作者：陈树庆

中国自古就有“知耻近乎勇”的知错、认错、改错评价，“周虽旧邦其命维新”说的也是去弊图存的变革道理。但实际上很多推动社会文明进步的事情之所以“知易行难”，往往是因为遇到了难以触动的“结构性”问题，直白一点说，就是关乎既得利益格局的“体制性”问题。兴利除弊，在成熟健全的民主法治社会，于大局基本稳定中动态实现；中国古代遇上明君贤臣，也可以上下一心通过“变法”、“维新”来艰难完成；但碰到了权力傲慢、贪得无厌、社会信用崩塌的末世，代价巨大的“革命”或者说“改朝换代”就成了别无选择。人无远虑必有近忧，所以说，不怕社会不够完美，不怕人、或组织、或机构会有错误，纠错能力的建立与维护，成了社会治理能力最重要标志之一。

记得我在办理自己退休资格与核定养老金计费年限时，曾经跟拱墅区人社局负责社保的工作人员多次提及具有法律效力的国家已批准国际公约，但得到的是毫不在意、轻飘飘的一句回应“你扯远了！”。此事对我触动很大，我想，阻碍法律有效实施、妨碍建设法治政府最危险的不是执法者不懂法律，而是他们把一套环境里习惯了的、不会自我纠错、毋庸置疑的权力傲慢地当成了永恒不变的铁律。发生在我陈树庆身上的孤立行政事件，可以看出不同位价的法律法规规章政策及其实施的脱节与不连贯，这不仅是一种结构性问题，还牵涉到所有权力机关工作人员的认知惯性。可见其难度之大，要改变这种局面，仅仅通过一两个案件的碰撞，不可能有根本的改观，但唯有通过不断地碰撞、才有改变的希望。因为行政失信让我不幸一再成为弊政的受害者，同时也让我有幸成为挑战弊政“顽石”的鸡蛋，不妨让“鸡蛋碰石头”，再去碰它一次：

《请求浙江省司法厅指导清理浙人社函[2010]358号文件函》

浙江省司法厅：

请求人陈树庆，男，浙江省杭州市人，现住杭州市拱墅区大关苑东五苑6幢5单元202室，身份证号330106196509260073，联系电话15958160478。

请求事项：

请求浙江省司法厅指导清理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）》（以下简称《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》）。

请求理由：

一、请求事项属于浙江省司法厅职责范围。

根据浙江省司法厅网站（https://sft.zj.gov.cn/首页>  组织架构>职能简介）所公开的政府信息显示，浙江省司法厅的机构职能共有（十六）项。除了“（一）承担全面依法治省重大问题的政策研究，协调有关方面提出全面依法治省中长期规划建议，负责有关重大决策部署督察工作。”外，其中第（四）项还规定“指导行政规范性文件清理工作”。

二、本请求事项与请求人有切身利害关系。

如果说请求人陈树庆是本请求事项的利害关系人，更确切地说陈树庆是《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》的受害人,具体情况介绍如下：

请求人陈树庆于2025年12月25日已满60周岁3个月，实际已缴社会保险统筹24年4个月，超过了15年的最低缴费年限。在2025年12月办理退休手续时，杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局办事人员以陈树庆于2007年因煽动颠覆国家政权罪被判刑4年和2016年因颠覆国家政权罪被判刑10年6个月为由，将社保缴费年限扣除两项刑期累加年限剩余缴费仅9年多，已不足最低缴费年限，拒不办理原告的退休手续。

再三交涉中，陈树庆不满拱墅区人社局工作人员停留在口头上含糊其辞的“根据相关政策”，提出政府信息公开申请，2025年12月25日该局工作人员陈祖朋在其办公室向原告出具《杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心办理事项告知单》（以下简称《告知单》）、《告知书》及《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》，书面正式确认拒不办理陈树庆退休手续的决定。

其中《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》第一条规定：根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》、《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》等法律法规规定，被判处拘役、有期徒刑及以上刑罚或被劳动教养人员（以下简称“服刑在教人员”），其被羁押和在监所服刑或劳动教养期间（以下简称“服刑在教期间”），不能以城镇个体劳动者身份参加或继续参加职工基本养老保险。

拱墅区人社局以上述《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》的规定，作为支持其拒不办理陈树庆退休手续《告知单》、《告知书》的重要依据之一。

陈树庆认为前述文件所依据的法律适用不当、政策效力不足，于2026年1月27日就此事申请行政复议。2月5日陈树庆对《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》申请范性文件的附带审查，3月9日浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅作出《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于反馈浙人社函[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见的函》（以下简称《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见》），认定“浙人社函[2010]358号文件是对法律法规内容的具体操作性规定，并未突破或者违反上位法，内容合法有效”

拱墅区人民政府于2026年4月30日作出的《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号维持被申请人即拱墅区人社局拒不办理陈树庆退休手续的前述《告知单》。同时附寄了《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见》。陈树庆不服，现就此案已向杭州市拱墅区人民法院提起行政诉讼。

三、《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号附带审查处理意见》避重就轻、没有针对性地回答与解决陈树庆在行政复议中申请规范性文件附带审查中提出《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》的不合法问题。具体包括：

（一）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。 申请人陈树庆认为，“服刑在教人员”并不因为服刑或劳教而变得不是“人”，从而丧失了“本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障，包括社会保险”的基本人权。因此《浙人社函[2010]358号》因为与已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》相抵触，《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号附带审查处理意见》所总结的“综上，浙人社函[2010]358号文件是对法律法规内容的具体操作性规定，并未突破或者违反上位法，内容合法有效”也显然无视《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，应该审定为违法而无效，故建议有权处理机关对此类在新的时代已经明显过时且违法的“行政规范性文件”及时清理与废除。

