Rights Protection Network: Interpretation of China’s Policies, Laws and Regulations (May 2026) (Issue 21)

Editor’s note：This month，China once again witnessed a concentrated performance of “human rights progress”. From the symbolic increase in state compensation standards to the “paper-based protection” of the rights of over-age workers，from the “clearly marked prices” in the funeral industry to the “comprehensive tightening” of artificial intelligence regulation，official media have used blanket publicity to package these policies，riddled with loopholes and compromises，as milestones in “people’s well-being” and “the progress of the rule of law”. However，once we strip away this ornate political rhetoric，what we see is nothing more than a series of carefully choreographed institutional deceptions.

All these new regulations share a common fatal gene：they only address “surface problems”，and never touch the “institutional roots”；they make only “technical repairs”，and never carry out “structural reforms”. The state compensation standard has risen by a few dozen yuan，yet it still devalues twenty-four hours of personal liberty as eight hours of labor remuneration；the funeral industry is required to clearly mark prices，yet it turns a blind eye to exorbitant profits resulting from administrative monopolies；regulations protecting the rights of over-age workers have been introduced，yet they are still excluded from the protection of the Labor Law. The essence of these policies is not to protect human rights，but to ease social tensions，appease public sentiment，and at the same time preserve to the greatest possible extent the privileges of vested-interest groups.

We refuse to become cheerleaders for power，nor do we disdainfully act as policy parrots. This issue selects eight policies，laws and regulations closely related to human rights，each accompanied by an independent expert analysis. With surgical precision，we will dissect the legislative logic of each policy，expose the truths concealed by official propaganda，and puncture the lies that appear progressive but are in fact regressive.

Human rights are not empty provisions written into the Constitution，nor political slogans for external propaganda. They mean whether an innocent person wrongfully detained can receive genuine compensation，whether an elderly person can work with dignity in their later years，and whether an ordinary person can avoid being exploited after losing a loved one. We believe that only by daring to confront problems and reveal the truth can genuine progress be advanced. We will continue to use our pens as swords，piercing the lies of power and speaking out for every neglected right.

Contents of this issue

I、 Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate issue new state compensation standard for violations of citizens’ personal liberty

II、 Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and four other departments issue interim provisions on protecting the basic rights and interests of over-age workers

III、 National Health Commission issues measures for the creation and administration of fertility-friendly cities and employers

IV、 State Administration for Market Regulation and Ministry of Civil Affairs issue provisions on clearly marked prices in the funeral and burial sector (trial implementation)

V、 Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issues newly revised regulations on the administration of telecommunications short-message services

VI、 Cyberspace Administration of China and two other departments issue implementation opinions on the standardized application and innovative development of intelligent agents

VII、 Ministry of Justice issues plan for a special campaign to standardize administrative law enforcement involving enterprises

VIII、 Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress publishes revised version of the Prison Law of the People’s Republic of China

I、 Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate issue new state compensation standard for violations of citizens’ personal liberty

The Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly issued a new state compensation standard on May 19，and the standard formally took effect on May 18. Following the adjustment，daily compensation for violations of citizens’ personal liberty has been set at 495.94 yuan，with the amount calculated by reference to the previous year’s average daily wage of employees in urban non-private-sector units nationwide. The new standard applies to various forms of infringement by public authorities，including unlawful detention，wrongful custody and illegal restriction of personal liberty，and further specifies requirements for the implementation of compensation. (For details：https://www.spp.gov.cn/xwfbh/wsfbh/202605/t20260519_727675.shtml）

Analysis：Viewed through the core principles of international human rights law，this mechanically adjusted state compensation standard，which is raised every year，essentially reduces the sacred and inviolable right to personal liberty to a tradable labor commodity and represents a fundamental desecration of the value of human rights. The logic behind calculating daily compensation at 495.94 yuan crudely equates a citizen’s 24 hours of personal liberty with eight hours of labor remuneration，completely ignoring non-material harm suffered by victims of rights violations，including psychological trauma，family breakdown and damage to social reputation. Under the current system，compensation for emotional distress is not only extremely low as a proportion，but is often rejected by courts on the grounds that “no serious consequences were caused”，with the result that victims in the overwhelming majority of wrongful-conviction cases can receive only symbolic material compensation.

