作者：陈西
编辑：程伟 责任编辑：李聪玲 校对：程筱筱 翻译：Gloria
一、诉贵州省劳动和社会保障厅、贵州省退役军人事务厅
二、希望国家民政部、退役军人事务部完善并执行相关法规
三、建设包容性社会的建议
一、投诉
投诉人：陈西，男，72岁，身份证：520102195402286615，无业，公民学者，住贵州省贵阳市观山湖区世纪城龙昌苑7-2-23-1，手机号：18198281954；宅电：085184776400
投诉单位：贵州省劳动和社会保障厅、贵州省退役军人事务厅（法人）
投诉案由：2024年停止了本人领取养老金，且不予办理退役军人优待证
请求事项：恢复本人自2022年7月企业职工退休人员基本养老金已经核定过的标准，核准本人在国家事业单位工作近20年工龄，和退役军人优待证福利的权利。
二、事实与理由
本人陈西，于2003年9月开始交纳个人养老金，至2022年7月，共交纳了220个月，于2022年的8月开始领取核定每月1663.82元的基本养老金。谁知，领至2024年的8月，突然不见再发给我养老金，于是，本人到贵阳市社会保险管理服务中心询问。得到的答复是：根据贵州省劳动和社会保障厅“关于完善企业职工基本养老保险制度有关问题的处理意见”（黔劳社厅发（2006）26号1006年8月9日）文，第四条第一款，参保人员受到刑事或行政处罚的养老金问题，处置本人，取消本人的养老金发放。工作人员还拿出已经被处理的数百份材料给本人看，说这些都是根据这一条款被取消养老金的。同时指出：本人已经领取的养老金43329.03元，必须全部追回。本人从2011年12月26日被贵州省贵阳市中级人民法院以煽动颠覆国家政权罪判处有期徒刑10年，在贵州省兴义监狱服刑，服刑期间不能交养老金，交了也无效。
本人提问：受害人不知道有这个规定，交时也未得到告知；再说此文是2006年发的，我是在2003年开始交的；况且，事情已经过去了这么久，本人也领取养老金两年，怎么现在才出现“交了也无效”的决定。
工作人员回答：过去一直有文，只是未能普及宣传，加上人手不够，我们是事后发现一例再处理一例。
只是，“事后处理”的工作方法，让受害者彻底返贫了。而法律原则：法不溯及过往。法律已经惩罚追诉过的就不再重复追诉。然而，地方文件事隔多年后，又再次要惩罚追诉，显然是违背法律原则的。本人因受到处罚，成为了“三无人员”：无收入来源、无劳动力、无任何生活保障者（社保、医保，低保，舍保都没有），并且，还欠了社保机构近五万元债务。小康社会的今天，国家的基本保障制度怎么成了制造重返贫困的制度？
有网友评价：资本主义国家对“三无人员”有社保、医保，低保等等的保障，资本主义国家讲契约精神。我认为：社会主义国家的优越性胜过资本主义国家，对“三无人员”的保障，和契约精神当显示出来。如：本人从1970年至1989年在国家事业单位的工龄工资，因服过刑也当算数，这才符合市场经济和法治原则。
法治社会讲：公民纳了税就是纳税人，就应当享有同等的社会福利；社会保险业是现代社会一项普遍的社会福利，陈西花钱购买了社会保险却在路途中被另类区别对待，是有违法治社会之精神的，中华人民共和国社会保险法第一条 ……维护公民参加社会保险和享受社会保险待遇的合法权益，使公民共享发展成果；第三条 社会保险制度坚持广覆盖、保基本、多层次、可持续的方针。以及习近平在第十五次全国民政会议召开之际还对民政工作作出重要指示，要坚持以人民为中心，加强普惠性、基础性、兜底性民生建设，解决好人民最关心最直接最现实的利益问题。
而贵州省劳动和社会保障厅与贵州省退役军人事务厅的相关红头文件则与此相反；可以说，其是与国家法律相冲突，与国家政策相冲突，与执政党理念相冲突的不合法文件。
三、希望民政部、退役军人事务部遵守国家法治，并执行之
1、国家社会保险法第一条 ……维护公民参加社会保险和享受社会保险待遇的合法权益。本人是否共和国公民，地方的红头文件是否有权取消本人的公民资格？服刑期间，本人的公民资格监狱都无权取消，回归社会反而被取消，这样的地方法规合法吗？
常识告诉我：公民资格是一个人最基本的位格，任何个人、社会组织，甚至某个国家机关都无权取消宪法明确的公民资格。宪法第三十三条规定：凡具有中华人民共和国国籍的人都是中华人民共和国公民。
2、国家社会保险法第三条 ，以及执政党一再强调：“注重加强普惠性、基础性、兜底性民生建设，保障群众基本生活”。基于此，本人从1970年至1989年在国家事业单位的工龄工资也当算数；最近，日本本田公司撤走，就是根据工龄补发工资的。况且，本人还尽力交纳了220个月的养老金，属最低档的养老金；本人很不想给家庭、社会、国家添加负担，却被地方红头文件否决，致使本人成为了“三无人员”和欠债人，被迫给家庭、社会、国家添加本可避免的负能量。