（二）请求人认真查阅《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》、《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》，上述两项法律及一项地方性法规，里面并没有任何条文里有《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》所言的“被判处拘役、有期徒刑及以上刑罚或被劳动教养人员（以下简称‘服刑在教人员’），其被羁押和在监所服刑或劳动教养期间（以下简称‘服刑在教期间’）不能以城镇个体劳动者身份参加或继续参加职工基本养老保险。”之规定。申请人陈树庆认为，政府机关无论是抽象行政行为还是具体行政行为，对法律的理解或解释，如果可以超越法律白纸黑字的明确内涵而无中生有出任何内容并声称该内容是根据《某某》、《某某》等法律的规定，本身就是一种严重的违法行为。如果可以这样，法律作为其中一项最重要的手段，要将政府权力关进笼子就会形同虚设；而政府机关利用自己摆脱了法律文字的限制而不着边际的理解或诠释包括政策，反倒可以随时随刻去捆绑人民的权利和自由，不仅从根本上掏空与损害了法律的规则确定性，也显然与与法治社会的初衷包括立法“制约权力，保障权利”的初衷背道而驰。

本请求人陈树庆认为，若有确实需要也合情合理的行政管理措施，现行法律没有明确规定的或者规定得不够完善的，除非紧急情况（如战争、灾害等）确保正当动机的不得已处置行为，在其他任何情形都切莫以所谓“政策”的形式擅自超越并滥用法律，而是应该通过合法程序启动相关立法提案或修改法律的建议，同时继续严格遵守“法无授权不可为”的法治底线。

（三）2013年12月28日，全国人民代表大会常务委员会通过了关于废止有关劳动教养法律规定的决定，这意味着1957年8月1全国人大常务委员会批准公布《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》在实施50多年后被依法废止。劳动教养都已经废除十几年了，但包含劳动教养内容的《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》还不合时宜地被政府机关及其工作人员援引及适用，显然根据现行有效法律的要求，《浙人社函[2010]358号》也是必须与时俱进尽快予以清理、废除的。

（四）20多年来，陈树庆、其家属、其工作或社保挂靠的单位替陈树庆缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日原最后一次刑满释放后，到拱墅区人社局设在拱墅区香积寺东路58号的政务服务中心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。政府社保管理机构收取保险缴费的时候堂而皇之，现在要社会保险机构履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以这种“依申请公开”《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》来为政府的社保机构失信撒赖做依据，让缴费人本案原告陈树庆单方面承担所谓“违规”的不利后果，使得人民群众对政府行为信赖利益的保护原则荡然无存。

早在两千多年前，先贤孔子《论语·尧曰》就写道:“不教而诛谓之虐。” 现代文明社会基于“法无德不立”的精神，只要是对于公民的权利和自由依法要加以限制或惩罚性制裁的内容，无论是具体条款还是整部法律，都遵循了“不溯既往”、“法未公布不生效”的基本原则。《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》标注为（此件依申请公开），当然，依申请公开不等于公布。《浙人社函[2010]358号》虽无《中华人民共和国立法法》规定的法律地位及效力，但也涉及广泛人员权利义务，这种“依申请公开”的规定，在未被申请公开前让利害相关人茫然无知，本案申请人也是在近几个月办理退休手续时多次交涉索取无果的情况下向拱墅区人社局提出《政府信息公开申请》后才得到的。

这种若隐若现的“依申请公开”政策形式，就为胥吏弄权甚至寻租提供了手段与机会，而胥吏弄权尾大不掉，恰恰又是我国历史数千年以来善政难以落实或不能持久、而弊政却积重难返、各朝代走向衰败灭亡的重要原因之一。申请人认为，政务活动中的“依申请公开”只能限于具体行政行为中涉及商业秘密或个人隐私的信息，限于向有利害关系也依法符合申请资格的人员依申请公开。至于抽象行政行为，希望各级国家机关在今后制定规范性文件时，除了涉及国家秘密内部执行不公开也不得对抗不知情的外部相对人，其它所有的规范性文件都应该向立法学习而公开发布。所以申请人不仅请求在本案清理与废除这个“依申请公开”的《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》，还恳请彻底杜绝“依申请公开”形式的任何规范性文件再次出现。

（五）《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》第二条第二款规定：“服刑在教期间仍以城镇个体劳动者身份参保的，要及时清理。其服刑在教期间已经缴纳的养老保险费，可以暂时保留在社保经办机构，用以冲抵以后参保年度应缴纳或延缴的费用，也可一次性退还本人。”该条款在《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》第一条的基础之上，因其内容与“政府权力法无授权不可为，民众权利法无禁止即自由”的法治原理背道而驰，实践中并没有制止社保经办机构一如既往地收取参保人员服刑在教期间缴纳养老保险费，但在参保人员正式办理或享受按照实际缴费年限核定退休金时，为社保经办机构简单粗暴的“言而无信、约而不守”预备了背书，本案陈树庆就是这种行政失信行为的典型受害者之一。