Even more fatal is the system’s reversal of rights and responsibilities：public authorities that make mistakes bear no punitive liability whatsoever，and case-handling personnel are almost never held accountable；yet victims must go through compensation proceedings lasting several years，bear the risk of being unable to provide sufficient evidence，and may even face obstruction in every possible form from the original investigating authority. A uniform, nationwide compensation standard completely ignores individual differences——the loss of a decade of a scientist’s research life due to wrongful detention and the loss suffered by an ordinary worker wrongfully detained for ten years are forcibly treated as equal before the law. This system of “formal equality concealing substantive injustice” precisely exposes the instrumentalist nature of human rights protection: state compensation is not genuine redemption for violations of human rights，but a minimum “hush payment” for judicial errors，a filthy transaction in which money is used to purchase power’s exemption from responsibility.

II、 Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and four other departments issue interim provisions on protecting the basic rights and interests of over-age workers

On May 10，the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, together with multiple departments, published the Interim Provisions on Protecting the Basic Rights and Interests of Over-Age Workers，which are scheduled to take effect on July 1. The provisions comprehensively regulate the disorder surrounding the employment of over-age workers，requiring employers to sign written employment agreements，pay labor remuneration in full，and protect workers’ basic rights and interests relating to rest and leave，occupational safety and health，among others. They also expressly prohibit age discrimination in the employment process and promote the extension of work-related injury insurance and accidental-injury protection to this group. (For details：https://www.mohrss.gov.cn/xxgk2020/gzk/gz/202605/t20260525_576849.html）

Analysis：This interim provision, praised by official media as a “blessing for elderly workers,” in fact institutionalizes and legalizes the second-class-citizen status of the over-age population and openly tramples on the principle of equality in the right to work. First，by using the lowest-level legislative form of an “interim provision,” it deliberately avoids the core issue of determining labor relationships——over-age workers remain excluded from the protection of the Labor Law and cannot enjoy core labor rights such as paid annual leave，economic compensation and compensation for unlawful termination of employment contracts. The so-called “written employment agreement” is nothing more than a legal pretext allowing employers to evade legal liability.

Second，the provision prohibiting “age discrimination” is entirely lacking in practical operability. It contains neither clear punishment standards nor effective channels for redress. In reality，people over 60 cannot even cross the threshold for applying for jobs，so how can one speak of combating discrimination? The so-called “work-related injury insurance coverage” is even more of a piece of paper——the social security systems in the overwhelming majority of localities do not allow work-related injury insurance contributions to be made for over-age workers. Employers will only purchase cheap commercial accident insurance，and once a work-related injury occurs，the compensation elderly workers receive is less than one-third of that provided by normal work-related injury insurance.

The essence of this provision is a compromise the government has made with enterprises against the backdrop of population aging in order to ease labor shortages. It is not protecting the human rights of over-age workers; rather，it is providing legal endorsement for enterprises to exploit elderly labor，forcing those elderly people who devoted their entire lives to building the country to sell the last of their labor in their later years without any protection.

III、 National Health Commission issues measures for the creation and administration of fertility-friendly cities and employers

The National Health Commission formally issued the relevant administrative measures on May 14，and the document took effect on the day of its release. The measures specify evaluation standards，implementation procedures and incentive mechanisms for creating fertility-friendly environments; require local governments and employers to implement benefits such as maternity leave and childcare leave; and call for multiple measures to reduce the public’s costs of childbearing，child-rearing and education. They also emphasize protecting women’s employment rights，eliminating workplace discrimination based on childbirth and promoting the creation of an equal and friendly social environment. (For details：https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/202605/content_7068783.htm）

Analysis：This creation plan, filled with “politically correct platitudes,” is a typical example of the government shifting blame and evading responsibility on the issue of childbirth and represents a disguised infringement of women’s reproductive and development rights. First，the entire plan contains no mandatory provisions; all its requirements are framed as “encouraging,” “advocating，” or “supporting,” with no legal binding force whatsoever. There are no punitive measures for employers that fail to implement maternity leave or childcare leave；nor are there any effective channels for redress for women who suffer discrimination because of childbirth. The so-called “incentive mechanism” amounts to nothing more than awarding a few plaques to a small number of state-owned enterprises and public institutions; the vast number of private and small and medium-sized enterprises will simply not take it seriously.

