作者：陈树庆 编辑：周志刚 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

 

杭州市拱墅区人民政府（行政复议局）：

申述人陈树庆，杭拱政复[2006]67号的行政复议申请人（以下称“申请人”）。

2006年3月2日下午，根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第四十七条的规定，申请人到杭州市拱墅区行政复议局查阅并复制本行政复议案被申请人杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局的《行政复议答复书》和其他有关材料。

在收到上述《答复书》等有关材料之前，申请人在与被申请人交涉中，从未收到如此详细的，关于被申请人关于其履职的书面理由和依据。同时发现对本案《行政复议申请书》中提出的被申请复议的行政行为不合理、不合法主张，《答复书》既无认可也没有反驳与否定，现申请人对《答复书》进行必要的事实补充说明及针对性申述。

一、关于申请人的除名、视同缴费年限问题，《行政复议答复书》写有“1995年7月申请人被做除名处理，故被申请人对其视同缴费年限认定为0年0个月，申请人的连续工龄应从其参加养老保险之日1992年4月起计算。”

首先，拱墅区半山商业综合公司《关于对陈树庆除名处理的批复》里以理由“1995年7月1日离岗至今”将申请人除名，还是当月匆匆忙忙做出的除名决定。如果扣除的视同缴费期间为1995年7月1日所谓“离岗”至做出决定之前，当然名正言顺，但扣除的是我在单位1991年12月至1992年3月无任何过错的4个月上班期间，是否适当？

1995年7月拱墅区半山商业综合公司《关于对陈树庆除名处理的批复》，里面所描述“该员于95年7月1日离岗至今”是虚构的、不符合我与该公司约定。 实际情况是单位本身经营长期不善（老国有商业单位受大量专业市场、综合市场个体商贩的冲击），早在一年多以前已停发工资，随后我提出承包业务，但因没有提供我为单位创收所需要的条件（看中的营业场地被别人租走），只好约定允许申请人陈树庆自谋生计，人事关系继续挂靠在单位并代为缴纳社保，当然实际费用都由陈树庆自己提供（见申请人前些天家中翻箱倒柜才找出的，在本《申述》的附件：陈树庆向单位支付的代缴社保费用《杭州市工商企业统一收款收据》0077295号为证），这种情况下，当然就不存在所谓的“离岗”还是“在岗”的问题了。在通知我“除名”前我没有被告知将要除名的理由及维权途径，我当时也只是把它当作单位的单方面解约行为，将“除名”与辞退、辞职之间的实际意思与后果没有去认真了解与分辨。

虽然这种“除名”在一定程度上也反映了社会法治不健全情况下，公民个体法治意识尤其是维权意识欠缺情况下的弱势。总之，由于申请人对于自己职工权利的无知及所谓“除名”后疏于维权，也由于扣除的视同缴费年限实际只有4个月，所以在本案提出的复议请求按24年4个月的缴费年限办理养老金审定中，并没有包含这4个月的视同缴费期间。既然被申请人在《行政复议答复书》把这个问题提出来了，申请人也不妨做出补充说明并提供足以推翻“除名”事实的证据，在复议程序中如果能够对此问题做出公正解决当然最好，如果不予理会或在形式上继续认同被申请人关于本案“除名”及4个月视同缴费清零的认定，由于无关本案大局，申请人愿意采取“对方不再提，我方不再究”的行为立场。

二、《答复书》对于被申请人“约而不守”、损害政府行为信赖利益保护原则的问题避而不谈。

当初缴费的时候，被申请人没有告知包括申请人在内的缴费人所谓“服刑期间违规参加基本养老保险”问题，假装不知“违规收费”，作为政府行为对社保缴费来者不拒；现在要其支付法定社会保险责任的时候，突然变卦，找理由说“违规”了，是因为缴费人的“违规缴费”。时到今日，被申请人作为专业的（也是应知的）涉嫌故意或明显过失的“知规不告”并“违规收费”不用承担“违规”的责任，反而让外行的、积极履约缴费的社保受益人即本案申请人陈树庆来承担以“违规”为名的毁约损失。更何况所谓的“违规”绝不能等同于“违法”，中华人民共和国没有任何一条法律明确规定“服刑期间不得参与社会保险”或规定社会保险机构“对服刑期间参与社会保险的可以取消并拒绝承担届时保险责任”，被申请人的行为，放到任何一个讲道理、行法治的文明时代，放在任何一个讲道理、行法治的文明地方，都会因其显失公平，看作权力强势的任意和荒唐，严重损害了政府的社会公信力！

