，呼吁国际社会正视伊朗人民争取自由、人权与尊严的正当诉求。与会者一致认为，任何以宗教或意识形态为名的极权统治，终将被历史所否定。

在中国驻奥克兰总领事馆门前，中国民主党新西兰党部党员强江朋发表公开发言，严正指出：伊朗人民今天所遭受的压迫，与中国人民在中共一党专政下的处境有着高度相似性。专制政权相互勾连、彼此取暖，但追求自由的人民同样可以跨越国界、彼此声援。他呼吁各国民主力量团结起来，共同反对独裁、反对暴政。

活动期间，中国民主党新西兰党部负责人冯飞在总结发言中表示，中国民主党坚定支持伊朗人民争取自由与民主的斗争，同时明确指出：反对伊朗独裁，也同样必须反对习近平独裁，结束中国共产党的一党专政。他强调，自由、人权与民主具有普世价值，不应因国家、民族或宗教不同而有所区别。中国民主党将持续在国际社会发声，与所有受压迫的人民站在一起。

中国民主党新西兰党部认为，海外华人肩负着重要的道义责任，应当在自由社会中勇敢发声，揭露独裁政权的谎言与暴行，推动国际社会对专制体制形成更清晰、更坚定的共识。

本次活动不仅展现了不同族群之间的团结与互相支持，也再次表明：反独裁、争自由，是人类共同的事业。

中国民主党新西兰党部
2026年1月17日 Press Release

China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch Joins Rally Supporting the Iranian People
Opposing Dictatorship and Standing for Freedom and Democracy

(Auckland, 17 January 2026)

From 15 to 17 January 2026, at the invitation of the Iranian

China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch Invited to Join Rally in Solidarity with the Iranian People

Calling for Opposition to All Authoritarian Regimes and Support for Freedom and Democracy

(Auckland, 17 January 2026)

From 15 to 17 January 2026, at the invitation of the Iranian community in New Zealand, the China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch took part in a series of solidarity activities held in Auckland opposing dictatorial rule and supporting freedom and democracy. The events took place in front of the Consulate-General of the People’s Republic of China in Auckland and at Aotea Square in central Auckland, attracting participants from different ethnic groups and diverse backgrounds.

These activities focused on expressing solidarity with the Iranian people’s ongoing struggle against dictatorship, strongly condemning authoritarian regimes that maintain their rule through violence, fear and repression, and calling on the international community to recognise the legitimacy of the Iranian people’s demands for freedom, human rights and dignity. Participants unanimously agreed that any totalitarian rule carried out in the name of religion or ideology will ultimately be rejected by history.

In front of the Consulate-General of the People’s Republic of China in Auckland, Jiangpeng Qiang, a party member of the China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch, delivered a public speech, solemnly pointing out that the oppression suffered by the Iranian people today is highly similar to the situation faced by the Chinese people under the Chinese Communist Party’s one-party dictatorship. Authoritarian regimes collude with and shore up one another, but peoples who pursue freedom can likewise transcend borders and support each other. He called on democratic forces in all countries to unite and jointly oppose dictatorship and tyranny.

During the events, Fei Feng, head of the China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch, stated in his concluding remarks that the China Democracy Party firmly supports the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom and democracy, and at the same time made it clear that opposing the dictatorship in Iran also means opposing Xi Jinping’s dictatorship and bringing an end to the Chinese Communist Party’s one-party rule in China. He stressed that freedom, human rights and democracy are universal values which should not be differentiated on the basis of country, ethnicity or religion. The China Democracy Party will continue to speak out in the international arena and stand together with all peoples who are subjected to oppression.

The China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch believes that overseas Chinese bear an important moral responsibility. They should speak out courageously in free societies, expose the lies and crimes of authoritarian regimes, and help the international community to form a clearer and firmer consensus on opposing authoritarian systems.

These events not only demonstrated solidarity and mutual support between different communities, but once again showed that the struggle against dictatorship and the pursuit of freedom is a common cause for all humanity.

China Democracy Party New Zealand Branch

17 January 2026

【伦敦讯】 2026年1月11日，伦敦迎来了入冬以来最为阴冷的一天。云层低垂压抑，刺骨的南风卷着零星的细雨，不时拍打在行人的脸上。在这寒风冷雨交织的午后，海德公园东北角的“演讲者之角”（Speakers’ Corner）却传来了阵阵坚定而有力的声音——中国民主党英国总部的党员们正顶着恶劣天气，为支持“刘晓波人权奖”进行募捐。

风雨中的坚守：被冻红的双手与不灭的信念

下午1时，雨势渐紧，公园的小径变得湿滑。中国民主党英国总部的成员们早早来到现场，熟练地展开印有刘晓波肖像和“自由、人权、民主”字样的横幅。

由于地面湿冷，志愿者们不时需要轮流揉搓被冻得发僵的双手。每当狂风刮过，宣传展板便在风中剧烈晃动，成员们必须身体力行地扶住支架，防止资料被雨水打湿。一名参与活动的党员在调整横幅时说道：“当年的刘晓波在铁窗内度过了无数个比这更冷的冬夜，我们站在这里淋点雨、吹点风，是为了不让那点为自由而燃的火种被寒流吞没。”

路人剪影：从匆匆而过到驻足声援

尽管天气糟糕，但在伦敦这个言论自由的圣地，依然不乏好奇的听众。

• 避雨者的偶然关注： 几名原本躲在树下避雨的国际学生被演讲声吸引。在听完关于刘晓波生平以及《零八宪章》的英语介绍后，他们主动上前询问如何参与社交媒体的声援。其中一位女生掏出被雨水打湿的几英镑放入透明募捐箱，并轻声说了一句：“Stay strong.”

