China Aid Association
(Kailu, Inner Mongolia — August 22, 2012) Last month (July 2012), Pastor Jin Yongsheng, a house church leader in Kailu County, Tongliao City of Inner Mongolia and others were violently stopped from providing a public service of public health education. Pastor Jin Yongsheng was beaten and viciously manhandled, and an administrative fine was imposed on him. He has submitted a request for administrative reconsideration in accordance with legal proceedings.
On July 29, 2012, Pastor Jin Yongsheng from a house church, along with Suo Shixia, Wu Bin, Qi Dongmei, Gao Sheng, Zhang Ru, a friend from the local area of Kailu County and others, were engaged in providing public health education as a public service to the people of Zhifu Village, Yihetala Town of Kailu County. At noon that day, Jin Yongsheng and others were resting at the residence of Zhang Ru when suddenly the director of Yihetala Township Police Station Yu Zhanwu, leading a group of people without police uniforms, broke into the residence. Without showing any law enforcement identification papers (employment certificate or summons), they attempted to arrest Jin Yongsheng. Jin Yongsheng immediately ran a few dozen yards away from Zhang Ru’s residence, but he was caught by Yu Zhanwu, who proceeded to beat Jin Yongsheng repeatedly in the upper and lower left chest. After the beating, Yu Zhanwu withdrew the belt from Jin Yongsheng’s pants and put it around Jin’s neck. He yanked the belt and drug him toward a vehicle. Jin Yongsheng was taken to the Yihetala Township Police Station where he was interrogated by Yu Zhanwu, who following the interrogation twice forcefully struck Jin Yongsheng in the face. Later the police station issued a “Public Security Decision Statement for Administrative Penalty” coded Kai Gong (Yi) Jue Zi [2012] No. 0208, claiming “Jin Yongsheng was engaged in proselytizing in the name of rendering medical service by measuring people’s blood pressure”; they placed Jin Yongsheng under administrative detention for 15 days and imposed a fine of 1,000 yuan pursuant to Clause 2, Article 27 and Article 11 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment.
(click to see the upper left image).
After Jin Yongsheng was beaten in the chest by Yu Zhanwu, he began to feel a slight pain. However, three days later, in the detention center, Jin Yongsheng found that he was suffering such pain in his left chest that he couldn’t get up and his breathing was difficult. After the detention, Jin Yongsheng went to a hospital in Hohhot for an X-ray exam. The diagnosis was: contusion of the soft tissues of the left chest (click to see the upper right image).
Given the brutal illegal persecution he has suffered, Jin Yongsheng has hired a human rights attorney from Beijing and submitted his application for an administrative reconsideration on August 15 (2012). The whole text of the statement for an administrative reconsideration is as follows:
Application for Reconsideration
Applicant: Jin Yongsheng. Male. He was born on May 13, 1974 and is an ethnic Han.
ID No.: 152801197405135613.
Location of household registration: 4, Commune 4, Xinshe Village, Xinhua Town, Linhe District, Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
Current address: West House, 2nd Floor, Unit 1, Building C, Jindu Garden, Guanghua Street, Xincheng District, Hohhot City.
Tel: 134-0480-0081.
Respondent: Kailu County Public Security Bureau of Tongliao Municipality.
Legal representative: Job title: director
Address: 51, Xinkai Street, Kailu County, Tongliao City.
Requests in Reconsideration:
Confirm in accordance with the law that the “Public Security Decision Statement for Administrative Penalty” coded Kai Gong (Yi) Jue Zi [2012] imposed by the respondent on the applicant on July 29, 2012 is a violation of the law and that it should repeal this decision of administrative penalty in accordance with law.
Facts and Reasons:
On July 29, 2012, the applicant, along with Suo Shixia, Wu Bin, Qi Dongmei, Gao Sheng, Zhang Ru, a local friend at Kailu County and others, were engaged in an activity for the public good of popularizing knowledge in health at Zhifu Village, Yihetala Town, Kailu County. At noon on that day, the applicant and others were taking a rest at the residence of Zhang Ru when suddenly the director Yu Zhanwu of Yihetala Township Police Station subordinate to the respondent, leading a group of people without uniforms, broke in. Without showing any law enforcement identification papers (employment certificate or summons), they tried to catch the applicant. When the applicant saw a group of unidentified people trying to catch him, he immediately ran a few dozen yards out of Zhang Ru’s residence where he was caught up by Yu Zhanwu. When Yu Zhanwu caught up with the applicant, he first of all punched the applicant hard on the left upper chest. Following this, he again punched the applicant hard on the lower left chest. After beating him, Yu Zhanwu drew out the belt from the applicant’s pants and put it around the applicant’s neck. He dragged the applicant toward Yu Zhanwu’s Hyundai SUV and then put the applicant into Yu Zhanwu’s vehicle. After the interrogation of the applicant was over at Yihetala Township Police Station, Yu Zhanwu again punched twice on the right cheek of the applicant. Finally, the respondent issued a “Public Security Decision Statement for Administrative Penalty” coded Kai Gong (Yi) Jue Zi [2012] No. 0208. On the ground that the applicant was engaged in proselytizing in the name of measuring people’s blood pressure for medical treatment, it was decided to place the applicant on a 15-day administrative detention and to impose a fine of 1,000 yuan pursuant to Clause 2 of Article 27 and Article 11 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment.
