Zhejiang Prominent Human Rights Defender Chen Shuqing: Bringing Administrative Bad Faith and Arrogance of Power to Court

ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff：Chen Shuqing，male，from Hangzhou，Zhejiang Province，currently residing at Room 202，Unit 5，Building 6，Daguan Yuan East Wuyuan，Gongshu District，Hangzhou City，ID No. 330106196509260073，telephone 15958160478.

Defendant One：Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau

Address : No. 1 Wenhui Road，Gongshu District，Hangzhou City，telephone：0571-89505558

Person in charge：Lin Yi     Position：Director

Defendant Two：Gongshu District People's Government of Hangzhou

Address : No. 1 Taizhou Road，Gongshu District，Hangzhou City，telephone：0571-89509522

Person in charge：Chen Yu    Position：District Mayor

Cause of action：Administrative confirmation

Claims for relief：

1：The Plaintiff requests that Defendant One, the Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, fulfill its statutory social insurance responsibilities and promptly complete the procedures for confirming the Plaintiff's retirement eligibility and determining the retirement pension payable to him；

2：The Plaintiff requests the annulment of the Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the Gongshu District People's Government of Hangzhou, Hangongzhengfu Administrative Reconsideration [2026] No. 67, issued by Defendant Two, the Gongshu District People's Government of Hangzhou。

Facts and grounds：

Plaintiff Chen Shuqing reached the age of 60 years and three months on December 25, 2025, and had actually paid into the social insurance pool for 24 years and four months, exceeding the minimum contribution period of 15 years. When handling his retirement procedures in December 2025, staff members of Defendant One, the Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been sentenced to four years in prison in 2007 for the crime of inciting subversion of state power and to 10 years and six months in prison in 2016 for the crime of subversion of state power, deducted the accumulated periods of the two prison sentences from his social insurance contribution period, leaving only more than nine years of contributions, which was less than the minimum contribution period, and refused to process the Plaintiff's retirement procedures。

During repeated discussions, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied that Defendant One's staff remained vague and evasive, merely saying orally, "according to relevant policies," and therefore submitted an application for government information disclosure. On December 25, 2025, Chen Zupeng, a staff member of Defendant One, issued to the Plaintiff in his office the Notice of Matters Handled by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center, the Notification, and the Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (this document is disclosed upon application) (Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Reply [2010] No. 358), formally confirming in writing Defendant One's decision to refuse to process the Plaintiff's retirement procedures。

The Plaintiff believes that the laws relied upon in the aforementioned documents were improperly applied and that the policies lacked sufficient legal effect. He therefore applied for administrative reconsideration on January 27, 2026. On April 30, 2026, Defendant Two, the Gongshu District People's Government, issued the Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the Gongshu District People's Government of Hangzhou, Hangongzhengfu Administrative Reconsideration [2026] No. 67, upholding the aforementioned Notification, issued by the respondent—Defendant One in this case—which refused to process Chen Shuqing's retirement procedures. The Plaintiff disagrees and hereby files an administrative lawsuit with your court, requesting that the case be heard in accordance with the law and that a fair judgment be rendered。

The Plaintiff believes that the spirit of contractual obligations is the cornerstone that enables modern civilized society to operate stably; the people take officials as their models, and the government must set an example for honesty and trustworthiness throughout society. Over the more than 20 years in this case, the Plaintiff, his family members, and the entities where he worked or through which he was affiliated for social insurance paid social insurance contributions for him. He was never informed clearly that contributions could not be paid during a period of imprisonment. Moreover, after the Plaintiff's final release from prison on March 10, 2025, he went several times to the government service center operated by Defendant One at No. 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District, to make up social insurance contributions for the most recent years during which payments had lapsed, including some periods within his prison sentences, and all such payments were completed successfully. The Defendant was perfectly willing to accept the insurance contributions, but now, when it is required to fulfill its insurance responsibilities, it has suddenly changed its position, using the pretext that this constituted "irregular participation in and payment of insurance contributions" to refuse to fulfill the social insurance responsibilities it should bear, while making the contributor, the Plaintiff Chen Shuqing in this case, unilaterally bear the adverse consequences of the alleged "irregularity," leaving the principle of protecting the people's legitimate expectations and trust in government conduct in tatters。