Second，the measures shift the entire cost of childbirth onto enterprises and individuals，while the government assumes almost no substantive responsibility. Wages during maternity leave and childcare leave are still paid by employers，which will inevitably make enterprises even less willing to hire women and cause workplace discrimination based on childbirth to worsen. The so-called “reduction of child-rearing costs” is merely a collection of inconsequential slogans; not one of the three mountains pressing down on young people——housing prices，education and medical care——has been moved.

From a human rights perspective，the right to reproduce is not only the freedom to have children but also the freedom not to have children. The government pressures young people through various means to have more children while refusing to assume the corresponding social responsibilities; this is itself an infringement of human rights. The essence of these measures is to treat women as reproductive instruments and children as tools for stimulating the economy，completely ignoring individuals’ wishes and rights.

IV、 State Administration for Market Regulation and Ministry of Civil Affairs issue provisions on clearly marked prices in the funeral and burial sector

The two departments jointly issued the Provisions on Clearly Marked Prices in the Funeral and Burial Sector on May 12，and the provisions will be implemented on a trial basis from May 31. The document covers the entire chain of funeral and burial services and sales of funeral goods. It requires all business operators to display, in prominent locations, all service charges，price standards and complaint channels，and expressly prohibits bundled consumption，hidden price increases and price fraud. It establishes special controls targeting the exorbitantly priced funeral and burial services about which the public has complained strongly，and seeks to break down information barriers in the industry. (For details：https://www.samr.gov.cn/zw/zfxxgk/fdzdgknr/jjjzs/art/2026/art_ca9e9d20408f49cfb5dfded70cdfe188.html?fromModule=lemma_middle-info）

Analysis：This provision on clearly marked prices is nothing more than a “legal fig leaf” for the funeral industry’s monopolistic profiteering. It cannot resolve the livelihood problem of being unable to afford a funeral and represents a double trampling of the personal dignity of the deceased and the basic rights of the living. First，the provision requires only that prices be “clearly marked” but places no restrictions whatsoever on the prices themselves. This means that as long as funeral institutions display the prices of exorbitantly expensive urns and burial plots，they are not violating the law. The so-called “clearly marked prices” merely turn profiteering from “secret robbery” into “open seizure”; ordinary people remain at the mercy of others.

Second，the provision does not touch the monopolistic nature of the funeral and burial industry at all. In mainland China，core funeral and burial resources such as funeral homes and cemeteries are almost entirely monopolized by civil affairs departments，while private institutions can engage only in peripheral services. This administrative monopoly leaves the funeral and burial industry without competition，with prices determined entirely by the monopolists. As long as the monopoly is not broken，any price regulation is futile.

Even worse，the provision retains the distinction between “basic services” and “extended services,” while so-called “extended services” are precisely the main source of funeral institutions’ excessive profits. They exploit the vulnerability of family members in grief to induce or even force them to purchase various high-priced extended services. The so-called prohibition on “bundled consumption” cannot be implemented in reality.

From a human rights perspective，laying the dead to rest with dignity is a basic right of every person. Yet this funeral and burial system turns death into a business，forcing ordinary people to endure enormous financial pressure while mourning the loss of a loved one. The essence of this provision is that the government is defending its own monopolistic interests，not protecting the rights of ordinary people.