常识告诉我：国家上位法高于地方政策，下位法必须服从上位法，下位法与上位法相抵触时，遵守上位法。一个国家的保障制度是国家和公民在个人生活保障上相互承担的责任。公民必须分担的，由公民分担；国家必须分担的，由国家分担；公民尽了最大责任不能分担的，由国家分担。这体现了现代国家制度的优越性和包容性。
现代国家制度的优越性和包容性体现在“普惠性”上：即保障对象的普遍性，一切公民平等的分享国民待遇；体现在“基础性”上，即以人民群众为基本需求的保障内容，国家建立基本的养老保险、基本医疗、工伤、失业、生育保险等社会保险制度的贯彻上；体现在“兜底性”上，即在风险社会中，政府有承担民生兜底性保障的国家责任。由于单纯以个人和家庭的力量无法完全抵御社会的或自然的风险，且慈善与互助亦难以提供足够支持；作为现代性国家，就必须承担起构建合理的保障制度，以确保公民获得合乎人性尊严之基本生活所需的责任，引导个体人格的自立、自主发展，实现和确保国民的平等发展权。
“普惠性、基础性、兜底性”是现代包容性国家建设的要求，或者说，和谐社会建设的要求，是国家存在的政治学责任，其理论源于对成立国家的认同。从古希腊发轫政治学以来，认为，国家是善和道德的化身。人们成立国家是为了善和道德的目的，决不是为了造恶或搞歧视目的；这种目的是绝对的，不是相对的。也就是说，国家行善和道德的目的是中性的，不会有歧视性或选择性执法的嫌疑；如，国家决不会因人而异，因民族性、性别、贫富、地域、阶级性、好人或坏人、罪人或优秀者来选择其国民，承载其国民；不论这个人怎么样，国家都会一视同仁的承载。用著名政治哲学家波普尔的话说：政治的目标应该是“努力消除具体的罪恶，而不是要试图实现抽象的善。不是谋求通过政治的手段来建立美好的幸福生活；而是要把目标放在消除具体的苦难上。”就是说：国家只做“普惠性、基础性、兜底性”低端，中性，平台的事；而中端、高大美的善事留给社会团体和个人去做。
然而，贵州地方政策在贯彻国家责任时，不坚守低端中性，平台的事项，反而好高骛远求高端意识形态的偏好，视好人坏人、贫富、地域、阶级性、罪人与优秀者来承载；严重歪曲了国家的性质。无形之中，国家做了它不该做的事，办了它不应当办的项目，其必然会造成严重恶果。比如，我会问：国家不做兜底性平台的事，谁来做？
3、因地方政策选择性执法，造成了本人成为“三无人员”和负债人。这反映了在保障制度中，民生领域发展的不平衡不充分问题仍然十分突出，个人主体责任与国家责任的制度构建仍未成型，家庭与个人成员之间主体关系责任依旧模糊，这限制了确实需要获得救助者得不到救助。如本人因不符合“社会救助法”中，第十五条【最低生活保障家庭】，和第十六条【特困人员】标准。而该条款是一个踢皮球的条款，是不尊重个人主体性责任，更不尊重个体者当有人格尊严的条款。从而，国家未承担起确保公民个体获得合乎人性尊严之基本生活所需的国家责任，实现和保障国民平等发展权的国家任务，让国家责任出现了“破口”。
本人一家三口，妻子与女儿，一个有三千元的退休金，一个约有五千元工资，因此，不符合第十五条【最低生活保障家庭】，和第十六条【特困人员】标准。不“符合无劳动能力、无生活来源且无法定赡养、抚养、扶养义务人，或者其法定赡养、抚养、扶养义务人无赡养、抚养、扶养能力的老年人”。中国旧传统的王朝文化不扶持个人主义，而是打压个人主义，导致整个国家个人的责任心缺失。本人的责任心就遭致上述条款的打压，该条款取消了个人尽自己责任的努力，转嫁本人生活负担给家庭，要本人去吃喝家人极其有限的资源；如此的窘境，造成本人在家里成为一个失去人格尊严，每天得仰人鼻息生活，像个多余的人。可要知道，人性在哪里都是“嫌贫爱富”的，地方歧视性政策是一部繁衍出一个又一个家庭矛盾和家庭悲剧的政策；本人因受地方政策的歧视，造成了家庭的不睦。我要问：地方红头文件是一份人为潜意识制造家庭不睦矛盾的政策吗？与国家保障性平台的匹配在哪里？小康社会生活在哪里？
4、国家一再重申：在法律面前人人平等，平等保护全体公民和法人的合法权益，不能搞选择性，歧视性执法；而贵州地方性政策正在违反此精神。除了因刑事事由外，地方性政策还暗地里清算了本人作为退役军人当得到的国民待遇。
根据贵州省劳动和社会保障厅“关于完善企业职工基本养老保险制度有关问题的处理意见”第五条，关于军人退役人员的视同缴费年限问题，原军龄视同缴费年限，并与参保缴费后的实际年限合并计算。
