Thursday, December 26, 2013

Custody and Education Worse than Reeducation through Labor?

Women detained in Ningbo Custody and Education Center await medical examination. Photo credit: Ningbo Daily.

After the Chinese Communist Party announced that reeducation through labor (RTL) would be abolished, other compulsory extralegal measures seemed to move up on the human rights agenda of outside observers. Among them was custody and education, an administrative punishment targeting female sex workers and, to a lesser extent, their clients. The measures governing custody and education (translated below) were issued in 1993 and have remained largely unchanged.

As with RTL, decisions to impose custody and education are in the hands of police and can lead to years of deprivation of liberty. Terms of custody and education last from six months to two years. In comparison, RTL terms were set at one to three years by 2002 regulations and generally revised down (in theory) to one to one and a half years by a 2005 opinion issued by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS).

Public security organs are required to provide notice of RTL to an individual’s family members within two days of implementation. The notification period for custody and education is 15 days. (Last year’s revisions to the Criminal Procedure Law require notice of criminal detention within 24 hours, except in cases of endangering state security or terrorist activity.)

A report released by Asia Catalyst earlier this month emphasized that people held in custody and education are not only forced to work without pay, but are also required to pay for their living expenses and for compulsory testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Last week, The Mirror (fazhi wanbao) reported that the Tianjin Municipality Custody and Education Center also charges 200 yuan per time for family visits, which are granted under Article 16 of the rules governing custody and education. Although one of the goals of the coercive measure is to “rescue” people from the sex industry, all 30 of the working women interviewed by Asia Catalyst returned to the sex trade immediately after their release. The high cost of serving sentences in custody and education centers is unlikely to deter such decisions.

Police rules require that decisions to send juveniles to RTL be strictly controlled. In particular, first-time offenders or students with involved parents “must not be sent to RTL.” However, custody and education for children under the age of 14 and people who were abducted and forced into prostitution is at the discretion of police, who “may” choose to withhold punishment. Academic studies of custody and education detainees in Shenzhen and Fuzhou noted that the youngest detainees were 14 years old.

Several cases indicate that custody and education has also been used against government critics. In April 2004, Xiao Xiangjin, a journalist suspected of encouraging farmers to petition the local government over corruption and abuse of power, was reportedly sentenced to one year of custody and education in Fujian Province. The following month, another journalist, Liu Shui, was sentenced to two years in Guangdong. Liu had previously served two prison sentences for “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement,” and when arrested in 2004, was active in posting essays online calling for political reform.

In 1992, the MPS affirmed that Chinese citizens from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao could be sentenced to custody and education despite prohibitions on placing them in RTL. Hong Kong Democratic Party member Alex Ho was placed in custody and education a month before Legislative Council elections in 2004.

More recently, allegations of patronizing prostitutes tarnished the public image of Chinese American investor and popular social media personality Charles Xue. Global Times called Xue’s detention in August 2013 “perhaps one of the most important moments in the rise of Weibo, as the authorities tighten control over the ‘Big V's’ [people with verified accounts on the Chinese micro blog tool] who could easily sway the public opinion.” He became popular by focusing on issues including child trafficking and poverty in China. His detention was highly publicized but no further announcements have been made regarding his legal fate. According to the 1992 MPS communique, custody and education may be applied to foreigners—Xue is a naturalized American citizen—although, in actual practice, the document says, it is rarely used for non-Chinese citizens. Instead, other punishments, such as administrative detention, revocation of residency permits, shortening of visas, or entry bans are applied.

A review of the custody and education system is timely not only given the announced abolition of RTL, but in light of the recent visit to China by the Working Group on the Discrimination against Women in Law and in Practice (WGDAW). While commending China for the attention it has given to the needs of some groups of women, the working group noted that: “other categories of women who are vulnerable to discrimination and violence equally require effective and empowering protection measures, such as women in detention, refugee women, women living with HIV/AIDS, and women of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity.” Some of these groups clearly overlap with custody and education targets. Although men are sentenced to custody and education, the majority of detainees are female sex workers. According to an article published in the Journal of Zhangzhou Normal University in 2011, the male clients of female sex workers are more likely to receive fines than to lose their liberty. The article says that custody and education centers were originally called “women’s education centers” (fujiaosuo).

WGDAW recommended a review of the gender impact of China’s existing policies, and the 20-year-old custody and education measures are a good candidate for scrutiny. In an interview with Southern Daily earlier this month, Vice President Yu Mingyong of the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court said that “although custody and education is different than RTL, in the future, it too will exit the stage of history.”

Measures for the Custody and Education of Prostitutes and Clients of Prostitutes: click to expand

Measures for the Custody and Education of Prostitutes and Clients of Prostitutes
State Council Decree of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
No. 127

Measures for the Custody and Education of Prostitutes and Clients of Prostitutes are hereby promulgated and shall go into effect as of the date of promulgation.

Premier Li Peng
September 4, 1993

Article 1 In order to educate and rescue prostitutes and the clients of prostitutes and prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), these measures have been formulated in accordance with the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the Strict Prohibition against Prostitution and the Patronage of Prostitutes.

Article 2 In the context of these measures, the term “custody and education” refers to administrative compulsory educational measures for prostitutes and the clients of prostitutes that carry out centralized legal and moral education, organize participation in productive labor, and carry out STD screening and treatment. Custody and education work implements the policy of education, reform, and rescue.

Article 3 The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) is in charge of custody and education work.

Article 4 Based on the need for custody and education work, public security organs at the level of the province, autonomous region, municipality or autonomous prefecture, or city district shall submit plans for the establishment of custody and education centers to the people’s government at the same level for approval. Local planning committees and finance departments shall include the infrastructure investments and operation expenses of custody and education centers in construction plans and financial budgets.  

Article 5 Counseling, medical, accounting and other staff members shall be allocated to custody and education centers based on work requirements.

Article 6 Custody and education centers shall be outfitted with rooms for shelter, as well as areas for education, labor, medical treatment, and cultural activities.

Article 7 Public security organs may decide to send to custody and education those prostitutes and the clients of prostitutes, with the exception of those punished in accordance with Article 66 of the Public Order Administration Punishment Law of the PRC,* whose [actions] do not warrant reeducation through labor.

In any of the following circumstances, prostitutes and the clients of prostitutes may be withheld from custody and education:

  1. They are under 14 years of age;
  2. They suffer from acute infectious diseases other than STDs;
  3. They are pregnant or breastfeeding their birth infant who is under the age of one;
  4. They were abducted and forced into prostitution.

Article 8 County-level public security organs decide whether to impose custody and education on prostitutes and the clients of prostitutes. Where a decision has been made to implement custody and education, the relevant county public security organ shall fill out a written Decision of Custody and Education. A copy of the decision shall be given to the person subjected to custody and education, and within 15 days of the date of the decision, notification shall be given to the person’s family members, work unit, and the police station in their place of household registration.

Article 9 The term of custody and education is from six months to two years and is counted from the commencement of custody and education.

Article 10 Custody and education centers shall conduct STD testing and treatment of people taken into custody and education. The cost of examination and treatment is generally the responsibility of the individual or their family members.

Article 11 Custody and education centers shall separately manage people held in custody and education according to their gender and whether they have STDs.

Women who are held in custody and education shall be managed by female staff.

Article 12 Custody and education centers shall manage in accordance with the law, establish and perfect all administrative systems, and strictly prohibit abuse, physical punishment, and other methods of humiliating people held in custody and education. People held in custody and education shall comply with all of the administrative systems of the custody and education center and obey the management.

Article 13 People held in custody and education shall be given legal and moral education and organized to participate in productive labor, learn production skills, and strengthen their work ethic. Revenue earned by people in custody and education who participate in productive labor is used to improve their lives in custody and education and the custody and education facilities. People in custody and education who participate in productive labor may be paid a certain amount of labor remuneration in accordance with regulations. Custody and education centers shall keep separate accounts for labor income and expenses and strictly manage them. Custody and education centers shall implement civilized management and organize people in custody and education to engage in beneficial cultural and sporting activities.

Article 14 The cost of living of a person in custody and education is generally the responsibility of the individual or their family members.

Article 15 During intake, the personal items of people sent to custody and education must be stored by the custody and education center. The center shall make an inventory register, keep items in a safe place, and return items to their owners upon their discharge from custody and education.

Article 16 Custody and education centers shall allow visits from family members of people in custody and education. If people in custody and education give birth, have a serious illness or death in the family, or another legitimate reason that necessitates leaving the facility, after their family or work unit acts as a guarantor and pays bond, and approval is received from the director of the center, they may leave the center. Time away from the center generally does not exceed seven days. The method for bond collection is determined by the MPS.

Article 17 While serving their term, people in custody and education who show true repentance or perform meritorious services, or in other special circumstances, may receive commendation or early release from custody and education. Where a person needs to be released early from custody and education, the custody and education center shall write an opinion and send it for approval to the public security organ that originally decided to send that person to custody and education. But, where a person is released early, their actual term served in custody and education must not be less than half of their original term for custody and education.

Article 18 People in custody and education who refuse to accept education or do not obey management may be given warnings or term extensions. Where a person requires a term extension, the custody and education center shall write an opinion and send it for approval to the public security organ that originally decided to send that person to custody and education. But, where a person’s term is extended, their actual term served in custody and education shall not exceed a maximum of two years. Where it is discovered that a person in custody and education has committed other illegal criminal acts that were not handled, they shall be handled in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.

Article 19 Upon completion of their sentence, people shall be released on time and issued a certificate of release from custody and education. Their family members or work units shall be notified to pick them up.

Article 20 People sent to custody and education who do not accept the decision against them may apply for administrative reconsideration in accordance with the law; those who do not accept the administrative reconsideration decision may file a lawsuit with a people’s court in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law of the PRC.*

Article 21 Where a person dies while serving their term of custody and education, the public security organ shall organize a forensic medical expert or appointed doctor to verify the cause of death; shall, after inspection by the people’s procuratorate at the same level, report to the public security organ and people’s procuratorate at the next highest level to put [the death] on record; shall fill out a death notice; and shall notify the family members, work unit, and police station in the person’s place of household registration. Persons not claimed by their family members will be handled by the public security organ after photographs are taken. 

Article 22 The MPS is responsible for the interpretation of these measures.

Article 23 These measures go into effect on their date of promulgation.

* Language revised in 2011 as per State Council Decree No. 588.

