作者：陈树庆
编辑：冯仍
责任编辑：钟然
在法治社会，制定法律，建立权力制衡制度，保障人民监督权，目的是将权力这一猛兽关进牢笼，在充分发挥权力服务于社会的同时，有效防止滥用权力，确保这猛兽不能伤害民众的自由和权利。
把权力比作猛兽，把法律、制度和人民的监督权比作笼子的说法，早在2004年10月10日，美国总统布什在讨论国家安全与权力时，使用了“Power is a formidable, awesome beast”（权力是可怕、令人敬畏的野兽），在他随后的一次演讲中，更为精彩：“人类千万年的历史，最为珍贵的不是令人炫目的科技，不是浩瀚的大师们的经典著作，不是政客们天花乱坠的演讲，而是实现了对统治者的驯服，实现了把他们关进笼子里的梦想。因为只有驯服了他们，把他们关起来，才不会害人。我现在就站在笼子里向你们讲话。”
2013年1月22日，刚履新职不久的中共中央习近平总书记在第十八届中央纪律检查委员会第二次全体会议上有关反腐的讲话中，也提出要“把权力关进笼子”，随后的十几年来，无论习的讲话还是其他官方文件，“把权力关进笼子”一直在反复强调。实际效果如何呢？官方宣传与民间舆论众说纷纭，对我自己而言，亲身遭遇的感触与思考，才是最为深切的。
2025年12月25日上午9点刚过，我接到0571-87882793电话，电话那头是12月17日我在香积寺路58号拱墅区政务服务中心办理退休手续时，接待我的105室工作人员陈明朋，说他才知道我在12月4日已经向大关街道提交了办理退休的申请，而且他现在也已收到了我向杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局提出《政府信息公开申请书》，说我所要的材料已经准备好，他让我过去拿。我答应马上过去，在上午10点不到就赶到了他那里，拿了几份材料，其中有一份盖着“杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心”印章的《告知书》，一份制作日期是二〇一〇年九月三十日的《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件-浙人社函[2010]358号-关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函（此件依申请公开）》等。
看了这些材料，我既失望，又高兴。失望的是，《告知书》明确以“不符合政策”的原因，否定了我社保缴费24年4个月已经超出15年最低缴费要求可以领养老金的申请，只确认我“合法有效的职工基本养老保险实际缴费年限为9年10月”，看来我要现在就领养老金，难！高兴的是，《告知书》所依据的法律及政策明显适用不当或效力不足，为我接下来的维权铺开了伸展的余地。
本案的事实是，我陈树庆、家属、工作或社保挂靠的单位为我缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日我最后一次刑满释放后，到拱墅区社保经办机构几次补缴中间断交的最近几年（包括部分刑期内的期间）社保费用也都顺利完成。社保经办机构在收取保险缴费的时候顺顺利利，现在要其履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以所谓“相关政策”为托词，拒不履行其应负的社会保险责任。由此可见，本案的争议焦点，首先集中在具体行政行为中，民众对于政府的信赖利益能否得到保护，说的通俗一点，就是政府是否可以随意违约？
不难发现，近几十年来，政府违约的案例屡屡见诸于舆论。如果政府可以随意违约，显然会让民众面对政府不能预期、无所适从，担心政府的权力会像野兽吞噬自己的权利。虽然每一个案子政府方对于自己“言而无信，约而不守”总是有一定的“理由”来说辞，但其“理由”必须经得起严格的法律限制，本案杭州市拱墅区社会保险经办机构拒绝为陈树庆现在办理领取养老金资格，所依托的“相关政策”是否也站得住脚呢？本文不妨展开初步的分析如下：
本案的法律关系由两项事实构成，第一项是缴纳社保，其中包括服刑期间缴纳的是否有效？陈树庆、就业单位等是缴费义务人，政府（社保经办机构和财税机构）是收费权利人；第二项是到了法定年龄领取养老金，陈树庆变成了领取权利人（受益人），政府变成了社会保险支付的义务人。该行为由于社会保险经办机构根据法定授权履行政府的社会保险管理与服务职责，既有具体行政行为的性质，又由于该行为的整个过程由民事主体陈树庆一方和行政主体社保经办机构一方共同完成，类似于民事法律行为的“合同”。如果社保经办机构主张第一项事实陈树庆一方缴纳10年6个月刑期间的社会保险无效成立，那么本案《告知书》上认为陈树庆只剩下9年10个月的有效缴费期也是确立的；如果陈树庆认为己方缴纳社保包括刑期内的都有效，本案《告知书》认定就是错误的，代表政府方的杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心应该立即替陈树庆办好退休手续并按时发放法定与约定的养老金。
现代法治社会是“对政府法无授权不可为，对民众是法无禁止即自由”，如果主张作为民众陈树庆一方缴纳刑期内社会保险费的行为无效，就必须指出其“法”之所“禁”。对此《中华人民共和国民法典》对于民事法律行为的效力问题，就有类似的规定，在《民法典》第一编“总则”的第六章第三节第一百五十三条规定“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的民事法律行为无效。……违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效”，将“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定”或“违背公序良俗”的事实作为“无效”前提。
从杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心提供的《告知书》中可见，其推翻约定拒不履行对陈树庆的社会保险责任的理由是：根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》第二条第一款“在中华人民共和国境内的企业、个体经济组织（以下统称用人单位）和与之形成劳动关系的劳动者，适用本法”、第七十二条“用人单位和劳动者必须依法参加社会保险，缴纳社会保险费”，《中华人民共和国社会保险法》第十条第一款、第二款“职工应当参加基本养老保险，由用人单位和职工共同缴纳基本养老保险费。无雇工的个体工商户、未在用人单位参加基本养老保险的非全日制从业人员以及其他灵活就业人员可以参加基本养老保险，由个人缴纳基本养老保险费”，《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函》（浙人社函[2010]358号）等规定服刑人员在服刑期间不属于职工基本养老保险参保对象，服刑期间参保属于违规参保缴费，该期间缴纳的职工基本养老保险应当清退。