当本人问及这一条款时，工作人员回答说：还有更具体的（在暗箱里的）操作文本规定，凡受到刑事或行政处罚的，一律取消该项待遇。之所以指“暗箱操作”，当本人要求看看文本时，竟不让看。贵州省劳动和社会保障厅的政策开了一个坏头，紧接着，贵州省退役军人事务厅的文件《贵州省特殊情形人员优证申请发放实施办法试行》2023年2月6日文，也在与包容性国家建设背道而行。该文第12条第一款规定：被判处有期徒刑10年以上，危害国家安全行为被刑事处罚的，不能申请退役军人优待证。当本人在接受完法律处罚后，去办证时被告知，这是内部文件，社区工作人员也看不到，只被传达，要求执行。这样的地方红头文件比国家的法律法规还要歹毒。因为国家的法律法规还有个惩罚的有效期限，和底限，而地方的红头文件却没有这个期限，和底限；一旦受到处罚，将永远遭受处罚，永远遭受歧视，永远决不宽容，地方红头文件是典型的极端主义政策。
看来，地方的土政策比国家法律法规更威风，在这种政策的盘剥对待下来，本人真是要被地方土政策开除球藉了。本人很想问：本人的公民资格还存不存在吗？！
“普惠性、基础性、兜底性”已经是现代国家最基本的国民待遇了！服兵役也是公民的基本义务。本人尽了作为公民当尽的义务，保家卫国，不计薪酬，不计艰难困苦和牺牲，在军队里服役了N多年，结果，因受到刑事处罚就不承认，永远取消了本人作为一个普通公民曾经有过贡献的待遇。
本人要问：惩前毖后、治病救人方针里有“决不宽容”含意吗？法律惩罚就意味着永远取消公民资格吗！这不是在否定国家绝对善的目的，绝对爱的存在吗！普惠包容的国家责任是：“一个也不能少”。不论你是好人或坏人，罪人或非罪人。
近日，共和国外交部王毅部长在与阿富汗塔利班政府对话时，敦促塔利班政府要建立包容性政府，中方才可伸出友谊和援助之手。贵州的地方政府也应当接受王毅部长的敦促！
现代国家是建立在理性包容伙伴性关系中的，不是建立在非敌即友、好与坏，相互仇视关系中的。所有人权利一律平等，他有权从社会整体利益那里合理地分享其基本成员的一定份额，这是社会的技术和各种力量组合所能提供给他当有的利益。
如果一个国家，人与人之间的关系不是建立在平等伙伴关系中，而是建立在相互歧视关系中，这样的政策是不把人当人看，每一个人都会是受害者，会成为专制的对象；如此，每一个人会因失去向上健康生活的方向，退而颓废的走向哪个不归之路。这种阻断了可以走向悔过自新世界的作法，世界会受到诅咒，世界将转向了那个疯狂、不和谐、恶毒、混乱，和枉然受苦无可救药的敌对世界。现代性国家建设将不可能实现，甚至终将失败；自然秩序会受到违抗，世界文明将荡然无存。基于此种忧虑，本人提出以下几点建议。
三、建设包容性社会的建议
国家绝对善的功能指国家的普惠性、基础性、兜底性功能的存在。国家处罚性功能指国家有处罚不公，维护社会正当秩序的责任。所有公民都应当知晓，自己在保障与处罚悖论性关系中。而在一个市场经济和法治国家，17世纪英国思想家洛克说：“个人可以做任何事情，除非法律禁止；政府不能做任何事情，除非法律许可。法治是给公民以最充分的自由，给政府以尽可能小的权力。其中的真谛是：公民的基本权利必须保障，政府的权力必须限制。”所以，大部分政策是为防止政府滥用职权，为保障基本公民权利而制定，决不是为歧视公民权利而制定；同时，我们也承认，有极少部分法规是为处罚不当行为而定。记住，是处罚行为，不处罚思想。也就是说，现代国家制度是保奖公民发声，鼓励为国家提出好问题，解决问题的好制度，决不是坏制度。坏制度是针对提出问题的人，解决掉有爱国心责任心人的制度。因此，在坏制度那里有思想犯，坏制度视思想异议人士为敌人。
保障与处罚都关系到生存权问题，生存权是基础性的权利；因此，保障与处罚不能危及到个人生存权。也就是说，国家的保障与处罚功能在维护社会公义时，其功能不得制造不公，不能制造贫困，打击个人责任心，和敢于创新，敢于提出新问题的人，更不得有违背溯及以往的法律原则，犯不断重复追诉的恶意；在此基础上，国家才可以去处罚罪行，追求社会公义。
1、本人并不否定“事后处罚”。如在涉及经济犯罪行为，除了没收其违法所得外，经济上得加大处罚力度，就有“事后处罚”；而“事后处罚”是有边界的，其边界在保障公民基本生存权框架外，开展差异化的处罚。至于非经济类案件，财产是正当所得的，就当保护其产权（本人属非经济类案件）。国际法学称刑法执行“自由刑律”。即处罚是以剥夺受刑者的人身自由为主，而经济上的受损是一种非人为连带行为。如果法律允许，在不违法的情况下，非经济类的民事或刑事案件也可以用经济上补偿的办法来减轻其后果；但是，这得征求当事人同意，在当事人自愿同意的前提上，可涉及经济赔偿类的处罚。
