Chen Shuqing: Another Collision with the Capacity for Structural Self-Correction

Since ancient times, China has had the maxim “Knowing shame is close to courage,” which praises knowing, admitting and correcting one’s mistakes; “Though Zhou was an old state, its mandate was renewed” likewise expresses the principle of reform to eliminate abuses and preserve the state. In reality, however, many efforts to advance social civilization are “easier said than done” precisely because they encounter difficult-to-touch “structural” problems—or, put more plainly, “institutional” problems involving established vested-interest arrangements. Promoting what is beneficial and eliminating what is harmful is dynamically achieved amid basic overall stability in mature and sound democratic societies governed by the rule of law; in ancient China, when there were enlightened rulers and worthy ministers, it could also be accomplished, with difficulty, through united efforts at “institutional reform” and “renewal”; but when power became arrogant, greed insatiable and social trust collapsed in a dying age, a costly “revolution,” or “change of dynasties,” became the only option. Those who fail to think ahead will have troubles close at hand. Therefore, society need not be perfect, and people, organisations and institutions need not be free of error; establishing and maintaining the capacity for self-correction has become one of the most important indicators of a society’s governance capacity.

I remember that when handling my retirement eligibility and determining the contribution period used to calculate my pension, I repeatedly mentioned to the staff member responsible for social security at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau the legally binding international conventions approved by the state. What I received in response, however, was an utterly dismissive and flippant remark: “You’re going too far afield!” This affected me deeply. I thought that the most dangerous obstacle to the effective implementation of the law and the construction of a government governed by the rule of law is not that law-enforcement personnel do not understand the law, but that they arrogantly treat the power-based assumptions they have become accustomed to in a given environment—assumptions that do not self-correct and are regarded as beyond question—as eternal and immutable iron laws. The isolated administrative incident involving Chen Shuqing reveals the disconnection and incoherence among laws, regulations, rules and policies at different levels and in their implementation. This is not only a structural problem; it also involves the cognitive inertia of all personnel working in organs exercising public power. The difficulty is therefore evident. Changing this situation cannot be fundamentally achieved through the collision of just one or two cases, but there is hope for change only through constant collisions. Because administrative breaches of trust have made me an unfortunate repeated victim of abusive policies, they have also given me the good fortune to become an egg challenging the “unyielding stone” of abusive policies. Let the “egg strike the stone” and collide with it once more:

Request to the Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province for Guidance in Reviewing and Clearing Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358

Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province:

Requester Chen Shuqing, male, a native of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Daguan Yuan East Fifth Court, Gongshu District, Hangzhou; ID number 330106196509260073; telephone number 15958160478.

Requested action:

I request that the Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province guide the review and clearance of 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, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358, dated September 30, 2010 (this document is disclosed upon request) (hereinafter, the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document”).

Grounds for the request:

I. The requested action falls within the responsibilities of the Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province.

According to the government information published on the website of the Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province (https://sft.zj.gov.cn/ Home > Organisational Structure > Introduction to Functions), the Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province has sixteen institutional functions. In addition to “(1) undertaking policy research on major issues concerning the comprehensive rule of law in Zhejiang Province; coordinating relevant parties in putting forward recommendations for medium- and long-term plans for the comprehensive rule of law in Zhejiang Province; and being responsible for supervising major decisions and deployments,” item (4) also provides for “guiding the review and clearance of administrative normative documents.”

II. The requested action is directly related to the requester’s interests.

If requester Chen Shuqing is described as an interested party in this matter, more precisely, Chen Shuqing is a victim of the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document.” The details are as follows:

On December 25, 2025, requester Chen Shuqing reached the age of 60 years and three months. He had in fact 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 of the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau in Hangzhou deducted the combined periods of his two prison sentences on the grounds that Chen Shuqing had been sentenced to four years in 2007 for the crime of inciting subversion of state power and to 10 years and six months in 2016 for the crime of subversion of state power. This left him with only more than nine years of contributions, below the minimum contribution period, and they refused to process the plaintiff’s retirement procedures.

During repeated negotiations, Chen Shuqing was dissatisfied that staff of the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau remained vague, merely saying “according to relevant policies.” He therefore submitted a government information disclosure application. On December 25, 2025, in his office, bureau staff member Chen Zupeng issued to the plaintiff the Notice of Matters Handled by the Social Insurance Management Service Centre of Gongshu District, Hangzhou (hereinafter, the “Notice of Matters”), the Notification and the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document,” formally confirming in writing the decision to refuse to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures.

Article 1 of the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” provides: In accordance with the Labour Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Regulations of Zhejiang Province on Basic Pension Insurance for Employees and other laws and regulations, persons sentenced to criminal detention, fixed-term imprisonment or heavier criminal penalties, or subjected to re-education through labour (hereinafter, “persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education through labour”), may not participate in or continue to participate in basic pension insurance for employees as individual urban workers during the period in which they are detained, serving sentences in prison or undergoing re-education through labour (hereinafter, the “period of serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labour”).

The Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau used the provisions of the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” as one of the important grounds supporting its “Notice of Matters” and “Notification” refusing to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures.

Chen Shuqing believed that the laws cited as the basis for the above document had been improperly applied and that the policy lacked sufficient legal force, and he applied for administrative reconsideration of the matter on January 27, 2026. On February 5, Chen Shuqing applied for an incidental review of the normative document “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358.” On March 9, the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security issued the Letter from the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Providing Feedback on the Handling Opinion for the Incidental Review of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 (hereinafter, the “Handling Opinion for the Incidental Review of the Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Department [2010] No. 358 Document”), determining that “Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 constitutes specific operational provisions concerning the content of laws and regulations and does not exceed or violate higher-level law; its content is lawful and valid.”

The People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou, in its Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou, Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67, issued on April 30, 2026, upheld the aforementioned “Notice of Matters” issued by the respondent, the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, refusing to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures. It also enclosed the “Handling Opinion for the Incidental Review of the Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Department [2010] No. 358 Document.” Dissatisfied with this, Chen Shuqing has now filed an administrative lawsuit in the People’s Court of Gongshu District, Hangzhou.

III. The “Handling Opinion for the Incidental Review of the Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Department [2010] No. 358 Document” evades the key issues and fails to specifically answer or resolve the illegality of the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” raised by Chen Shuqing in his application for an incidental review of a normative document during the administrative reconsideration. Specifically:

(1) 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, has legal force. Article 9 provides: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.”

Requester Chen Shuqing believes that “persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education through labour” do not cease to be “people” because they are serving sentences or undergoing re-education through labour, and therefore do not lose the basic human right that “the States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” Therefore, because the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” conflicts with the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the conclusion in the “Handling Opinion for the Incidental Review of the Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Department [2010] No. 358 Document”—“In summary, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 constitutes specific operational provisions concerning the content of laws and regulations and does not exceed or violate higher-level law; its content is lawful and valid”—plainly disregards Article 9 of the Covenant, which provides that “the States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” It should therefore be determined to be unlawful and invalid. The competent authorities are accordingly advised to promptly review and abolish such “administrative normative documents” that are clearly outdated and unlawful in the new era.

(2) The requester carefully reviewed the Labour Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Regulations of Zhejiang Province on Basic Pension Insurance for Employees. These two laws and one local regulation contain no provision stating what the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” claims: “Persons sentenced to criminal detention, fixed-term imprisonment or heavier criminal penalties, or subjected to re-education through labour (hereinafter, ‘persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education through labour’), may not participate in or continue to participate in basic pension insurance for employees as individual urban workers during the period in which they are detained, serving sentences in prison or undergoing re-education through labour (hereinafter, the ‘period of serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labour’).” Applicant Chen Shuqing believes that, whether engaging in abstract or concrete administrative acts, if a government agency’s understanding or interpretation of the law may go beyond the clear meaning written in black and white and invent any content out of thin air while claiming that such content is based on the provisions of the so-and-so and such-and-such laws, that is itself a serious illegal act. If this were permitted, law, as one of the most important means of putting government power in a cage, would become meaningless; and government agencies, having freed themselves from the constraints of legal text and using boundless interpretations or explanations, including of policies, could instead bind the rights and freedoms of the people at any time. This would not only fundamentally hollow out and damage the certainty of legal rules, but would also clearly run counter to the original purpose of a society governed by the rule of law, including the legislative purpose of “constraining power and protecting rights.”

Requester Chen Shuqing believes that, where administrative measures are genuinely necessary and reasonable but are not expressly provided for, or are inadequately provided for, in existing law, except in emergencies (such as war or disasters) involving unavoidable action undertaken with a legitimate motive, in all other circumstances officials must not use “policy” as a form to arbitrarily exceed and abuse the law. Instead, they should initiate relevant legislative proposals or recommendations for amending the law through lawful procedures, while continuing to strictly observe the rule-of-law bottom line that “what is not authorised by law must not be done.”

(3) On December 28, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the decision on abolishing legal provisions concerning re-education through labour. This meant that the Decision of the State Council on Issues Concerning Re-education Through Labour, approved and promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on August 1, 1957, was lawfully abolished after more than 50 years in force. Re-education through labour has been abolished for more than a decade, yet the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document,” which contains provisions on re-education through labour, is still being cited and applied inappropriately by government agencies and their staff. Clearly, under the requirements of currently effective law, the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” must also be reviewed and abolished as soon as possible in keeping with the times.

(4) For more than 20 years, Chen Shuqing, his family members, and the entities to which he was affiliated for work or social security purposes paid social insurance contributions on his behalf. They were never clearly informed that contributions could not be paid during periods of imprisonment. Indeed, after his most recent release from prison on March 10, 2025, he went several times to the government service centre operated by the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau at 58 Xiangjisi East Road in Gongshu District to make up social security contributions for the most recent years during which payments had lapsed, including some periods within his prison sentence, and all payments were successfully completed. When government social security management agencies collected insurance contributions, they did so openly and without reservation; now, when the social insurance agency is required to perform its insurance obligations, it has suddenly changed its position and is using the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document,” disclosed “upon request,” as grounds for the government social security agency’s breach of trust and refusal to accept responsibility, forcing the contributor and plaintiff in this case, Chen Shuqing, to bear alone the alleged adverse consequences of “violations.” This has completely nullified the principle of protecting the people’s legitimate expectations arising from their trust in government conduct.