Chinese Source(原文):
Click on icon to expand




总理 李鹏

第一条 为了教育、挽救卖淫、嫖娼人员,制止性病蔓延,根据《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于严禁卖淫嫖娼的决定》,制定本办法。

第二条 本办法所称收容教育,是指对卖淫、嫖娼人员集中进行法律教育和道德教育、组织参加生产劳动以及进行性病检查、治疗的行政强制教育措施。收容教育工作实行教育、感化、挽救的方针。

第三条 收容教育工作由公安部主管。

第四条 收容教育所的设立,由省、自治区、直辖市或者自治州、设区的市的公安机关根据收容教育工作的需要提出方案,报同级人民政府批准。地方计委、财政部门应当将收容教育所的基本建设投资和所需经费列入基建计划和财政预算。

第五条 收容教育所根据工作需要,配备辅导、医务、财会等工作人员。

第六条 收容教育所应当设置收容室以及教育、劳动、医疗、文化活动等场所。

第七条 对卖淫、嫖娼人员,除依照《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚条例》第六十六条的规定处罚外,* 对尚不够实行劳动教养的,可以由公安机关决定收容教育。



第八条 对卖淫、嫖娼人员实行收容教育,由县级公安机关决定。决定实行收容教育的,有关县级公安机关应当填写收容教育决定书。收容教育决定书副本应当交给被收容教育人员本人,并自决定之日起十五日内通知其家属、所在单位和户口所在地的公安派出所。

第九条 收容教育期限为六个月至二年。收容教育日期自执行之日起计算。

第十条 收容教育所对入所的被收容教育人员,应当进行性病检查和治疗。检查和治疗性病的费用一般由本人或者家属负担。

第十一条 收容教育所对被收容教育人员,应当按照性别和有无性病实行分别管理。


第十二条 收容教育所应当依法管理,建立、健全各项管理制度,严禁打骂、体罚或者以其他方式侮辱被收容教育人员。被收容教育人员应当遵守收容教育所的各项管理制度,服从管理。

第十三条 对被收容教育人员应当进行法律教育和道德教育,并组织他们参加生产劳动,学习生产技能,增强劳动观念。被收容教育人员参加生产劳动所获得的劳动收入,用于改善被收容教育人员的生活和收容教育所的建设。对参加生产劳动的被收容教育人员,可以按照规定支付一定的劳动报酬。收容教育所对劳动收入和支出应当单独建帐,严格管理。收容教育所应当实行文明管理,组织被收容教育人员开展有益的文化体育活动。

第十四条 被收容教育人员在收容教育期间的生活费用一般由本人或者家属负担。

第十五条 被收容教育人员入所时携带的物品需要由收容教育所保管的,收容教育所应当造册登记,妥善保管,在被收容教育人员离所时将原物交还本人。

第十六条 收容教育所应当允许被收容教育人员的家属探访。被收容教育人员在收容教育期间,遇有子女出生、家属患严重疾病、死亡以及其他正当理由需要离所的,由其家属或者其所在单位担保并交纳保证金后,经所长批准,可以离所。离所期限一般不超过七日。保证金收取办法由公安部规定。

第十七条 被收容教育人员在收容教育期间确有悔改表现或者有立功表现以及其他特殊情况的,可以给予表扬或者提前解除收容教育。需要提前解除收容教育的,由收容教育所提出意见,报原决定对其实行收容教育的公安机关批准。但是,提前解除收容教育的,实际执行的收容教育期限不得少于原决定收容教育期限的二分之一。

第十八条 对拒绝接受教育或者不服从管理的被收容教育人员,可以给予警告或者延长收容教育期限。需要延长收容教育期限的,由收容教育所提出意见,报原决定对其实行收容教育的公安机关批准。但是,延长收容教育期限的,实际执行的收容教育期限最长不得超过二年。收容教育期间发现被收容教育人员有其他违法犯罪行为尚未处理的,依照有关法律、法规处理。

第十九条 对收容教育期满的人员,应当按期解除收容教育,发给解除收容教育证明书,并通知其家属或者所在单位领回。

第二十条 被收容教育人员对收容教育决定不服的,可以依法申请行政复议;对行政复议决定不服的,可以依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》的规定向人民法院提起诉讼。*

第二十一条 被收容教育人员在收容教育期间死亡的,应当由公安机关组织法医或者指定医生作出死亡鉴定,经同级人民检察院检验,报上一级公安机关和人民检察院备案,并填写死亡通知书,通知被收容教育人员家属、所在单位和户口所在地公安派出所;家属不予认领的,由公安机关拍照后处理。

第二十二条 本办法由公安部负责解释。

第二十三条 本办法自发布之日起施行。

* 根据2011年《中华人民共和国国务院令(第588号)》第68、87条有修改。


Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Leftist Subversion in China: 1980 to Present

Mao's statue towers over a public square in his birthplace, Shaoshan City, Hunan. Photo credit: Changsha Evening Newspaper

Officials in Shaoshan City, Hunan Province, the birthplace of Mao Zedong, have already spent in excess of 1.9 billion yuan in preparation for the 120th anniversary of Mao’s birth this December. Last month, more than 20 thousand people visited a mausoleum in the middle of Beijing to mark the 37th anniversary of his death. Throughout the country thousands more—many of them petitioners, former soldiers, workers, and officials—attended “red song” concerts in memory of China’s “great man,” depicted in official narratives to have “liberated” China from feudalism, capitalism, and imperialism.

Mao and patriotism seem to go hand in hand, but Chinese authorities have convicted scores of individuals of “reactionary” or “subversive” acts for singing Mao’s praises too loud. Dui Hua’s Political Prisoner Database (PPDB) has information on more than 40 individuals detained or sentenced for their involvement in illegal opposition parties advocating pre-reform socialism. These self-proclaimed vanguards of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought include farmers, workers, academics, cadres, and even entrepreneurs discontented by the capitalist influence that poured into China following Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening in 1978.

While many Chinese have joined leftist symposiums and, in the past decade, Internet forums to vent grievances about the corruption and social inequality that persist despite, or because of, the Communist Party of China (CPC), few chose to organize opposition parties to rebuild a proletarian dictatorship. Those who do face the same, and at times worse, fates as those who organize in the name of western-style democracy, a multiparty system and separation of powers.

Striking Hard Against “Mao Anmin”

On December 22, 1983, the Linyi District Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong Province sentenced Zhang Chengjian (张成检) to death. According to an official summary of the case (translated in Dui Hua Occasional Publications, Volume 2), the farmer claimed that he was Mao Anmin (毛岸民), Chairman Mao’s successor and Jiang Qing’s stepson. He said that his entire family was murdered by Deng Xiaoping and his allies and that Deng “usurped” the power of Mao’s designated successor, Hua Guofeng, and “distorted Mao’s revolutionary path.” Zhang was particularly critical of the household responsibility system. First adopted in the agricultural sector in 1981, the system allowed farmers to sell their produce at unregulated prices after meeting state production quotas. While increasing production incentives dramatically, the system also made farmers more vulnerable to economic losses from poor harvests, fluctuating market prices, and natural disasters.

Assembling several like-mind individuals who hoped to restore the people’s commune and abolish the one-child policy, Zhang formed a new “Central Party Committee” in preparation for “revolution.” Between April and September 1983, the group allegedly mailed 97 letters attacking CPC principles, inciting military units to take up armed rebellion, and urging students to skip classes and workers to go on strike. Some letters were sent to foreign embassies, requesting their personnel to leave China and disseminate information about Zhang’s organization in their own countries.

The case summary, the only known description of Zhang’s party, implies that the group was small and of little influence. Six farmers, ages 25‒43, were convicted for their involvement. Two others were mentioned as being approached by party members but refusing to join.

In the trial of first instance, Zhang was convicted of organizing and leading a counterrevolutionary group, collaborating with foreign countries to conspire to damage state security, inciting state personnel and military units to rise up in armed rebellion, and counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement. As the trial coincided with China’s first “strike-hard” campaign, which used swift and severe punishment to maintain political stability, Zhang’s death sentence came as little surprise.

A year later, however, an appellate court found the crimes against Zhang to be incorrect and his sentence to be unduly heavy. The Shandong High People’s Court reduced his sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment, convicting him only of non-violent crimes. The other members of his group were sentenced to 1.5 to 15 years’ imprisonment on appeal. According to government responses to 10 prisoner inquiries made by Dui Hua, Zhang received one sentence extension and three sentence reductions and was released in April 2005. He was 52 and had spent 22 years in prison.

Henan’s Mamao Party

Established in 1991, the Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought Communist Party of China (中国马列主义毛泽东思想共产党), or Mamao Party (马毛党), is one of the largest illegal political parties in China known to Dui Hua. Most opposition parties discussed in Chinese open sources are only reported to have a few dozen or few hundred followers. Three times the size of the Chinese People’s Democracy Party, the Mamao Party once had nearly 3,000 members in and around Dengfeng City, Henan Province. Of the 1,031 members identified in the late 1990s by local police, 899 were farmers; more than 100 were workers, teachers, cadres, and retirees; 90 percent had received middle-school education or above; and over two-thirds were ages 25‒45.

Local public security records from 2003 name Wang Wuzhou (王五州) as party leader. A farmer and self-proclaimed special representative of the party’s Henan Provincial Committee, Wang assigned key members to take charge of propaganda, labor, military, and women’s affairs and appointed secretaries to various county- and district-level committees. The party criticized CPC policies dating back to the third plenary session of the 11th CPC Central Committee in 1978, when Deng’s market reforms were introduced. Calling the CPC “degenerate” and “corrupt,” the group cited Mao’s strategies of guerilla warfare to encourage the establishment of a new proletarian regime.

Local police branded the Mamao Party a subversive group that “stole” the title of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. Wang was detained in Xuchang, Henan, on January 9, 1999. Chinese government sources informed Dui Hua that Wang was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for subversion, while leading members Zang Yongqin (臧永钦) and Dong De’an (董得安) were both sentenced to 10 years. Police classified all party members as part of the “targeted population,” a group of free persons singled out for additional public surveillance, and forced them to write statements of repentance. Zang and Dong were released in 2006 and 2007, respectively, after receiving sentence reductions. Wang is not known to have received clemency and may remain in prison until 2014.

Internal Uprising

In the 1990s, several senior CPC leaders advocated for workers and farmers to stage an armed rebellion, among them was Xu Jianyi (徐建一), according to investigative journalist Zhao Yan (赵岩). (Zhao was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 2006 for exposing forced land seizures, evictions, and other farmers’ rights issues.) Born in 1954, Xu was an editor of Hongqi (Red Flag), the state-run magazine that was renamed Qiushi Journal in 1988. He studied human rights theories in Geneva and co-wrote China’s first human rights white book, rebuking western criticisms of China’s human rights situation from 1990‒2000. Along with former Central Propaganda Minister Deng Liqun and leftist writer Wei Wei, Xu “supported” two banned publications that criticized Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” as overly capitalistic. Leftist officials were particularly outraged by Jiang’s plan to allow private entrepreneurs to become party members.

Allegedly using Hongqi to establish a new publishing company and purchase an office building in Beijing, Xu was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for “embezzlement” and “favoritism” on December 31, 2003. He is the only person known to have been sentenced in the case. According to Zhao Yan, Xu’s sentence was “relatively light” because state prosecutors deliberately prolonged his investigation until after Jiang Zemin retired as chairman of the Central Military Commission in 2002. In 2005, Hong Kong journalist Ching Cheong (程翔) shared a cell with Xu in Beijing’s Dahongmen Detention Center, which houses high-profile political prisoners and high-ranking officials.

One Man Committee

Wang Shiji (王士吉) formed the CPC Revolutionary Committee at his chemical plant in Yongjin County, Hebei Province, on May 16, 1999. As the sole member of his committee, he called for the proletariat to stage the “second socialist revolution.” He appointed himself party secretary and designed party flags and emblems. In letters he wrote petitioning the CPC in 2001, Wang said he was born to a poor family in 1944 and was indebted to Mao for assigning farm work to his family, giving them a house, and subsidizing his education from the time he entered primary school to his university graduation in 1968.