• 深度的思维碰撞： 一位身着风衣、牵着猎犬的英国老先生在展板前驻足良久。他认真地阅读了有关中国良心犯现状的传单，并与党员就“如何在国际社会更有效地推动中国人权进步”探讨了数分钟。临走前，他摘下帽子致意，称赞志愿者们在如此严酷的天气下展示了“非凡的公民勇气”。

• 复杂的回应： 现场也有一些行色匆匆的游客在看到横幅后神色复杂，有人甚至加快脚步离去。面对这种冷淡，志愿者们依然礼貌地报以微笑和点头，正如一位组织者所言：“我们的存在本身，就是一种对话。”

奖项意义：将良知转化为行动

“刘晓波人权奖”是民间为了传承诺贝尔和平奖得主刘晓波的精神而设立的。此次募捐所得将全部注入该奖项基金，用于表彰和资助那些在中国境内外勇敢发声、为宪政民主事业作出突出贡献的自由撰稿人与活动人士。

在细雨绵绵中，几位演讲者先后登上一张简易的踏脚凳。他们用略带颤抖却清晰的嗓音向天空宣誓：只要高墙依然存在，海德公园的呐喊就不会停止。

结语

下午4时许，天色渐晚，伦敦的街道灯火初上。中国民主党英国总部的志愿者们收起了被打湿的旗帜。虽然此次活动因天气原因筹集的实物善款数额有限，但那只在灰暗冬日中闪烁着微光的透明募捐箱，却见证了人心的温度与信念的力量。

组织者

 • 中国民主党英国总部街头活动总指挥：王魏晋

 • 中国民主党英国总部活动副总指挥：胡晓

党员参与名单

 • 王魏晋

 • 胡晓

 • 杨沁龙

 • 谢清怡

Cold Rain, Bright Sparks of Democracy: China Democracy Party UK Headquarters Raises Funds in Hyde Park for the Liu Xiaobo Human Rights Award

[London] On 11 January 2026, London saw its coldest, bleakest day of the winter so far. Low clouds hung oppressively over the city, and a biting south wind drove scattered drizzle against the faces of passers-by. Yet on this wet and windswept afternoon, firm and resolute voices rose from Speakers’ Corner in the north-east corner of Hyde Park – party members of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters were braving the harsh weather to raise funds in support of the “Liu Xiaobo Human Rights Award”.

Standing firm in the wind and rain: frozen hands and an unextinguished belief

By 1 p.m., the rain had intensified and the paths through the park had become slippery. Members of the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters had arrived early on site, deftly unfurling banners bearing Liu Xiaobo’s portrait and the words “Freedom, Human Rights, Democracy”.

Because the ground was so cold and damp, volunteers frequently had to take turns rubbing their numb, frozen hands. Whenever a strong gust of wind swept through, the display boards shook violently; members had to hold onto the frames with their bodies to prevent the materials from being soaked by the rain.

While adjusting one of the banners, a participating party member remarked: “Liu Xiaobo spent countless nights behind bars that were far colder than this. We are standing here in the wind and rain so that that small flame for freedom will not be snuffed out by the cold.”

Silhouettes of passers-by: from hurrying past to stopping in solidarity

Despite the dreadful weather, in London – this symbolic home of free speech – there was no shortage of curious listeners.

• Accidental attention from those sheltering from the rain:

A few international students who had originally taken shelter from the rain under the trees were drawn over by the sound of the speeches. After listening to an introduction in English about Liu Xiaobo’s life and Charter 08, they came forward to ask how they could show support on social media. One young woman took a few rain-dampened pound coins from her pocket and placed them in the transparent donation box, softly saying: “Stay strong.”

• Deeper exchanges of ideas:

An elderly British gentleman in a trench coat, walking his lurcher, lingered for a long time in front of the display boards. He carefully read a leaflet about the current situation of prisoners of conscience in China and then spent several minutes discussing with party members how the international community might more effectively promote progress on human rights in China. Before leaving, he took off his hat in salute and praised the volunteers for showing “remarkable civic courage” in such harsh weather.

• Complex reactions:

There were also some hurried tourists whose expressions became complicated when they saw the banners, some even quickening their steps as they walked past. Faced with such indifference, the volunteers still responded with polite smiles and nods. As one organiser put it: “Our very presence is a form of dialogue.”

The significance of the award: turning conscience into action

The “Liu Xiaobo Human Rights Award” was established by civil society groups to carry forward the legacy of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. All funds raised from this event will be placed into the award’s fund to recognise and support those writers and activists who, inside and outside China, bravely speak out and make outstanding contributions to the cause of constitutional democracy.

In the fine, persistent rain, several speakers took turns to stand on a simple step stool. With voices that trembled slightly yet remained clear, they made a pledge to the sky above: as long as high walls still stand, the shouts from Hyde Park will not fall silent.

Conclusion

At around 4 p.m., as darkness began to fall and the lights of London’s streets started to come on, volunteers from the China Democracy Party UK Headquarters packed away their rain-soaked flags. Although the total amount of donations collected at this event was limited due to the weather, the transparent collection box, glimmering faintly in the grey winter light, bore witness to both the warmth of human compassion and the strength of conviction.

Organisers

• Chief Commander of Street Activities, China Democracy Party UK Headquarters: Wang Weijin

• Deputy Commander of Activities, China Democracy Party UK Headquarters: Hu Xiao

List of participating party members

• Wang Weijin

• Hu Xiao

• Yang Qinlong

• Xie Qingyi

作者：中国民主党英国总部党员 程敏
时间：2026.1.9

2026年甫一开端，国际形势就风云突变，美国三角洲部队跨国抓捕了委内瑞拉总统马杜罗，大半夜给马杜罗和他媳妇从床上揪起来押上直升机带回美国，以中俄为首的“正义联盟”再次痛失一员大将，而中国的处境明显比俄罗斯尴尬的多，因为马杜罗被抓前几个小时刚刚会见了来自中国的代表习近平的特使团，而中国国内的媒体和军事专家也几乎都在清一色的宣传“马杜罗为何不惊慌”，“美国为什么不敢动马杜罗”等，这个打脸的回旋镖与当年萨达姆被抓前如出一辙。事后中共气急败坏，战狼外交部紧急出动，谴责美国跨国抓捕马杜罗违反国际法，官媒也发文声称“今天是委内瑞拉，明天就可以是任何国家”，看到这个标题的那一刻我实在没绷住笑了出来，中国这个正义联盟里的“老大哥”，确实是把“没脸没皮”这四个字演绎的淋漓尽致，也不知道这标题是不是习近平一拍脑门想出来的，当初俄罗斯侵略乌克兰，中国“慷慨的”给乌克兰捐赠了几千顶帐篷，呼吁各方克制谈话，并且明里暗里各种支援俄罗斯，买俄罗斯的高价油，老战狼王毅还声称中俄友谊无上限，始终拒绝承认俄罗斯是侵略者。如今轮到中国在美洲的”小兄弟“遭难了，对于这次甚至没有造成任何平民伤亡的抓捕独裁者事件，中国却似乎一下化身成了正义使者，慷慨激昂的谴责了起来。前倨而后恭，思之令人发笑。