More than 2,000 years ago, the ancient sage Confucius wrote in the Analects, “To execute without having taught is called cruelty.” In modern civilised society, based on the principle that “law cannot stand without virtue,” whenever citizens’ rights and freedoms are to be restricted or punitive sanctions imposed according to law, whether through specific provisions or an entire law, the basic principles of “no retroactivity” and “a law does not take effect before it is promulgated” are followed. The “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” is marked “this document is disclosed upon request.” Of course, disclosure upon request is not the same as promulgation. Although “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358” has neither the legal status nor the force prescribed by the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China, it also concerns the rights and obligations of a broad range of people. This “disclosure upon request” provision left interested parties unaware until they applied for disclosure. The applicant in this case obtained it only after, in recent months, repeatedly requesting it during the handling of his retirement procedures without success and then submitting a Government Information Disclosure Application to the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau.

This half-hidden policy form of “disclosure upon request” provided officials with the means and opportunity to manipulate power and even engage in rent-seeking. The unchecked accumulation of official power has precisely been one of the important reasons throughout several thousand years of Chinese history why good governance has been difficult to implement or sustain, while abusive governance has become deeply entrenched and dynasties have moved toward decline and collapse. The applicant believes that “disclosure upon request” in government affairs should be limited to information involving trade secrets or personal privacy in specific administrative acts, and should be limited to disclosure upon request to persons with an interest who also legally meet the qualifications to apply. As for abstract administrative acts, the applicant hopes that, when government organs at all levels formulate normative documents in future, apart from internal implementation involving state secrets—which may remain undisclosed but must not be used against external parties who are unaware of them—all other normative documents should be publicly issued, following the example of legislation. Therefore, the applicant not only requests that the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document,” in the present case, be reviewed and abolished in its “disclosure upon request” form, but also respectfully requests that the reappearance of any normative document in the form of “disclosure upon request” be completely prevented.

(5) Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” provides: “Those who continue to participate in insurance as individual urban workers during the period of serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labour shall be promptly dealt with. Pension insurance premiums already paid during the period of serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labour may temporarily be retained by the social security agency for use in offsetting fees payable or deferred for subsequent insured years, or may be refunded to the individual in a lump sum.” On the basis of Article 1 of the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document,” this provision runs counter to the rule-of-law principle that “government power may not act without legal authorisation, while citizens are free to do anything not prohibited by law.” In practice, it did not stop social security agencies from continuing to collect pension insurance premiums paid by insured persons during periods of serving sentences or undergoing re-education through labour. However, when insured persons formally applied for or began receiving pensions calculated according to their actual contribution periods, it provided an endorsement for social security agencies’ simple and crude “breaking their word and failing to honour their agreements.” Chen Shuqing in this case is one of the typical victims of this kind of administrative breach of trust.

In summary, the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document” clearly violates Article 9 of the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, approved by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress as early as February 28, 2001, which provides that “the States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance”; it arbitrarily adds, in the form of “specific operational provisions concerning the content of laws and regulations,” a prohibition not expressly “prohibited by law”; it is clearly no longer compatible with the current legal environment following the decision on abolishing legal provisions concerning re-education through labour adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on December 28, 2013; it undermines the basic requirement of openness and transparency of rules in a modern society governed by the rule of law through the form of “disclosure upon request”; and its specific content, in terms of its operational effect, provides an endorsement for social security agencies’ administrative breach of trust, seriously harming the principle of protecting the people’s legitimate expectations arising from their trust in the law and in government conduct. If an internal policy with so many obvious defects is allowed to continue to exist and remain effective, while the policy-making authority lacks the capacity for self-correction, this will not only impede the construction of a government and society governed by the rule of law, but will inevitably, through continuing breaches of trust, lead to excessive depletion of political credibility, ongoing corrosion of the structure of social trust, and ultimately a step-by-step slide toward irreversible decline.

Because I, requester Chen Shuqing, believe in the sense of responsibility (assuming responsibility for their duties and absolutely refusing to fear difficulties or lie flat) and ability to perform their duties of the leaders and staff of the Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province, I hereby submit to your department this Request to the Department of Justice of Zhejiang Province for Guidance in Reviewing and Clearing Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358.

Respectfully submitted to

Yours faithfully!

Requester: Chen Shuqing

May 29, 2026

Attachments:

1. One copy of requester Chen Shuqing’s identity card (including both sides);

2. One copy of the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Document”;

3. One copy of the “Handling Opinion for the Incidental Review of the Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Department [2010] No. 358 Document.”