综上，《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》明确违反了全国人民代表大会常务委员会早在2001年2月28日已经批准的具备法律效力的《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；以“对法律法规内容的具体操作性规定”的形式擅自添加了“法无明确禁止”的禁止内容；已经明确地不再适应2013年12月28日全国人民代表大会常务委员会通过了《关于废止有关劳动教养法律规定的决定》后的现行法律环境；以“依申请公开的”的形式破坏了现代法治社会对于规则公开透明的基本要求；其具体内容在操作效果上替社保经办机构的行政失信预备了背书，严重损害了民众对于法律、对于政府行为的信赖利益保护原则。有如此之多明显弊端的内部政策，如果任其继续存在并有效，且政策制定机关缺乏自我纠错的能力，不仅有碍于建设法治政府、法治社会，在持续失信中势必会导致政治信用的过度透支，社会信用结构持续腐蚀，最终一步一步走向不可逆转的衰败。

因为本请求人陈树庆相信浙江省司法厅领导及其工作人员的责任感（职责担当，绝不畏难躺平）与履职能力，故向贵厅递交此《请求浙江省司法厅指导清理浙人社函[2010]358号文件函》。

此致

敬礼！

请求人：陈树庆

2026年5月29日

附：

一、请求人陈树庆身份证复印件（含正反两面）1份；

二、《浙人社函[2010]358号文件》复印件1份；

三、《浙江省人社厅[2010]358号文件附带审查处理意见》1份。

编辑：黄吉洲 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

Another Test of the Ability to Correct Structural Issues

By Chen Shuqing

Since ancient times, China has held the view that “to know shame is nearly the same as courage”—an evaluation of acknowledging, admitting, and correcting mistakes. The saying “Though Zhou is an ancient state, its destiny lies in renewal” also speaks to the principle of reform: eliminating evils to ensure survival. In reality, however, the reason why many endeavors to advance social civilization are “easier said than done” often lies in encountering intractable “structural” issues—or, to put it bluntly, “systemic” problems tied to entrenched vested interests. In a mature and well-functioning democratic society governed by the rule of law, the promotion of benefits and the elimination of evils are achieved dynamically within a framework of overall stability. In ancient China, when wise rulers and virtuous ministers emerged, the people could unite to painstakingly accomplish this through “legal reforms” and “modernization.” but in an era of power arrogance, insatiable greed, and the collapse of social trust—a time of societal decline—a “revolution” or “regime change” with immense costs becomes the only option. Those who fail to plan ahead will face immediate troubles; therefore, we need not fear that society is imperfect, nor that individuals, organizations, or institutions might make mistakes. The establishment and maintenance of the capacity to correct errors have become one of the most important markers of social governance capability.

I recall that when I was processing my retirement eligibility and having my pensionable service years verified, I repeatedly mentioned to the social security staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau the legally binding international conventions ratified by the state. Yet, all I received was a dismissive, flippant response: “You’re getting off track!” This incident had a profound impact on me. I realized that the greatest danger to the effective implementation of the law and the construction of a government governed by the rule of law is not that law enforcement officials lack legal knowledge, but rather that they arrogantly treat the unquestionable, self-perpetuating power they have grown accustomed to in their environment as an immutable ironclad rule. The isolated administrative incident that befell me, Chen Shuqing, reveals the disconnect and inconsistency between laws, regulations, rules, and policies of varying hierarchical weight and their implementation. This is not merely a structural problem; it also involves the cognitive inertia of all staff members in government agencies. The difficulty of the task is evident: to change this situation, a fundamental improvement cannot be achieved through the clash of just one or two cases. Yet, only through continuous confrontation can there be hope for change. Because administrative bad faith has unfortunately made me a repeated victim of corrupt governance, it has also given me the opportunity to become the “egg” challenging the “hardened stone” of such corruption. Let us allow the “egg to strike the stone” once more:

“Request to the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice for Guidance on the Revision of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358”

Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice:

Petitioner Chen Shuqing, male, a native of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Dongwuyuan, Daguan Garden, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City; ID No. 330106196509260073; Contact Number: 15958160478.

Petition:

Request that the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice provide guidance on the review and rectification of the “Document of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security—Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358—Reply Regarding Issues Concerning Basic Old-Age Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This Document Is Disclosed Upon Request)” (hereinafter referred to as “Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358”), dated September 30, 2010.

Reasons for the Request:

I. The matters requested fall within the scope of responsibilities of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice.

According to government information published on the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice website (https://sft.zj.gov.cn/首页 > Organizational Structure > Overview of Functions), the Department has a total of sixteen institutional functions. In addition to “(1) Conducting policy research on major issues related to comprehensively governing the province according to law, coordinating with relevant parties to propose medium- and long-term planning recommendations for comprehensively governing the province according to law, and overseeing the implementation of major policy decisions,” item (4) further stipulates “guiding the review and revision of administrative normative documents.”

II. This request is of direct personal interest to the petitioner.

If the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, is considered a party with a vested interest in this matter, it is more accurate to say that Chen Shuqing is a victim of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358. The specific circumstances are as follows:

On December 25, 2025, the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, reached the age of 60 years and 3 months, having actually contributed to the social insurance pool for 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum contribution period of 15 years. When processing retirement procedures in December 2025, staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau in Hangzhou cited Chen Shuqing’s 2007 conviction for incitement to subvert state power (sentenced to 4 years) and his 2016 conviction for subverting state power (sentenced to 10 years and 6 months) as grounds deducted the combined duration of these two prison terms from his social insurance contribution period. The remaining contribution period was just over 9 years, which fell short of the minimum requirement, and they refused to process the plaintiff’s retirement procedures.

After repeated negotiations, Chen Shuqing, dissatisfied with the vague verbal responses from staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau—who merely cited “relevant policies”—submitted a request for government information disclosure. On December 25, 2025, Chen Zupeng, a staff member of the bureau, issued to the plaintiff in his office the “Notice of Matters Handled by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center” (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice”), the “Notice of Decision,” and “Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358,” formally confirming in writing the decision to refuse to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures.