其实就我个人而言，我最开始是有担心这次事件起一个坏头的，例如中国借由此次事件，有样学样对赖清德总统也来一个跨国抓捕，国际上问起来中共可以直接推说”美国先这么干的，我只是照葫芦画瓢，而且我们从来就不承认台湾的主权地位，这不过是境内抓捕叛国者而已”。但是仔细一想，国际法本来也没什么约束力，俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，普京被抓了吗？习近平镇压新疆，抓捕异议人士，国际法有给他任何惩罚吗？原本应该是主持正义的国际法，近些年却俨然成为了独裁者镇压国内民众后，拒绝国际社会干涉的武器，民主国家却只能口头上谴责，想想真是挺恶心的。所以，我强烈支持美国抓捕马杜罗，哈哈哈，最好连哈梅内伊，金正恩，普京，习近平四个搅屎棍一块抓了，那世界和平真的就指日可待了！

My Thoughts on the Capture of Maduro

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

Date: 9 January 2026

No sooner had 2026 begun than the international situation suddenly shifted. US Delta Force carried out a cross-border operation to capture Venezuelan president Maduro, dragging him and his wife out of bed in the middle of the night and putting them on a helicopter back to the United States. The so-called “justice alliance” led by China and Russia once again lost a key ally. China’s position is clearly far more awkward than Russia’s, because just a few hours before Maduro was taken, he had met a special envoy delegation sent by Xi Jinping from China. Inside China, the state media and military pundits were almost unanimously churning out lines like “Why Maduro is not panicking” and “Why the United States doesn’t dare touch Maduro”. This face-slapping boomerang is almost identical to what happened before Saddam was captured.

After the fact, the CCP flew into a rage. The wolf-warrior Foreign Ministry rushed out to condemn the United States for “violating international law” through its cross-border capture of Maduro. State media also put out pieces claiming “Today it’s Venezuela, tomorrow it could be any country”. When I saw that headline, I honestly couldn’t stop myself laughing. As the self-appointed “big brother” of this so-called justice alliance, China really has taken “shamelessness” to its absolute extreme. One wonders whether that line was something Xi Jinping came up with on the spur of the moment. When Russia invaded Ukraine, China “generously” donated a few thousand tents to Ukraine, called on “all sides to exercise restraint”, and at the same time supported Russia in all sorts of open and covert ways, including buying Russian oil at inflated prices. The veteran wolf warrior Wang Yi even declared that China–Russia friendship has “no limits”, and Beijing has consistently refused to acknowledge Russia as the aggressor.

Now that China’s “little brother” in the Americas has run into trouble, Beijing suddenly transforms itself into a defender of justice and starts loudly condemning this operation to capture a dictator – an operation which, incidentally, did not even cause any civilian casualties. The contrast between past arrogance and present moralising is frankly comical.

Speaking purely for myself, my first reaction was to worry that this might set a bad precedent – that China might copy this approach and attempt some kind of cross-border “arrest” of President Lai Ching-te, and when questioned internationally, simply shrug and say: “The Americans did it first, we’re just following their example. And we’ve never recognised Taiwan’s sovereignty anyway – this is just an internal operation to apprehend a traitor.”

But thinking it through, international law never really had much binding force to begin with. Russia invaded Ukraine – has Putin been arrested? Xi Jinping has suppressed Xinjiang and imprisoned dissidents – has international law imposed any punishment on him? International law, which ought to be an instrument of justice, has in recent years all but turned into a shield for dictators: after they crack down on their own people, they wave “non-interference” around to block any international action, while democracies are left to issue verbal condemnations and little more. The whole thing is frankly disgusting.

So I strongly support the United States in capturing Maduro. Hahaha. Ideally, they would bundle Khamenei, Kim Jong-un, Putin and Xi Jinping – these four world-class shit-stirrers – into the same net as well. Then world peace really would be just around the corner.

The UK headquarters of the China Democracy Party strongly protests the Chinese government’s illegal cancellation of Chen Shuqing’s retirement pension

Chen Shuqing (born September 26, 1965) is a freelance writer and human rights activist from Fuyang, Zhejiang Province. He is a member of the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party and one of the leaders of its national preparatory committee. He participated in the 1986 Zhejiang Student Movement and the 1989 Tiananmen Democracy Movement. He joined the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee of the China Democracy Party in 1998, was arrested in 1999 for organizing activities, and was sentenced to four years in prison in 2007 for publishing dissident articles. In September 2014, he was again arrested on charges of “subversion of state power.” On June 17, 2016, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court sentenced him to 10 years and 6 months in prison, with a four-year deprivation of political rights. He is scheduled to be released on March 10, 2025. After his release, the Chinese Communist Party continued to persecute him, illegally cancelling his pension. In mainland China, all released members of the China Democracy Party, such as Zhu Yufu, Xu Wanping, and Chen Xi, have suffered similar persecution. We strongly urge the Chinese government to abide by and implement the principles and relevant provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to stop violating and persecuting the basic human rights of political dissidents!
黄华（原杭州市居民）
2026年1月3日

在法治社会，制定法律，建立权力制衡制度，保障人民监督权，目的是将权力这一猛兽关进牢笼，在充分发挥权力服务于社会的同时，有效防止滥用权力，确保这猛兽不能伤害民众的自由和权利。

把权力比作猛兽，把法律、制度和人民的监督权比作笼子的说法，早在2004年10月10日，美国总统布什在讨论国家安全与权力时，使用了“Power is a formidable, awesome beast”（权力是可怕、令人敬畏的野兽），在他随后的一次演讲中，更为精彩：“人类千万年的历史，最为珍贵的不是令人炫目的科技，不是浩瀚的大师们的经典著作，不是政客们天花乱坠的演讲，而是实现了对统治者的驯服，实现了把他们关进笼子里的梦想。因为只有驯服了他们，把他们关起来，才不会害人。我现在就站在笼子里向你们讲话。”

2013年1月22日，刚履新职不久的中共中央习近平总书记在第十八届中央纪律检查委员会第二次全体会议上有关反腐的讲话中，也提出要“把权力关进笼子”，随后的十几年来，无论习的讲话还是其他官方文件，“把权力关进笼子”一直在反复强调。实际效果如何呢？官方宣传与民间舆论众说纷纭，对我自己而言，亲身遭遇的感触与思考，才是最为深切的。