三、在本案申请人到被申请人的窗口办理退休手续时，一再（口头）提请被申请人考虑我国已经签署、有的已经批准的人权公约，里面有关于禁止强迫无偿劳动及人人普适的社会保险规定，当时有其科长级的工作人员笑答我“扯远了！”我权当其不知或开玩笑而已。现在，申请人在《行政复议申请书》中正式详列了《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》、《世界人权宣言》、《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》有关条款及内容，但《答复书》继续无视行政行为（包括具体行政行为与抽象行政行为）不得与法律相抵触原则、无视国家已经签署和批准生效的国际公约。

国家签署尤其是已经批准的国际公约，是向包括中国人民在内的全世界公开承诺，任何在具体案件适用法律时对这些公约的漠视，不仅有损于国内的法治实现，也势必严重损害国家的国际信誉和国际形象。社会的文明进程到了二十一世纪都已经过了二十多年，无论国家工作人员还是国家机关在行使权力时，如果还继续忽视本国已经签署及批准的国际公约的作用与效力，其知识面、其能力、其格局，能说是合格的吗？

四、《答复书》无视机关事业单位大量违法使用劳务派遣工的虚假务工（实际务工与包括登记社保在内的挂名务工不一致）并严重违反“同工同酬”的法律规定，只对于本案申请人服刑期间的社保缴费作“违规”认定。实质上是同样的“社保代缴”，这种双重标准不仅有违于法治社会“政府行为法无授权不可为，公民行为法无禁止即自由”的基本原则，而且与古代封建专制主义社会权力恣意的“只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯”有何区别？

 五、毋庸置疑，违反联合国宪章及联合国两个人权公约、违反普世文明价值的监狱强迫无偿劳动，在我们国家要保持改革开放或进一步扩大开放的过程中，是必须做出根本性的改观甚至废除的。这也正是国家司法部、外交部等的发言人在接受相关采访或主动播报时一再（掩饰性地）强调“新疆没有强迫劳动”、“中国没有强迫劳动”的原因。申请人在坐牢期间与同室服刑人员晚上按规定收看中央电视台新闻联播，每每看到、听到这种“没有强迫劳动”的发言或宣称，都会群起而笑之，“中国没有强迫劳动？只要有监狱的地方就有强迫劳动，至少我们所在的乔司监狱一直以来都在强迫劳动”当然除了我自己看到、听到不少关于强迫劳动的“手段”，接下来如果有必要，还不妨让“大家都来讲故事”说说他们坐牢的亲身感受（包括强迫无偿劳动），让有关经济问题学者来谈谈“监狱强迫无偿劳动”对市场公平竞争、对社会就业形势及劳工权益的冲击、劳改产品对中国商品出口的作用与影响等等，在这里，怕太“离题”也限于篇幅点到为止，先不再展开更加具体、充分的讨论。 

如果从本行政复议案申请人陈树庆的个案开始，希望能逐步推广到普遍承认过去服刑期间的社保缴费有效，甚至允许广大服刑人员出狱后补缴服刑期间的社保缴费不足年限让刑满释放人员真正像其他公民一样都能公平地老有所养，不仅有利于服刑人员在监狱的安心改造，也有利于刑满获释人员的安置及回归社会正常生活，避免部分人员走投无路下可能的铤而走险。在现行刑罚制度及执行状态与将来废除监狱强迫无偿劳动之间，建立一个合理的缓冲与过渡期。

综上，申请人恳请杭州市拱墅区人民政府（行政复议局）在审定本行政复议案时，对于申请人在《行政复议申请书》中提出的问题与理由，就被申请人在《行政复议答复书》中既不认可也不反驳的行为，予以必要的注意。这种对于法律适用争议焦点的拒绝回答：如果是因为不能，说明其行政行为的合法性与合理性经不起推敲；如果是不屑，那是权力的傲慢，更应该予以防止。

盼望本案最终能做出合法、公正、周全的行政复议决定。

 

此致

敬礼！

申请人   陈 树 庆

2026年 3 月 3 日

 

附：

1、本对《行政复议答复书》的申述副本1份

2、《杭州市工商企业统一收款收据》0077295号复印件2份

Representation Regarding the “Reply to Administrative Reconsideration”

Abstract: This article is the author’s response to the “Reply to Administrative Reconsideration,” exposing the truth regarding the China social security department’s handling of his pension insurance contribution years and retirement benefits. The social security department lacks sufficient legal basis and violates the principles of fairness, honesty, and human rights.

Author: Chen Shuqing

Editor: Zhou Zhigang Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min

To: The People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou (Administrative Reconsideration Bureau):

The Petitioner, Chen Shuqing, is the applicant for administrative reconsideration in Case No. [2006] 67 of the Gongshu District Government (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”).