Wang opined that corruption plagued the CPC because it failed to strictly follow The Communist Manifesto and the principles of the Paris Commune. The root of this corruption, he argued, was Deng Xiaoping’s “revisionism,” a term used by Mao in the early 1960s to indicate that post-Stalinist Soviet interpretations of Marxism adulterated Marxist theory with capitalistic elements. Accusing Deng’s economic theory of betraying Marxism, Wang also openly criticized Jiang Zemin for strengthening the revisionist path and urged members of the Central Standing Committee to collectively resign. Between 1997 and 1999, Wang used the penname Mao Jidong (毛继东), literally “Mao’s successor,” to send more than two dozen critical letters and articles to the central government, party schools, and state-run and Hong Kong-based publishers. The self-proclaimed patriot and loyal party member warned that revisionism dismembered the Soviet Union in 1991, and China would follow suit.

On November 22, 2000, the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court sentenced Wang to three years’ imprisonment for inciting subversion. His letters and articles, although never published, were presented as evidence of “rumors” defaming party policies and leaders and the socialist system.

After his release in August 2002, Wang began petitioning to overturn his conviction and resumed his “anti-revisionist” writings. By that time, with the popularization of the Internet, he gained a broader audience, and in 2010, he reportedly formed the Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Workers’ Party of China (中国马列毛主义工人党). Wang explicitly stated that the party had a “fraternal” policy toward the CPC and would not attempt to overthrow incumbent party leaders.

In December 2010, the Chang’an District Civil Affairs Bureau rejected Wang’s application to register the party as a social organization. Wang then defiantly stated that he would formally announce the party’s establishment in March 2011, but whether the party was formally established or continues to operate is unknown. In an article that appeared on Boxun in June 2013, Wang focuses on corruption in the CPC but makes no mention of his party. He questions President Xi Jinping’s sincerity and ability to curb graft after fire engulfed grain stocks slated for central government inspection in Daqing, Heilongjiang Province.

Against Hu Jintao and Charter 08

Circulating information on social networking services and sympathetic websites, the Mao Zedong Thought Communist Party of China (中国毛泽东主义共产党) was founded on November 28, 2008. In its “Ten Declarations,” the party promises that a successful revolutionary movement against the CPC will purge corrupt officials; restore the people’s communes; and lead to employment, education, healthcare, and housing for all. About a month after its founding, the party allegedly distributed pamphlets in Beijing, Shanghai, and other big cities asserting the rights of workers to overthrow Hu Jintao’s “fascist” regime. The party was equally hostile to signatories of Charter 08, a political manifesto calling for multi-party governance, calling them “traitors” and “reactionary elites” who plotted to “westernize” and “subjugate” China to US imperialism. In 2009, the party briefly received foreign media attention, but little is known about the fate of party members.

Possibly emboldened by Bo Xilai’s Mao-style approach, 34 representatives from more than 20 provinces convened a secret meeting on October 15, 2009, in rural Wansheng County, Chongqing, where Bo was municipal party secretary, to discuss “Mao’s revolutionary practices.” One of the organizers was Ma Houzhi (马厚芝), a teacher and Shandong native who had spent more than 40 years advocating Maoism. According to Hong Kong’s Open Magazine, the meeting was joined by several members of a Chongqing Mao Zedong Thought society and a Nanjing university professor who had organized Mao Zedong Thought classes in Henan’s Nanjie Village—a place that reportedly retains pre-reform collectivized agricultural production.

Online forums include accounts of armed police and security officers raiding the gathering and confiscating computers, party flags, and propaganda. Twenty-five of the meeting participants were sent back to their original residences after serving 4‒5 days of administrative detention for holding an “illegal assembly.” Ten other members, whose average age was over 50, were criminally detained for “organizing terrorist activity.”

Government sources confirmed for Dui Hua earlier this year that at least four members, including Ma, are serving sentences for subversion in Chongqing and Guizhou. Ma and Wei Jinxiang (蔚晋湘) are both scheduled to complete 10-year sentences on October 14, 2019. Incarcerated in Guizhou’s Zunyi Prison, Niu Yong (牛勇) and He Yuanfa (何远发) are serving five- and six-year sentences, respectively. Government sources were unable to verify information about Deng Guobin (邓国宾), who was reportedly sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

Patriotism and Mao Zedong

Partially to appease hardline leftists bitter over Bo Xilai’s downfall, in his first speech at the Politburo collective study session in November 2012, Xi Jinping emphasized that Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought “must not be lost.” This summer, Xi remarked that Mao’s lakeside villa in Wuhan, Hubei Province, should become a youth learning center dedicated to patriotism.

While toeing the line of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and “stability above all else” under one-party rule, how appropriate is it for Xi to stress Mao Zedong Thought? As the aforementioned cases show, a deep love for Mao and country is not the same as a deep love for the CPC, and those who favor communist ideals over the “perils” of democracy and constitutional government may also face persecution.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

For State Security, Police Rules Color Code “Targeted Population”

Guizhou Public Security Bureau Director-General Sun Licheng discusses targeted population management with local police. Photo credit: Guizhou Public Security.

In addition to their roles as crime investigators, Chinese police are responsible for taking proactive measures to maintain political and social stability. Increasingly, this involves Chinese police at all administrative levels carrying out massive efforts to gather and analyze intelligence about their jurisdictions in an effort to prevent crime and unrest before it occurs. This has been especially true since 2008, when the former head of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), Meng Jianzhu, announced a nationwide goal of “public security informatization” (gongan xinxihua). Evidence of concrete applications of this new “intelligence-led policing” can be seen in measures (translated below) concerned with control of the “targeted population” (zhongdian renkou) that were adopted last December by police stations in a handful of areas in Guizhou Province.

Though few Chinese outside of law-enforcement circles are probably aware that a targeted population officially exists, local police officers are given a serious responsibility to “manage” this group, which includes individuals suspected of “endangering state security” (including those who participate in “cults” or illegal religious activity), people who use drugs, people with previous convictions, and persistent petitioners or others with grievances that might lead to protests or other forms of social unrest.

Chinese police have been keeping detailed files on the targeted population in local police stations for many years under MPS regulations first issued in 1985. Advances in technology have made it easier for police to monitor targeted persons and gather information about them, share information between law-enforcement agencies, and draw upon a wide variety of other data from government agencies to profile suspects and predict their potential to cause unrest. As one part of a comprehensive system of “social management” (shehui guanli), Chinese police are using technology to collect and analyze huge amounts of personal data in hopes that it might help them to be more preemptive in preserving social stability. In areas where stability is of particular concern, such as Tibet, pervasive surveillance measures in a system of “grid management” (wanggehua guanli) aim to feed the intelligence system with data and assist local authorities in predicting and neutralizing risks.

From the Guizhou measures, we see evidence of information from a number of databases being integrated under a comprehensive “police-station basic information system” as well as an “intelligence platform” that pushes alerts concerning particular targets to local police stations. Based on the data collected in this intelligence platform, targets are assigned points between 0 and 100 based on their predicted degree of risk. Based on that score, targets are assigned one of three color codings that determine the sort of control measures police are expected to put in place. For the most high-risk “orange” targets, the Guizhou measures call for deployment of para-police “public safety activists” and informants to carry out monitoring, and it seems very possible that additional measures—such as the kind of long-term “house arrest” carried out against individuals like Chen Guangcheng and Liu Xia—may be used by police in individual cases against those targets considered to pose extraordinary risks.

Guizhou Province Provisional Measures: click to expand

Guizhou Province Provisional Measures for Management of
the Targeted Population by Public Security Organs

Chapter One: General Provisions

Article 1: In order to protect public order and state security and further enhance management of the targeted population, these measures are hereby enacted in accordance with the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) Standards for Regularized Construction of Public Security Police Stations and Regulations for Management of the Targeted Population; the Anti-Drug Law and the Drug User Registration Measures; and the Guizhou Province Anti-Drug Regulations, Guizhou Province (Trial) Measures for Points Warning Status Control of Targeted Persons by Public Security Organs, and Guizhou Province Provisional Regulations for Application and Management of the Information System for Persons Released from Prison and RTL and in light of the current application of information technology in our province .

Article 2: These measures aim to explore ways of informatizing police work and gradually integrating the MPS Regulations for Management of the Targeted Population with the “Great Intelligence” measures of assigning points to members of the targeted population [in order to achieve] early warning and situational control and resolve the problems of the targeted population being unquantifiable, having unclear details, being hard to discover, and being unable to put under control. In these measures, targeted population refers to persons put under targeted management by public security organs on suspicion of endangering state security or social order and public safety. This includes the 20 types of targeted persons in five categories specified in MPS regulations and six of the seven categories of targeted persons (excluding fugitives) pushed through the intelligence platform.

Management of the targeted population is a basic task to be handled internally by the public security organs, and it is strictly prohibited to divulge information [about this work]. “Targeted population” is a phrase used internally by public security organs, and it is strictly prohibited to use this phrase publicly. Auxiliary personnel and other non-police personnel are strictly prohibited from accessing targeted population information.

Article 3: Public security police stations are responsible for daily management of the targeted population. Public safety units are responsible for operational guidance. Intelligence, anti-drug, custodial, legal affairs, information technology (IT), and other relevant units shall assist with management of the targeted population and build information collaboration mechanisms and facilitate information-sharing between units and types of police in order to reduce the burden on police station officers.

Article 4: Placement of targeted persons under control or removal of targeted persons from control shall be decided pursuant to an opinion on control (removal) by a community police officer of the public security police station and subject to review and approval by police station officials.

Article 5: Management of targeted persons is to be carried out chiefly by the public security police station in the place of current residence. For those targeted persons whose place of current residence and place of household registration are not under the jurisdiction of the same police station, dual control shall be carried out. For those who have migrated to other provinces, management is to be carried out chiefly by the police station in the place of household registration.

Article 6: The goal of targeted population management is the prevention, discovery, and fighting of unlawful and criminal activity; the education, management, and rescue of individuals engaging in unlawful and criminal activity; and the preservation of social order and safety.

Article 7: Management of the targeted population must uphold the principle of “Information Management, Situation Assessment, and Categorized Control” and rely on the Police Station Basic Information System (hereafter, [BIS]) to carry out information management.

Article 8: Management of the targeted population is a standardized management supported by information and data. Information concerning the targeted population includes identity, background, trajectories, present behavior, and control information. All data on the targeted population is to be uniformly provided by the BIS for use by community police officers. Information about the identity, background, and trajectories of the targeted population collected outside of the BIS is to be delivered to the BIS through a comprehensive information system platform. All social resources collected by public security organs at the prefecture and county (city, district) levels shall first be compiled by the prefectural [PSB] before delivering to police stations via the BIS. Daily management of targeted population by police station community police officers is carried out using the BIS, and community police officers must ensure that information about targeted population management is accurate and up to date.