Article 1 of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 stipulates: In accordance with the “Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Zhejiang Province Regulations on Basic Old-Age Insurance for Employees,” and other relevant laws and regulations, individuals sentenced to detention, fixed-term imprisonment, or heavier penalties, or those subject to re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as “persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education”), may not participate in or continue to participate in the basic old-age insurance for employees as urban self-employed workers during the period of their detention, imprisonment, or re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as the “period of serving sentences or undergoing re-education”).

The Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau cited the provisions of the aforementioned Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 as one of the key grounds for its refusal to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures, as stated in the “Notice” and “Statement of Reasons.”

Chen Shuqing believed that the legal application underlying the aforementioned document was improper and that the policy lacked sufficient legal force, and therefore filed an application for administrative reconsideration regarding this matter on January 27, 2026. On February 5, Chen Shuqing applied for a concurrent review of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 as a normative document. 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 Regarding Feedback on Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions on the Incidental Review of Zhejiang HRSS Document [2010] No. 358”), concluding that “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is a specific operational provision regarding the content of laws and regulations; it does not exceed or violate higher-level laws, and its content is lawful and valid”

The “Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou” (Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67), issued by the People’s Government of Gongshu District on April 30, 2026, upheld the aforementioned “Notice” issued by the respondent—the Gongshu District Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security—refusing to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures. The “Opinions on the Incidental Review and Handling of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security” were also enclosed. Chen Shuqing disagrees with this decision and has now filed an administrative lawsuit regarding this case with the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Court.

III. The “Opinions on the Incidental Review and Handling of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security” evades the core issues and fails to provide targeted responses or resolutions regarding the illegality of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, as raised by Chen Shuqing in his application for incidental review of normative documents during the administrative reconsideration process. Specifically, this includes:

(1) Pursuant to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—which entered into force after being signed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on October 27, 1997, and ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on February 28, 2001—which states: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, argues that “persons serving prison or re-education through labor sentences” do not cease to be “human beings” merely because they are serving a sentence or undergoing re-education through labor, and thus do not forfeit the fundamental human right that “States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” Therefore, since Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358 conflicts with the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the conclusion in the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security [2010] No. 358 Supplementary Review and Disposition Opinion that “In summary, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is a specific operational provision regarding the content of laws and regulations, does not exceed or violate higher-level laws, and its content is lawful and valid” clearly disregards the provision of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Article 9: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” It should therefore be deemed unlawful and invalid. Consequently, it is recommended that the competent authorities promptly review and repeal such “administrative normative documents,” which are clearly outdated and unlawful in the current era.

(2) The petitioner has carefully reviewed the *Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China*, the *Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China*, and the *Zhejiang Province Regulations on Basic Old-Age Insurance for Employees*. None of the provisions in these two national laws and one local regulation contain the stipulation found in Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, which states: “Persons sentenced to detention, fixed-term imprisonment, or a more severe punishment, or those subject to re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as ‘persons serving sentences or undergoing re-education’), during their detention and while serving sentences in detention centers or undergoing re-education through labor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘period of imprisonment or re-education’), may not participate in or continue to participate in the basic old-age insurance for employees as urban self-employed workers.” The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes that whether through abstract or specific administrative acts, if government agencies interpret or explain the law in a manner that goes beyond the explicit meaning of the written text to fabricate content out of thin air and claim that such content is based on the provisions of laws such as “X” or “Y,” this constitutes a serious violation of the law in itself. If this were permitted, the law—as one of the most important means of keeping government power in check—would become a mere formality; and if government agencies exploit their freedom from the constraints of legal text to engage in unfounded interpretations—including of policies—that can at any time restrict the rights and freedoms of the people, this not only fundamentally undermines and erodes the certainty of legal rules but also clearly runs counter to the original intent of a society governed by the rule of law, including the legislative purpose of “constraining power and safeguarding rights.”

The petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes that if there are administrative measures that are genuinely necessary and reasonable, which are not explicitly provided for or are inadequately defined in current laws, should not, under any circumstances other than emergencies (such as war or natural disasters) where legitimate motives necessitate unavoidable measures, be used to arbitrarily exceed or abuse the law in the form of so-called “policies.” Instead, relevant legislative proposals or recommendations for amending laws should be initiated through lawful procedures, while continuing to strictly adhere to the fundamental principle of the rule of law: “No action may be taken without legal authorization.”

(3) On December 28, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted a decision to repeal legal provisions concerning re-education through labor. This signified that the “Decision of the State Council on Issues Concerning Re-education through Labor,” approved and promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on August 1, 1957, was legally repealed after more than 50 years of implementation. Although re-education through labor was abolished more than a decade ago, the “Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358,” which contains provisions on re-education through labor, is still being inappropriately cited and applied by government agencies and their staff. Clearly, in accordance with the requirements of current and effective laws, “Zhejiang HRSS Letter [2010] No. 358” must also keep pace with the times and be reviewed and repealed as soon as possible.

(4) For over 20 years, Chen Shuqing, his family members, and the units where his employment or social security was registered have been paying social insurance premiums on his behalf. They have never received explicit notification that premiums could not be paid during his incarceration. Even after his release on March 10, 2025—which was originally his final release—they successfully made up for the social insurance premiums for the recent years (including portions of his prison term) during which payments were interrupted by visiting the Government Service Center of the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, located at 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District, on several occasions.