On the afternoon of March 2, 2026, in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Petitioner went to the Administrative Reconsideration Bureau of Gongshu District, Hangzhou, to consult and copy the “Reply to Administrative Reconsideration” and other relevant materials submitted by the Respondent, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Gongshu District, Hangzhou.

Prior to receiving the aforementioned “Reply” and related materials, the Petitioner had never received such detailed written reasons and bases regarding the Respondent’s performance of duties during previous dealings. At the same time, it was discovered that regarding the claims of unreasonable and illegal administrative acts raised in the “Application for Administrative Reconsideration” of this case, the “Reply” neither acknowledges nor refutes or denies them. The Petitioner now provides necessary factual supplementary explanations and targeted representations regarding the “Reply.”

I. Regarding the Petitioner’s dismissal and the issue of deemed contribution years. The “Reply to Administrative Reconsideration” states: “In July 1995, the Petitioner was processed for dismissal; therefore, the Respondent determined his deemed contribution years to be 0 years and 0 months. The Petitioner’s continuous length of service should be calculated from April 1992, the date he began participating in the old-age insurance.”

First, the Approval Regarding the Dismissal of Chen Shuqing by the Gongshu District Banshan Commercial Integrated Company dismissed the Petitioner on the grounds of “leaving the post from July 1, 1995, to the present,” and this dismissal decision was made hastily within that very month. If the deducted deemed contribution period were from the so-called “absence” on July 1, 1995, until the decision was made, it would certainly be justifiable. However, is it appropriate to deduct the four-month period from December 1991 to March 1992, during which I worked at the unit without any fault?

The description in the July 1995 Approval Regarding the Dismissal of Chen Shuqing, stating “the person has left the post since July 1, 1995, to date,” is fabricated and inconsistent with the agreement between the company and me. The actual situation was that the unit itself suffered from long-term poor management (old state-owned commercial units were impacted by a large number of professional markets, comprehensive markets, and individual vendors). Wages had already been suspended more than a year prior. Subsequently, I proposed to contract business, but because the conditions necessary for me to generate income for the unit were not provided (the business premises I sought were rented to others), it was agreed to allow the Petitioner, Chen Shuqing, to seek his own livelihood. The personnel relationship continued to be attached to the unit, which would pay social security on my behalf, though all actual costs were provided by Chen Shuqing himself (refer to the Hangzhou Industrial and Commercial Enterprise Unified Collection Receipt No. 0077295 for social security fees paid by Chen Shuqing to the unit, which was only found after rummaging through boxes at home a few days ago and is attached as an annex to this Representation). Under these circumstances, there is naturally no issue of so-called “leaving the post” or “being at the post.” Before being notified of the “dismissal,” I was not informed of the reasons for the impending dismissal or the channels for protecting my rights. At that time, I merely treated it as a unilateral termination of the contract by the unit and did not seriously understand or distinguish the actual meaning and consequences between “dismissal,” discharge, and resignation.

Although this “dismissal” reflects, to some extent, the vulnerability of individual citizens due to a lack of legal awareness—especially rights-protection awareness—under a deficient social rule of law, the Petitioner’s ignorance of his rights as an employee and failure to seek protection after the “dismissal,” combined with the fact that the deducted deemed contribution period was only four months, led to the request in this case to process the pension audit based on 24 years and 4 months of contribution, which did not include these four months. Since the Respondent raised this issue in the “Reply to Administrative Reconsideration,” the Petitioner might as well provide supplementary explanations and evidence sufficient to overturn the facts of the “dismissal.” It would be best if a fair solution could be reached during the reconsideration process. However, if it is ignored or if the Respondent’s determination regarding the “dismissal” and the zeroing out of the four-month deemed contribution continues to be formally accepted, the Petitioner is willing to adopt the stance of “if the other party no longer mentions it, we will no longer pursue it,” as it does not affect the overall situation of this case.

II. The “Reply” remains silent on the issue of the Respondent “failing to keep its word” and damaging the principle of protecting the interests of trust in government actions.

At the time of payment, the Respondent did not inform payers, including the Petitioner, of the so-called issue of “irregular participation in basic old-age insurance during imprisonment.” It feigned ignorance of “irregular fee collection” and, as a government action, accepted all social security contributions without refusal. Now, when required to fulfill statutory social insurance responsibilities, it suddenly changes its tune, claiming “irregularity” because of the “irregular payments” by the payer. Today, the Respondent, as a professional entity (which should have known), is suspected of intentional or clearly negligent “failure to inform of regulations” and “collecting fees in violation of regulations,” yet it does not bear the responsibility for the “violation.” Instead, it forces the layperson and active contract-fulfilling social security beneficiary—the Petitioner, Chen Shuqing—to bear the loss of contract breach under the name of “irregularity.” Furthermore, so-called “irregularity” can by no means be equated with “illegality.” No law in the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates that “one shall not participate in social insurance during imprisonment” or that social insurance institutions “may cancel and refuse to bear insurance responsibilities for participation during imprisonment.” The Respondent’s behavior, in any civilized era or place that values reason and the rule of law, would be seen as the arbitrary and absurd exercise of dominant power, seriously damaging the government’s social credibility!