As can be seen from the Notification provided by Defendant One, the reason it reversed the agreement and refused to fulfill its social insurance responsibilities toward the Plaintiff was as follows: Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China provides that "within the territory of the People's Republic of China, this Law shall apply to enterprises, individual economic organizations (hereinafter collectively referred to as employing units) and workers who establish labor relations with them"; Article 72 provides that "employing units and workers must participate in social insurance in accordance with the law and pay social insurance premiums"; Article 10, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Social Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China provides that "employees shall participate in basic pension insurance, with basic pension insurance premiums paid jointly by the employing unit and the employee. Individual industrial and commercial households without employees, part-time workers who have not participated in basic pension insurance through an employing unit, and other flexibly employed persons may participate in basic pension insurance, with basic pension insurance premiums paid by the individual"; and the Reply of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Reply [2010] No. 358) provides that "persons serving prison sentences are not participants in the basic pension insurance for employees during their period of imprisonment"。

It is obvious that the provisions of the aforementioned Labor Law and Social Insurance Law, including those in the Regulations of Zhejiang Province on Basic Pension Insurance for Employees, require employing units and workers to pay social insurance premiums, and their legislative purpose is to protect the social insurance rights of workers. They contain no mandatory provision that "persons serving prison sentences may not participate in social insurance." As for the Reply Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security [2010] No. 358, it is marked "this document is disclosed upon application." Under the principle that laws do not take effect until promulgated, "disclosure upon application" cannot be equated with "promulgation" and has no effect that can be asserted against an uninformed counterpart. The Reply is dated "September 30, 2010," and was issued on October 9, 2010; it plainly has no retroactive effect on contributions made during the Plaintiff's first four-year prison term, which ended on September 13, 2010. Moreover, the Reply does not possess the rank or effect of laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, autonomous regulations and separate regulations, or rules under the Legislation Law of the People's Republic of China. It is a set of "competition rules" formulated by a government department without legislative power, which is acting as both "player and referee." Its provision that "persons serving prison sentences may not participate in social insurance" clearly falls within the situation of "second, reducing rights (in this case: the law does not clearly prohibit it, but the Reply prohibits it) or increasing obligations (in light of current policies, the result of the Reply in this case is to require the Plaintiff to undertake an additional obligation to make continuous social insurance contributions every year after reaching 60 until he is permitted to make up the 15 years after five years, before he can enjoy the retirement eligibility he should have had long ago)," a typical instance of an administrative act by an administrative subject that is "seriously and manifestly illegal" and lacks a legal basis, as described in Article 99 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, which took effect on February 8, 2018. Therefore, the Reply cannot serve as the basis for the government to breach its own obligations. The saying that "without virtue, law cannot stand" reflects a principle of good law. For example, Article 99 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law should not merely be formally promulgated, but should also be applied in judicial practice。