More than two thousand years ago, the sage Confucius wrote in *The Analects: Yao’s Words*: “To punish without first instructing is tyranny.” Modern civilized societies are founded on the principle that “law cannot stand without virtue.” Any content—whether specific provisions or entire laws—that legally restricts citizens’ rights and freedoms or imposes punitive sanctions must adhere to the fundamental principles of “non-retroactivity” and “a law does not take effect until it is promulgated.” Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 is marked as “disclosed upon request”; of course, disclosure upon request is not equivalent to promulgation. Although Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security lacks the legal status and effect prescribed by the Legislative Law of the People’s Republic of China, it nevertheless concerns the rights and obligations of a wide range of individuals. Such a provision for “disclosure upon request” leaves stakeholders in the dark until a request for disclosure is made. In this case, the applicant only obtained the document after submitting a “Government Information Disclosure Application” to the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, following repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain it while processing retirement procedures in recent months.

This elusive form of “disclosure upon request” policy provides means and opportunities for bureaucrats to abuse their power or even engage in rent-seeking. The unchecked abuse of power by bureaucrats has, in fact, been one of the key reasons why good governance has been difficult to implement or sustain, while corrupt practices have become deeply entrenched, leading to the decline and collapse of dynasties throughout China’s millennia-long history. The applicant believes that “disclosure upon request” in government affairs should be limited to information involving trade secrets or personal privacy within specific administrative acts, and restricted to disclosure upon request to individuals who have a vested interest and are legally eligible to apply. As for abstract administrative acts, the applicant hopes that when state organs at all levels formulate normative documents in the future, with the exception of those involving state secrets—which are not disclosed for internal implementation and cannot be used against external parties who are unaware of them—all other normative documents should be publicly released, following the example of legislation. Therefore, the applicant not only requests that Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security—which adopts the “disclosure upon request” approach—be reviewed and repealed in this case, but also earnestly urges that the re-emergence of any normative documents utilizing the “disclosure upon request” format be completely eliminated.

(5) Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 stipulates: “For individuals who continue to participate in social insurance as urban self-employed workers while serving a prison sentence or undergoing re-education, such cases must be promptly rectified. Pension insurance premiums already paid during the period of imprisonment or re-education may be temporarily retained by the social security administration agency to offset premiums due or deferred in future insurance years, or may be refunded to the individual in a lump sum.” ”Building upon Article 1 of Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security, this provision runs counter to the legal principle that “the government may not exercise power unless authorized by law, while citizens are free to exercise rights unless prohibited by law.” it has failed in practice to prevent social security agencies from continuing to collect pension insurance premiums from insured individuals during their incarceration. However, when insured individuals formally apply for or receive retirement benefits calculated based on their actual years of contribution, this provision effectively endorses the social security agencies’ crude and arbitrary “breach of trust and failure to honor agreements.” Chen Shuqing in this case is one of the typical victims of such administrative breach of trust.

In summary, Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 clearly violates Article 9 of the legally binding *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*, which was ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress as early as February 28, 2001: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” By presenting itself as “specific operational provisions regarding the content of laws and regulations,” it arbitrarily added prohibitions under the pretext of “what is not explicitly prohibited by law.” It is clearly no longer compatible with the current legal environment following the adoption by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on December 28, 2013, of the “Decision on the Abolition of Legal Provisions Concerning Re-education Through Labor.” By adopting the form of “disclosure upon request,” it undermines the fundamental requirements of a modern rule-of-law society for openness and transparency in regulations; in practice, its specific provisions effectively endorse administrative bad faith on the part of social security administrative agencies, severely undermining the principle of protecting the public’s legitimate expectations regarding the law and government actions. An internal policy with so many obvious flaws, if allowed to continue to exist and remain in effect—especially when the policy-making body lacks the capacity for self-correction—will not only hinder the construction of a government and society governed by the rule of law, but will inevitably lead, through persistent breaches of trust, to the excessive depletion of political credibility and the continued erosion of the social credit structure, ultimately leading step by step toward irreversible decline.

Because the petitioner, Chen Shuqing, believes in the sense of responsibility (commitment to duty, never shirking difficulties) and the competence of the leadership and staff of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice, I hereby submit this “Request to the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Justice for Guidance on the Revision of Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358” to your department.

Sincerely,

Chen Shuqing

Petitioner: Chen Shuqing

May 29, 2026

Enclosures:

1. One copy of petitioner Chen Shuqing’s ID card (front and back);

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

3. One copy of the “Review and Handling Opinions Accompanying Document No. 358 [2010] of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security.”

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

作者：张维清

本期介绍被迫害人士：毛庆祥，1950年2月生于中国浙江省杭州市，独立作家、民主活动人士、中国民主党筹委会创办人之一、《在野党》杂志策划人，复刊后的《在野党》杂志荣誉主编。

最新近况：

现年76岁高龄的毛庆祥于2026年5月20日前后被杭州警方强行带走，目前处于“强迫失踪”状态。5月19日，杭州中国民主党人、八九民运领袖徐光获释出狱。毛庆祥因在微信朋友圈发布并转发了徐光出狱感言及呼吁“勿忘六四”的视频，随即被强行带走。经证实，具体办案控制单位为杭州市金沙湖派出所。由于毛庆祥无直系亲属在身边，警方对其前妻的询问仅口头回应“人很安全”，拒绝透露关押地点、罪名及拘留期限。