显而易见，上述《劳动法》和《社会保险法》包括《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》里的规定，是要求用人单位和劳动者去缴纳社会保险费，立法目的是保障从业人员的社会保险权利，里面并没有“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”的强制性规定；至于浙人社函[2010]358号《复函》，是（此件依申请公开），根据法律未经公布不生效的原则，“依申请公开”不能等同于“公布”，没有对抗不知情相对人的任何效力；《复函》做出日期是“二〇一〇年九月三十日”、印发日期是2010年10月9日，对我在2010年9月13日已经结束的第一次服刑四年期间缴费显然没有追溯效果；更何况《复函》不具备《中华人民共和国立法法》中有关法律、行政法规、地方性法规、自治条例和单行条例、规章的级别和效果，属于无立法权的政府部门替自己“既当运动员，又当裁判员”制定的“比赛规则”，里面所指的“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”明显属于2018年2月8日施行的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉的解释》99 条将典型的关于行政主体“重大且明显违法”的情形之“第二，减损权利或增加义务的行政行为没有法律依据。”，所以也不能作为政府自己违约的依据。
陈树庆认为自己已经到了法定年龄享受退休的资格与待遇，除了前述实际已缴费的年限及对政府信赖利益保护原则以外，没有任一现行法律的条款明确规定服刑人员在服刑期间不得享有社会保险。而在对陈树庆的两次判刑的判决书中，判决了剥夺一定期限的人身自由与政治权利，并没有判决剥夺社会经济权利当然包括享有社会保险的权利。根据中华人民共和国政府1997年10月27日签署、全国人民代表大会常务委员会2001年2月28日批准的已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》“第九条：本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障，包括社会保险”的规定，陈树庆并不因为其服刑就成了“人人”之外，应该享有社会保险。
更何况，本案如果进一步展开下去，还牵涉到中国监狱普遍的对犯人强制无偿劳动的问题。本案原告陈树庆第一次坐牢期间自2008年1月至2010年9月共计2年零8个月在浙江省乔司监狱六分监狱七监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房菜班组进行菜肴初加工2年5个月；第二次坐牢期间自2017年1月至2025年3月共计8年2个月在浙江省乔司监狱三分监狱六监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房面食组烧制犯人主食7年11个月。两次坐牢期间不算第一次坐牢看守所里的零星劳动，实际参加监狱劳动累计10年10个月，所以，根据早在1948年12月10日联合国大会通过的《世界人权宣言》第四条“任何人不得使为奴隶或奴役，一切形式的奴隶制度和奴隶买卖，均应禁止”；第二十二条“每个人，作为社会的一员，有享有社会保障，并有权享有他的个人尊严和人格的自由发展所必须的经济、社会和文化方面各种权利的实现，……”；第二十三条第（二）款“人人有同工同酬之权利，不容任何区别”。中华人民共和国政府1998年10月5日签署的《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》也有“任何人不得使充奴工”的相关规定。按照这些国际法的要求，即使监狱犯人依法判决并以改造为目标的服“苦役”，也应与《中华人民共和国劳动法》相应的同工同酬及社会保险接轨。如果作为联合国常任理事国的我国政府能够遵守这些宣言与公约，将我服刑期间参加劳动应有的劳动报酬与社会保障予以考量和贯彻，即使我自己及亲朋好友工作单位替我服刑期间的缴费不算，也够15年以上办理退休的资格与相关手续。
当然，政府遵守已经签署、甚至有的已经批准的《国际公约》，不仅是法治社会依法行政的要求，也是一个文明社会起码得“公序良俗”。
综上，无论是《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函》的抽象行政行为，还是杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心处理陈树庆退休事宜的具体行政行为，为了让行政主体可以“约而不守”，对自己的权力做出了超出法律规定的扩张性理解，对民众的权利做出了法律规定以外的压缩性诠释，法律在他们眼里于己于人双重标准，成了权力随意拿捏、对别人可紧、对自己可松的橡皮筋，而非可以将权力关进笼子的刚性标准。
好在《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉的解释》99 条将行政主体“减损（行政相对人）权利或增加（行政相对人）义务的行政行为”认定为“没有法律依据”。接下来，我不妨探究司法这一权力制衡的“笼子”，在实践中是否足够刚性与坚硬，能不能关住行政权力这一“猛兽”，拭目以待！
附：一、盖着“杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心”印章的《告知书》；
二、《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件》浙人社函[2010]358号。
2026年1月2日 完稿于中国杭州
Can a Cage Made of Rubber Bands Confine the Beast of Power?
Author: Chen ShuqingEditor: Feng RengManaging Editor: Zhong RanProofreader: Lin XiaolongTranslator: Peng Xiaomei
Abstract:The author recounts his experience of being denied a pension by a social security agency on the grounds of “non-compliance with policy,” arguing that the government has breached its commitment and lacks sufficient legal basis. The article analyzes the legal effectiveness of social insurance contributions made by incarcerated persons and the legal force of official reply letters and emphasizes that the judiciary should serve as the “cage” that restrains administrative power.
