Writing 100,000 words of labour record, he lost 37 days of freedom: who should answer the case?

On the evening of 21 October, Feng Hui ended the 37 days of detention that began on 14 September.22 OctoberCounsel ' s sources were quoted as saying that he had been returned to his home country and was placed on bail pending trial. No public decision to dismiss the case was made and the investigation was declared closed. The young man, who had been writing annual records for Chinese workers for many years, had finally returned to the prison, but Guangzhou police had not yet explained to the public how a labour inventory that gathered public reports had broken the penal law.

Feng Hui, “Sixue Five”, born in Chengdu in 1995, graduated from the Chinese Department of Chinese Language at Beijing Teacher Training University. He participated in cultural activities at the Beijing Dairy Village's home of workers and later hosted the public channel “Chapaz East Wind TV”. His writing was not based on a big news call, but on a labor-intensive, clumsy and easily forgotten thing: to rediscover the labour events that had been scattered throughout the year, leaving time, place, place, and place, sorted by problem, so that readers could see that the encounters were not irrelevant.

The report, " A review of the circumstances of the events of the year 2025 ", which is suspected of drawing the attention of the police, is about 170,000 words and 211 pages of PDF, divided into 15 chapters. From the lack of wages, part-time work on the platform, overtime, social security, to the employment difficulties of young people, to female workers and accidents in safe production, the authors try to paint how work is taking over the lives of people.Public legal inquiries and labour data compilers for this inventoryThere are 589 non-repeated sources of information, of which nearly 40 are from government and official websites and more than 70 are from official and State-owned media. It is not an anonymous post that is made up of nothing other than public information. Nor does the reference to official material mean that every fact is henceforth exempt from examination.

The count took a specific entry of the aim:A special effects artist who outsourced animated in Hangzhou told himself.The hourly rate is only $25, which is 14 hours a day, and is subject to overtime work without payment. This is a public statement by a worker and cannot be considered as a direct violation of the law established by the courts. But it shows what is at stake

• who pays time, health and income behind the good industrial values and technological achievements. Another chapter deals with “time poverty”, asking why it is difficult for workers to sleep and care for their families. Without such a long-term record, similar stories can easily disappear after short videos and hot searches have receded.

On 14 September, the Xinsu police of Guangzhou took Feng Hui and subsequently detained him for criminal charges of “scathing”.Defence for Human Rights briefing on 8 OctoberThe public sign was stopped and some old texts could no longer be accessed properly. The investigation was also publicly retransmitted by persons previously interviewed by the police, focusing on this annual inventory, and the case officers had questioned the content of the count and the question of misleading the public and disturbing order. Until the information of the taking of the security was released, the causes of the investigation were mainly disclosed by persons close to the party concerned; The police did not see which paragraph, which group of figures or which communication constituted the offence publicly.

The so-called “false” should have been a subject of evidence that could have been answered in detail. If the inventory is wrongly referenced in the national statistics, it is sufficient to indicate the data, identify the source and request a correction; If information is deliberately made up, the judicial authorities should also produce, produce and disseminate evidence that the perpetrator knew of the forgery. Internet discourse is linked to “stalking” and is not based solely on content-sorting grievances on the part of managers.Supreme law, Supreme Court of Justice on the judicial interpretation of cyberintelligence offencesThe conditions for the fabrication or knowledge of false information and for the dissemination, provoking and causing serious public disorder are specified. The false article could be questioned, but what kind of serious disorder had been caused by a catalogue of labour events? This is a factual issue that cannot be circumvented by criminal charges.

On October 14, Yip Xiankoung was signed and published.The legal questions addressed to the Xiu Su Division of the Guangzhou Public Security Bureau made the question more specific: which one was fabricated, what was the actual damage done to it, and how the inventory on the public name had caused a serious breakdown in public order. The letters of inquiry also sought to inquire about the legality of the notice of detention, the lawyer ' s meeting and the coercive measures. The Guangzhou Police have the power to investigate criminal cases according to law, but the power is not immune to interpretation. The retention of “unreal” “disturbing order” at an uncheckable general level does not prove a violation of the law or discourage public judgement as to whether the investigation goes beyond the required threshold.

The situation in the detention centre has led to a case that goes beyond the freedom of expression contest.Detention briefings, which began on 13 October(a) That Feng Hui has been on trial almost every day since 17 September, up to three times a day, and has not stopped during the National Day; He had to be taken to the interrogation room by a wheelchair because of gastrointestinal vomiting, diarrhoea and weak movement, and had been deprived of his normal meals for prolonged interrogation. These specific circumstances are the result of information disclosed from outside sources about detention and are not publicly acknowledged by law enforcement authorities. They have clear identification pathways: registration of calls, time of interrogation, medical treatment in the detention facility and feeding records. Ministry of Public SecurityArticle 201 of the Rules of Procedure for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security OrgansThe person questioned is required to be guaranteed food and necessary rest and to be recorded. The case-handling authority should be able to produce these records and answer whether it has complied with its own procedural requirements.

The date of the guarantee of the Fong Wie-Swee is equally not to be overlooked. The blogger adds:The legal sources who are concerned about the case have publicly stated thatThe period of detention and review of the time limits for the granting of arrest, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, is an important point for a decision on the procedure to be followed around 21 October. That night he was allowed to go home. However, the public reports do not indicate who decided on the bail, whether or not to bring the arrest to the prosecution ' s attention, whether there was a decision not to authorize the arrest. Changing the coercive measures is a new procedural fact, not an automatic interpretation of the legality of the deprivation of liberty for the previous 37 days, nor is it the final determination of the charges of “silentness”.

This also reveals the particular difficulties of the labour issues in the public expression of China. (b) Unpaid salaries, overwork, and social security breaks can be found in local reports, court cases and sporadic reports from mainstream media; Once people link them by year, industry and group, a social picture becomes more difficult to ignore. What is disturbing is the fact that this shift from individual news to ongoing record may be faced with interference with criminal power. When the person collecting the publicly available material is exposed to the risk of a permanent loss of liberty, the bystander may receive a signal not “please verify the information”, but “do not write that information down in a continuous manner”. This is a chilling effect that does not require a formal ban and that is sufficient to reduce public memory.

China ' s labour laws do not lack provisions to protect wages, working hours and safety at work. What is missing is that workers ' experiences are tracked down in a long-term, independent manner, and that enterprises and local authorities are confronted with a public record that can be verified. The information compiled by the wise and cooperative points first to why workers are not paid, why they are forced to work overtime, and why they are not guaranteed in the face of accidents and diseases. Today, those who keep documenting these problems are the subject of criminal investigations. What is really needed is not just how the public security organs understand an inventory, but why the power to enforce the law is so intensely colliding with public writings that ask about the reality of labour.

Feng Hui has returned from the prison, and those who are trapped in unpaid work, overwork and work injuries are not automatically compensated for. For the police, the facts that must be presented remain: what the specific language of the alleged crime is, what the legally probable consequences are, what the procedural basis for the 37 days of detention and frequent interrogations is, and whether the prosecution continues after the bail. The problem is simpler and more serious for society: if even the suffering of workers is recorded as such, it may deprive people of their freedom, who will ensure that it is not erased again?