In recent days, China’s digital era has revealed a deleted article by former Beijing journalist and lawyer Jin Wei, exposing the escalating crackdown on the people by the Chinese Communist Party, leading to a vicious cycle. Analysts believe that under the CCP system, conflicts between officials and the public will only worsen over time.
The article, titled “My Two Years as a ‘Petitioner’ in Beijing,” was published on the WeChat public account “Wuji Tan,” recounting Jin Wei’s experiences of being labeled as a “petitioner” in Beijing after working there for over a decade. He recounted being repeatedly interrogated by the police, having his ID checked, investigations by various authorities, and facing restrictions on visiting places like Tiananmen Square and the National Museum. This situation lasted for two years, causing significant disruptions in his work and life.
Recently, he was stopped and checked at Liangmaqiao, took five or six subway trips before boarding a train, only to be checked again at Chaoyang Park Station. Later, even the Shuangjing subway station near his home was subject to police scrutiny.
He wrote: “All of this began in early 2024. It was a cold January day when he was leisurely strolling in the Houhai Nanluoguxiang area of Beijing, and a police officer suddenly stopped him to check his ID. While he had encountered this situation multiple times before in Beijing, usually lasting just a minute, this time was different. The police mentioned some discrepancies in his information and asked him to wait.”
Subsequently, another police officer was called over with a walkie-talkie, and Jin Wei was asked to accompany them to the police station for further investigation. This was the first time he sat in a police car in Beijing, arriving at a local police station near Nanluoguxiang after about ten minutes. After a brief statement, he waited for a long time until an official from the local police station came to explain: “This is a matter for the Beijing police. With the approaching Spring Festival, they have expanded their inspection scope and mistakenly included some individuals in high surveillance areas.”
He initially thought it was just a misunderstanding. However, over two months later, he encountered a similar problem at Qianmen, becoming a focus of attention for the Beijing police.
Once, he took his family to visit the Forbidden City, and was stopped at Chang’an Street subway station. While sightseeing at the Imperial Ancestral Temple, he glanced at the police officer’s ID verification device, which vaguely displayed “Covid-19 Vaccine.” It turned out that he had been marked as a petitioner related to vaccine issues.
In 2024, when he frequently traveled out of Beijing for court hearings, each time he returned to Beijing and passed through the checkpoints, his card would trigger an alert sound, forcing him to register at the police zone for a standard routine of information registration and verification with the local police station. Only after receiving instructions would he be allowed to proceed.
He called the official complaint hotline 12345, and later, the police met him in person to inform him that he was not marked as a petitioner by Beijing authorities but by an out-of-town police station, acting based on reports from his local jurisdiction. This led Jin Wei to remember that during the epidemic period, he received a call from the Nanchang police in his hometown, inquiring about vaccine-related petitioner affairs and asking him to pledge not to petition or make extreme statements.
He tried to have his name removed from the list, but the Beijing police stated, “Those who reported it need to resolve it.” The Nanchang police mentioned it might have been part of the blacklisted reports during the epidemic joint defense and control, but that organization had already dissolved, making it impossible to address the issue. Neither Beijing nor the local authorities could solve this problem, resulting in an unsolvable dead end.
He expressed, “This year, there are more subway stations checking IDs than before, now with facial recognition technology for precise identification. Amidst the crowds at the subway stations, the police could easily recognize me.” Self-mockingly, he added, “I am just a ‘beipiao’ who has worked in Beijing for over a decade, been a journalist, and now a lawyer. I have reported on many major news events and solved many problems for others. But since becoming a ‘petitioner,’ I have been unable to resolve my own issues.”
In this manner, a former journalist and current lawyer who has struggled in Beijing for over a decade has been labeled as a “petitioner,” becoming part of the “vulnerable group,” namely the “new five categories.”
As early as 2012, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, People’s Daily (Overseas Edition), published a social commentary clearly defining the “new five categories,” including rights defense lawyers, underground religious groups, dissidents, online opinion leaders, and vulnerable groups.
Some scholars believe that the “black five categories” comprise up to 100% of the Chinese population. Under the current system, anyone could potentially become part of the vulnerable group, including the elderly, disabled, laid-off workers, dispossessed farmers, intellectuals constrained in expressing opinions, and those unjustly impacted by the judiciary, not limited to petitioners.