III. When the Petitioner went to the Respondent’s window to handle retirement procedures, he repeatedly (verbally) requested the Respondent to consider the human rights conventions that China has signed and, in some cases, ratified. These include provisions prohibiting forced unpaid labor and universal social insurance for everyone. At that time, a section-level staff member laughingly replied, “You’re wandering too far off!” I treated it as ignorance or a joke. Now, the Petitioner has formally detailed the relevant articles and contents of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the “Application for Administrative Reconsideration.” However, the “Reply” continues to ignore the principle that administrative acts (including specific and abstract acts) must not conflict with the law, and ignores the international conventions that the state has signed, ratified, and put into effect.

International conventions signed and especially ratified by the state are public commitments to the whole world, including the Chinese people. Any disregard for these conventions when applying the law to specific cases not only harms the realization of the rule of law domestically but will also inevitably damage the country’s international reputation and image. We are more than twenty years into the twenty-first century. If state personnel or organs continue to ignore the role and effectiveness of international conventions signed and ratified by their own country when exercising power, can their knowledge, ability, and perspective be called qualified?

IV. The “Reply” ignores the widespread illegal use of labor dispatch workers by organs and institutions for “fake employment” (where actual labor is inconsistent with nominal employment, including social security registration) and serious violations of the legal requirement for “equal pay for equal work,” yet only determines the Petitioner’s social security contributions during imprisonment as “irregular.” This is essentially the same “social security agency payment.” This double standard not only violates the basic principle of a rule-of-law society—that “government action is forbidden unless authorized by law, while citizen action is free unless prohibited by law”—but also, how does it differ from the arbitrary power of ancient feudal despotism where “the officials are allowed to set fires, but the commoners are forbidden to light lamps”?

V. Undoubtedly, forced unpaid labor in prisons—which violates the UN Charter, the two UN human rights covenants, and universal values of civilization—must undergo fundamental changes or even be abolished as our country continues to reform and open up or further expand its opening. This is precisely why spokespersons for the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs repeatedly (and cover-up-ly) emphasize that “there is no forced labor in Xinjiang” and “there is no forced labor in China.” While in prison, the Petitioner and fellow inmates watched the CCTV News Bulletin every night as required. Every time we saw or heard these claims of “no forced labor,” we would laugh as a group. “No forced labor in China? Wherever there is a prison, there is forced labor; at least the Qiaosi Prison where we were has always had forced labor.” Besides the “methods” of forced labor I personally saw and heard, if necessary, I might as well let “everyone tell their stories” about their personal experiences in prison (including forced unpaid labor), and let economic scholars discuss the impact of “prison forced unpaid labor” on fair market competition, social employment, and labor rights, as well as the role and influence of prison labor products on Chinese commodity exports. To avoid being too “off-topic” and due to space constraints, I will stop here and not expand into more specific and full discussions for now.

If we start with the individual case of Chen Shuqing, it is hoped that it can gradually lead to a universal recognition that social security contributions during past imprisonment are valid, or even allow the vast number of imprisoned persons to pay back deficient years of social security after release. This would allow those released from prison to truly enjoy a fair old-age life like other citizens, which is conducive not only to the peaceful reform of prisoners but also to the resettlement and return of released persons to normal social life, avoiding the possibility of some people taking risks out of desperation. This establishes a reasonable buffer and transition period between the current penal system and its execution and the future abolition of forced unpaid labor in prisons.

In summary, the Petitioner earnestly requests the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou (Administrative Reconsideration Bureau), when reviewing this case, to pay necessary attention to the fact that the Respondent neither acknowledged nor refuted the issues and reasons raised by the Petitioner in the “Application for Administrative Reconsideration.” This refusal to answer the focus of legal application disputes: if it is because they cannot, it shows that the legality and rationality of their administrative act cannot withstand scrutiny; if it is out of disdain, it is the arrogance of power, which should be even more prevented.

I look forward to a final administrative reconsideration decision that is legal, fair, and comprehensive.

Respectfully,

Petitioner: Chen Shuqing

March 3, 2026

Attachments:

1.One copy of this Representation Regarding the “Reply to Administrative Reconsideration”

2.Two copies of the Hangzhou Industrial and Commercial Enterprise Unified Collection Receipt No. 0077295