In a society governed by the rule of law, the purpose of enacting laws, establishing systems of checks and balances on power, and safeguarding the people’s right to supervision is to confine power—the beast—within a cage, so that while power is fully exercised in service of society, abuses of power are effectively prevented, ensuring that this beast cannot harm the people’s freedom and rights.
The metaphor of power as a beast, and of law, institutions, and the people’s supervisory rights as a cage, appeared as early as October 10, 2004, when U.S. President George W. Bush, in a discussion of national security and power, used the phrase “Power is a formidable, awesome beast.” In a subsequent speech, he put it even more vividly: “The most precious achievement in thousands of years of human history is not dazzling technology, not the classic works of great masters, not politicians’ flowery speeches, but the realization of the dream of taming rulers and putting them in cages. Only by taming them and locking them up can they be prevented from harming people. I am now speaking to you from inside the cage.”
On January 22, 2013, shortly after assuming office, General Secretary Xi Jinping of the Communist Party of China, in an anti-corruption speech at the Second Plenary Session of the 18th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, also proposed to “lock power in a cage.” In the more than ten years since, whether in Xi’s speeches or in other official documents, the phrase “lock power in a cage” has been repeatedly emphasized. But what have the actual results been? Official propaganda and public opinion offer divergent views. For me personally, it is my own lived experience and reflections that are the most profound.
At just after 9 a.m. on December 25, 2025, I received a phone call from 0571-87882793. On the other end was Chen Mingpeng, the staff member in Room 105 who had received me on December 17 when I handled my retirement procedures at the Gongshu District Government Service Center on Xiangjisi Road No. 58. He said he had just learned that I had already submitted an application for retirement on December 4 to Daguan Subdistrict, and that he had now also received my “Application for Government Information Disclosure” submitted to the Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau. He said the materials I requested were ready and asked me to come pick them up. I agreed and arrived before 10 a.m. I received several documents, including a “Notice” stamped with the seal of the “Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center,” and a document dated September 30, 2010, titled “Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This Document Is Disclosed Upon Request)” (Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Letter [2010] No. 358) issued by the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security.