When negotiating with Defendant One's staff, one staff member explained: "During the time you were in prison, you could not become the genuine worker of a contributing enterprise as provided for in the aforementioned provisions of the Labor Law and other laws. Your employee pension insurance was merely a nominal form of contributions made on your behalf and did not comply with the law and policy." The Plaintiff argued at the time: "Social insurance contributions made on one's behalf have never been expressly prohibited by law. Since the social insurance pooling system began, this has been a policy accepted by default and widely implemented in practice. Over the past 20-plus years, many frontline staff members of government organs and public institutions, including your human resources and social security departments, have not actually worked at labor-dispatch agencies, but their remuneration and social insurance have been paid by labor-dispatch agencies. You cannot apply a double standard to others and yourselves." They replied: "Labor dispatch has a legal basis." After further investigating the laws, regulations, rules, and historical and current use of labor-dispatched workers by government organs and public institutions, the Plaintiff discovered that this was an attempt to use a "legal" form to in fact exceed the provisions of the law and conceal the identity-based occupational discrimination caused by the actual dual-track system inside and outside the staffing establishment. It seriously violated the equal-pay-for-equal-work requirements of the Labor Law, the Labor Contract Law, and other laws. It exceeded the legally authorized scope of employing workers because Article 2 of the Interim Provisions on Labor Dispatch expressly provides: "Where a labor-dispatch agency engages in labor-dispatch operations and an enterprise (hereinafter referred to as the employing unit) uses dispatched workers, these provisions shall apply. Where legally established partnerships such as accounting firms and law firms, foundations, private non-enterprise units, and other organizations use dispatched workers, these provisions shall apply." It does not include government organs and public institutions among the employing units permitted to use dispatched workers. Moreover, in recent years, relevant state departments have expressly prohibited this practice in corrective and improvement measures. For example, Article 10 of Ministry of Finance Order No. 102, the Measures for the Administration of Government Procurement of Services, provides: "The following items may not be included within the scope of government procurement of services: ... recruitment and employment of personnel by the purchasing entity, employment through labor dispatch, and the establishment of public-welfare positions." The Plaintiff believes that Defendant One used the power in its hands to exclude the Plaintiff's social insurance rights by treating "not included in the law" as "irregular" and thereby "prohibiting something not prohibited by law," while abusing its power to extensively use labor-dispatched workers despite having "no authorization in law." This conduct by Defendant One not only openly violated the basic requirements of a society governed by the rule of law—"what the law does not prohibit, citizens are free to do; what the law does not authorize, the government may not do"—but also became another typical case resembling "the magistrate is allowed to set fires, but ordinary people are not allowed to light lamps"。

The applicant believes that he has reached the statutory age and is qualified to enjoy retirement benefits and eligibility. Apart from the aforementioned actual contribution period and the principle of protecting legitimate expectations of trust in the government, no provision of any current law expressly stipulates that persons serving prison sentences may not participate in social insurance, including paying social insurance contributions. The judgments imposing the Plaintiff's two prison sentences deprived him of personal freedom and political rights for specified periods, but did not deprive him of social and economic rights, naturally including the right to enjoy social insurance. Under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed by the Government of the People's Republic of China on October 27, 1997, and approved by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on February 28, 2001, which has legal effect: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance." Applicant Chen Shuqing did not cease to be included among "everyone" merely because he was serving a prison sentence, and should enjoy social insurance。

Moreover, if this case is further developed, it will also involve the widespread issue of forced unpaid labor imposed on prisoners in Chinese prisons. During his first imprisonment, from January 2008 to September 2010, a total of two years and eight months, Plaintiff Chen Shuqing participated in the production of export luggage for three months in Ward Seven of Sub-prison Six of Qiaosi Prison in Zhejiang Province, and performed preliminary vegetable processing in the kitchen vegetable group for two years and five months. During his second imprisonment, from January 2017 to March 2025, a total of eight years and two months, he participated in the production of export luggage for three months in Ward Six of Sub-prison Three of Qiaosi Prison in Zhejiang Province, and baked staple food for prisoners in the kitchen pasta group for seven years and 11 months. Excluding the sporadic labor performed in the detention center during his first imprisonment, he actually participated in prison labor for a cumulative total of 10 years and 10 months. Therefore, under Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms"; Article 22: "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality, ..."; and Article 23, paragraph (2): "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work." The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by the Government of the People's Republic of China on October 5, 1998, also contains relevant provisions that "no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labor." In accordance with the requirements of these instruments of international law, even compulsory "hard labor" performed by prison inmates pursuant to lawful judgments and for the purpose of rehabilitation should be brought into line with the equal-pay-for-equal-work and social insurance requirements of the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China. If the government of our country, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, were able to comply with these declarations and covenants and take into account and implement the labor remuneration and social security that the Plaintiff should have received for the labor he performed during his imprisonment, then even if the contributions made by the Plaintiff himself, his relatives and friends, and their employing units during his imprisonment were not counted, or no contributions had been made, he would still qualify for retirement and the relevant procedures after more than 15 years。

