In a recent disclosure by a former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) judge now living in exile in the United States, it was revealed that the judicial system in China is devoid of rule of law and operates under party control rather than legal principles.
Lin Xiaolong, born in the 1980s, passed a highly competitive civil service exam in 2013 to become a grassroots judge within the court system and later obtained a master’s degree in law from Southwest University of Political Science and Law. During his tenure in the court system, he witnessed firsthand how CCP officials intervened in court rulings, prompting him to resign and become a lawyer rather than be a puppet manipulated by power.
Lin Xiaolong recounted his experiences over the years, where CCP officials not only interfered with judicial impartiality but also directed courts, prosecutor’s offices, and police to illegally obstruct petitioners and violate their basic rights.
For instance, prior to the pandemic, when local authorities seized a large amount of land during highway construction, the compensation offered to farmers was inadequate to sustain their livelihoods. With no means for redress, the aggrieved individuals resorted to seeking justice through the courts, only to find no resolution. This led them to petition for their rights, but they were met with blockades by government officials from the county government, public security bureau, prosecutor’s office, and the courts to prevent them from leaving their homes.
Some petitioners managed to evade surveillance and traveled to Beijing to appeal their cases, only to be forcibly returned and subjected to police brutality without exception. Subsequently, these petitioners were labeled as “troublesome” individuals and placed under intense scrutiny. Particularly during key political events like the “Two Sessions,” petitioners would find themselves closely monitored once they stepped outside.
“The Communist Party operates in this manner? The people’s issues remain unresolved, and instead of helping, they’re being imprisoned and their freedom restricted,” Lin Xiaolong expressed. He criticized the authorities for not addressing the citizens’ problems and instead exacerbating conflicts. After experiencing numerous incidents like these, his perception of the CCP’s legal system underwent a transformation.
Regarding the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles,” Lin Xiaolong referred to it as a “hooligan law clause.” He explained that during the Cultural Revolution, it was known as the “hooliganism charge,” serving as a catch-all provision without legally defined crimes, giving rise to this “bottom line provision” that allows them to arrest individuals at any time.
Reflecting on his judicial experiences, Lin Xiaolong disclosed various forms of interference he faced both within and outside the court system. Government officials at higher levels typically didn’t approach him directly but instead exerted indirect influence through court leaders. Although not every case encountered such resistance, major sensitive cases involving these officials’ relatives invariably faced disruptions.
While officials manipulate court rulings, they prefer to keep their interventions discreet. Lin Xiaolong explained the segregation of court case files into “internal” and “external” documents, where external files are accessible to lawyers for review, but internal files are restricted to court personnel only. The internal files contain directives from higher-ups instructing the court on how to handle cases, marked as confidential.
“This is no longer a country or society governed by the rule of law; it has become a party-run system,” remarked Lin Xiaolong. He questioned the need for a court system if the CCP imposes a totalitarian regime and suppresses the judiciary. He often lamented, “What fairness do the people have left? They rely on the court for their last bit of fairness.”
Out of fear of potential leaks, the CCP imposes strict control over court personnel, including their use of mobile phones. Lin Xiaolong revealed that their smartphones are uniformly provided by the provincial high court and must be Huawei devices, prohibiting the use of Apple phones. The court covers the costs of purchasing phones and phone bills, with devices replaced every year or year and a half, appearing as if it’s a generous benefit.
“In reality, it serves as a surveillance tool. Everything you do daily, every website you visit—all of it is recorded in the background. You have no personal privacy whatsoever,” he explained.
At one point, due to a political purge, the CCP conducted a retrospective investigation of the past 30 years within the government system, scrutinizing the responsibilities of judges involved in legal rulings.
Lin Xiaolong emphasized that because Chinese judges lack independence in their rulings, they become scapegoats for officials once accountability is sought, resulting in a stifling work environment. He lamented, “I lived under such oppressive conditions. I couldn’t speak my mind because it wasn’t allowed. You can’t make decisions independently, as leaders interfere. You can’t handle cases properly but are still held responsible.”
During a discussion on “rule of law society” within the court, Lin Xiaolong challenged fellow judges, asking them whether they base their judgments on the party’s principles or legal statutes. When he persisted in his stance, insisting that judges should follow legal provisions rather than party doctrines, he was forcefully removed from the meeting by court security.
Lin Xiaolong noted that within the system, many judges like himself are subject to interference from CCP officials in their rulings, causing significant distress, yet they are hesitant to speak out. Unable to bear the party’s authoritarian control, Lin Xiaolong resigned in 2020 to become a lawyer, only to have the court disclose his past statements to the law firm where he was interning, blocking his access to a license to practice law.
Lin Xiaolong observed a growing trend in recent years where many judges in their thirties have resigned. He attributed this to the fact that individuals working in courts and prosecutor’s offices have received professional education and possess a high legal acumen, fostering reverence for the law. Unable to reconcile the CCP’s assault on the rule of law, their inner turmoil accumulated to a breaking point, prompting resignations.
“China is heading towards North Korea. There is no rule of law in China; only party control. Legal professionals like us are deeply disappointed,” Lin Xiaolong declared. “I won’t look back after leaving this court. The Communist Party’s blasphemy and lack of respect for the law will lead to its eventual downfall.”