V、 Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issues newly revised regulations on telecommunications short-message services

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published the revised Regulations on the Administration of Telecommunications Short-Message Services on May 8，and the regulations have been fully implemented since May 1. The new rules establish red lines for the sending of commercial text messages，specifying that operators must obtain users’ express consent before pushing marketing information. They also require free and unobstructed unsubscribe channels and the long-term retention of records of user authorization. In addition，they strengthen supervision of short-message tracing and impose accountability throughout the entire chain on entities that illegally send spam. (For details：https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/2026/issue_12766/202605/content_7070600.html）

Analysis：This short-message regulation, which has been revised repeatedly, remains an evil law that “regulates only ordinary people and not public power” and represents a systematic infringement of citizens’ right to privacy and freedom of communication. First，the regulation prohibits only commercial text messages while giving government departments and public institutions a free pass to send various government-affairs and public-interest messages. These messages are not only huge in number，but require no user consent and provide no unsubscribe channel. A considerable proportion of the spam messages ordinary people receive every day comes from government departments and state-owned enterprises，yet this regulation turns a blind eye to the matter.

Second，the definition of “express consent” in the regulation is extremely vague，giving businesses enormous room for maneuver. Businesses can obtain users’ consent through various concealed methods，such as hiding consent to receive text messages in dozens of pages of a user agreement when the user registers for an app. The so-called “unsubscribe channel” is often merely nominal——after users reply “TD” to unsubscribe，they may instead receive more spam messages because this confirms that the number is active.

Even more fatal is that while strengthening supervision of businesses，the regulation further strengthens the government’s monitoring of citizens’ communications. All text messages must pass through operators’ filtering and review，leaving citizens’ communications privacy with no protection whatsoever. From a human rights perspective，freedom of communication and the right to privacy are basic rights of citizens. The essence of this regulation is to expand the government’s surveillance powers in the name of “combating spam” and expose citizens’ private lives completely to the gaze of public power.

VI、 Cyberspace Administration of China and two other departments issue implementation opinions on the standardized application and innovative development of intelligent agents

The Cyberspace Administration of China，the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology jointly issued the Implementation Opinions on the Standardized Application and Innovative Development of Intelligent Agents on May 8，and the document took effect immediately. The opinions set systematic requirements for the research and development，application and regulation of artificial-intelligence agents; strictly regulate the collection，storage and use of data; and guard against personal-privacy leaks. They also expressly prohibit unlawful applications such as algorithmic discrimination and deepfakes and protect users’ rights to know about and choose intelligent services. (For details：https://www.cac.gov.cn/2026-05/08/c_1779979789523320.htm）

Analysis：This implementation opinion, issued under the banner of “regulating artificial intelligence,” is in fact another step toward the government’s comprehensive control of digital space and deprivation of citizens’ digital human rights and poses a serious threat to citizens’ basic rights in the algorithmic age. First，all the “regulation” in the opinions targets enterprises and individuals，while placing no restrictions whatsoever on government departments’ use of artificial intelligence for surveillance，prediction or law enforcement. This means that the government can use artificial-intelligence technology without constraint to monitor and analyze citizens in every aspect，while citizens have no right to know or to supervise.

Second，the provision in the opinions prohibiting “algorithmic discrimination” is entirely self-deceptive. The root of algorithmic discrimination lies in bias in training data，much of which comes from government departments. As long as bias based on gender，race or region exists in government data，algorithmic discrimination cannot be eliminated. More importantly，the opinions grant government departments the power to review algorithms. This means that the government can arbitrarily alter algorithmic results according to its own needs，turning algorithms into tools for maintaining its rule.

From a human rights perspective，digital human rights have become basic human rights for citizens in the information age，including data self-determination，the right to know about algorithms and the right to an explanation of algorithms. The essence of this opinion is to concentrate all digital power in the hands of the government，turning citizens in the digital age into “transparent people” without any rights. It is not protecting citizens’ digital human rights; it is paving the way for the government’s digital dictatorship.