After reading these materials, I felt both disappointed and relieved. I was disappointed because the “Notice” explicitly rejected my application to receive a pension on the grounds of “non-compliance with policy,” despite the fact that my 24 years and 4 months of social insurance contributions exceeded the minimum requirement of 15 years. It only confirmed that my “legally valid actual contribution period for employee basic pension insurance” was 9 years and 10 months. It seemed that receiving my pension now would be very difficult. I was relieved because the legal and policy bases cited in the “Notice” were clearly misapplied or lacked sufficient legal force, leaving room for further rights-protection efforts.
The facts of this case are as follows: I, Chen Shuqing, along with my family and the units through which I worked or had my social insurance registered, paid social insurance contributions on my behalf, and were never clearly informed that contributions could not be made during periods of imprisonment. Even after my final release upon completion of my sentence on March 10, 2025, the social insurance contributions for the most recent years of interrupted payments (including some periods during imprisonment) were successfully completed through several supplementary payments to the Gongshu District social insurance agency. The social insurance agency had no difficulty collecting the contributions, but when it came time to fulfill its insurance obligations, it suddenly changed its position, citing so-called “relevant policies” to refuse to perform its social insurance responsibilities. Thus, the core dispute in this case first centers on whether the people’s legitimate expectation interests vis-à-vis the government can be protected in specific administrative actions—put more plainly, whether the government can arbitrarily breach its commitments.
It is not hard to see that in recent decades, cases of government breach of commitment have repeatedly appeared in public discourse. If the government can breach commitments at will, the public will inevitably face uncertainty and confusion, fearing that government power may devour their rights like a beast. Although in each case the government offers certain “reasons” to justify its failure to honor its word, those reasons must withstand strict legal scrutiny. Do the “relevant policies” relied upon by the Hangzhou Gongshu District social insurance agency to refuse to process my pension eligibility actually hold water? This article now offers a preliminary analysis.
The legal relationships in this case are constituted by two sets of facts. The first concerns the payment of social insurance contributions, including whether contributions made during imprisonment are valid. I, Chen Shuqing, and my employing units are the obligors of payment, while the government (the social insurance agency and fiscal authorities) are the rights holders of collection. The second concerns the receipt of a pension upon reaching statutory retirement age, at which point I become the rights holder (beneficiary), and the government becomes the obligor for social insurance payment. Because the social insurance agency performs government social insurance management and service duties under statutory authorization, this conduct has the nature of a specific administrative act; yet because the entire process is jointly completed by a civil subject (me) and an administrative subject (the social insurance agency), it resembles a “contract” in civil legal behavior. If the social insurance agency asserts that the 10 years and 6 months of social insurance contributions paid during my imprisonment are invalid, then the conclusion in the “Notice” that I have only 9 years and 10 months of valid contributions would stand. If I maintain that all contributions I made, including those during imprisonment, are valid, then the determination in the “Notice” is erroneous, and the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center, representing the government, should immediately complete my retirement procedures and pay the statutory and agreed-upon pension on time.
A modern society governed by the rule of law operates on the principle that “for the government, what is not authorized by law is prohibited; for the people, what is not prohibited by law is free.” If one claims that my payment of social insurance contributions during imprisonment is invalid, one must point out what the law “prohibits.” On this issue, the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China contains relevant provisions regarding the validity of civil legal acts. Article 153 of Chapter 6, Section 3, “General Provisions,” of Book One of the Civil Code provides: “A civil legal act that violates mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations is void… A civil legal act that violates public order or good morals is void.” Thus, “violation of mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations” or “violation of public order or good morals” are prerequisites for invalidity.
From the “Notice” provided by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center, it can be seen that its reason for repudiating the agreement and refusing to perform its social insurance obligations to me is based on Article 2, Paragraph 1, and Article 72 of the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China; Article 10, Paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China; and the “Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment” (Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Letter [2010] No. 358). These provisions assert that incarcerated persons do not fall within the scope of insured participants in employee basic pension insurance, that participation during imprisonment constitutes irregular enrollment, and that contributions paid during such periods should be refunded.