2、处罚的力度。处罚的力度得控制在保障公民基本权利红线之外；不得再有“打土豪分田地”的革命者思维。如：彻底撤消本人的工龄和服役规定的福利待遇；追缴非法所得得考虑具体人，或其亲属牵连者，被处罚者曾经的正当所得。比如他们的遗产、亲人的正当性收入都不在被处罚内；也不在计划涉及处罚的范围内。要有物权法意识，物权法意识要求避免极端性制度处罚制造的新无产阶级赤贫者出现。“无产阶级”是一个极端国情下才有的概念，“无产阶级”是一个非正常的阶级，正常国家应当避免制造新的“无产者”。
中国上千年打江山，坐江山的王朝文化遗毒里充满着猛兽的决不宽容，赶尽杀绝，其严重缺乏人道主义精神，和有缺乏怜悯之心的缺陷；如，历朝历代都有“株连九族”无限打击，“抄家”“痛打落水狗”的运动就体现了这种缺陷。本人只因是一名异议人士，公开的反对派就遭受到了王朝文化“痛打落水狗”的迫害。这种王朝文化残酷冷血斗争的劣根性还遗留在“贵州省劳动和社会保障厅”和“贵州省退役军人事务厅”的红头文件里，它已经让N多人及其家庭受害。
3、功过的区别。功是功，过是过；功不能抵过，过也不能涉及功。处罚不能把一个人彻底给毁掉，功劳也不能包揽了一个人的一切。要忌极端主义王朝文化决不包容的恶意，摒弃王朝文化劣根性塑造的思维：成则王，败则寇；不成龙，就成虫；不作主人，就作奴隶；人在社会中，只有在革命与奴役两端进行选择，只能首鼠两端的生活，没有中间公民性的位格；这种国情不利于民族自生的发展，不利于人类社会彼此之间合作精神的涌现。
如：本人曾经有过服兵役的荣誉，“贵州省退役军人事务厅”的红头文件是可以在法律处罚期间取消该荣誉下的优待证的。优待证可以取消，“普惠性、基础性、兜底性”的国民待遇不能取消；而当法律处罚完毕时，地方的红头文件也当恢复一个公民荣誉下的优待证。但是，地方的红头文件却彻底取消了一个公民曾有过荣誉下的优待证，永远取消了一个公民的国民待遇。希望地方当局恢复一个退役军人，普通公民当得到的国民待遇。
4、国家法律法规不当打击个人主义精神，而是要保护个人主义精神。因为，没有个人主义精神就不会有个人责任心。“一个都不能少”指的是保护个人主义。而“社会救助法”中，第十五条，和第十六条标准，没有考虑到这一点。这里是以家庭为最小单位；实际，人类社会最小的单位是个人。建议：国家法律法规确定个人为最小单位。在此基础上，可否得救助，可先征求个人意见，再征求家庭的意见进行救助。
综上所述，它关系到现代国家的建设。行政法规不能违法违宪，行政法规的奖惩要考虑到不能与法律相抵触。法理和法律的中立性决定了，法律只关注个人，关注每一个人的基本权利保障，不关心集体主义及其利益；法律是从点滴用功积小成大，去巩固整个社会的福址。如果法律关心集体主义，现代国家建设将不可能成立。这除了存在可操作性难题外，当一个群体掌权时，任何一个群体都会偏心于己方，创立一部偏向自己的恶法去恶意对待其他群体，歧视压迫剥削其他群体；这样的恶法没有中立性，只是某统治阶级的工具；当另外的群体上台执掌大权时，又会制定一部偏向己方的恶法，推翻过去统治者的恶法，法律仍然是工具，不是不同群体认同普适的规则。一但视法律为巩固特权的工具，不是对任何人一视同仁的普适规则意识盛行时，国家的现代化是不可能实现的。
有特权的地方一定是个野蛮的社会，文明社会撤消特权者制定的政策。
愿这一投诉状与建议能够促进国家现代化的建设，促进文明社会在贵州的落地，促进新的“贵州省劳动和社会保障厅”“贵州省退役军人事务厅”政策，和不符合国家的法律法规得到恰当修改面世。
此致
呈：国家信访局政务投诉与建议平台
投诉状与建议人：陈西
2025年12月25日星期五
附项：1、陈西释放证复印件一份
2、陈西养老金违规承诺书复印件一份
3、陈西养老金核定表：
Democratic Activist Chen Xi’s Complaint and Policy Recommendations
Abstract:Restore my enterprise employee basic pension benefits at the level officially approved in July 2022; recognize my nearly 20 years of service in state public institutions; and restore my lawful entitlement to benefits associated with the Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate.
