Lawyer Zhou Shifeng: An Open Letter to the Director and Party Committee Members of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau

Dear Director Qin Yunbiao and all Party Committee members of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau:

Hello!

I am Zhou Shifeng, ID number 410522196411180077, former director of Beijing Fengrui Law Firm, as well as a prominent persecuted figure in the major historic 709 incident led by Sun Lijun and Fu Zhenghua. My telephone number is 13241550118.

I am writing to your bureau regarding the recent criminal detention of Shandong lawyer Yu Kai in Beijing on suspicion of “the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble” for publicly expressing his demands, to express my concern and put forward several rational suggestions based on legal, political and historical considerations.

I. A prudent assessment of the basic nature of the case

According to currently available public information, on March 26, 2026, Lawyer Yu Kai expressed institutional demands outside a Beijing judicial administrative authority by holding a slogan. The content mainly concerned the self-governance of bar associations, the method of paying membership fees, and reform of the lawyer-practice management system.

Judging from the conduct in question:

• There is no evidence of violent conduct
• There is no evidence that he organized or incited a mass gathering
• No actual, specific disruption of public order was caused
• The conduct was essentially an individual and expressive presentation of opinions.

On this basis, whether the direct application of the highly generalized “crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble” under the Criminal Law, together with the adoption of criminal detention, the most severe coercive measure, is consistent with the principles of restraint and proportionality in criminal law requires a highly prudent reassessment.

II. Legal issues concerning the boundaries of applying the “crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble”

In judicial practice, the “crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble” has long presented the problem of unclear boundaries, and this has been the subject of continuing discussion in both academic and professional circles.

The application of this crime should strictly follow:

• The principle of legality
• The principle of social harmfulness
• The principle of restraint in criminal law

If conduct involving the peaceful expression of institutional opinions is brought within the scope of this crime, it would objectively expand the boundaries of criminal-law application, thereby affecting the certainty of the law and the credibility of the judiciary.

III. A reconsideration of the relationship between industry governance and expressive conduct

It should be particularly noted that the core of Lawyer Yu Kai’s demands this time was not directed at the interests of an individual case, but focused on the governance structure of the legal profession, including institutional issues such as bar-association self-governance, the methods of practice management, and the standardized operation of the profession.

In recent years, the state has continued to advance standardized governance and institutional improvement in various fields, emphasizing governance according to law and standardized operation. Against this background, putting forward opinions and suggestions concerning industry governance is itself one important way for all sectors of society to participate in the development of the rule of law.

From this perspective, the issues of concern to Lawyer Yu Kai objectively have a certain degree of alignment with the direction of promoting the standardized development of the profession and improving governance.

In reality, every industry faces the task of standardization and institutional improvement in the course of its development. Promoting improvement through rational expression and professional discussion should be regarded as a constructive force that can be accommodated in a society governed by the rule of law.

Therefore, in determining the nature of and manner of handling this type of expressive conduct oriented toward institutional improvement, it would be appropriate to make the necessary distinction from conduct that simply disrupts public order.

IV. The impact of this case from the perspective of developing the rule of law

At present, the state continues to emphasize governing the country according to law and building a government under the rule of law. As an important component of the legal system, the lawyer community’s role lies not only in representing individual cases, but also in promoting the correct implementation of the law and the continuous improvement of institutions.

Against this background, if criminal measures are directly used against lawyers who peacefully express institutional opinions, this may objectively have the following effects:

• It may affect the professional expectations and institutional confidence of the lawyer community
• It may restrict the space for rational discussion of the rule of law
• It may weaken society’s stable expectations regarding the operation of the rule of law

It should be noted that the manner in which an individual case is handled is itself an important reflection of the image of the rule of law.

V. A prudent lesson from historical experience

Historical experience shows that the manner in which expressive conduct is handled often directly affects the foundations of social trust and the environment in which institutions operate.

Compared with excessive reliance on criminal measures, handling expressive conduct in a more prudent, restrained manner that distinguishes its nature is generally more conducive to reducing confrontation, building consensus, and promoting the continuous improvement of institutions through rational interaction.

Therefore, when handling conduct with clear expressive characteristics, distinguishing between “the expression of opinions” and “disruption of order” is of important significance.

VI. Our suggestions and requests

Based on the above considerations, I respectfully put forward the following suggestions to your bureau:

• Conduct a comprehensive review, in accordance with the law, of the necessity and legality of the criminal coercive measures in this case
• Strictly examine whether Yu Kai’s conduct meets the constituent elements of the “crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble”
• In the absence of actual social harmfulness, lift the coercive measures in accordance with the law

Handling this case prudently and in accordance with the law would not only help achieve justice in the individual case, but would also further demonstrate the capital’s exemplary significance in developing the rule of law.

VII. In conclusion

I believe that Director Yunbiao and all the Party Committee members will proceed from legal principles and the overall interests of the rule of law to make a prudent, rational judgment on this case that is consistent with long-term governance objectives.

The authority of the rule of law is reflected not only in regulating unlawful conduct, but also in its tolerance of rational expression and its handling of boundaries.

I hereby submit this letter and respectfully ask that you give it prudent consideration.

Yours sincerely!

Zhou Shifeng

April 1, 2026