After the applicant was hit by Yu Zhanwu on the left chest, he began to feel pain in that area. However, three days later in the detention center, the applicant suddenly found the pain in the chest area was so severe that he couldn’t get up. In the meantime, he couldn’t breathe well. After the detention was over, the applicant went back to Hohhot where he went to have an X-ray exam at a hospital. The diagnosis was: Contusion of soft tissues on the left chest.
The applicant thinks that the respondent’s decision of administrative penalty not only violates the legal procedure, but it also violates the corresponding substantive law. Therefore, it should be repealed for the following reasons:
I. The respondent violates the legal procedure.
(1) The law enforcement officers of the respondent did not show their law enforcement identification papers as the law requires. It is stipulated in Article 37 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administrative Penalty: “When administrative organs conduct investigations or inspections, there shall be not less than two law-enforcing officers, who shall show their identification papers to the party or other persons concerned.” However, on July 29, 2012, the law enforcement officers of the respondent began to enforce the law on the applicant in a brutal and savage manner without showing their identification papers. This seriously damaged the applicant’s human dignity and the health of both the applicant’s body and mind.
(2) The respondent failed to perform his obligation of notification before imposing the penalty. It is stipulated in Article 94 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment: “The public security organ shall, before making a public security punishment decision, inform the violator of public security administration of the facts, reasons, and grounds thereof, and shall inform him or her of the rights that they may enjoy according to law. However, before he made the decision on the punishment, the respondent did not implement at all his obligation of informing the applicant.
(3) The law enforcement officers of the respondent failed to listen to the applicant’s argument of defense and statement. It is stipulated in Clause 2 of Article 94 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment: “The violator of public security administration shall have the right to make statements and defend himself. The public security organ shall fully listen to the opinions of the violator of public security administration, and shall check the facts, reasons and evidences as presented by the violator; where any of the facts, reasons and evidences as presented by the violator is found to hold water, it shall be accepted by the public security organ.” However, when the respondent imposed the punishment, he did not at all listen to the defense argument or the statement of the applicant.
The above does not exhaust all the violations of the respondent. However, the above behavior of the respondent is sufficient to prove that the law enforcement of the respondent has seriously violated the law in procedure and that his administrative penalty is illegal and thus invalid. China is a country under rule of law and administration in accordance with law is the core content of building a country under rule of law. Administration in violation of the law must be strongly prohibited.
II. The administrative penalty of the respondent lacks facts as grounds.
The respondent says in his “Penalty Decision Statement” that the applicant “was engaged in proselytizing in the name of measuring blood pressure and giving medical treatment” and that on this ground and pursuant to Clause 2 of Article 27 and Article 11 of the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment,” it was decided that the applicant be placed on a 15-day detention and be fined 1,000 yuan. In fact, Clause 2 of Article 27 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment states: “endangering the society in the name of religion and Qigong.” Yet, the act of the applicant at that time was just the opposite of the fact as concluded by the respondent. The applicant and his friends were taking blood pressure for peasants in the countryside. They were giving them plasters and instructions on health and did not do so in the name of religion or Qigong. Besides, the activity of the applicant aims solely at helping peasants raise their consciousness of health. How can such a charity activity endanger the society? It is entirely a positive and beneficial behavior that promotes a harmonious society.
We would like the respondent to come up with evidence that the applicant endangered the society. Because of the public good and charity the applicant was engaged in in the local area, he has never received complaints from the people he has helped. If the respondent cannot come up with the evidence that the applicant’s activity “endangered society,” then the penalty of the respondent has no basis in facts or basis in law and it is obviously a concrete administrative act that violates the law.
III. The administrative penalty imposed by the respondent has no legal basis.
This case is obviously not a public security one and the respondent has no right of jurisdiction on it. It is stipulated in Article 2 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment:” “With regard to an act of disrupting public order, encroaching upon the right of the person, the right of property or impairing social administration, if it is of social harmfulness and constitutes any crime as provided for in the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, it shall be subject to criminal liabilities. If it is not serious enough to be subject to a criminal punishment, it shall, in accordance with this law, be subject to public security punishment by the public security organ.”
In response to the government’s call of building a harmonious society and in accordance with the state’s law and regulations, the applicant actively devoted himself to the countryside and popularized knowledge of health among the peasants, provided medical treatment to the peasants and brought medicines to the countryside. All this itself was done for the public good and it does not endanger the society in any way. So, it is not a case of public security. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant does not fit in the situation as specified in Clause 2 of Article 27 and Article 11 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment. The respondent has no right to impose a penalty according to the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment.
Given the above, the administrative penalty imposed by the respondent on the applicant violated the legal procedure as stipulated in the Law of People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment, the Law of People’s Republic of China on Administrative Penalty and the Law on Administrative Compulsion. Pursuant to Articles 6 and 9 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administrative Reconsideration, the applicant applies for an administrative reconsideration in accordance with law, requesting that Kailu County People’s Government confirm in accordance with law that the administrative penalty imposed by the respondent on the applicant violates the law and repeal the decision of administrative penalty made by the respondent to the applicant on July 29, 2012.
To:
Kailu County People’s Government of Tongliao Municipality.
Applicant: Jin Yongsheng
Date of application: August 15, 2012
Appendix:
1. One copy of this application
2. One photocopy of Decision Statement of Public Security Administrative Penalty made by the respondent on July 29, 2012 coded Kai Gong (Yi) Jue Zi [2012] No. 0208,
3. One photocopy of the applicant’s identification card.
China Aid Contacts
Rachel Ritchie, English Media Director
Cell: (432) 553-1080 | Office: 1+ (888) 889-7757 | Other: (432) 689-6985
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.chinaaid.org