2025年12月25日上午9点刚过，我接到0571-87882793电话，电话那头是12月17日我在香积寺路58号拱墅区政务服务中心办理退休手续时，接待我的105室工作人员陈明朋，说他才知道我在12月4日已经向大关街道提交了办理退休的申请，而且他现在也已收到了我向杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局提出《政府信息公开申请书》，说我所要的材料已经准备好，他让我过去拿。我答应马上过去，在上午10点不到就赶到了他那里，拿了几份材料，其中有一份盖着“杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心”印章的《告知书》，一份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）》等。

看了这些材料，我既失望，又高兴。失望的是，《告知书》明确以“不符合政策”的原因，否定了我社保缴费24年4个月已经超出15年最低缴费要求可以领养老金的申请，只确认我“合法有效的职工基本养老保险实际缴费年限为9年10月”，看来我要现在就领养老金，难！高兴的是，《告知书》所依据的法律及政策明显适用不当或效力不足，为我接下来的维权铺开了伸展的余地。

本案的事实是，我陈树庆、家属、工作或社保挂靠的单位为我缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日我最后一次刑满释放后，到拱墅区社保经办机构几次补缴中间断交的最近几年（包括部分刑期内的期间）社保费用也都顺利完成。社保经办机构在收取保险缴费的时候顺顺利利，现在要其履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以所谓“相关政策”为托词，拒不履行其应负的社会保险责任。由此可见，本案的争议焦点，首先集中在具体行政行为中，民众对于政府的信赖利益能否得到保护，说的通俗一点，就是政府是否可以随意违约？

不难发现，近几十年来，政府违约的案例屡屡见诸于舆论。如果政府可以随意违约，显然会让民众面对政府不能预期、无所适从，担心政府的权力会像野兽吞噬自己的权利。虽然每一个案子政府方对于自己“言而无信，约而不守”总是有一定的“理由”来说辞，但其“理由”必须经得起严格的法律限制，本案杭州市拱墅区社会保险经办机构拒绝为陈树庆现在办理领取养老金资格，所依托的“相关政策”是否也站得住脚呢？本文不妨展开初步的分析如下：

本案的法律关系由两项事实构成，第一项是缴纳社保，其中包括服刑期间缴纳的是否有效？陈树庆、就业单位等是缴费义务人，政府（社保经办机构和财税机构）是收费权力人；第二项是到了法定年龄领取养老金，陈树庆变成了领取权利人（受益人），政府变成了社会保险支付的义务人。该行为由于社会保险经办机构根据法定授权履行政府的社会保险管理与服务职责，既有具体行政行为的性质，又由于该行为的整个过程由民事主体陈树庆一方和行政主体社保经办机构一方共同完成，类似于民事法律行为的“合同”。如果社保经办机构主张第一项事实陈树庆一方缴纳10年6个月刑期间的社会保险无效成立，那么本案《告知书》上认为陈树庆只剩下9年10个月的有效缴费期也是确立的；如果陈树庆认为己方缴纳社保包括刑期内的都有效，本案《告知书》认定就是错误的，代表政府方的杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心应该立即替陈树庆办好退休手续并按时发放法定与约定的养老金。

现代法治社会是“对政府法无授权不可为，对民众是法无禁止即自由”，如果主张作为民众陈树庆一方缴纳刑期内社会保险费的行为无效，就必须指出其“法”之所“禁”。对此《中华人民共和国民法典》对于民事法律行为的效力问题，就有类似的规定，在《民法典》第一编“总则”的第六章第三节第一百五十三条规定“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的民事法律行为无效。……违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效”，将“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定”或“违背公序良俗”的事实作为“无效”前提。

从杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心提供的《告知书》中可见，其推翻约定拒不履行对陈树庆的社会保险责任的理由是：根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》第二条第一款“在中华人民共和国境内的企业、个体经济组织（以下统称用人单位）和与之形成劳动关系的劳动者，适用本法”、第七十二条“用人单位和劳动者必须依法参加社会保险，缴纳社会保险费”，《中华人民共和国社会保险法》第十条第一款、第二款“职工应当参加基本养老保险，由用人单位和职工共同缴纳基本养老保险费。无雇工的个体工商户、未在用人单位参加基本养老保险的非全日制从业人员以及其他灵活就业人员可以参加基本养老保险，由个人缴纳基本养老保险费”，《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函》（浙人社函[2010]358号）等规定服刑人员在服刑期间不属于职工基本养老保险参保对象，服刑期间参保属于违规参保缴费，该期间缴纳的职工基本养老保险应当清退。

显而易见，上述《劳动法》和《社会保险法》包括《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》里的规定，是要求用人单位和劳动者去缴纳社会保险费，立法目的是保障从业人员的社会保险权利，里面并没有“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”的强制性规定；至于浙人社函[2010]358号《复函》，是（此件依申请公开），根据法律未经公布不生效的原则，“依申请公开”不能等同于“公布”，没有对抗不知情相对人的任何效力；《复函》做出日期是“二〇一〇年九月三十日”、印发日期是2010年10月9日，对我在2010年9月13日已经结束的第一次服刑四年期间缴费显然没有追溯效果；更何况《复函》不具备《中华人民共和国立法法》中有关法律、行政法规、地方性法规、自治条例和单行条例、规章的级别和效果，属于无立法权的政府部门替自己“既当运动员，又当裁判员”制定的“比赛规则”，里面所指的“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”明显属于2018年2月8日施行的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉的解释》99 条将典型的关于行政主体“重大且明显违法”的情形之“第二，减损权利或增加义务的行政行为没有法律依据。”，所以也不能作为政府自己违约的依据。

陈树庆认为自已经到了法定年龄享受退休的资格与待遇，除了前述实际已缴费的年限及对政府信赖利益保护原则以外，没有任一现行法律的条款明确规定服刑人员在服刑期间不得享有社会保险。而在对陈树庆的两次判刑的判决书中，判决了剥夺一定期限的人身自由与政治权利，并没有判决剥夺社会经济权利当然包括享有社会保险的权利。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，陈树庆并不因为其服刑就成了“人人”之外，应该享有社会保险。