Author: Chen Xi Editor: Cheng Wei Managing Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator:Gloria
I. Complaint Against the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs
II. Appeal to the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Veterans Affairs to Improve and Enforce Relevant Regulations
III. Recommendations for Building an Inclusive Society
I. Complaint
Complainant:Chen Xi, male, 72 years old, ID No. 520102195402286615, unemployed, citizen scholar, residing at 7-2-23-1 Longchangyuan, Shijicheng, Guanshanhu District, Guiyang City, Guizhou Province.Mobile phone: 18198281954Landline: 0851-84776400
Respondent Agencies:Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security;Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs (legal entities)
Cause of Complaint:My pension benefits were suspended in 2024, and my application for a Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate was denied.
Requests:Restore my enterprise employee basic pension benefits at the level officially approved in July 2022; recognize my nearly 20 years of service in state public institutions; and restore my lawful entitlement to benefits associated with the Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate.
II. Facts and Reasons
I, Chen Xi, began paying personal pension contributions in September 2003. By July 2022, I had paid a total of 220 months. Beginning in August 2022, I started receiving an approved basic monthly pension of RMB 1,663.82. However, in August 2024, my pension payments suddenly stopped. I therefore went to the Guiyang Social Insurance Management Service Center to inquire. I was informed that, pursuant to the document “Opinions on Issues Concerning the Improvement of the Enterprise Employee Basic Pension Insurance System” (Qian Lao She Ting Fa [2006] No. 26, August 9, 2006) issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security, Article 4, Paragraph 1, regarding pension issues for insured persons who have received criminal or administrative penalties, my pension payments were cancelled. Staff members showed me hundreds of files that had already been processed, stating that all of them had had their pensions cancelled under this provision. They further stated that the RMB 43,329.03 in pension benefits I had already received must be fully recovered. I was sentenced on December 26, 2011, by the Guiyang Intermediate People’s Court of Guizhou Province to ten years’ imprisonment for the crime of “inciting subversion of state power” and served my sentence at Xingyi Prison in Guizhou Province. During my incarceration, I was unable to pay pension contributions, and even if contributions had been made, they would have been considered invalid.
I asked: the affected party was never informed of such a regulation at the time of payment; furthermore, this document was issued in 2006, whereas I began contributing in 2003; moreover, so much time has passed, and I had already been receiving pension payments for two years—why is the decision that “the contributions were invalid” only being made now?
The staff replied that the document had always existed but had not been widely publicized, and due to insufficient staffing, cases were handled only after being discovered, one by one.
However, this method of “post hoc handling” has driven the affected individual back into absolute poverty. Legal principles state that laws do not apply retroactively. Once legal punishment has been imposed and pursued, it should not be imposed again. Yet local documents, many years later, again impose punishment and pursuit, which is clearly contrary to fundamental legal principles. As a result of this punishment, I have become a “person with three no’s”: no source of income, no labor capacity, and no social security of any kind (no social insurance, no medical insurance, no minimum living allowance, no special assistance), and I now owe nearly RMB 50,000 to the social insurance agency. In today’s moderately prosperous society, how has the nation’s basic social security system become a mechanism that manufactures a return to poverty?
Some netizens have commented that in capitalist countries, “people with three no’s” receive social security, medical insurance, and minimum living allowances, and that capitalist countries emphasize contractual principles. I believe that the superiority of a socialist country should surpass that of capitalist countries. Protection for “people with three no’s” and respect for contractual principles should be evident. For example, my years of service wages from 1970 to 1989 in state public institutions should count despite my having served a sentence. Only then would this conform to market economy and rule-of-law principles.
A society governed by the rule of law holds that once citizens pay taxes, they are taxpayers and should enjoy equal social welfare. Social insurance is a universal social welfare in modern society. Chen Xi paid money to purchase social insurance, yet was subjected to discriminatory treatment midway, which violates the spirit of a rule-of-law society. Article 1 of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China states that it protects citizens’ lawful rights to participate in and enjoy social insurance benefits, enabling citizens to share in development achievements; Article 3 states that the social insurance system adheres to the principles of broad coverage, basic protection, multi-level structure, and sustainability. Additionally, Xi Jinping, on the occasion of the 15th National Civil Affairs Conference, emphasized that civil affairs work must adhere to a people-centered approach, strengthen inclusive, foundational, and bottom-line livelihood construction, and address the people’s most immediate and practical concerns.
Yet the relevant official documents issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs run directly counter to these principles. They conflict with national law, national policy, and the governing party’s principles, and are therefore unlawful documents.
III. Hope That the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Veterans Affairs Will Observe and Enforce the Rule of Law
1. Article 1 of the Social Insurance Law protects citizens’ lawful rights to participate in and enjoy social insurance benefits. Am I not a citizen of the People’s Republic of China? Do local administrative documents have the authority to revoke my citizenship? During my imprisonment, even the prison authorities had no power to revoke my citizenship. After returning to society, it is effectively revoked instead. Are such local regulations lawful?
Citizenship is the most basic legal status of an individual. No individual, social organization, or state organ has the authority to revoke citizenship as defined by the Constitution. Article 33 of the Constitution states that all persons holding Chinese nationality are citizens of the People’s Republic of China.