一、个人简历

1、1970年代末：参与杭州“民主墙”运动，创办民间异见刊物《四五》月刊和《华东民刊》。

2、1981年：因从事民主启蒙与维权出版活动，被控“反革命宣传煽动罪”判刑3年。

3、1998年：与王有才、朱虞夫等人共同发起组建“中国民主党”浙江筹备委员会，公开申请政党注册，创办党刊《在野党》。

4、1999年：因公开筹组政党遭官方大抓捕，被以“颠覆国家政权罪”重判有期徒刑8年。

5、2010年出狱至今：长期留守国内，常年遭受国保严密监控，在敏感政治时期频繁被软禁或带离杭州。

二、政治立场

1、废除一党专政：主张建立开放、合法的多党竞争与民主轮替政治体制。

2、保障公民权利：呼吁中国政府兑现宪法承诺，尊重言论、结社、集会及出版自由。

3、和平非暴力转型：坚持通过公开化、合法化、非暴力的渠道推进中国的宪政改良。

三、被捕与判刑经历

1、第一次获刑（1981年）：因参与民主墙运动，被判处有期徒刑3年，剥夺政治权利1年。

2、第二次获刑（1999年）：因筹组中国民主党，被杭州市中级人民法院以“颠覆国家政权罪”判处有期徒刑8年，剥夺政治权利3年。

3、强迫失踪（2026年5月）：因在微信朋友圈转发异见人士徐光的出狱感言及呼吁“勿忘六四”的视频，遭杭州市金沙湖派出所带走，目前面临新一轮的政治迫害与司法指控。

四、社会评价、国际评价

1、国内民间评价：被公认为中国当代民主运动的先驱与中流砥柱，其数十年如一日的刚毅守候，激励了多代追求自由的维权人士。

2、国际组织评价：国际特赦组织（Amnesty International）及人权观察（Human Rights Watch）长期将其列为“良心犯”重点关注。国际社会谴责中国当局对其长期实施的法外迫害与权利剥夺。

五、《在野党》人权观察部对此发表紧急声明：

1、立即释放毛庆祥：强烈谴责杭州当局因言治罪，要求杭州市金沙湖派出所立即无条件释放76岁高龄的毛庆祥。

2、公开关押信息：敦促办案单位依照法律程序，立即向外界公开毛庆祥的羁押地点、身体健康状况以及涉嫌罪名。

3、停止政治迫害：呼吁中国政府停止对中国民主党人及所有政治异见人士的法外监控、强迫失踪与司法打压，切实保障公民的基本人权。

编辑：黄吉洲 校对：毛一炜 翻译：戈冰

“The Opposition Party” China Human Rights Watch Bulletin No. 29 (May 25, 2026)

Author: Zhang Weiqing

This issue profiles the persecuted individual: Mao Qingxiang, born in February 1950 in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. He is an independent writer, democracy activist, one of the founders of the Preparatory Committee of the China Democratic Party, the planner of *The Opposition Party* magazine, and the honorary editor-in-chief of *The Opposition Party* since its relaunch.

Latest Update:

Mao Qingxiang, now 76 years old, was forcibly taken away by Hangzhou police around May 20, 2026, and is currently in a state of “enforced disappearance.” On May 19, Xu Guang, a member of the China Democratic Party in Hangzhou and a leader of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, was released from prison. Mao Qingxiang was forcibly taken away shortly after posting and reposting a video on his WeChat Moments featuring Xu Guang’s remarks upon his release and a call to “Never Forget June 4th.” It has been confirmed that the specific law enforcement unit handling the case is the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou. As Mao Qingxiang has no immediate family members nearby, police responded to inquiries from his ex-wife only with the verbal assurance that “he is safe,” refusing to disclose his place of detention, the charges against him, or the duration of his detention.

I. Personal Biography

1. Late 1970s: Participated in the “Democracy Wall” movement in Hangzhou; founded the independent dissident publications *The 45th* Monthly and *East China People’s Journal*.

2. 1981: Charged with “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement” and sentenced to three years in prison for engaging in democratic enlightenment and rights advocacy through publishing activities.

3. 1998: Co-founded the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee of the “China Democratic Party” with Wang Youcai, Zhu Yufu, and others; publicly applied for party registration; and founded the party journal *The Opposition Party*.

4. 1999: Following a large-scale official crackdown on public efforts to organize a political party, he was sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of “subversion of state power.”

5. From his release in 2010 to the present: He has remained in China, subject to constant, strict surveillance by state security authorities. During politically sensitive periods, he is frequently placed under house arrest or removed from Hangzhou.

II. Political Stance

1. Abolition of One-Party Rule: Advocates for the establishment of an open, legal political system featuring multiparty competition and democratic alternation of power.

2. Safeguarding Civil Rights: Calls on the Chinese government to fulfill its constitutional commitments and respect freedom of speech, association, assembly, and publication.

3. Peaceful, Nonviolent Transition: Insists on advancing constitutional reform in China through open, legal, and nonviolent channels.

III. Arrest and Sentencing History

1. First Sentence (1981): Sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and one year’s deprivation of political rights for participating in the Democracy Wall movement.

2. Second Sentence (1999): Sentenced by the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court to eight years’ imprisonment and three years’ deprivation of political rights on charges of “subversion of state power” for organizing the China Democratic Party.

3. Enforced Disappearance (May 2026): After reposting dissident Xu Guang’s remarks upon his release from prison and a video calling for “Do Not Forget June 4th” on his WeChat Moments, he was taken away by the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou. He currently faces a new round of political persecution and legal charges.

IV. Domestic and International Assessments

1. Domestic Civil Society Assessment: Widely recognized as a pioneer and pillar of China’s contemporary democracy movement, his decades of steadfast commitment have inspired generations of rights defenders seeking freedom.

2. International Organization Assessments: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have long listed him as a “prisoner of conscience” of particular concern. The international community condemns the Chinese authorities’ prolonged extrajudicial persecution and deprivation of his rights.