    更何况，本案如果进一步展开下去，还牵涉到中国监狱普遍的对犯人强制无偿劳动的问题。本案原告陈树庆第一次坐牢期间自2008年1月至2010年9月共计2年零8个月在浙江省乔司监狱六分监狱七监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房菜班组进行菜肴初加工2年5个月；第二次坐牢期间自2017年1月至2025年3月共计8年2个月在浙江省乔司监狱三分监狱六监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房面食组烧制犯人主食7年11个月。两次坐牢期间不算第一次坐牢看守所里的零星劳动，实际参加监狱劳动累计10年10个月，所以，根据早在1948年12月10日联合国大会通过的《世界人权宣言》第四条“任何人不得使为奴隶或奴役，一切形式的奴隶制度和奴隶买卖，均应禁止”；第二十二条“每个人，作为社会的一员，有享有社会保障，并有权享有他的个人尊严和人格的自由发展所必须的经济、社会和文化方面各种权利的实现，……”；第二十三条第（二）款“人人有同工同酬之权利，不容任何区别”。中华人民共和国政府1998年10月5日签署的《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》也有“任何人不得使充奴工”的相关规定。按照这些国际法的要求，即使监狱犯人依法判决并以改造为目标的服“苦役”，也应与《中华人民共和国劳动法》相应的同工同酬及社会保险接轨。如果作为联合国常任理事国的我国政府能够遵守这些宣言与公约，将我服刑期间参加劳动应有的劳动报酬与社会保障予以考量和贯彻，即使我自己及亲朋好友工作单位替我服刑期间的缴费不算，也够15年以上办理退休的资格与相关手续。

当然，政府遵守已经签署、甚至有的已经批准的《国际公约》，不仅是法治社会依法行政的要求，也是一个文明社会起码得“公序良俗”。

综上，无论是《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函》的抽象行政行为，还是杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心处理陈树庆退休事宜的具体行政行为，为了让行政主体可以“约而不守”，对自己的权力做出了超出法律规定的扩张性理解，对民众的权利做出了法律规定以外的压缩性诠释，法律在他们眼里于己于人双重标准，成了权力随意拿捏、对别人可紧、对自己可松的橡皮筋，而非可以将权力关进笼子的刚性标准。

好在《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉的解释》99 条将行政主体“减损（行政相对人）权利或增加（行政相对人）义务的行政行为”认定为“没有法律依据”。接下来，我不妨探究司法这一权力制衡的“笼子”，在实践中是否足够刚性与坚硬，能不能关住行政权力这一“猛兽”，拭目以待！

2026年1月2日 完稿于中国杭州 陈树庆

附：

一、盖着“杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心”印章的《告知书》；

二、《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件》浙人社函[2010]358号。

Can a Cage Made of Rubber Bands Hold Back the Ferocious Beast of Power?

Chen Shuqing

22 December 2025

In a law-based society, laws are made, systems of checks and balances on power are established, and the people’s right to supervise is guaranteed, all with one aim: to lock the ferocious beast of power inside a cage. This is to ensure that while power can fully serve society, its abuse is effectively prevented, so that this beast cannot injure the freedom and rights of the people.

The metaphor of power as a ferocious beast, and of laws, institutions and the people’s supervisory power as a cage, appeared as early as more than two thousand years ago in the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), in the “Biography of Li Si” and the “Annals of the First Emperor of Qin”, in the story of “taking officials as teachers” (yi li wei shi). It describes how government work, carried out mainly by state officials, should serve as an example to the whole of society, whether in terms of social morality or in the enforcement of national laws. The most basic requirement is that “without trust, nothing stands”. In today’s terms, the government must have public credibility, especially in dealing with the various daily affairs of ordinary people, and must uphold the principle of protecting the legitimate expectations of citizens who place their trust in it.

Social pension insurance, as the core component of the social security system, not only concerns the vital interests of hundreds of millions of citizens, but also directly affects the government’s reputation and authority in the eyes of the public. As the designer, implementer and ultimate bearer of responsibility for the social pension insurance system, the government’s policy continuity, the transparency of its implementation, and the extent to which it honours its commitments all deeply influence the degree of public trust in the system, and thus constitute an important cornerstone of governmental credibility.

When the government is able, through sound institutional design, to ensure the sound operation of pension insurance funds, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of insured persons through fair benefit-adjustment mechanisms, and to use open information channels so that the public clearly understands policy content and the flow of funds, citizens will naturally form a positive assessment of the government’s governance capacity and sense of responsibility. This perception transforms into trust in the government, helping society generate reliable expectations and a good social order.

By contrast, if pension insurance policies change from one day to the next; if, in the course of implementation, officials rely on the vague excuse of “according to relevant policies” to go back on their word and fail to honour agreements; or if there are loopholes in fund management that cast doubt on the fund’s ability to pay, then public trust in the government will be shaken. This in turn will give rise to widespread doubt about public policy. From the daily lives of the people to society’s stability and development at large, all will lose their reliable foundations. What is termed the collapse of rites and music, the decline of the legal system and the sense that matters are beyond remedy often germinates and spreads from this very point.

Thus, there is a tightly interlinked, positive interactive relationship between the effective operation of the social pension insurance system and the building of governmental credibility. The improvement of the former is an important way to enhance the latter, while the solidness of the latter provides a fundamental guarantee for the sustainable development of the former.

In this article, the author, Chen Shuqing, will, on the basis of his own experience defending his rights in the course of handling his social pension insurance, tear away, first of all, one layer of the veil covering the issue of governmental credibility:

Application for the Disclosure of Government Information

To: Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Hangzhou

Applicant: Chen Shuqing, male, resident of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province.

Current address: Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Daguan Yuan East Fifth Estate, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City.

ID number: 330106196509260073.

Contact number: 15958160478.

As of 17 December 2025, the applicant, Chen Shuqing, has reached the statutory retirement age of 60 years plus 3 months, and has in fact paid into the pooled social insurance system for 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum contribution period of 15 years. At around 9 a.m. on 17 December 2025, the applicant went to your Bureau’s office (Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau) located in the Gongshu District Government Service Centre on Xiangjisi Road to handle retirement procedures. The staff member, however, on the grounds that the applicant had previously been sentenced in 2007 to four years’ imprisonment for “inciting subversion of state power” and in 2016 to ten years and six months’ imprisonment for “subversion of state power”, deducted from his contribution years the total length of these two sentences, and concluded that his remaining contribution period was only a little over nine years, short of the minimum 15 years’ contribution required. They refused to process the applicant’s retirement eligibility, and merely insisted that the applicant first apply for a refund of the social insurance contributions paid during his time in prison.