While Jin Wei is not a genuine petitioner, the unjust treatment he faced led him to consider visiting the National Petition Office to air his grievances. Yet, the sight of the petitioner queue in front of him startled him, causing him to retract. He wrote, “I cannot transition from being ‘petitioned’ to a ‘genuine petitioner.'”
Xing Jian, son of Xing Wangli, a rights activist, stated in an interview with Epoch Times that the CCP’s stability maintenance system involves various interests, even if one has legitimate reasons to petition, the issue will not be resolved, instead creating injustices for the individuals.
He highlighted the considerable internal conflict among grassroots stability maintenance personnel, as they are torn between preventing petitions and discouraging individuals from filing petitions. Petitions indirectly generate income for stability maintenance personnel, while the cessation of petitions may lead to a loss of income for many personnel. If a petition makes slight progress, officials might face political consequences, establishing a vicious cycle.
“This stability maintenance system itself is illegal, categorizing Chinese citizens into different classes, labeling petitioners, rights activists, dissidents as hostile entities, leading to further suppression. This manufactured official-public conflict exacerbates as authorities challenge individual rights,” said Xing Jian.
Former mainland China Guilin TV journalist Zeng Jieming believed that the authorities deliberately expanded their inspection scope to create a chilling effect, akin to Mao Zedong’s rule: knowingly committing injustices to instill fear and control.
In reality, genuine petitioners who are intercepted by Beijing’s stationed interception personnel often end up being sentenced.
Previously reported by Epoch Times, rights activist Xing Wangli from Xixian County, Xinyang City, Henan Province, was intercepted and detained by Beijing police while posting a letter at the Yonghegong Post Office in Dongcheng District. Later, he was forcibly brought back to Xixian County by local authorities and sentenced to 2 years and 11 months in prison. His experience is not an isolated case.
Former Beijing lawyer Zhang Ren, in an interview with Epoch Times, mentioned that while handling rights cases, he observed that litigants become increasingly embroiled in unjust situations and face impoverishment. Some petitioners, once intercepted, detained, and sentenced after petitioning in Beijing, resulted from an agreement between Beijing and local public security. If Beijing issues a reprimand notice, local governments can use it to administer administrative sentences or criminal detentions against petitioners.
He elaborated, “If the ‘violation’ occurred in Beijing, local public security has no authority to handle it. However, in the absence of Beijing’s involvement, the petitioner is intercepted by local authorities using these reprimands. Eventually, this interception has expanded. Representatives from various Chinese regions and villages are sent to Beijing for interceptions.”
Why are street-level officials so zealous about this? Zhang Ren disclosed that in cases of land requisition by the government, a simple piece of land with a few more official stamps could increase its value by millions. When the government sells the land, 15% of the profits go to the street. The street secretary and director hire security to suppress dissenters, spending substantial amounts to secure promotions.
Former Beijing lawyer and chairperson of Chinese Alliance in Canada, Lai Jianping, remarked in an interview with Epoch Times that China is a country under the one-party rule of the Communist Party. Every citizen is considered a potential threat, leading to constant surveillance and control of the people through a powerful state security apparatus like police and intelligence bodies.
“Under such a regime, all government organizations essentially focus on stability maintenance as part of the so-called stability maintenance system. In a normal country, there’s hardly any political stability maintenance; police mainly maintain public order, focusing on criminal activities. However, in China, the ultimate task of government institutions is stability maintenance, with providing public services as a secondary objective,” he stated.
According to Lai Jianping, this system is rigid; once an individual is under scrutiny, even for a slight suspicion, it becomes a historical legacy issue. Regardless of how much one may explain, argue, or prove innocence, it is arduous to achieve a favorable outcome.
In recent years, as the CCP’s finances tighten, the police also face budget constraints. However, Lai Jianping believed that reducing stability maintenance funds is improbable due to financial adjustments made by cutting general public servants’ basic benefits, compressing office expenses, constructing fewer extravagant government buildings, and combating corruption to offset budget deficits. Moreover, more resources and funds are directed towards the development of big data technology.
“As the contradictions deepen, especially during economic downturns, general discontent rises. If stability maintenance costs decrease, the CCP’s governance could face major challenges. Moreover, local tyrants have more autonomy with increased budgeting, both financially and politically aligned with the regime, they are the beneficiaries of this system,” he added.
Zeng Jieming argued that resistance was the only way out for ordinary people. As resistance mounts, the police will be overwhelmed and unable to handle the sheer numbers, neglecting the pursuit of such individuals known as “ignoring the masses.”