2. Article 3 of the National Social Insurance Law, and the governing party’s repeated emphasis on “strengthening inclusive, foundational, and bottom-line livelihood development, and safeguarding the basic living conditions of the people.” Based on this, my years-of-service wages from 1970 to 1989 in state public institutions should also be counted; recently, when Honda withdrew from Japan, wages were compensated based on years of service. Moreover, I made every effort to pay pension contributions for 220 months, at the lowest contribution level; I very much did not wish to add burdens to my family, society, or the state, yet local red-header documents denied this, causing me to become a “person with three no’s” and a debtor, and forcing me to add avoidable negative burdens to my family, society, and the state.
Common sense tells me that superior national laws prevail over local policies; subordinate laws must obey superior laws; and when subordinate laws conflict with superior laws, superior laws must be followed. A nation’s social security system is a shared responsibility between the state and citizens for individual livelihood protection. What citizens must bear, citizens bear; what the state must bear, the state bears; and what citizens cannot bear after having fulfilled their maximum responsibility, the state bears. This embodies the superiority and inclusiveness of modern state institutions.
The superiority and inclusiveness of modern state institutions are embodied in “inclusiveness”: that is, the universality of the protected subjects, whereby all citizens equally share national treatment; embodied in “foundationality”: that is, protection content centered on the basic needs of the people, reflected in the state’s establishment and implementation of social insurance systems such as basic pension insurance, basic medical insurance, work injury insurance, unemployment insurance, and maternity insurance; and embodied in “bottom-line protection”: that is, in a risk society, the government bears the national responsibility of providing bottom-line livelihood protection. Because relying solely on the power of individuals and families cannot fully withstand social or natural risks, and charity and mutual aid are likewise insufficient to provide adequate support, a modern state must assume the responsibility of constructing a rational protection system to ensure that citizens obtain the basic living necessities consistent with human dignity, to guide the independent and autonomous development of individual人格, and to realize and safeguard citizens’ equal right to development.
“Inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection” are requirements of modern inclusive state-building, or in other words, requirements of building a harmonious society. They constitute the political responsibility of the state’s existence, and their theoretical origin lies in the recognition of why the state is established. Since the emergence of political philosophy in ancient Greece, it has been held that the state is the embodiment of goodness and morality. People establish states for the purposes of goodness and morality, never for the purpose of producing evil or engaging in discrimination. This purpose is absolute, not relative. That is to say, the state’s pursuit of goodness and morality is neutral, and does not carry the suspicion of discriminatory or selective law enforcement. For example, the state will never differentiate among its citizens based on ethnicity, gender, wealth, region, class, whether one is good or bad, a criminal or an outstanding individual, in deciding whom it bears; regardless of what kind of person one is, the state bears all citizens equally. To use the words of the renowned political philosopher Karl Popper: the goal of politics should be “to strive to eliminate concrete evils, rather than to attempt to realize abstract good; not to seek to establish a beautiful and happy life through political means, but to focus its objectives on eliminating concrete suffering.” That is to say, the state should only undertake low-level, neutral, platform-based matters of “inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection,” while medium- and high-level, lofty and beautiful, good deeds should be left to social organizations and individuals.
However, when implementing national responsibilities, Guizhou’s local policies fail to adhere to low-level neutrality and platform-based functions. Instead, they pursue lofty ideological preferences, distinguishing between good and bad, wealth and poverty, region, class, criminals and outstanding individuals in deciding whom to bear. This severely distorts the nature of the state. Invisibly, the state is doing what it should not do, and undertaking projects it should not undertake, which inevitably produces serious consequences. For example, I ask: if the state does not perform bottom-line platform responsibilities, who will?
3. Because of selective enforcement of local policies, I have become a “person with three no’s” and a debtor. This reflects that within the protection system, problems of imbalanced and insufficient development in livelihood fields remain extremely prominent; the institutional construction of individual responsibility and state responsibility has not yet taken shape; and the responsibility relationship between families and individual members remains unclear. This restricts those who genuinely need assistance from receiving it. For example, I do not meet the standards of Article 15 [Minimum Living Guarantee Households] and Article 16 [Persons in Extreme Difficulty] of the “Social Assistance Law.” These provisions function as buck-passing clauses, failing to respect individual responsibility, and even more failing to respect the dignity that individuals ought to possess. As a result, the state has failed to assume its responsibility to ensure that individual citizens obtain basic living necessities consistent with human dignity, and to realize and safeguard equal development rights for citizens, creating a “breach” in state responsibility.