V. The Human Rights Watch Department of The Opposition Party Party issued the following urgent statement:

1. Immediately Release Mao Qingxiang: We strongly condemn the Hangzhou authorities for punishing him for his speech and demand that the Jinsha Lake Police Station in Hangzhou immediately and unconditionally release 76-year-old Mao Qingxiang.

2. Disclose Detention Information: We urge the investigating authorities to follow legal procedures and immediately disclose to the public Mao Qingxiang’s place of detention, his health condition, and the charges against him.

3. Cease political persecution: We call on the Chinese government to stop extrajudicial surveillance, enforced disappearances, and judicial suppression of Chinese democrats and all political dissidents, and to effectively safeguard citizens’ basic human rights.

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing

作者：于越

在现代政治语境中，“共和国”本应意味着权力来自人民，政府由人民授权，并对人民负责。然而，当一个国家以“共和国”为名，却缺乏真正的选举制度、言论自由与信息透明时，这一称谓便失去了应有的内涵，沦为形式上的装饰。

一个真正的共和国，建立在公民的基本权利之上。人民拥有选票，能够自由表达意见，能够获取真实的信息，并对公共事务进行监督。这些不仅是制度设计的技术问题，更是一个国家是否尊重人、是否承认人之尊严的根本标志。如果人民没有选择权，没有知情权，也没有表达权，那么所谓“代表人民”的说法就缺乏正当性基础。

历史反复证明，依靠控制信息与塑造单一叙事来维持的治理模式，或许可以在短期内稳定局面，但难以获得持久的认同。因为真相不会永远被遮蔽，人们对自由、公正与尊严的追求也不会消失。信息越封闭，谎言越容易滋生；而谎言一旦累积，信任就会逐渐瓦解。当信任不复存在，任何宏大的叙事都将变得空洞。

更重要的是，一个健康的社会并不惧怕不同声音。相反，多元意见的存在恰恰是社会活力的体现。允许批评、鼓励讨论、保障表达，不会削弱国家，反而会增强制度的韧性。

因为只有在公开与透明中，错误才能被纠正，政策才能不断完善，权力才不会失去边界。

我们所呼吁的，并不是对秩序的破坏，而是对规则的重建；不是对社会的否定，而是对公正的追求。权利从来不是某种可以被施舍的恩惠，而是每一个人作为公民所应当享有的基本保障。当这些权利被忽视或剥夺时，提出质疑与要求改变，本身就是一种责任。

“蒙混一时，不能蒙混一世。”这不仅是一句警示，更是一种历史规律。任何脱离人民、缺乏监督、依赖单向叙事的权力结构，都将面临合法性的挑战。而真正稳固的国家，必然建立在人民的信任之上，而信任只能来源于真实、开放与参与。

因此，推动一个更加公开、公正、以人民为本的制度，不仅是权利的回归，更是社会长远发展的必由之路。属于人民的权利，不应被掩盖，也不应被延迟，而应当在制度中得到切实体现，在现实中得到真正保障。

编辑：Gloria Wang 校对：周敏 翻译：戈冰

Why Has the Republic Lost the People?

Author: Yu Yue

Abstract: This article explores the core implications of the concept of the “republic” in modern politics, arguing that a republican system should be founded on the principles of popular sovereignty, free elections, freedom of speech, and transparency. The author contends that if citizens lack the right to choose, the right to information, and the right to express themselves, the legitimacy of a government’s claim to represent the people will be called into question. The article further emphasizes that transparency, diverse opinions, and public oversight are essential for maintaining social trust and institutional vitality; only by safeguarding citizens’ rights and accommodating differing viewpoints can we promote policy improvements, prevent power imbalances, and drive long-term social development.

In the modern political context, the term “republic” should signify that power derives from the people, that the government is authorized by the people, and that it is accountable to the people. However, when a nation bears the name “republic” yet lacks a genuine electoral system, freedom of speech, and transparency of information, this designation loses its inherent meaning and becomes nothing more than a superficial adornment.

A true republic is founded upon the fundamental rights of its citizens. The people possess the right to vote, the freedom to express their views, access to accurate information, and the ability to oversee public affairs. These are not merely technical matters of institutional design; they are fundamental markers of whether a nation respects its people and acknowledges human dignity. If the people lack the right to choose, the right to know, and the right to speak, then the claim of “representing the people” lacks a legitimate foundation.

History has repeatedly shown that governance models maintained through information control and the imposition of a single narrative may stabilize the situation in the short term, but they struggle to gain lasting acceptance. This is because the truth cannot be concealed forever, nor will people’s pursuit of freedom, justice, and dignity ever fade. The more information is suppressed, the more easily lies proliferate; and once lies accumulate, trust gradually erodes. When trust ceases to exist, any grand narrative becomes hollow.

More importantly, a healthy society does not fear dissenting voices. On the contrary, the existence of diverse opinions is precisely a manifestation of social vitality. Allowing criticism, encouraging discussion, and safeguarding freedom of expression will not weaken the nation; rather, it will strengthen the resilience of our institutions.

For it is only through openness and transparency that mistakes can be corrected, policies can be continuously improved, and power can be kept within bounds.

What we are calling for is not the disruption of order, but the reconstruction of rules; not the rejection of society, but the pursuit of justice. Rights have never been a favor to be bestowed, but rather the fundamental safeguards that every citizen is entitled to. When these rights are ignored or denied, raising questions and demanding change is itself a responsibility.