Article 9: In order to ensure effective cooperation between all types of police in the management of the targeted population, the BIS shall be integrated into a comprehensive information system that interfaces uniformly with other public security operations systems. Real-time adjustments to the BIS shall be carried out according to changes in the operations of targeted-population management. Adjustments to operational functions are to be approved by the public safety corps, and [adjustments to] system functions are to be approved by the IT unit.

Chapter Two: Scope of Management

Article 10: The following individuals are subject to management as targeted persons:

  1. Those suspected of endangering state security, including suspected terrorists identified by the intelligence platform;
  2. Those suspected of serious criminal offenses, including information put forward by the intelligence platform regarding those suspected of unlawful and illegal activity;
  3. Those who because of intense conflicts and disputes have a potential to create a disturbance, engage in violent retaliation, or act recklessly, including those identified by the intelligence platform as being individuals suspected of causing instability, key petitioners, and mentally ill persons capable of creating trouble, as well as persons identified by the detention center and jail information system as persons [recently] released;
  4. Those who were sent to prison or reeducation through labor (RTL) for intentionally unlawful or criminal acts and who have been released for less than five years, including those persons identified by the intelligence platform as having prior records for major criminal offenses and those whom the Prison/RTL Release System identifies as persons released from prison or RTL for intentionally unlawful or criminal acts;

    For those targeted persons from Guizhou who are released from prison, RTL, or compulsory drug treatment in other provinces, the police station in the place of household registration shall list them for control in the BIS upon their reporting [to the police station] or receipt of legal documents.
  5. Those who consume or inject drugs, including those whom the BIS identifies as being drug offenders or whom the Drug User Situational Control System identifies as drug users, as well as those released from compulsory drug treatment facilities run under the justice bureau or public security bureau.

    After the Drug User Situation Control System is integrated with the BIS, police station community police shall no longer use the Drug User Situation Control System to manage drug user information.

Article 11: For those targeted persons whose place of current residence and place of household registration are not under the jurisdiction of the same police station, the police stations in the place of current residence and place of household registration shall exchange information and promptly place them under control. Within the province, use the BIS to circulate information; outside the province, use letters, the Internet, or other means to circulate information.

Article 12: Under one of the following conditions, control shall be revoked for individuals already placed under control as members of the targeted population

  1. Death;
  2. Suspicion has been eliminated through investigation;
  3. Loss of potential to engage in crimes of office such as corruption or bribery;
  4. Loss of potential to engage in crimes due to advanced age or physical infirmity;
  5. Illegal or criminal activity was committed through negligence;
  6. Current imprisonment, RTL, or compulsory drug treatment;
  7. Release from prison or RTL for at least five years (except for those targeted individuals identified by the intelligence platform);
  8. Transfer of household registration outside of the jurisdiction of a given police station, when control has been established by the new place of household registration;
  9. Control established by the police station in the place of current residence (revocation of control may be carried out by the police station in the former place of residence);
  10. Drug offender who has not taken drugs again three years after treatment;
  11. Others who should no longer be placed under control.

Article 13: For those targeted persons already under control, the control category should be revised when the circumstances change such that the former control category is no longer applicable.

Chapter Three: Information Management

Article 14: Situation assessments for the targeted population consist of the four steps of information processing, information verification, information entry, and control registration.

Article 15: The intelligence center and public safety unit of the county level public security organ shall compare of all types of [information] resources in order to locate targeted persons for whom control has not yet been established.

Article 16: Information processing. Processing deadlines are:

For orange alerts delivered by the intelligence platform, within one hour;

For yellow alerts delivered by the intelligence platform, within 12 hours;

For blue alerts delivered by the intelligence platform, reminders regarding targeted persons sent by other information systems, targeted-person management reminders originating from the BIS, and requests for mutual assistance in establishing dual control from locations inside the province, within 48 hours.

Article 17: Information verification. Within the deadline for information entry, verify the targeted person’s basic details and get a handle on his or her current behavior and situation by checking the information and conducting fieldwork investigations.

Article 18: Information entry. Community police officers from the police station shall enter information regarding the information verification and current behavior and situation into the BIS.

Article 19: Assessment of points. Assessment of points for targeted person shall be conducted according to Chapter Four of these measures.

Article 20: Control registration. Register the [type of] control [to be imposed] in the BIS according to the targeted person’s category and circumstance and within the stipulated time period.

Article 21: Information feedback. The BIS shall feed details about management of the targeted population to the relevant information networks: Information about a targeted person’s current behavior, assessed points, and control measures shall be fed into the intelligence platform. Information about a drug user’s current behavior and urinalysis results shall be fed into the Drug User Situation Control System. Information about control established over individuals released from prison or RTL shall be fed into the Prison/RTL Release System. Feedback deadlines are as follows:

For orange alerts sent by the intelligence platform, within 48 hours;

For yellow alerts sent by the intelligence platform, within 72 hours;

For blue alerts sent by the intelligence platform, targeted person memos sent by other information systems, and targeted-person management memos originating from the BIS, within seven days.

For dual-control mutual assistance requests from inside the province, within seven days.

Article 22: Location of targeted persons not yet under control. For those targeted persons over whom control has not yet been established, community police officers shall apply to the intelligence center for temporary control while simultaneously try to locate them using information from various social resources such as family-planning, insurance, broadcasting, water and electric utilities, communications, gas, or student records together with transient population information from places they might be and notify the police station in the place of residence to establish control.

Chapter Four: Situation Assessment

Article 23: Assessment of points. Assess points based on a targeted person’s current behavior, divided between system-generated points and manually-generated points. System-generated points are used as reference, whereas manually-generated points are used to determine the final points assessed to a targeted person.

Article 24: System-generated points are points automatically assessed by the BIS for current behavior based on information entered by community-based police officers on current behavior and trajectory information provided by other systems in accordance with the Targeted Population Current Behavior Points Regulations.

Article 25: Manually-generated points are points assessed by community police officers, using the system-generated points as a reference, on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the targeted person’s present risk and current behavior. When the community police officer believes that the system-generated points accord with the targeted person’s present risk, the system-generated points serve as the final assessed points. When the community police officer believes that the system-generated points do not accord with the targeted person’s present risk, he or she may directly assess points based on the targeted person’s present behavior but must make a note of the reason [for the intervention].

Article 26: Accumulated points correspond to three color levels: orange, yellow, and blue. Orange is 80 points or above, corresponding to high-risk targeted persons. Yellow is 50 to 79 points, corresponding to targeted persons of concern. Blue is 49 points and below, corresponding to ordinary targeted persons.

Article 27: When a targeted person’s accumulated points change, the community police officer of the police station may revise the targeted person’s control category.

Chapter Five: Control categories

Article 28: Police stations shall employ different control measures and control frequencies for different color categories of targeted population information.

Article 29: Orange information corresponds to targeted persons suspected of being a major and present risk. The police station community-based police officers must take management and control measures and arrange for public safety informants or public safety activists to carry out strict control. For high-risk targeted persons, the frequency of management and control by community police officers should be at least once per month.

Article 30: Yellow information corresponds to targeted persons suspected of being a relatively large and present risk. The police station community-based police officers must pay close attention. For targeted persons of concern, the frequency of management and control by community police officers should be at least once per quarter.

Article 31: Blue information corresponds to targeted persons suspected of being a minor and present risk. The police station community-based police officers must carry out help and education measures. For ordinary targeted persons, the frequency of management and control by community police officers should be at least once every six months.

Chapter Six: Work Evaluation

Article 32: Targeted population control work shall be subject to evaluation and assessment and shall serve as one major index in evaluating the work of public security police stations and community police.

Article 33: Evaluation of targeted population management work shall be carried out by the public safety unit. Evaluation of community police officers shall be carried out by the police station. Evaluation of the police station shall be carried out by the county (city, district) public security (branch) bureau. Evaluation of the county (city, district) public security (branch) bureau shall be carried out by the municipal (prefectural) public security bureau.

Article 34: The main areas for evaluation of targeted population control work are the role and effectiveness of targeted population control work in the discovery, prevention, and fight against criminal activity, and quantitative evaluation is made on the basis of four areas including processing rate, entry rate, and control rate. Evaluation score = (processing rate + entry rate + control rate) /3 * 100.

Article 35: Processing rate = number processed on time / number of system alerts

Article 36: Entry rate = number with data entered / number of system alerts

Article 37: Control rate = number under control / number that should be under control

Article 38: Police stations with a control rate of less than 95% or a targeted-population-not-yet-under-control rate of over 80% will have their police station qualification assessment revoked.

Article 39: Evaluations concerning targeted persons put forward by the intelligence platform will be made according to the intelligence agencies’ evaluation measures.

Chapter Seven: Additional Provisions

Article 40: These rules take are to be implemented in Yunyan, Qingzhen, Honghuagang, Suiyang, Jinsha, Weng’an, and Kaili from April 20, 2012. All public security organs in the province are encouraged to actively promote them.

Article 41: Incentive measures for targeted population management work are to be improved following a trial process.

Article 42: Public security organs and public safety offices at all levels in the trial areas may consult these rules to enact detailed implementation rules and measures for evaluation incentives.

Chinese Source(原文):
Click on icon to expand


第一章 总 则

第一条 为维护社会治安和国家安全,进一步加强重点人口管理工作,根据公安部《公安派出所正规化建设规范》、《重点人口管理工作规定》、《禁毒法》、《吸毒人员登记办法》、《贵州省禁毒条例》、《贵州省公安机关重点人员积分预警动态管控工作办法(试行)》、《贵州省刑释解教人员信息系统运行应用管理暂行规定》,结合我省公安信息化应用实际,制定本办法。

第二条 本办法旨在探索在警务信息化条件下将公安部的《重点人口管理工作规定》和“大情报”重点人员积分预警动态管控办法逐步融合,解决重点人口底数不清、情况不明、发现不了、控制不住问题。本办法所称重点人口是指有危害国家安全和社会治安嫌疑,由公安机关重点管理的人员。包括公安部规定的五类二十种重点人口和由情报平台推送的七类重点人员中除在逃人员外的六类重点人员。


第三条 公安派出所负责重点人口日常管理工作,治安部门负责业务指导工作,情报、禁毒、监管、法制、科信等相关部门协助做好重点人口管理工作。建立信息协作机制,实现警种、部门之间的信息共享,减轻派出所民警工作负担。

第四条 重点人口的列管与撤管,由公安派出所社区民警提出列管(撤管)意见,呈报公安派出所领导审批。

第五条 重点人口管理以现住地公安派出所管理为主。对现住地和户籍地不在同一公安派出所辖区的重点人口,实行双列管。对流出到外省的,以户籍地派出所管理为主。

第六条 重点人口管理工作目标是预防、发现、打击违法犯罪活动,教育、管理、挽救有违法犯罪行为的人员,维护社会治安。

第七条 重点人口管理工作坚持“信息管理、动态评估、分类管控”原则,依托派出所基础信息系统(以下简称派基系统)进行信息化管理。

第八条 重点人口管理以信息数据为支撑进行规范化管理,重点人口信息包括身份、背景、轨迹、现实表现和管控信息,全警采集的重点人口信息统一由派基系统提供给社区民警掌控,派基系统以外采集的重点人口身份、背景、轨迹信息统一由信息系统整合平台推送到派基系统中。市州、县(市、区)二级公安机关采集的各类社会资源由市州汇集后通过派基系统向派出所推送。派出所社区民警对重点人口的日常管理在派基系统中进行,社区民警要确保重点人口管控信息的真实、及时。