VII、 Ministry of Justice issues plan for a special campaign to standardize administrative law enforcement involving enterprises

On May 21，the Ministry of Justice and the State Council Information Office held a joint press conference，at which Vice Minister of Justice Hu Weilie introduced the relevant situation concerning the special campaign to standardize administrative law enforcement involving enterprises. The campaign focuses on rectifying disorder in administrative law enforcement，strictly prohibiting arbitrary inspections，unlawful fines and illegal sealing or seizure，and requires law-enforcement departments to standardize discretionary powers and comprehensively implement measures such as flexible law enforcement and no punishment for first-time violations. The plan also opens up channels for enterprises to lodge appeals and protect their rights，and safeguards market entities’ rights of defense and redress. (For details：https://yjt.zj.gov.cn/art/2025/5/19/art_1228978417_59167090.html and https://www.gov.cn/lianbo/fabu/202605/content_7070170.htm）

Analysis：This special campaign plan is nothing more than a temporary compromise the government has made with enterprises under downward economic pressure. It cannot resolve the deep-seated problems in the field of administrative law enforcement and represents false protection of the property rights of citizens and enterprises. First，all the measures are of the “special campaign” type，with the characteristics of campaign-style governance highly evident. Once economic conditions improve or the special campaign ends，the various forms of arbitrary inspection，arbitrary fining and arbitrary sealing will inevitably return.

Second，the plan does not touch the fundamental problem of excessive administrative law-enforcement powers. In our country，administrative law-enforcement departments possess discretionary powers that are almost entirely unconstrained; they can decide at will whether to inspect，whether to impose a fine and how much the fine should be. The so-called “standardization of discretionary powers” merely spells out the upper and lower limits of fines more clearly; it does not fundamentally restrict the powers of law-enforcement departments.

Even worse，the plan’s promise to “open up channels for enterprises to lodge appeals and protect their rights” cannot be fulfilled in reality. Once an enterprise comes into conflict with a law-enforcement department，it often faces the risk of “retaliatory law enforcement,” and few enterprises dare to genuinely take up legal weapons to protect their rights. From a human rights perspective，property rights are a basic human right of citizens; the disorder in administrative law enforcement is essentially the wanton infringement of private property rights by public power. The essence of this plan is that the government is putting a flattering gloss on itself，not genuinely protecting the property rights of enterprises and citizens.

VIII、 Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress publishes revised version of the Prison Law of the People’s Republic of China

On May 21，the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress published the revised Prison Law of the People’s Republic of China，and the new law will take effect on November 1. This revision formally incorporates respect for and protection of human rights into the General Provisions，elaborates on provisions concerning prisoners’ rights，and specifies that the personal dignity，personal safety and lawful property of prisoners shall be protected from infringement. It also improves channels for exercising rights such as appeals，complaints and reporting. (For details：http://www.npc.gov.cn/c2/c30834/202605/t20260521_454962.html）

Analysis：Writing “respect for and protection of human rights” into the Prison Law is nothing more than a carefully orchestrated political performance. It cannot fundamentally change the reality of human rights violations in China’s prison system and is a hypocritical promise of prisoners’ basic rights. First，the human rights provision in the General Provisions is merely declaratory and has no concrete institutional safeguards. The Specific Provisions still retain numerous clauses that infringe prisoners’ rights，such as prohibiting prisoners from maintaining normal communications and visits with the outside world and restricting prisoners’ freedom of religious belief.

Second，the revised Prison Law still has not established an effective external oversight mechanism. Prison administration remains completely closed off，and the outside world is almost unable to learn about conditions inside prisons. Prisoners’ appeals，complaints and reports are often transferred to the prison’s own disciplinary inspection department for handling，with predictable results. Corporal punishment，abuse and the prison bully system remain open secrets in prisons.

Even more fatal is that the revision of the Prison Law completely fails to address detention centers. In China，the overwhelming majority of defendants awaiting trial are held in detention centers，where human rights conditions are even worse than in prisons. Many defendants awaiting trial suffer inhumane treatment in detention centers yet have no legal channels for redress. From a human rights perspective，although prisoners have been deprived of their personal liberty，they still enjoy basic rights as human beings. In China，the prison system is essentially punitive rather than rehabilitative. The essence of this revision is to respond to human rights criticism from the international community，not to genuinely improve the treatment of prisoners.