My family consists of three people: my wife and my daughter. One receives a retirement pension of 3,000 yuan, and the other earns approximately 5,000 yuan in wages. Therefore, I do not meet the standards of Article 15 [Minimum Living Guarantee Households] and Article 16 [Persons in Extreme Difficulty]. I do not qualify as “an elderly person with no labor capacity, no source of livelihood, and no legally obligated supporters, or whose legally obligated supporters lack the ability to provide support.” Traditional Chinese dynastic culture did not support individualism but instead suppressed it, resulting in a nationwide lack of individual responsibility. My own sense of responsibility has been suppressed by the above provisions. These provisions cancel individuals’ efforts to fulfill their own responsibilities, shift my living burden onto my family, and require me to consume my family’s extremely limited resources. Such a predicament has caused me to lose personal dignity within my own home, living day after day dependent on others, like a superfluous person. One must know that human nature everywhere tends to favor wealth over poverty. Discriminatory local policies are policies that generate one family conflict and family tragedy after another. Because of discrimination under local policies, disharmony has arisen within my family. I ask: are local red-header documents policies that artificially and subconsciously manufacture family conflict? Where is their alignment with the national protection platform? Where is the life of a moderately prosperous society?
4. The state has repeatedly emphasized that everyone is equal before the law, and that the lawful rights and interests of all citizens and legal persons must be equally protected, and that selective and discriminatory law enforcement must not be practiced. Yet Guizhou’s local policies are violating this spirit. Apart from criminal matters, local policies have also covertly liquidated the national treatment that I should receive as a veteran.
According to Article 5 of the “Opinions on Issues Concerning the Improvement of the Enterprise Employee Basic Pension Insurance System” issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security, regarding deemed contribution years for retired military personnel, original years of military service are deemed contribution years and are to be combined with actual contribution years after participation.
When I asked about this provision, staff members replied that there were more specific operational texts (hidden in a black box) stipulating that anyone who has received criminal or administrative punishment shall have this benefit cancelled entirely. It is called “black-box operation” because when I requested to see the text, I was not allowed to do so. The policies of the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security set a bad precedent. Immediately afterward, the document “Interim Measures for the Application and Issuance of Preferential Treatment Certificates for Special Categories of Personnel in Guizhou Province” issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs on February 6, 2023, likewise runs counter to the construction of an inclusive state. Article 12, Paragraph 1 of that document stipulates that persons sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of ten years or more for acts endangering national security may not apply for a Veteran Preferential Treatment Certificate. After I had completed my legal punishment and went to apply for the certificate, I was informed that this was an internal document that even community staff could not see, only receive and execute. Such local red-header documents are more vicious than national laws and regulations. This is because national laws and regulations have an effective time limit and a bottom line for punishment, whereas local red-header documents have neither a time limit nor a bottom line. Once punished, one is punished forever, discriminated against forever, and never forgiven. Local red-header documents are典型的 extremist policies.
It appears that local improvised policies are more powerful than national laws and regulations. Under such exploitative treatment by these policies, I am truly being expelled from citizenship by local improvised policies. I ask: does my citizenship still exist?
“Inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection” are already the most basic national treatments of a modern state. Military service is also a basic civic duty. I fulfilled my duty as a citizen, defending the country, without regard to pay, hardship, or sacrifice, serving in the military for many years. Yet, because of criminal punishment, this is no longer recognized, and all treatment corresponding to my past contributions as an ordinary citizen has been permanently cancelled. I ask: does the principle of “learning from past mistakes to prevent future ones, curing the illness to save the patient” contain the meaning of “never forgiving”? Does legal punishment mean permanently revoking citizenship? Does this not negate the existence of the state’s absolute purpose of goodness and absolute love? The responsibility of an inclusive state is: “not one person left behind,” regardless of whether one is good or bad, a criminal or not.
Recently, Foreign Minister Wang Yi of the People’s Republic of China urged the Taliban government of Afghanistan, during dialogue, to establish an inclusive government before China would extend friendship and assistance. Guizhou’s local government should also heed Minister Wang Yi’s urging.
A modern state is built upon rational, inclusive, partnership-based relationships, not upon relationships of hostility that divide people into enemies and friends, good and bad. All people’s rights are equal; each person has the right to reasonably share a portion of the overall social interest as a basic member, which is a benefit that society’s technologies and combined forces can and should provide.
If, in a country, relationships among people are not built on equal partnership but on mutual discrimination, such policies do not treat people as human beings. Everyone becomes a victim and an object of authoritarianism. As a result, individuals lose direction toward healthy upward living and instead descend into irreversible decline. Such practices, which block paths toward repentance and renewal, will bring curses upon the world, turning it toward a mad, disharmonious, vicious, chaotic, and hopelessly suffering hostile world. The construction of a modern state will become impossible and may ultimately fail; natural order will be violated, and world civilization will collapse. Based on these concerns, I hereby propose the following recommendations.
III. Recommendations for Building an Inclusive Society
The function of absolute goodness of the state refers to the existence of the state’s functions of inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection. The punitive function of the state refers to the state’s responsibility to punish injustice and maintain proper social order. All citizens should understand that they exist within the paradoxical relationship between protection and punishment. In a market economy and rule-of-law state, the 17th-century English thinker John Locke stated: “Individuals may do anything unless the law forbids it; governments may do nothing unless the law permits it. The rule of law grants citizens the greatest possible freedom and governments the smallest possible power. Its essence is that citizens’ basic rights must be protected, and government power must be limited.” Therefore, most policies are formulated to prevent abuse of power and to protect basic civil rights, not to discriminate against citizens’ rights. At the same time, we acknowledge that a very small number of regulations are designed to punish improper conduct. Remember: punishment targets conduct, not thought. That is to say, modern state institutions are systems that protect and reward citizens’ expression, encourage citizens to raise good questions and help the state solve problems. They are not bad systems. Bad systems target those who raise questions and eliminate people with patriotism and responsibility. Thus, in bad systems, there are “thought criminals,” and dissenters are treated as enemies.