第九条 为确保重点人口管理工作中各警种的有效协作,派基系统与其它公安业务系统的衔接统一由信息系统整合平台贯通。派基系统根据重点人口管理业务的改变进行实时调整,业务功能调整由治安总队审核,系统功能由科信部门审核。

第二章 管理范围

第十条 下列人员列为重点人口管理:








第十一条 对现住地和户籍地不在同一派出所辖区的重点人口,现住地派出所和户籍地派出所要互通情况,及时列管。省内通过派基系统通报,省外通过信函、网络等方式通报。

第十二条 对已列管的重点人口,符合以下条件的,予以撤管:












第十三条 对已列管的重点人口,情况变化不再适用原列管类别的应予变更列管类别。

第三章 信息管理

第十四条 重点人口动态评估按照信息签收、信息核查、信息维护、管控登记四个步骤进行。

第十五条 利用各类资源比对寻找失控重点人口的工作由县级公安机关情报中心和治安大队进行。

第十六条 信息签收。签收时限是:




第十七条 信息核查。在信息维护时限内,通过信息核对、实地调查等方式,核查重点人口基本情况,掌握现实表现情况。

第十八条 信息维护。派出所社区民警将信息核查情况和现实表现情况维护到派基系统。

第十九条 积分评估。按本办法第四章对重点人口现实表现进行积分评估。

第二十条 管控登记。根据重点人员的分类情况在规定时间内在派基系统中进行管控登记。

第二十一条 信息反馈。派基系统要将重点人口管理工作情况反馈相关信息系统:将重点人员现实表现、积分结果、管控信息反馈给情报平台,将吸毒人员现实表现及尿检情况反馈给吸毒人员动态管控系统,将刑释解教人员的列管状态反馈给刑释解教系统。反馈时限是:





第二十二条 失控重点人口的查找。对于失控的重点人口,社区民警应当向情报中心申请临控,同时要通过计生、保险广电、水电、通信、煤气、学生信息等社会资源和可能流入地的暂住人口信息找到失控人员,通知居住地派出所列管。

第四章 动态评估

第二十三条 积分评估。根据现实表现对重点人口实行积分,分为系统积分和人工干预。系统积分作为参考,人工干预实现重点人口的最终积分。

第二十四条 系统积分是派基系统根据社区民警维护的现实表现信息和其他系统推送的重点人口轨迹信息,按照《重点人口现实表现积分规则》自动生成的现实表现积分。

第二十五条 人工干预是社区民警以系统积分为参考,对重点人口现实危害性综合评估确定的现实表现积分。社区民警认为系统积分与重点人口的现实危害相符的,以系统积分作为最终积分;社区民警认为系统积分与重点人口的现实危害不相符合的,可以直接确定重点人口的现实表现积分,但需注明理由。

第二十六条 积分对应橙、黄、蓝三种颜色表示。橙色为80分以上,对应高危类重点人口;黄色为50至79分,对应关注类重点人口;蓝色为49分以下,对应一般类重点人口。

第二十七条 对于积分有变化的重点人口,派出所社区民警可以变更重点人口管控类别。

第五章 分类管控

第二十八条 派出所针对不同颜色的重点人口信息,采取不同级别的管控措施和管控频率。

第二十九条 橙色信息,对应有重大现实危害嫌疑的重点人口,派出所社区民警要落实管控措施,安排治安耳目或治安积极分子严密控制。社区民警对高危类重点人口的管控频率至少每月一次。

第三十条 黄色信息,对应有较大现实危害嫌疑的重点人口,派出所社区民警要密切关注。社区民警对关注类重点人口的管控频率至少每季度一次。

第三十一条 蓝色信息,对应有轻微现实危害嫌疑的重点人口,派出所社区民警要落实帮教措施。社区民警对一般类重点人口的管控频率至少每半年一次。

第六章 工作考核

第三十二条 对重点人口管理工作要进行考核评比,并作为考核公安派出所及社区民警工作的重点指标之一。

第三十三条 重点人口管理工作考核由治安部门进行。社区民警的考核由派出所进行,派出所的考核由县(市、区)公安(分)局进行,县(市、区)公安(分)局的考核由市(州)公安局进行。

第三十四条 对重点人口管理工作考核的主要内容是重点人口管理工作在发现、预防、打击刑事犯罪活动中发挥的作用和效果,从签收率、维护率、列管率四个方面进行量化考核。考核得分=(签收率+维护率+列管率)/3*100。

第三十五条 签收率=按时签收数/系统提醒数。

第三十六条 维护率=信息维护数/系统提醒数。

第三十七条 列管率=已列管数/应列管数。

第三十八条 对重点人口列管率不到95%,重点人口失控率超过80%的派出所,取消派出所等级评定资格。

第三十九条 对情报平台推送的重点人员按照情报部门的考核办法进行考核。

第七章 附则

第四十条 本规范从2012年4月20日起在云岩、清镇、红花岗、绥阳、金沙、瓮安、凯里试行,并鼓励全省公安机关积极推行。

第四十一条 重点人口管理工作的奖惩办法待试行后完善。

第四十二条 试行地各级公安机关治安部门可以参照本规范制定实施细则、考核奖惩办法。


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Important (Political, “Cult”) Prisoners: Identify & Manage

Important prisoners, like Gao Zhisheng, are required to be imprisoned far from home. Xinjiang Shaya Prison. Photo credit:

In February 1995, John Kamm, an independent human rights activist and now executive director of The Dui Hua Foundation, met with representatives of the State Council Information Office and Ministry of Justice (MOJ) in Beijing. Agreement was reached that the MOJ would provide information on prisoners in response to 100 requests Kamm would make that year.

Two months later, in April 1995, the ministry’s Prison Administration Bureau released a “Notice on Establishing a Reporting System for Important Prisoners.” The notice was to “strengthen supervision over important prisoners . . . and coordinate with the international struggle over human rights.” It spelled out eight categories of important prisoners—chiefly people serving sentences for political crimes—and laid out what information should be reported in the registration and management of such prisoners. Among other things, the notice requires prison authorities to report to prison administration bureaus (PAB): “the circumstances of important prisoners whose sentences have been extended or reduced, who have been released on probation or medical parole, or who have been released upon completion of their sentences.”

The information necessary to register important prisoners is largely the same information that China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides in responses to requests for information from foreign countries engaging with it in bilateral human rights dialogues. It is likely that the information in the registration form provides the basis for these responses.

Although the MOJ has not released a comprehensive revision of the 1995 notice, central and provincial PABs have modified and expanded it. Thus, Shanghai’s Prisoner Visitation Management Rules (2010) require, in Article 7, approval from the municipal PAB’s prison political management office for an important prisoner to receive more than one family visit a month; Jiangsu Prisons Detailed Implementation Rules on Work Procedures for Applying for Sentence Reduction and Parole (2011) require, in Article 18, that sentence reduction and parole for important prisoners must be approved by the provincial PAB before being sent to a court; and Detailed Rules for Law Enforcement Evaluation of Weihai [Shandong] Prison Police (2006) spell out, in Article 5.3, demerits for prison police who fail to report sentence reductions or paroles for important prisoners to the provincial PAB’s prison political management office.

Perhaps the most detailed update of the 1995 notice is to be found in Jianyu Gongzuo Shiwu, published by China Legal Publishing House in 2011. A section of the book (translated below) lists 10 new classes of important prisoners—Falun Gong and “cult” practitioners top the list—and provides directions for how important prisoners are to be managed. Isolation appears to be key: important prisoners are not to be incarcerated in the same place as their household registration (hukou) or residence, accomplices of important prisoners are generally not to be incarcerated in the same prison as the important prisoner, and visitors of important prisoners other than family members must be approved by the PAB’s public security office. Regulations for the treatment of important prisoners may explain why Gao Zhisheng is incarcerated in Shaya Prison—500 miles from Urumqi, the place of his hukou. Another example of an important prisoner incarcerated far from his hukou is Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo. Liu is serving his sentence in Jinzhou Prison, a day's travel by train from Dalian, his hukou.

The most significant modification to the 1995 notice is the requirement that, after being reviewed by the warden’s office, sentence reductions and paroles for important prisoners must be reported to the PAB’s penalty execution office and reviewed and consented to by the PAB’s sentence reduction, parole, and medical parole approval committee before their submission to a court for final approval. This rule effectively adds two layers to the approval process for sentence reduction and parole for important prisoners, and helps explain why, in recent years, relatively few sentence reductions and paroles of prisoners serving sentences for endangering state security have taken place.

Although the Jianyu Gongzuo Shiwu mentions only two extra layers of approval, there is probably at least one more for especially sensitive cases. In a video interview given by Chen Guangcheng in January 2010, the blind activist recounts how the prison where he was incarcerated applied to the provincial PAB to grant him a six-month sentence reduction after he had earned enough points for an 18-month reduction. Rather than acting on the application, the bureau sent it to the Ministry of Justice in Beijing, but no action was taken and Chen served out his entire term before being released into a home teeming with police.

Important Prisoners: click to expand

Important prisoners refer to prisoners who committed duty-related crimes, head criminals and ringleaders of organized crime syndicates, key prisoners with a certain degree of influence in the local district, and other important prisoners.

I. Criteria for routing out important prisoners. In addition to important prisoners as defined by the Ministry of Justice Prison Administration Bureau Notice on Establishing a Reporting System for Important Prisoners ([1995] MOJ PAB Doc. No. 60), the following prisoners shall be incorporated into the management of important prisoners:

  1. "Falun Gong" and other cult prisoners;
  2. Prisoners from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan who are sentenced for endangering state security crimes;
  3. Head criminals and ringleaders of organized crime syndicates;
  4. Prisoners whose cases of duty-related crimes such as graft, bribery, or malfeasance involve very large sums of money or have relatively significant influence within the entire city/municipality;
  5. Prisoners whose cases have been reported in provincial- or municipal-level newspapers and magazines, on television, or in other media and have very significant influence domestically, internationally, and within society;
  6. Prisoners whose crimes are vile in their nature or circumstances, lead to serious consequences, or are followed closely by local people or the investigation and handling of whose cases are led directly by the Politico-legal Affairs Committee of the Municipal Party Committee;
  7. Prisoners who were working in economics, finance, or other industries prior to their arrest and had relatively significant influence in their field or who seriously harm economic or financial security or disrupt the order of the market economy;
  8. Head criminals and ringleaders who participate in or create incidents of mass social conflict;
  9. Prisoners whose cases involve victims, relevant interested persons, or others who are dissatisfied with the court decision and frequently petition or report to [the authorities];
  10. Others who need to be classified as important prisoners.

II. Determination of important criminal [status]. Determination of important criminal [status] is made by [prison administration bureau (PAB)] public security office review of [cases] prisons report to it ([upon their] internal detection) or by notification from the PAB public security office. Determination work is performed by the [PAB] public security office in conjunction with its prison political management office and penalty execution office. Prisons shall fill out the “Important Prisoners Registration Form” and submit it to the [PAB] public security office within one month of taking important prisoners into custody.


