Lawyer Wang Quanzhang: Update on Recent Rights Defense Work (May 8, 2026)
Here is an update on my recent work:
1. The Ministry of Public Security has responded to my application for disclosure of information on the authorization to “draft and issue the draft for public consultation of the Cybercrime Prevention and Control Law.” I have filed an application for administrative reconsideration within the statutory time limit.
In its response, the Ministry of Public Security admitted that it was “drafting [the law] on behalf of the State Council.” This amounts to an admission that it had no authority to draft it. Since it had no authority to draft it, it likewise had no authority to issue it for public consultation in the name of the “Ministry of Public Security.” The illegality of the issuing body and procedure for the draft is self-evident.
In addition, the Legislation Law is an exceptionally good law, rarely seen in recent decades. It is an interpretation of the Constitution and sets out strict and detailed provisions on the formulation and drafting of legal documents at different levels, while imposing clear statutory controls on the departmental legislation that has long proliferated.
In this legal document, there is no clear provision indicating that the State Council has the “authority to draft laws”—but there are provisions granting it the authority to draft administrative regulations, and no provision can be found authorizing the State Council to empower its departments to draft laws. The State Council has only the right to propose “bills.” A bill is different from a draft law; if they were the same, why use two different terms?
2. An administrative reconsideration application has also been filed regarding the Ministry of Public Security’s response that its “list of powers and responsibilities is a state secret.”
3. I have not yet received any response to my application for disclosure of information regarding the security classification of the “list of powers and responsibilities” mentioned in the Ministry of Public Security’s response, as well as the conditions for declassification and the declassification period, among other matters.
4. The date for the fourth hearing in the reputation-infringement lawsuit against “CCTV’s Wang Zhi’an” has been set.
Related Reporting
Aug 30, 2026
China Rights Defense Network: Monthly Report on Political Prisoners and Prisoners of Conscience in Mainland China (August 31, 2026), Issue 131 (1,638 people in total)
The Rights Defense Network Information Center released its 131st monthly report on August 31, 2026, stating that 40 people on the previous roster had completed their sentences and been released, 30 had new developments while in prison, six had been newly criminally detained or forcibly disappeared, 28 had been newly sentenced, and one had died in prison; the report lists a total of 1,638 political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in custody.
Aug 30, 2026
Case Details and Biography of Sun Chao, Christian Church Preacher in Qujing, Yunnan, Criminally Detained
Sun Chao, a Christian preacher at Philadelphia Church in Qujing, Yunnan, was transferred to criminal detention on August 7, 2026, after completing a 12-day administrative detention for preaching the Gospel. Authorities reportedly cited suspected “illegal organization of gatherings.” Sun, who has epilepsy and requires regular medication, is detained at Xuanwei City Detention Center. His wife, Zhao Ying, has appealed for attention to his health and rights.
Aug 29, 2026
Li Qiaochu: Update on Xu Zhiyong’s Situation in Prison (August 29, 2026)
The writer received a letter from Xu Zhiyong dated August 21, 2026, saying his outdoor time had improved to 10 a.m. daily for 30 minutes. Correspondence had also become smoother than during the previous two months. The writer considers the matter closed for now but plans to continue asking about Xu’s basic living conditions. Xu reportedly liked hand-drawn pictures sent with a letter in late July.
Aug 29, 2026
Chow Hang-tung: Statement of Plea
The author rejects a 206-page judgment that, they argue, treats belief in ending one-party dictatorship as unconstitutional and criminal. They say law cannot control thoughts, condemn obedience to authoritarian power, and describe ending one-party dictatorship as a responsibility of Hong Kong and Chinese people. The author refuses to apologize for these beliefs, accepts possible imprisonment, and vows to continue pursuing democracy, accountability for the 1989 massacre and a democratic Hong Kong and China.