This has led the applicant to harbour two doubts, and to submit two corresponding requests for the disclosure of government information, as follows:

I. For over twenty years, the applicant, the applicant’s family members, and the work units or entities with which his social insurance was registered have paid social insurance contributions on his behalf. At no point was there any clear notice that contributions could not be made during periods of imprisonment. Even after the applicant’s most recent release from prison on 10 March 2025, when he went on several occasions to your Bureau’s office at 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District Government Service Centre, to make back payments of contributions for the most recent years of interrupted coverage (including some periods falling within his prison term), these social insurance payments were all processed smoothly. Your Bureau had no problem collecting these insurance contributions at the time; yet now, when your Bureau is required to fulfil its insurance obligations, it suddenly changes its stance, using so-called “relevant policies” as a pretext to refuse to bear its due social insurance responsibilities towards the applicant. This has led the applicant to doubt whether the government is upholding the principle of protecting the legitimate expectations of citizens who place their trust in it.

Therefore, the first matter on which the applicant requests the disclosure of government information is as follows:

the specific legal (including policy) basis for invalidating and refunding periods of social insurance contributions already paid during imprisonment, including the exact names of the relevant laws (and/or policies) and the relevant articles and clauses. Of course, it would be even better if the contents of these laws (and/or policies) could be clearly set out in the written reply.

II. The staff of your Bureau at the Government Service Centre asked the applicant first to apply for a refund, and verbally promised that only after the refund had been completed could the other work of examining the applicant’s retirement eligibility and entitlements continue. The applicant considers that once the social insurance contributions paid during his prison term have been refunded, the remaining period of contributions will be far short of the minimum 15 years required to qualify for retirement. At that point, not only will the applicant be unable to retire now, but he will also have no way of being certain about his future real economic burden or having any assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of his social pension insurance.

Therefore, the second matter on which the applicant requests the disclosure of government information is as follows:

1. The specific refund procedures, including the different contribution periods determined according to the identity of the contributor, and the exact refund amounts (or the content of refunds and calculation standards) for each contribution period;
2. The detailed follow-up procedures and projected outcomes after the completion of the refund process. Again, it would be preferable if the relevant legal (and/or policy) provisions and their content on which these are based could be clearly indicated.

The applicant earnestly requests that your Bureau provide a specific and clear written reply to this Application for the Disclosure of Government Information, and asks that you not again send staff to respond vaguely with phrases such as “in accordance with relevant policies”, nor provide any oral “consultations” or “suggestions” from which you may later deny responsibility or refuse to acknowledge what has been said.

Attachments:

1. Photocopy of the applicant Chen Shuqing’s identity card (front and back);
2. Gongshu District Government Information Disclosure Application Form.

2025年12月28下午，伦敦街头寒风刺骨，灰蒙蒙的天空低垂压抑。在中国驻伦敦大使馆门前，众多中国民主党人士齐聚一起，为一位即将迎来78岁生日的中国海外民主运动先驱——王炳章博士，高声呐喊，呼吁中共政府立即释放他。

刺骨的严寒非但未能阻挡我们的步伐，反而让人们更深刻地感受到自由的可贵，以及丧失自由的残酷。王炳章博士作为中国海外民主运动的开创者，早年放弃医学事业，创办《中国之春》杂志，并参与创建多个民主组织，长年致力于推动中国的人权、民主与法治，却因此遭受中共当局的严厉迫害。2002年，他在越南被绑架回国，随后被判无期徒刑，至今已在监狱中饱受单独关押的折磨，与家人和外界彻底隔绝。他的遭遇是当局对思想自由和良知的公然践踏。

站在大使馆前，我们高举标语，齐声呼喊“释放王炳章”，声音在寒风中回荡。这是正义的呐喊，是对基本人权的坚定捍卫。我们特意选择在他生日即将来临之际举行行动，致敬他为中国民主运动所作的巨大贡献。在寒风中为身陷囹圄的王炳章博士加油鼓劲，同时提醒世人：在普天同庆生命的时刻，有人却被剥夺了最基本的尊严与自由。

王炳章博士的名字，象征着一代中国民主人士的不屈精神。他以学者的理性与行动者的勇气，推动社会进步，却为此付出沉重代价。长期单独关押、恶劣的监狱环境以及缺乏公正的司法程序，构成对其人权的严重侵犯。我们深信，言论、集会与抗议本身就是力量的体现，我们的声音足以让中共当局感到畏惧。
我们在伦敦发声，不仅仅为一人，而是为普世价值而战。人权无国界，自由不应被政治牢笼所囚禁。我们强烈要求中共当局立即停止对王炳章博士的迫害，无条件释放他，让他重获自由，与家人团聚。

寒夜终将过去，正义不应被拖延。愿今日的呐喊化作持久的回响，愿更多人加入关注与行动的行列。直到王炳章博士真正走出牢笼，直到自由不再是遥远的口号，而是活生生的现实。

中国民主党英国总部总部组织信息
活动总指挥：卢灵飞

副指挥： 王魏晋 范可为

党部参加活动人员名单：
卢灵飞 王魏晋 范可为 许少男 俞杰辉 吴志芬 丁晨光 吴小海 王世渠 谢清怡 王海鸥 杨沁龙 李滔 W i l son Joy

Protest Outside the Chinese Embassy in London: “Free Dr. Wang Bingzhang Now”

On the afternoon of December 28, 2025, London was gripped by biting winds and a heavy, grey sky that pressed down with a sense of gloom. In front of the Chinese Embassy in London, many members of the China Democracy Party gathered to raise their voices for Dr. Wang Bingzhang, a pioneering figure of the overseas Chinese pro-democracy movement who is about to turn 78. They chanted loudly and called on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government to release him immediately.

The freezing cold did not slow our steps. If anything, it made us feel more sharply how precious freedom is—and how cruel its loss can be. As a founder of the overseas Chinese democratic movement, Dr. Wang Bingzhang gave up a promising medical career early on, established the journal China Spring, and helped create multiple democratic organizations. For decades he devoted himself to advancing human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in China—only to face ruthless persecution by the CCP authorities as a result. In 2002, he was abducted in Vietnam and forcibly taken back to China, later sentenced to life imprisonment. To this day, he has endured the torment of solitary confinement, completely cut off from his family and the outside world. His case is a blatant trampling of freedom of thought and conscience.