Both protection and punishment relate to the right to survival, which is a foundational right. Therefore, protection and punishment must not endanger individual survival rights. That is to say, when the state exercises its protective and punitive functions in maintaining social justice, it must not create injustice, must not create poverty, must not strike at individual responsibility or those who dare to innovate and raise new questions, and must not violate the principle of non-retroactivity or engage in repeated prosecutions with malicious intent. Only on this basis may the state punish crimes and pursue social justice.
1. I do not deny “post hoc punishment.” For example, in economic crimes, in addition to confiscating illegal gains, harsher economic penalties may be imposed, which constitutes “post hoc punishment.” However, post hoc punishment has boundaries, and those boundaries lie outside the framework of protecting citizens’ basic survival rights.
As for non-economic cases, where property was lawfully obtained, property rights should be protected (my case is non-economic). In international legal scholarship, this is referred to as the principle of “liberty punishment,” meaning that punishment primarily deprives personal liberty, while economic loss is a non-deliberate collateral effect. If the law permits, and without violating the law, non-economic civil or criminal cases may also mitigate consequences through economic compensation, but this must be done with the consent of the parties involved and on the basis of voluntary agreement.
2. The severity of punishment must be controlled outside the red line of protecting basic civil rights. There must be no revival of revolutionary thinking such as “seizing wealth and redistributing it.” For example, completely revoking my years-of-service and military-service benefits; or pursuing confiscation of illegal gains without considering the specific individual or innocent family members, or previously lawful income. Estates and lawful income of relatives should not fall within punishment. A consciousness of property law must be upheld. Property-law consciousness requires avoiding extreme punitive systems that create new classes of destitute people. The “proletariat” is a concept that exists only under extreme national conditions; a normal state should avoid creating new “propertyless” persons.
China’s millennia-long dynastic culture of seizing and ruling power contains remnants of ruthless intolerance, extermination, and a lack of humanitarianism and compassion. Practices such as collective punishment and “beating a fallen dog” exemplify these defects. Because I am a dissident and an open opposition figure, I have suffered persecution rooted in this dynastic culture. This cruel and cold-blooded cultural legacy remains embedded in the red-header documents of the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs, and it has already harmed numerous people and their families.
3. Distinguishing merit from fault. Merit is merit, fault is fault; merit cannot offset fault, and fault must not erase merit. Punishment must not completely destroy a person, and merit must not monopolize a person’s entire life. Extreme intolerance rooted in dynastic culture must be rejected.
For example, my past honor of military service could lawfully justify cancellation of a preferential certificate during the punishment period. The certificate may be cancelled, but the national treatment of “inclusiveness, foundationality, and bottom-line protection” must not be cancelled. After legal punishment is completed, local policies should restore the preferential certificate associated with a citizen’s honor. Instead, local policies have permanently cancelled it, permanently cancelling national treatment. I hope local authorities restore the national treatment due to a veteran and an ordinary citizen.
4. National laws and regulations should not suppress individualism but protect it, because without individualism there can be no individual responsibility. “Not one person left behind” means protecting individualism. Articles 15 and 16 of the Social Assistance Law fail to account for this by treating the family as the smallest unit, whereas in reality, the smallest unit of human society is the individual.
I recommend that national laws define the individual as the smallest unit. On this basis, whether assistance is provided should first seek the individual’s opinion, and then the family’s opinion.
In summary, this concerns the construction of a modern state. Administrative regulations must not violate the Constitution or laws, and rewards and punishments must not conflict with legal principles. The neutrality of law dictates that law concerns itself with individuals and the protection of each person’s basic rights, not with collectivism or its interests.
If law serves collectivism, modern state-building cannot succeed. When any group holds power, it will favor itself, create malicious laws to suppress other groups, and treat law as a tool rather than a universal rule. Once law becomes an instrument of privilege rather than a neutral rule applied equally to all, modernization becomes impossible.
Where there is privilege, there is barbarism. Civilized society must abolish policies created by those with privilege.
May this complaint and set of recommendations promote the modernization of the state, the realization of a civilized society in Guizhou, and the appropriate revision of policies issued by the Guizhou Provincial Department of Labor and Social Security and the Guizhou Provincial Department of Veterans Affairs that do not conform to national laws.
Respectfully submitted to:National Petition and Complaints Platform
Complainant and Recommender: Chen XiFriday, December 25, 2025
Attachments:
One copy of Chen Xi’s release certificate
One copy of Chen Xi’s pension-related commitment document
Chen Xi’s pension determination form