Of course, the government's compliance with international covenants it has signed, some of which it has even ratified, is not only a requirement of administering government affairs in accordance with the law in a society governed by the rule of law; it is also the minimum requirement of "public order and good morals" in a civilized society。

In summary, given that the Plaintiff's actual social insurance contribution period of 24 years and four months exceeds the prescribed minimum standard of 15 years, and given that the Notification and Notice issued by the First Defendant and the Reconsideration Decision issued by the Second Defendant all disregard the following facts and their legal effects, which a government and its organs governed by the rule of law cannot overlook in administration：

(1) When the Plaintiff, his employing enterprises, and his family members paid or supplemented social insurance contributions in the past, they were never informed that contributions could not be made during a period of imprisonment. Before the Plaintiff in this case submitted an Application for Government Information Disclosure when applying for confirmation of retirement eligibility, the Reply of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Reply [2010] No. 358) (this document is disclosed upon application) had never been made public. It therefore cannot be used by the government to breach its obligations and evade its debts in opposition to an uninformed counterpart, thereby seriously damaging the principle of protecting legitimate expectations of trust in government conduct；

(2) In interpreting and applying the "scope" of legal application, the Defendant applies a double standard to itself and others. Regarding the recruitment and use of its own personnel, it openly and extensively uses labor-dispatched workers despite "not being included in the law," seriously violating the legal requirement of equal pay for equal work; yet it excludes the Plaintiff's social insurance rights by treating "not included in the law" as the alleged "irregularity." This conduct of "the magistrate being allowed to set fires while ordinary people are not allowed to light lamps" violates the basic requirements of a society governed by the rule of law: "what the government does is not permitted without authorization by law, while what the public does is free unless prohibited by law"；

(3) Neither the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China, the Social Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China, nor any other normative document possessing the legal status and effect encompassed by the Legislation Law of the People's Republic of China contains a mandatory provision expressly excluding persons participating in social insurance during a period of imprisonment；

(4) The effective judgment against the Plaintiff in this case expressly deprived him only of personal and political rights and did not deprive him of social and economic rights, including social insurance rights. The conduct of the Defendants in this case constitutes an additional "punishment" imposed on the Plaintiff beyond the express provisions of current law；

(5) The labor performed by the Plaintiff during his imprisonment, as well as the requirements in international covenants joined or ratified by the Government of China that have the force of national law, concerning equal pay for equal work for citizens and universal, non-discriminatory social security。

If the two Defendants cannot respond to the five reasons presented above by the Plaintiff concerning the focus of the dispute in their specific administrative actions in this case—whether by acknowledging them or refuting them in accordance with the law—it demonstrates that the Defendants' administrative bad faith in this case cannot withstand serious legal scrutiny. If they regard the reasons as unworthy of a response, that suggests the reckless arrogance of power, which is a major taboo in building a society and government governed by the rule of law and must be stopped and prevented even more urgently。

At this point, the Plaintiff hereby files this administrative lawsuit, requesting that your court adjudicate the case in accordance with the law, support the Plaintiff's claims, compel Defendant One to promptly process the Plaintiff's retirement eligibility and fulfill its social insurance responsibilities toward the Plaintiff based on a contribution period of 24 years and four months, and at the same time annul the Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the Gongshu District People's Government of Hangzhou, Hangongzhengfu Administrative Reconsideration [2026] No. 67, issued by Defendant Two。

To:

Gongshu District People's Court of Hangzhou

Affiant：Chen Shuqing   May 12, 2026

Attachments：

1. Two copies of this complaint；

2. One copy of the Plaintiff Chen Shuqing's identity card, including both sides；

3. One copy of the Historical Pension Insurance Participation Record；

4. One copy of the Notice of Matters Handled by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center；

5. One copy of the Notification bearing the seal of the "Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center"；

6. One copy of Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Reply [2010] No. 358；

7. One copy of the Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the Gongshu District People's Government of Hangzhou, Hangongzhengfu Administrative Reconsideration [2026] No. 67；