Standing outside the embassy, we held up placards and chanted in unison, “Free Wang Bingzhang.” Our voices echoed through the cold wind. This was a cry for justice and a firm defense of basic human rights. We deliberately chose to act as his birthday approaches, to honor his immense contribution to China’s democratic movement. In the freezing air, we sought to encourage Dr. Wang Bingzhang, who remains behind bars, and to remind the world: at a time when people celebrate life, someone is being deprived of the most fundamental dignity and freedom.

Dr. Wang Bingzhang’s name symbolizes the unyielding spirit of a generation of Chinese democrats. With a scholar’s rationality and an activist’s courage, he pushed society toward progress—and paid a heavy price. Prolonged solitary confinement, harsh prison conditions, and the lack of due process constitute grave violations of his human rights. We firmly believe that speech, assembly, and protest are themselves forms of power, and that our voices are strong enough to make the CCP authorities uneasy.

We speak out in London not only for one person, but for universal values. Human rights know no borders, and freedom should not be imprisoned behind political bars. We demand that the CCP authorities immediately stop persecuting Dr. Wang Bingzhang, unconditionally release him, and allow him to regain his freedom and reunite with his family.

The long, cold night will pass. Justice should not be delayed. May today’s chants become an enduring echo, and may more people join the growing circle of attention and action—until Dr. Wang Bingzhang walks out of prison, and until freedom is no longer a distant slogan, but a living reality.

China Democracy Party — UK Headquarters: Organizing Information

Event Commander-in-Chief: Lu Lingfei

Deputy Commanders: Wang Weijin; Fan Kewei

Participants from the Party Branch:

Lu Lingfei; Wang Weijin; Fan Kewei; Xu Shaonan; Yu Jiehui; Wu Zhifen; Ding Chenguang; Wu Xiaohai; Wang Shiqu; Xie Qingyi; Wang Haiou; Yang Qinlong; Li Tao; Wilson; Joy

2025年12月22日

早在两千多年前，《史记·李斯列传》与《史记·秦始皇本纪》就记载了“以吏为师”的典故，讲的是以政府工作人员为主体的政府工作，无论是社会道德，还是执行国家的法令，应做全社会的表率，其中最基本的，就是“无信不立”！按照现在的说法，政府要有公信力，尤其在处理老百姓的各种日常事务中，应确保民众对政府信赖利益的保障原则。

社会养老保险作为社会保障体系的核心组成部分，不仅关系到亿万民众的切身利益，更直接关联着政府在公众心中的信誉与权威。政府作为社会养老保险制度的设计者、推行者和最终责任承担者，其政策的连续性、执行的透明度以及承诺的兑现程度，都深刻影响着民众对制度的信任度，进而构成政府公信力的重要基石。

当政府能够通过完善的制度设计确保养老保险基金的稳健运行，通过公平的待遇调整机制保障参保人员的合理权益，通过畅通的信息渠道让公众清晰了解政策内容与资金流向时，民众便会对政府的治理能力和责任担当产生积极认知，这种认知转化为对政府的信任，促使社会形成可靠的预期和良好的秩序。反之，若养老保险政策朝令夕改、执行过程中官吏们凭借“根据相关政策”的一句笼统托词，可以言而无信、约而不守，或基金管理存在漏洞导致支付能力受质疑，公众对政府的信任便会受到冲击，引发对公共政策的普遍疑虑，小到民众的生活，大到社会的稳定与发展就失去指望，所谓的礼崩乐坏、法制颓废和无可救药了，往往从此得以萌生与蔓延。

因此，社会养老保险制度的有效运行与政府公信力的建设之间存在着密不可分的正向互动关系，前者的完善是后者提升的重要途径，而后者的坚实则为前者的可持续发展提供了根本保障。本文作者陈树庆，就自己在办理社会养老保险时所遭遇的情况进行维权，不妨就政府公信力这个问题，首先撕开一层面纱：

《政府信息公开申请书》

杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局：

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。

至2025年12月17日，申请人陈树庆已达法定退休年龄60周岁+3个月，实际已缴社会保险统筹24年4个月，超过了15年的最低缴费年限。2025年12月17日上午9时许，申请人到贵局（拱墅区人社局）设在拱墅区政务服务中心的办公场所办理退休手续，办事人员以陈树庆曾经因遭2007年“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑4年和2016年“颠覆国家政权罪”判刑10年6个月为由，社保缴费年限扣除两项刑期累加，剩余缴费年限只有九年多，不足最低缴费年限15年的规定，拒不办理申请人的退休资格，只是一味要求申请人对服刑期间已交的社会保险先行退费。

由此，申请人产生两项疑惑并提出相应的两项政府信息公开事项：

一、20多年来，申请人、申请人家属、申请人工作或社保挂靠的单位替申请人缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日申请人最后一次刑满释放后，到贵局设在拱墅区香积寺东路58号的政务服务中心几次补缴中间断交的最近几年（这其中就包括部分刑期内的期间）社保费用也都顺利完成。贵局在收取保险缴费的时候好好的，现在要贵局履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以所谓“相关政策”为托词，拒不履行贵局应负的社会保险责任，让申请人对政府信赖利益的保护原则顿生疑惑。为此，申请人提出的第一项要求政府信息公开事项是：服刑期间已经缴纳社保的期限无效并退回缴费的具体法律（包括政策）依据，包括法律（政策）的具体名称，第几条第几款。当然，答复函中对这些法律（政策）的内容予以清晰载明，则更好。

二、贵局在政务服务中心的工作人员让申请人先退费，口头答应退费后才能续办申请人退休资格和待遇的其他审定工作，申请人认为，退完刑期内的已缴费社保费用，剩余期限已远远不足办理退休的最低缴费年限15年的规定，届时申请人不仅现在办不了退休，连接下来的现实经济负担和最终养老社会保险结果也是无从确信和依托。为此，申请人提出的第二项要求政府信息公开事项是：1、具体退费流程，根据缴费人不同而确定的不同缴费时段，各时段具体退费数额（或退费内容与计算标准）；2、退费完毕后的详细善后流程与结果预判，同时注明所依据的法律（政策）的条款及内容则更好。

本《政府信息公开申请书》恳请贵局以书面的形式具体明确答复，请求不要再派员含糊其辞的“根据相关政策”及可以不认账、不负责任的任何口头“咨询”或“建议”。

申请人：陈树庆
申请日期： 2025年12月 21 日

附件1：申请人陈树庆身份证复印件(包含正反两面)
2：拱墅区政府信息公开申请表
注：本《政府信息公开申请书》已于2025年12月21日寄发拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局。

Chen Shuqing: Social Pension Insurance and Government Credibility

22 December 2025

As early as more than two thousand years ago, the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), in the “Biography of Li Si” and “Annals of the First Emperor of Qin”, recorded the saying “taking officials as teachers” (yi li wei shi). It described how government work, carried out mainly by state officials, should serve as an example to the whole of society, whether in terms of social morality or in the enforcement of state laws. The most basic requirement is that “without trust, nothing stands”. In today’s terms, the government must possess public credibility, especially when handling the various everyday affairs of ordinary people, and must uphold the principle of protecting the legitimate expectations of citizens who place their trust in it.