“You can deceive people for a time, but not forever.” This is not merely a warning; it is a historical law. Any power structure that is detached from the people, lacks oversight, and relies on a one-sided narrative will face challenges to its legitimacy. A truly stable nation must be built upon the trust of the people, and trust can only stem from truth, openness, and participation.

Therefore, advancing a system that is more open, fair, and people-centered is not only a restoration of rights but also the inevitable path for society’s long-term development. The rights that belong to the people should not be obscured or delayed; rather, they must be tangibly embodied in the system and genuinely safeguarded in reality.

Editor: Gloria Wang Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing

銘記歷史 · 堅守信念 · 爭取自由 · 共創未來

巡游時間/地點：6月3日11:00am聖何塞市政廳-1:00pm斯坦福大學-3:00pm舊金山市政廳-5:00pm金門大橋

主辦單位：中國民主黨（舊金山黨部）/ 中國民主教育基金會

召集：方政 鄭雲 胡丕政

發起：陳森鋒 何穎 周雲龍

組織：關永傑 張俊傑 韋旭光 劉靜濤 李樹青 蔣書清 崔允星 郭志軍 李小林 衛仁喜 李栩

後勤：張善城 李凱 盧占強 吳志創 何聰 馬力 張繼順

宣傳：莊帆 繆青 呂小靜

現場：高俊影 羅艷雁 周忠玉 唐奇 郭鑒鑫 姚榮濤 周小俊

Remember History · Hold Firm to Our Beliefs · Fight for Freedom · Build the Future Together

Caravan Time / Locations:

June 3, 11:00 AM — San Jose City Hall

1:00 PM — Stanford University

3:00 PM — San Francisco City Hall

5:00 PM — Golden Gate Bridge

Organizers:

China Democracy Party, San Francisco Branch / China Democracy Education Foundation

Conveners: Fang Zheng, Zheng Yun, Hu Pizheng

Initiators: Chen Senfeng, He Ying, Zhou Yunlong

Organizing Team: Guan Yongjie, Zhang Junjie, Wei Xuguang, Liu Jingtao, Li Shuqing, Jiang Shuqing, Cui Yunxing, Guo Zhijun, Li Xiaolin, Wei Renxi, Li Xu

Logistics: Zhang Shancheng, Li Kai, Lu Zhanqiang, Wu Zhichuang, He Cong, Ma Li, Zhang Jishun

Publicity: Zhuang Fan, Miao Qing, Lü Xiaojing

On-site Team: Gao Junying, Luo Yanyan, Zhou Zhongyu, Tang Qi, Guo Jianxin, Yao Rongtao, Zhou Xiaojun

2026年6月4日 下午6点4分 洛杉矶领事馆八九学潮六四天安门屠杀纪念日37周年。永远不忘记，永远不放弃。“这是我们的责任”民主女神永立，女性参政议政

《全球觉醒》第七十四期

自由之钟 时刻敲响 全球觉醒 民主联盟 消灭独裁 推翻暴政活動主題：「六四」37週年祭：告別被動的「紀念」，開啟主動的「清算」今天是「六四」天安門大屠殺三十七週年。三十七年來，海內外的正義力量年年齊聚，點燃蠟燭，追悼那些在坦克和槍彈下倒下的冤魂。然而，單純的悲傷與被動的紀念，已經無法撼動那個日益狂妄的極權機器。面對一個三十七年來從未停止犯罪、甚至將暴政黑手延伸至全球的獨裁政權，今天我們站在這裡，必須展現徹底的改變，我們要將延續了三十七年的「紀念」，全面升級為對獨裁暴政的主動「清算」！ 在過去的時間裡，中共用謊言抹殺記憶，用利益誘買國際社會，試圖讓世人忘記長安街上的血腥。但歷史的血債絕對不會一筆勾銷。那個當年向愛國學生開槍的政權，還在用同樣的殘暴剝奪同胞的自由，用窮兵黷武的戰爭叫囂綁架整個國家的未來，將中國推向文明世界的對立面。如果我們只停留在每年的悲傷回憶中，就是對獨裁者無能的妥協。 改變，從這一刻開始。我們不再是只會哭泣的悼念者，而是正義的法官和歷史的清算者！中國不等於中共，海內外覺醒的同胞拒絕再為極權者的瘋狂買單。我們絕不會讓烈士的鮮血白流，我們要凝聚所有拒絕遺忘的力量，在領館門前用最堅定的聲音向極權宣戰：清算中共的歷史血債，終結獨裁統治，讓真正的自由與民主重回中華大地！我們的口號：毋忘六四血債！清算中共暴政！中國不等於中共！自由屬於人民！結束一黨專政！建立民主中國！時間：2026年6月3日（星期三）7:00PM (下午)地點：中共駐洛杉磯總領館地址：443 Shatto Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90020活動召集人：劉廣賢/廖军活動規劃： 王付青/孫曄活動主持：易勇組織者：胡月明4806536918/周蘭英6264924286梁振华6268289079/王尊福6269773679 / 朱明昌6264927033 /苏毅 6264768956曹文博6265576783/黄思博6262345396活動義工：于海龍 /王彪/张维清 /于越/薛涛/劳绍海/陳胜/李享/李偉攝影：Ji Luo /劉樂園主辦單位：中國民主黨聯合總部美西黨部中國民主黨聯合總部美南黨部自由鐘民主基金會

2026年5月31日，周日，下午2点到7点。1989年6月4日，天安门大屠杀图片展，真实记录，勿忘历史。地址：350 S Mc Pherrin Ave, Monterey Park, CA 91754公园免费停车。2点到7点之间随时可以来活动地点参观。