(II) Management of Important Prisoners

  1. Important prisoners who have their sentences extended, have their sentences reduced, are paroled, are released on medical parole, are released after serving out their sentences, or encounter major situations must be reported as they occur. Inquiries made by the [PAB] business department regarding the situation of important prisoners must be handled quickly and reported accurately.
  2. Important prisoners shall not be incarcerated in prisons that are in the same locality as their place of household registration, residence, or crime. Important prisoners who are accomplices to the same crime shall generally be incarcerated in different prisons. Where accomplices are numerous to the extent that they are incarcerated in the same prison, they shall be incarcerated in different prison blocks.
  3. Visits between important prisoners and people other than their relatives or guardians must be approved by the PAB public security office. Head criminals and ringleaders of organized crime syndicates and prisoners from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan sentenced for endangering state security crimes are generally not allowed to be visited by people other than their relatives or guardians.
  4. Sentence reductions and paroles of important prisoners must be reviewed at a meeting of the warden’s office; reported to the PAB penalty execution office; and reviewed and consented to by the PAB sentence reduction, parole, and medical parole approval committee before their submission to a court for deliberation.

Chinese Source(原文):
王志亮 [Wang Zhiliang], 监狱工作实务 [Jianyu Gongzuo Shiwu] (北京 [Beijing]: 中国法制出版社 [China Legal Publishing House], 2011), 140‒142
Click on icon to expand


1. 重要罪犯的排摸条件。除司法部监狱管理局《关于建立重要罪犯报告制度的通知)([1995J 司狱字第60 号文)规定的重要罪犯外,以下罪犯纳入重要罪犯管理。

  1. "法轮功"及其他邪教罪犯;
  2. 以危害国家安全罪判刑的港澳台罪犯;
  3. 黑社会性质组织犯罪的主犯和首要分子;
  4. 贪污贿赂、渎职等职务犯罪中案值数额巨大,或案件在全市有较大影响的罪犯;
  5. 省市级以上报刊电视等媒体曾予报道、并在国内外或社会上有重大影响的案件中的罪犯;
  6. 犯罪性质、情节恶劣、后果严重、当地群众非常关注或市委政法委直接领导侦办案件的罪犯;
  7. 捕前从事经济、金融等行业并在行业中有较大影响的罪犯,或严重危害经济、金融安全,扰乱市场经济秩序的罪犯;
  8. 参与、制造社会群体性矛盾事件的主犯和首要分子;
  9. 案件被害人或相关利害人等对判决不满、经常上访、举强的案件中的罪犯;
  10. 其他需要被列为重要罪犯的。

2. 重要罪犯的确定。重要罪犯由监狱上报经局公安处(狱内侦查)审核确定或由局公安处通知确定。确定工作由局公安处会同狱政管理处、刑罚执行处进行。监狱应在收押重要罪犯后1 个月内填报《重要罪犯登记表),报局公安处。



  1. 重要罪犯被加刑、减刑、假释、保外就医、刑满释放以及遇到重要情况要随时上报。对局业务部门要求查询的重要罪犯情况,要迅速、准确地核查上报。
  2. 重要罪犯不得关押于同其户籍地、居住地或犯罪地为同一区域的监狱。同一团伙的重要罪犯一般应当分别关押不同监狱,因团伙人数较多关押在同一监狱的,应分别关押在不同监区。
  3. 重要罪犯会见亲属或监护人以外的其他人员,须报局公安处批准。其中黑社会性质组织的主犯和首要分子,以危害国家安全罪判刑的港澳台罪犯,一般不得会见亲属或监护人以外的其他人员。
  4. 重要罪犯的减刑、假释,经监狱长办公会议审核,报局刑罚执行处,经局减刑、假释、保外就医评审委员会审核同意后,再提请法院裁定。


Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Prosecutors: Man “Should Have Known” Employer Was Taiwan Spy

Ma Ying-jeou meets Chen Yunlin, president of China's Association for Relations across the Taiwan Straits, in November 2008. Photo credit: Xing Guangli, Xinhua

The cross-strait rapprochement that began when Ma Ying-jeou became Taiwanese president in 2008 marked a clear decline in the number of publicized Taiwanese espionage cases in mainland China. Based on open-source materials, Dui Hua’s Political Prisoner Database holds information on more than 90 Taiwanese “spies” detained or convicted between 2000 and 2008—during the presidency of Chen Shui-bian—compared with just five people convicted for espionage after Ma took office. Four of these convictions were for selling military secrets and led to sentences ranging from death with reprieve to 15 years' imprisonment.

Court records from Hunan describe the fifth case involving Long Jianbin, who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The official account charges Long with collecting information about leadership changes and political, military, and economic developments for someone he “should have known” was a Taiwanese agent.

Through an online job search, Long was hired to work part time for a man surnamed Lee, who called himself the assistant vice president of a media company. After taking on initial assignments, Long reported Lee to relevant government bodies, perhaps concerned that he had gotten involved in illegal matters. Receiving no response from the government, however, Long continued to collect materials, many of which appear to have been publically available.

One of the collected publications, Selected Internal Reference, is a limited distribution compendium of news and opinion pieces sold principally to government bodies and work units, but often made available to their employees. As social commentator Zhang Shihe (张世和) noted in 2007, cadres often sell the publication to scrap recyclers, while other internal publications were often made widely available by profit-driven publishers. Other so-called internal publications that Long collected, like Dispatches of from the General Office of the Communist Party of China, contain articles that can be freely viewed online. Perhaps acknowledging that the information Long supplied did little harm to state security, the court meted out a relatively short sentence.

(Article 110 of the Criminal Law prescribes 3-10 years’ imprisonment for acts of espionage with minor circumstances.)

Zhuzhou Court Records Verdict: click to expand

Long Jianbin Espionage Case

Prosecutor: Zhuzhou People’s Procuratorate of Hunan Province
Defendant: Long Jianbin.

As the result of an online posting in which he sought part-time work, in September 2008, defendant Long Jianbin received a recruitment email for an editorial post with a generous remuneration package from someone calling himself “Assistant Vice President Lee” of Huayu Media Information Center. Long provided samples of his writing and editing ability over the Internet and expressed his interest in the job. Assistant Vice President Lee instructed Long to collect information on position changes and transfers among high-ranking officials and on political, military, and economic conditions. Long collected materials using methods such as Internet downloads, purchasing books and newspapers from local stores, and scanning Selected Internal References at the Chalin County Party Committee Office. He then used foreign computer networks to compress and encrypt the collected materials and sent them to “Assistant Vice President Lee.” Long received from “Assistant Vice President Lee” three payment transfers totaling 14,000 yuan around January 7, 2009. At this time, Long started to have suspicions about the identity of Assistant Vice President Lee and filed an online report with relevant state bodies. After receiving no reply, Long continued cooperation with Lee. During the period of September 2008 to June 2009, under the instructions of “Assistant Vice President Lee,” an agent of a Taiwanese espionage organization, Long took from the Chalin County Confidential Affairs Bureau and borrowed from his own work unit classified materials and information from 27 issues of Selected Internal References and three issues of Dispatches from the General Office of the Communist Party of China and other works. Adhering to transmission methods imparted by the agent of the espionage organization, he sent the information to Taiwanese espionage organization agent “Assistant Vice President Lee” over the Internet and received from “Assistant Vice President Lee” five payment transfers totaling 10,000 yuan. Using aliases such as “Li Xiang,” “Da Hai,” and “Song Weiping,” Long Jianbin received espionage payments totaling RMB 24,000 yuan.

After conducting a trial, the intermediate court found that defendant Long Jianbin, under circumstances in which he should have known that “Assistant Vice President Lee” was an agent of a foreign espionage organization, accepted assignments and requests from “Assistant Vice President Lee” and used secretive online methods to provide [him] with several confidential national documents and information. His actions constitute the crime of espionage. In accordance with the law, his sentence is as follows: 1) For the crime of espionage, defendant Long Jianbin is sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of five years and deprivation of political rights for one year with confiscation of personal assets of 10,000 yuan; 2) recovery of the 24,000 yuan [Long Jianbin] illegally obtained, transferred to the state treasury; and 3) confiscation of the tools used in committing the crime—one notebook computer, three desktop computers, and a USB flash drive.

Chinese Source(原文):
株洲市法院志 2011年,115-116页
Zhouzhou Court Records, (2011), pp.115-116
Click on icon to expand




中院审理后认为,被告人龙建斌在应当知道“李协理”为境外间谍组织代理人的情况下,接受“李协理”的任务和要求,在网上以隐秘方式向“李协理”提供多份国家秘密文件和情报,其行为巳构成间谍罪。依法判决:一、被告人龙建斌犯间谍罪,判处有期徒刑五年,剥夺政治权利一年,并处没收个人财产10000元;二、追缴非法所得24000元,上缴国库;三、对作案工具笔记本电脑一台、电脑主机三台、U 盘一个予以没收。


Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Verdict of a Chongqing Citizen in the Time of Bo Xilai


On July 21, 2010, in the southwestern city of Chongqing, 47-year-old Gao Yingpu was getting ready to have dinner at his in-law’s when two local police officers barged into his home, Caijing reports. The police officers came to ask Gao about the origins of two satirical images of Mao Zedong that had been posted online. The former journalist turned businessman acknowledged that he had reposted the images on his blog. He was then told to change his clothes and accompany the officers to the local police station to “assist with the investigation,” the findings of which are detailed in the criminal verdict translated below.

Weeks earlier, a once high-ranking police official was executed in Chongqing, marking the high tide of a conspicuous anti-mafia campaign carried out by former Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai and Police Chief Wang Lijun. Although welcomed by many Chongqing residents, the campaign was criticized for allowing political interests to bulldoze due process and rule of law. Many who denounced the campaign, or other controversial policies carried out under Bo, were sent to prison or reeducation-through-labor camps.

Gao Yingpu, who frequently engaged in online debates with supporters of Bo’s “leftist” policies, was one of dozens, perhaps hundreds, who fell victim to what some have called Chongqing’s period of “red terror.” Following a secret trial, Gao was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for “inciting subversion” and sent to Chongqing’s Daping Prison.

Chongqing’s political environment changed dramatically just over a year later, as first Wang Lijun and then Bo Xilai were removed from office and investigated. (Wang was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in September 2012; Bo is still awaiting trial.) Not long afterwards, many of those punished for expressing criticism of Chongqing’s former power-holders began to be released from custody, and some had their sentences overturned. Having had his sentence reduced, Gao was released seven months early in January 2013. The same month, he asked his wife to petition the Chongqing High People’s Court to overturn the sentence against him on the grounds that his conviction came during an “unusual historical period.” There is no word yet on whether the court will review the case.

Chongqing Municipality No.1 Intermeidate Court Criniminal Verdict: click to expand

Chongqing Municipality No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court
Criminal Verdict

(2010) CQ No. 1 Int. Crim. First No. 189

The prosecuting organ is the Chongqing People’s Procuratorate No. 1 Branch.