As a core component of the social security system, social pension insurance not only concerns the vital interests of hundreds of millions of citizens, but also directly relates to the government’s credibility and authority in the eyes of the public. As the designer, implementer and ultimately responsible body for the social pension insurance system, the continuity of government policy, the transparency of its implementation, and the extent to which its promises are honoured all profoundly affect the level of public trust in the system, and thus form an important foundation of governmental credibility.

When the government is able, through sound institutional design, to ensure the steady operation of pension insurance funds, to protect the reasonable rights and interests of contributors through fair mechanisms for adjusting benefits, and to make full use of clear information channels so that the public can understand policy details and the flow of funds, citizens will develop a positive view of the government’s capacity to govern and its sense of responsibility. This perception is transformed into trust in the government, helping society to form stable expectations and a healthy order. Conversely, if pension insurance policies change at the drop of a hat; if, in the course of implementation, officials can go back on their word and fail to honour agreements, brushing things aside with the vague phrase “in accordance with relevant policies”; or if there are loopholes in the management of the fund which cast doubt on its ability to meet its obligations, then public trust in the government will inevitably be shaken. This will trigger widespread doubts about public policy, and the consequences will range from undermining people’s daily lives to undermining social stability and development as a whole. A breakdown in social norms, the decline of the rule of law and a sense that matters are beyond remedy often begin and spread in just such a fashion.

Therefore, there is a closely interlinked, positive interaction between the effective operation of the social pension insurance system and the building of governmental credibility. The improvement of the former is an important way to enhance the latter, while the solidity of the latter provides the fundamental guarantee for the sustainable development of the former.

In this article, the author, Chen Shuqing, describes how he defended his rights in the face of the situation he encountered while handling his social pension insurance, and in doing so lifts, to begin with, one corner of the veil over the question of government credibility:

Application for the Disclosure of Government Information

To: Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Hangzhou

Applicant: Chen Shuqing, male, resident of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province.

Current address: Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Daguan Garden East Fifth Court, Gongshu District, Hangzhou.

ID number: 330106196509260073

Contact telephone: 15958160478.

As of 17 December 2025, the applicant, Chen Shuqing, has reached the statutory retirement age of 60 years plus 3 months, and has actually paid into the pooled social insurance fund for 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum contribution period of 15 years. At around 9 a.m. on 17 December 2025, the applicant went to your Bureau’s office (Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau) located in the Gongshu District Government Service Centre to complete retirement procedures. The staff member, however, on the grounds that the applicant had once been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in 2007 for “inciting subversion of state power” and to ten years and six months’ imprisonment in 2016 for “subversion of state power”, deducted from his contribution years the total length of those two prison terms. As a result, the remaining contribution years were calculated as only a little over nine years, falling short of the minimum required 15 years of contributions, and the staff member refused to process the applicant’s retirement eligibility. The applicant was repeatedly told that he must first apply for a refund of the social insurance contributions paid during his periods of imprisonment.

This has given rise to two areas of doubt on the part of the applicant, leading to two corresponding requests for the disclosure of government information, as set out below:

I. Over more than twenty years, the applicant, the applicant’s family members, and the work units or entities with which his social insurance was registered have paid social insurance contributions on his behalf. At no point was there any clear notification that contributions could not be made during periods of imprisonment. Even after the applicant’s most recent release on 10 March 2025, when he went several times to your Bureau’s office at No. 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District Government Service Centre, to make back payments for the recent years in which contributions had been interrupted (including certain periods falling within his prison terms), all such payments were completed without hindrance. Your Bureau had no issue collecting these insurance contributions at the time; yet now, when your Bureau is called upon to fulfil its insurance obligations, it suddenly changes its position, using “relevant policies” as a pretext to refuse to honour its social insurance responsibilities towards the applicant. This causes the applicant to harbour serious doubts as to whether the government is upholding the principle of protecting the legitimate expectations of citizens who place their trust in it.

Accordingly, the first matter on which the applicant requests disclosure of government information is as follows:

the specific legal (including policy) basis for invalidating and refunding social insurance contributions already paid during periods of imprisonment, including the exact names of the relevant laws (or policies), and the relevant articles and clauses. Of course, it would be even better if the reply letter could set out the content of these laws (or policies) clearly and in full.

II. The staff of your Bureau at the Government Service Centre asked the applicant to apply for a refund first, verbally promising that only after the refund had been processed could they continue examining the applicant’s retirement eligibility and benefits. The applicant considers that, once the social insurance contributions paid during his prison terms have been refunded, the remaining contribution years will be far short of the minimum required 15 years, meaning that not only will he be unable to retire now, but he will have no way of being certain or having any guarantee regarding his future financial burden and the eventual outcome of his pension insurance.

Accordingly, the second matter on which the applicant requests disclosure of government information is as follows:

1. The specific refund procedures, including the different contribution periods determined by the differing identities of the payers, and the exact refund amounts for each contribution period (or the content of refunds and the calculation criteria);
2. The detailed follow-up procedures and projected outcomes after the completion of the refund process. It would again be preferable if the relevant articles and content of the laws (or policies) on which these are based could be clearly indicated.

Through this Application for the Disclosure of Government Information, the applicant earnestly requests your Bureau to provide a specific and clear written reply, and asks that you no longer send staff to give vague responses such as “in accordance with relevant policies”, nor offer any oral “consultations” or “suggestions” from which you may later refuse to accept responsibility or deny what has been said.

Applicant: Chen Shuqing

Date of application: 21 December 2025

Attachments:

1. Photocopy of applicant Chen Shuqing’s ID card (both front and back)
2. Gongshu District Government Information Disclosure Application Form

Note: This Application for the Disclosure of Government Information was sent to the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau on 21 December 2025.