It is evident that the provisions of the Labor Law, the Social Insurance Law, and the Regulations on Employee Basic Pension Insurance of Zhejiang Province require employers and workers to pay social insurance contributions, with the legislative purpose of safeguarding workers’ social insurance rights. They do not contain any mandatory provision stating that incarcerated persons may not participate in social insurance. As for the Reply Letter [2010] No. 358, it was disclosed “upon request.” Under the principle that laws not promulgated do not take effect, “disclosed upon request” cannot be equated with “promulgated,” and thus has no effect against uninformed parties. Moreover, the date of issuance of the Reply is September 30, 2010, with a distribution date of October 9, 2010, and it clearly has no retroactive effect on the first period of my imprisonment, which ended on September 13, 2010. Furthermore, the Reply lacks the legal status and effect of laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, autonomous regulations, separate regulations, or rules as provided under the Legislative Law of the People’s Republic of China. It is a set of “competition rules” made by a government department without legislative authority, acting as both “athlete and referee.” Its assertion that “incarcerated persons may not participate in social insurance” clearly falls under the circumstance described in Article 99 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law (effective February 8, 2018): “Second, administrative acts that reduce rights or increase obligations without a legal basis,” which constitutes a “serious and obvious illegality.” Therefore, it cannot serve as a basis for the government’s breach of commitment.
I, Chen Shuqing, believe that having reached the statutory retirement age, I am entitled to retirement qualifications and benefits. Apart from the actual contribution period already paid and the principle of protecting legitimate expectations, there is no existing legal provision that explicitly states that incarcerated persons may not enjoy social insurance during imprisonment. In the two criminal judgments against me, the penalties imposed were deprivation of personal liberty and political rights for a certain period; there was no judgment depriving me of social and economic rights, including the right to social insurance. According to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed by the Chinese government 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”—I do not cease to be part of “everyone” merely because I was incarcerated, and should enjoy social insurance.
Moreover, if this case is pursued further, it also involves the widespread issue of compulsory unpaid labor imposed on prisoners in Chinese prisons. During my first imprisonment, from January 2008 to September 2010, I spent a total of 2 years and 8 months in the Seventh Ward of the Sixth Division of Qiaosi Prison in Zhejiang Province, participating in the production of export bags for 3 months and in preliminary food processing in the prison kitchen for 2 years and 5 months. During my second imprisonment, from January 2017 to March 2025, I spent 8 years and 2 months in the Sixth Ward of the Third Division of Qiaosi Prison, participating in export bag production for 3 months and in cooking staple foods for prisoners in the kitchen for 7 years and 11 months. Excluding sporadic labor during detention before my first imprisonment, I participated in prison labor for a cumulative total of 10 years and 10 months. According to Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN 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 Article 23(2)—“Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work”—as well as provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed by the Chinese government on October 5, 1998 prohibiting forced labor, even prisoners lawfully sentenced to “penal labor” for the purpose of reform should have their labor aligned with the principles of equal pay for equal work and social insurance under the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China. If our government, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, were to comply with these declarations and covenants, and take into account and implement the labor remuneration and social security due for my labor during imprisonment, then even without counting the contributions paid by myself, my family, or my employers during imprisonment, I would still meet the 15-year requirement for retirement eligibility and related procedures.
Of course, for the government to comply with international covenants that it has signed—and in some cases ratified—is not only a requirement of governing according to law in a rule-of-law society, but also a minimum standard of “public order and good morals” for a civilized society.
In sum, whether it is the abstract administrative act embodied in the “Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment” issued by the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, or the specific administrative act by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center in handling my retirement, both reflect an expansionist interpretation of power beyond legal limits in order to allow the administrative authority to “break its promises,” and a restrictive interpretation of citizens’ rights beyond what the law provides. In their eyes, the law applies double standards—tight on others, loose on themselves—becoming a rubber band that power can stretch at will, rather than a rigid standard capable of confining power in a cage.
Fortunately, Article 99 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law identifies administrative acts that “reduce the rights of administrative counterparts or increase their obligations” as acts “without legal basis.” Next, I intend to examine whether the judiciary—the “cage” of power checks and balances—is sufficiently rigid and strong in practice to confine the “beast” of administrative power. We shall wait and see.
Appendices:
“Notice” stamped with the seal of the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center.
Zhejiang Human Resources and Social Security Letter [2010] No. 358.
Completed on January 2, 2026, in Hangzhou, China.