Defendant Gao Yingpu, male, born August 17, 1963, in Yuzhong District, Chongqing Municipality, Han ethnicity, university education, unemployed, resides at [redacted] Yubei District, Chongqing Municipality (place of household registration: 201-13 Guanghe 1st Street, Tianhenanjie [Subdistrict], Guangzhou, Guangdong). On July 21, 2010, he was taken into custody on suspicion of inciting subversion and placed under criminal detention the following day. On August 26 of that year, he was formally arrested. He is currently detained in Chongqing Municipality Yubei District Detention Center.

Defense counsel is Zhao Yang, lawyer with the Chongqing Baijun Law Firm.

On November 25, 2010, the Chongqing People’s Procuratorate No. 1 Branch filed indictment CQ Proc. No. 1 Branch Crim. Indict. (2010) No. 238 with this court, charging defendant Gao Yingpu with inciting subversion. This court formed a collegiate bench in accordance with the law and, as this case involves state secrets, held a closed hearing to try this case. The Chongqing People’s Procuratorate No. 1 Branch appointed associate prosecutor Ma Hongwei to appear in court on behalf of the prosecution. Defendant Gao Yingpu and his defense counsel Zhao Yang appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. The trial has now concluded.

The Chongqing People’s Procuratorate No. 1 Branch alleged that: Beginning in 2009, defendant Gao Yingpu installed anti-firewall software [e.g., a virtual private network] and browsed overseas web sites such as,,, and He also set up QQ [an online chat tool] account number 190996622 and, using the screen name “Xinan Paike” joined the “Nabaichuan,” “Law Forum,” and “Grassroots Wisdom” QQ groups. Gao Yingpu did not set a password or download limit on his Qzone [a QQ social networking and blog platform similar to MySpace] page and saved photos vilifying Mao Zedong, Hu Jintao, and other national leaders on his QQ photo storage space. On his QQ blog, he posted more than 10 articles, including “Mao Zedong: If It Weren’t for the Japanese Imperial Army, We Couldn’t Have Taken Power” and “Eleven Days of Trickery.” He shared Tombstone, Mao Zedong: An Assessment of his Crimes and Accomplishments, and 28 other documents with his QQ groups. Beginning in July 2010, Gao Yingpu posted comments on QQ group chats such as “Socialism has proven that it causes bloodshed and failure; it’s a dying system. Capitalism can improve things for the better and move towards more humane and humanitarian [conditions]. China’s Maoist socialism must die and be reborn soon”; “Patriotism is an attempt to bring back the spirit of despotism”; and “We must follow the path of European-American democracy” and uploaded two photos vilifying Mao Zedong. On July 21, 2010, defendant Gao Yingpu was captured by the public security authorities.

In support of these charges, the prosecution produced the following evidence in court: a detention record; a record of remote inspection of electronic evidence; a certification report for the inspection of electronic evidence; the statements of witnesses Xu Tao, Chen Lin, and Tang Yi; and the confession and defense argument of defendant Gao Yingpu. Based on this evidence, the prosecution maintains that defendant Gao Yingpu used rumor, slander, and other methods to express speech that incited subversion of state power and overthrow of the socialist system. His actions violate Article 105(2) of the Criminal Law of the PRC, the facts of the crime are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient, and he ought to be held criminally responsible for the crime of inciting subversion. [The prosecution] requests that this court deliver punishment in accordance with the law.

Defendant Gao Yingpu did not raise any objections to the charge or the basic facts as presented in the indictment, but he argued in his defense that the defamatory image of state leader Hu Jintao in his Qzone page photo album was not something he downloaded; rather the image was automatically saved on his Qzone page because it had been part of a group page. His defense counsel argued that Gao Yingpu was a first-time offender and that he had acknowledged guilt and regret. Moreover, his criminal act had not resulted in major damage to national interests, and the subjective evil and degree of social harm were both relatively minor. Therefore, he recommended that [Gao] be punished with lenience in accordance with the law and in consideration of the circumstances.

In the course of the trial, it was ascertained that: Beginning in 2009, defendant Gao Yingpu used QQ account number 190996622; joined the “Grassroots Wisdom,” “Law Forum,” and “Nabaichuan” QQ groups using the screen name “Xinan Paike”; and used “Freegate” anti-firewall software to browse overseas websites such as,,, and Gao Yingpu did not set a password or download limit on his Qzone page and saved photos vilifying Mao Zedong, Hu Jintao, and other national leaders in his QQ photo storage space. On his QQ blog, he posted more than 10 articles, including “Mao Zedong: If It Weren’t for the Japanese Imperial Army, We Couldn’t Have Taken Power” and “Eleven Days of Trickery.” He shared Tombstone, Mao Zedong: An Assessment of his Crimes and Accomplishments, and 28 other documents with his QQ groups. Beginning in July 2010, Gao Yingpu posted comments on QQ group chats such as “Socialism has proven that it causes bloodshed and failure; it’s a dying system. Capitalism can improve things for the better and move towards more humane and humanitarian [conditions]. China’s Maoist socialism must die and be reborn soon”; “Patriotism is an attempt to bring back the spirit of despotism”; and “We must follow the path of European-American democracy.” On the “Nabaichuan” QQ group, he uploaded two photos vilifying Mao Zedong that he had downloaded from other websites.

On July 21, 2010, defendant Gao Yingpu was taken into custody by public security authorities.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence, which was put forth by the prosecution and cross-examined and confirmed in court:

  1. The crime registration report and case-filing decision, confirming: After the public security authority received a crime report on July 21, 2010, it filed a case for investigating Gao Yingpu that same day.
  2. Record of capture, confirming: Public security personnel took Gao Yingpu into custody on July 21, 2010, at [address redacted], Yubei District, Chongqing Municipality.
  3. Recovery record and inventory of confiscated items, confirming: On July 21, 2010, a Lenovo notebook computer related to the case was recovered from Gao Yingpu’s home and confiscated in accordance with the law.
  4. Identification of photographs of a computer and sent images: On July 21, 2010, Gao Yingpu identified the notebook computer used to commit the crimes. He also identified two images vilifying Mao Zedong that he sent; the more than 10 articles, including “Mao Zedong: If It Weren’t for the Japanese Imperial Army, We Couldn’t Have Taken Power” and “Eleven Days of Trickery” that were posted on his blog; and Tombstone, Mao Zedong: An Assessment of his Crimes and Accomplishments, and 28 other documents that were shared with his QQ groups.
  5. Record of on-scene inspection and investigation, confirming: On July 21, 2010, the Yubei Internet Inspection Police conducted an on-scene inspection of Gao Yingpu’s computer, recovering electronic information including relevant images transmitted using QQ account number 190996622 on the “Nabaichuan” QQ group and QQ chat records.
  6. Record of remote investigation, confirming: On August 17, 2010, investigators from the Chongqing Public Security Bureau conducted a remote investigation of the overseas websites Gao Yingpu visited such as,,, and It is impossible to visit the aforementioned websites through normal browsing, but they may be opened using the “Freegate” anti-firewall software. From August 8‒9, 2010, investigators from the Chongqing Public Security Bureau examined records of the QQ groups, Qzone blog, and uploaded images associated with QQ account number 190996622. From the time it was opened until the time of the remote investigation, QQ account number 190996622 had 2,042 hits and a total of 10 QQ groups. There were a total of 339 items posted to the blog associated with QQ account number 190996622, of which approximately 15 had content attacking Mao Zedong and others. There were 1,629 images on the Qzone page associated with QQ account number 190996622, of which 11 insulted leaders such as Mao Zedong and Hu Jintao. Thirty documents, including Tombstone and Mao Zedong: An Assessment of his Crimes and Accomplishments, were shared via the QQ groups.
  7. A report on the inspection of electronic evidence, confirming: A search of Gao Yingpu’s computer that was involved in the case recovered a record of 5,824 web pages browsed; 2.95MB of QQ chat records, 25,485 images, .DOC files, and other documents; 10 QQ groups including “Nabaichuan,” “Law Forum,” and “Grassroots Wisdom”; and statements in the chat records of some of these 10 QQ groups, including: “Socialism has proven that it causes bloodshed and failure; it’s a dying system. Capitalism can improve things for the better and move towards more humane and humanitarian [conditions]. China’s Maoist socialism must die and be reborn soon”; “Patriotism is an attempt to bring back the spirit of despotism”; and “We must follow the path of European-American democracy.”
  8. A report of additional investigation, confirming: The QQ groups that Gao Yingpu’s QQ account joined are listed inconsistently in the two inspection records because the remote inspection record and the electronic evidence inspection report were compiled at different times and, in the interim, the QQ group names had changed. But the QQ account number does not change. Moreover, the Qzone software does not include any automatic saving of [group] images to individual QQ users’ spaces.
  9. The statement of witness Xu Tao: I came to know “Xinan Paike” in the “Grassroots Wisdom” group. “Xinan Paike” kicked anyone out of “Grassroots Wisdom” who supported and liked Chairman Mao and didn’t allow them to express their opinions. Later, I created the “Nabaichuan” group with more than 100 members, including “Xinan Paike.” “Xinan Paike” was prejudiced against Chairman Mao and liked to post comments attacking Chairman Mao. “Xinan Paike” shared some information, documents, and books that couldn’t be found on the Internet and had a certain degree of popularity.
  10. The statement of witness Wang Kan: I saw “Xinan Paike” publish comments many times on the “Rule of Law Forum” [sic] QQ group. His main view was support for reform and opening and desire for deeper political reform, open leadership elections, and exercise of effective oversight over officials.
  11. The statement of witness Chen Lin: Many topics of discussion on the “Grassroots Wisdom” group were introduced by “Xinan Paike” He posted a lot of information to the QQ group, much of which expressed dissatisfaction or even opposition to the actions of the party and government. The discussion topics initiated by “Xinan Paike” all criticized Mao Zedong and opposed the government. The discussions he proposed did not seek truth from facts; they were very extreme or you could even say reactionary.
  12. The statement of witness Tang Yi: I joined the “Grassroots Wisdom” and “Nabaichuan” QQ groups. The comments “Xinan Paike” posted to the “Nabaichuan” QQ group mainly opposed radical “leftism.” He said that China’s present economic development model wasn’t scientific and that it should be re-adjusted as quickly as possible. He was rather opposed to Mao Zedong and, in addition to posting comments, also posted some images that vilified and insulted Mao Zedong’s image. I visited the Qzone page and blog of “Xinan Paike” and saw articles slandering Mao Zedong and [discussing] Mao Zedong’s political struggles with other leaders during the Cultural Revolution. “Xinan Paike” also shared these articles with his QQ groups.
  13. The statement of witness Liu Yuntao: I’ve been going online for three or four years. I joined the “Nabaichuan” QQ group but I don’t know “Xinan Paike.”
  14. The statement of witness Li [redacted]: I’m Gao Yingpu’s wife. Our family has two computers, one desktop computer and one Lenovo notebook computer. Gao Yingpu usually uses the notebook computer. I only use the desktop.
  15. The confession of defendant Gao Yingpu: I have a QQ account with the screen name “Xinan Paike,” account number 190996622. I joined 10 QQ groups, including “Grassroots Wisdom,” “Law Forum,” and “Nabaichuan.” I used the “Freegate” software to browse overseas websites like,,, and because these web sites have things I can’t read on websites within China. I also read some books online, such as Tombstone and Mao Zedong: An Assessment of his Crimes and Accomplishments. In 2009, I began participating in discussions about Mao Zedong and uploading books, articles, and comments that cast a negative light on Mao Zedong’s life. My QQ space has no password or limit on downloading. “Mao Zedong: If It Weren’t for the Japanese Imperial Army, We Couldn’t Have Taken Power,” “China’s Super Emperor,” “Eleven Days of Trickery,” and other articles were reposted by me, and I shared Tombstone, Mao Zedong: An Assessment of his Crimes and Accomplishments, and other documents on “Grassroots Wisdom,” “Nabaichuan,” and other QQ groups. In my QQ groups, I posted comments like “We must follow the path of European-American democracy”; “Socialism has proven that it causes bloodshed and failure; it’s a dying system. Capitalism can improve things for the better and move toward more humane and humanitarian [conditions]. China’s Maoist socialism must die and be reborn soon”; and “Patriotism is an attempt to bring back the spirit of despotism.” On the afternoon of July 20, 2010, when I was online at my home, I observed an argument between leftists and rightists on the “Nabaichuan” QQ group. The leftists said that the Maoist era was good and said that the people must stand up and rid themselves of the capitalists and the capitalist reform faction. Since I am part of the reform faction, I was very angry with the leftists’ views so I posted two insulting images of Mao Zedong that I had downloaded from the “Yuan Tengfei Ba” on Baidu. The first was an image of Mao Zedong kneeling on the ground in repentance; the second was an image of a turtle’s body with Mao Zedong’s head and a person standing on the turtle’s back. As I posted these images, I added the comment, “Old Hoodlum Mao’s statue has been erected in Tiananmen Square, are you ready to kneel alongside him?” At the time, I posted these two images to attack the ideas and comments of the leftists in the group who were supporting Mao Zedong. I was mainly trying to argue against them, ridicule them, and insult their spiritual leader.

