In a recent case that has stirred controversy and censorship in China, a migrant worker named Liu Quan from Tangshan, Hebei, faced long-term wage arrears and a lack of recourse for his rights. He resorted to making a bomb to protest against the labor supervision team that failed to address his grievances, resulting in severe punishment from the authorities. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made efforts to suppress information about this incident, as commentators believe it exposes flaws in the CCP’s stability maintenance system. The CCP’s censorship reflects its fear of people no longer fearing death and the potential for others to emulate Liu Quan’s actions by making their own bombs to protest against the government.
On July 28, the well-known mainland China media figure Zhu Wenqiang, who operates the public account “Empty Bottle” and its associated Weibo account, was shut down. His series of articles documenting Liu Quan’s wage protest case vanished from the online space along with his account closures.
On July 29, Zhu Wenqiang posted a new article titled “Empty Bottle is Gone, But I’m Still Here” on his WeChat public account “Dim Light in a Bottle.” He expressed dismay over the closure of his accounts by the Tangshan government, stating that both the “Empty Bottle” Weibo and public accounts were deleted.
During this period, Zhu Wenqiang’s articles exposing Liu Quan’s struggles to recover unpaid wages culminated in the homemade bomb incident at the Caofeidian Labor Supervision Team, and three of his articles were deleted due to official pressure.
He remarked, “When migrant workers are denied their rightful wages with no response from the authorities, and they are forced to resort to criminal methods instead of resolving the underlying issues, it has become a common occurrence in local governance.”
“They would rather pay to have my articles deleted than address a societal problem that should never have arisen in the first place. This kind of irony in the officialdom’s ecosystem is truly unsettling.”
In a report published on July 18 on Netease, Zhu Wenqiang’s “Empty Bottle” account questioned, “Who Forced Tangshan Migrant Worker Liu Quan to Make a Bomb to Demand Wages?” It detailed Liu Quan’s struggles due to prolonged malicious wage arrears, culminating in his detonation of a homemade bomb at the Caofeidian Labor Supervision Team on April 8, 2025. The explosion resulted in injuries to several individuals, including Liu Quan himself, labor supervision team members, and police officers. Liu Quan was initially sentenced to six years in prison.
The article garnered nearly ten thousand responses and sparked heated discussions before being removed, along with related content being taken down and online discussions about the incident being blocked.
On July 25, Cai Xin Net published an article titled “After 14 Unsuccessful Attempts to Demand Wages, ’90s Generation’ Migrant Worker Explosion Case Awaits Second Trial Judgement,” which was later removed as well.
Initially, the case was just a typical wage dispute incident.
Liu Quan and his son worked on a construction site without signing a labor contract, leading to a contractor owing them 56,000 yuan in wages. Since 2023, Liu Quan had lodged complaints with the local labor supervision department. Despite supposed “mediation” arranged by the supervision team, Liu Quan was coerced into relinquishing some of his legitimate rights, eventually agreeing to a settlement of 47,000 yuan, yet the employer still did not pay the wages owed.
Liu Quan attempted multiple times to seek justice through various channels, such as the labor supervision team and government hotline, only to face bureaucratic runarounds.
With no other options left, on April 8, 2025, Liu Quan detonated a homemade bomb at the Caofeidian Labor Supervision Team, injuring several people, including himself, staff of the supervision team, and police officers.
The official court verdict charged Liu Quan with explosion-related crimes and illegal manufacturing of explosive devices. His appointed defense lawyer argued that while Liu Quan did commit an explosion offense, the ingredients he purchased, such as potassium permanganate and sulfur, did not meet the maximum legal standards required for conviction of illegal manufacturing of explosives. Due to the dire circumstances Liu faced, with his wage dispute unresolved for a year and a half, his mother hospitalized, and his home damaged by a natural disaster, the defense sought leniency from the court.
Ultimately, the court ruled that Liu Quan was guilty of the explosion offense, separate from his wage dispute, and his four PPR pipeline creations, deemed explosive devices, constituted the crime of illegal manufacturing of explosives. He was sentenced to six years in prison after multiple charges were combined.
Liu Quan chose not to appeal. The case is now at the second trial stage, with defense lawyers raising concerns about unclear facts surrounding the illegal manufacturing of explosives, insufficient evidence, inadequate quantities of materials involved in the crime, flawed investigation practices, and illegal inducements during the case investigation. They demand a prompt and transparent hearing from the Tangshan Intermediate Court.
On various platforms, including Bursting Point Weekly, several commentators weighed in on the issue.
Former overseas Chinese media figure Cai Shenkun remarked, “A migrant worker unable to receive their hard-earned wages is forced to a Yang Jia scenario, resorting to a homemade bomb to demand justice. In the end, he injured himself, others, and was sentenced to six years by the court. What’s even more eerie is that all discussion and reporting on this topic in China have been completely censored! It seems the CCP is most afraid of individuals like Yang Jia who fearlessly confront authority and the potential for a wave of homemade bomb protests!”
In 2008, a 27-year-old Beijing youth named Yang Jia, mistakenly targeted and mistreated by police for allegedly stealing a bike while on a trip to Shanghai, entered a police station in Zhabei District on July 1, resulting in a knife-wielding attack that left six dead and five injured. He was sentenced to death and executed that same year in November.
American-based dissident Wu Jianmin stated, “Migrant worker Liu Quan resorting to a homemade bomb to demand wages serves as a stark reminder that sometimes direct action is more effective than petitioning. When provoked by the authorities, the people have no choice but to resist. When pushed to the brink, the response is not impulsive but born out of desperation. We must ask ourselves, who, when cornered by life, wouldn’t risk their own life to seek justice for over 50,000 yuan?”
Former student leader of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Wang Dan, drew parallels between this case and the Tunisian street vendor Bouazizi, whose actions sparked the Jasmine Revolution.
He remarked that without foreseen opposition movements, no one, from the authorities to the public, anticipated that a revolution would start from a single vendor’s brave stand. While not entirely coincidental, factors such as official corruption, prolonged economic downturn, and a surplus of unemployed youth contributed to the Jasmine Revolution. Similar circumstances exist in China, where the regime heavily invests in stability maintenance due to such possibilities.
Netizen Iggie commented, “This disaster is a deliberate result of the authoritarian regime raising the cost of seeking justice. China’s petition system is fundamentally broken, existing solely to indefinitely delay issues rather than resolve them. When faced with injustice, it pushes you towards legal channels that are designed to prolong problems instead of solving them. If you don’t resort to extreme measures, the petition system remains motionless like a corpse. The result is that while the system delays a volcanic eruption, it indirectly leads to a more extreme eruption down the line.”