This court finds that defendant Gao Yingpu used rumor, slander, and other methods and incited subversion of state power and overthrow of the socialist system through the online posting, reposting, and sharing of remarks and texts and the storage and uploading of images that vilified state leaders; [therefore,] his actions constitute the crime of inciting subversion and he should be punished in accordance with the law. The criminal facts alleged by the prosecution and the charged crime are both valid, but given that defendant Gao Yingpu is a first-time offender, he truthfully confessed his crimes upon arrest, he displayed a relatively good attitude towards acknowledging guilt, and the harm he caused to state security was relatively minor, he may be punished with appropriate lenience. As for Gao Yingpu’s claim that the defamatory image of state leader Hu Jintao in his Qzone photo album was not something he downloaded but, rather, was automatically saved in his Qzone space because it was part of a group’s page, [the court finds that] the supplementary investigation report produced by the public security authority confirms that the Qzone software does not include any automatic saving of [group] images to individual QQ users’ spaces; therefore this defense argument is not tenable and is not accepted. Defense counsel’s defense arguments are tenable and may be accepted. In accordance with Articles 105(2), 55(1), 56(1), and 64 of the Criminal Law of the PRC, [this court] rules as follows:

I. For the crime of inciting subversion, defendant Gao Yingpu is sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with subsequent deprivation of political rights for one year.

(The prison term is to be calculated from the day the verdict is implemented, with each day spent in detention prior to the verdict’s implementation to count as one day of the prison term; therefore, it will run from July 21, 2010, to July 20, 2013.)

II. The Lenovo notebook computer used to commit defendant Gao Yingpu’s crimes is hereby confiscated.

If this verdict is not accepted, an appeal may be filed within 10 days of the second day following the receipt of this verdict, either to this court or directly to the Chongqing High People’s Court. In the case of a written appeal, the original appellate petition must be submitted together with two copies.

Presiding Judge: Xiao Ming
Judicial Officer: Li Yi
Deputy Judicial Officer: Li Ying

December 13, 2010

Court Clerk: Xia Yujie

Chinese Source(原文):
Click on icon to expand













  1. 接受刑事案件登记表,立案决定书证明:2010年7月21日,公安机关接报案后,于同日依法对高应朴立案侦查。
  2. 捉获经过证明:2010年7月21日公安机关在重庆市渝北区【略】将高应朴捉获。
  3. 提取笔录及扣押物品清单证明:2010年7月21日从高应朴家中提取涉案“联想”牌笔记本电脑一台,并依法予以扣押。
  4. 指认电脑及所发图片的照片证明:2010年7月21日,高应朴对作案笔记本电脑进行指认;对所发的丑化毛泽东的图片2张进行指认;对在QQ日志中所发表的《毛泽东:没有你们日本皇军,我们不可能夺取胜利》、《权谋十一天》等10余篇文章进行指认;对在QQ群中共享的《墓碑》、《千秋功罪毛泽东》等30篇文章进行指认。
  5. 现场勘验检查工作记录证明:2010年7月21日渝北网监民警对高应朴电脑进行勘察,在电脑中获取QQ号为190996622在“纳百川”QQ群发布的相关图片及QQ聊天记录等电子信息。
  6. 远程勘验工作记录证明:2010年8月17日,重庆市公安局侦查员对高应朴访问过的“看中国”、“人民报”、“大纪元”、“阿波罗”等境外网站进行远程勘察,上述网站无法直接正常访问,但使用“自由之门”翻墙软件可以打开。2010年8月8日至9日,重庆市公安局侦查员对QQ190996622的QQ群、QQ空间日志、图片上传等情况进行固定。QQ90996622的空间从开通至远程勘验时,共有2042人/次访问过。QQ190996622共有10个QQ群。QQ90996622在空间发表日志339篇,其中有大约15篇文章有攻击毛泽东等人的内容。QQ190996622空间有图片1629张,其中有11张系毛泽东和胡锦涛等领导人的。QQ群共享《墓碑》、《千秋功罪毛泽东》等30篇文章。
  7. 电子证据检验报告书证明:对高应朴涉案电脑中恢复提取网页浏览记录5824条。QQ聊天记录2.95MB,图片、DOC后缀等文件25485个、QQ9099622共有“纳百川”、“法制论坛”、“草根智慧”等10个QQ群,其在10个QQ群中的部分聊天记录有“社会主义已证明更血腥更失败,是死的制度,资本主义能改恶从善,走向更人道更人性,中国的毛式社会主义要早死早投胎”、“爱国主义,是一面专制主义的招魂帆”、“要走欧美民主道路”等。
  8. 补充侦查报告书证明:高应朴的QQ号所加入的QQ群在两份勘察记录中记载的不一致,是因为远程勘验笔录与电子物证鉴定报告书形成时间有差异,期间,QQ群名称变更所致,但QQ群ID号不能更改,另外,QQ空间软件中没有群空间中的图片自动保存到QQ群友个人QQ空间中的功能。
  9. 证人许涛证言证明:我和“西南派克”是在“草根智慧”群中认识的,“西南派克”在“草根智慧”里把拥护和喜欢毛主席的网友踢出群,不准他们发表观点。后来,我创建了“纳百川”群,“纳百川”有100多人,也包括“西南派克”。“西南派克”对毛主席有成见,喜欢发表攻击毛主席的言论。“西南派克”在群里共享一些不能在互联网上找到的资料,文章和书籍,在群里有一定人气。
  10. 证人王侃证言证明:我在“法治论坛”这个QQ群中,多次看到“西南派克”发言,主要观点是支持改革开放,并要求进一步深化改革,公开选举领导人,对领导人实施有效监督。
  11. 证人陈琳证言证明:在“草根智慧”群里面很多讨论的话题是“西南派克”发起的,他发了很多资料到QQ群里面,这些资料很多都是对党和政府行为的一种不满甚至是持反对意见的。“西南派克”发起的讨论话题也都是批评毛泽东,反对政府的,他发起的话题不是实事求是的,很偏激或者说是反动。
  12. 证人唐翼证言证明:我加入过“草根智慧”和“纳百川”QQ群,“西南派克”在“纳百川”QQ群中发的言论主要是反对激进的“左”,他称现在国内的经济发展模式不科学,应该尽快调整,他比较反对毛泽东,除了发表的言论外还发了丑化毛泽东形象的图片,我进入过“西南派克”的QQ空间,空间日志中有污蔑毛泽东及文化大革命中毛泽东与其他领导人政治斗争等的文章,这些文章“西南派克”也传到QQ群共享空间中。
  13. 证人刘云涛证言证明:我上网三、四年了,我加入过“纳百川”QQ群,我不认识“西南派克”。
  14. 证人李XX证言证明:我与高应朴是夫妻关系,我家有两台电脑,一台台式电脑,一台“联想”笔记本电脑,高应朴一般都是用笔记本电脑,我只用台式机。
  15. 被告人高应朴供述:我有一个网名叫“西南派克”的QQ号,号码是190996622.我在网上加入了“草根智慧”、“法制论坛”、“纳百川”等10个QQ群。我通过“自由之门”软件,浏览过“阿波罗”、“看中国”、“人民报”、“大纪元”等境外网站,因为这些网站上有在国内网站上我看不到的东西,我还在上面看一些书,比如《墓碑》、《千秋功罪毛泽东》等。我从2009年开始参加有关对毛泽东的讨论和上传对毛泽东的生平有负面影响的书籍、文章及言论。我的QQ空间不设密码和下载限制,我QQ空间中的《毛泽东:没有你们日本皇军,我们不可能夺得政权》、《中国,有这样一个超级皇帝》、《权谋十一天》等文章是我转载的,在“草根智慧”、“纳百川”等多个QQ群里,共享有《墓碑》、《千秋功罪毛泽东》等文章。我在QQ群中发表了“要走欧美民主道路”、“社会主义已证明更血腥更失败,是死的制度,资本主义能改恶从善,走向更人道更人性,中国的毛式社会主义要早死早投胎”、“爱国主义,是一面专制主义的招魂帆”等言论。2010年7月20日下午,我在家中上网的时候,在名为“纳百川“的QQ群里看到左右派别的成员在进行争吵,左派的人说毛泽东时代好,并称人民要站起来对资产阶级及资改派进行清算,因为我是属于改革派,对左派的观点很生气,就在QQ群里发了两张从百度上的“袁腾飞吧”下载的侮辱毛主席的图片,一张是毛泽东跪在地上忏悔的图片,一张是毛泽东的龟身人头像,一个人站在龟背上的图片。我当时发图片的时候还发了一句话是“把毛老痞立在天安门广场的像都做好了,你做好陪跪的准备没有?”。我当时发表这两张图片是为了打击群里左派拥护毛泽东的思想和言论,我主要是要反驳他们的观点,取笑他们,侮辱他们的精神领袖。


一、 被告人高应朴犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪,判处有期徒刑三年,剥夺政治权利一年。


二、 对被告人高应朴犯罪所用的“联想”牌笔记本电脑一台予以没收。


审判长 肖明
审判员 李毅
代理审判员 李颖


书记员 夏玉杰