CCP Ministerial Retiree’s Payslip

Legal Analysis of the Use of the Twitter Post by “希望之聲 - 中國時局” as Evidence in Chen Jingyuan’s “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” Case

Case Background and the Specific Twitter Post

Chen Jingyuan, a Chinese citizen with a PhD, was convicted of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (寻衅滋事罪) under Article 293 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC Criminal Law) by the Kunming public security, procuratorate, and court system (collectively referred to as the “Kunming authorities”). One piece of evidence used in the conviction was Chen’s forwarding of a Twitter [post] by the account “希望之聲 - 中國時局”(@SoundOfHope_SOH), posted on June 19, 2020. The post includes an image of a formal event involving Chinese officials and text discussing the alleged retirement benefits of a former PRC minister. The text of the post reads:

【中共部级退休干部工资条网络疯传】近期网络疯传被指是中共原经贸部长 #郑拓彬 的 #退休金 明细表格。郑拓彬离休费10079；生活补贴25798；自雇费3500；离休补贴9810；还有其它零星补贴，月发49249.5元。不过，解密资料显示，这些待遇还只是中共权贵 #特权 的一部分。https://t.co/iotC0eyHSf https://t.co/ok8FET5zHg Translation: [CCP Ministerial Retiree’s Payslip Goes Viral Online] Recently, a payslip allegedly belonging to former PRC Minister of Trade #ZhengTuobin has gone viral online. Zheng Tuobin’s retirement benefits include: retirement fee 10,079; living subsidy 25,798; self-employment fee 3,500; additional retirement subsidy 9,810; plus other miscellaneous subsidies, totaling 49,249.5 yuan per month. However, declassified information reveals that these benefits are only a fraction of the #privileges enjoyed by CCP elites.

The image shows a formal event, likely a diplomatic or official gathering, with individuals in suits and a red carpet, marked with the CCTV logo, suggesting it was broadcast on state television. The Kunming authorities alleged that Chen’s forwarding of this post, among others, constituted spreading false information online, causing serious disruption to public order, thus fulfilling the elements of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” This analysis evaluates the legal basis for using this specific Twitter post as evidence of Chen’s alleged crime under PRC law.

Legal Framework: “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” in the PRC

The charge is governed by Article 293 of the PRC Criminal Law, specifically:

  • Article 293(1)(4): Punishes “causing trouble in a public place or public area, thereby causing serious disorder.”

  • The Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate Interpretation on Handling Criminal Cases of Defamation and Other Crimes via Information Networks (2013, “Two Highs Interpretation”) provides further guidance on online behavior:

    • Article 5(2): Spreading false information online that is forwarded over 500 times, viewed over 5,000 times, or causes serious public disorder (e.g., mass incidents, public panic) constitutes this crime.

Key legal principles include:

  • Legality (罪刑法定): No crime without a clear legal definition (Article 3, PRC Criminal Law).

  • Subjective Intent: Criminal liability requires intent or negligence (Article 14).

  • Evidence Standards: Conviction requires clear and sufficient evidence (Article 53, Criminal Procedure Law).

  • Freedom of Expression: The PRC Constitution (Article 35) guarantees freedom of speech, though this is often limited by laws protecting public order and state interests (Article 51).

Analysis of the Twitter Post as Evidence

1. Objective Elements: Act, Falsity, and Harm

To establish the crime, the Kunming authorities must prove:

  • Act: Chen forwarded the Twitter post.

  • Falsity: The content of the post is false.

  • Harm: The act caused serious disruption to public order.

a. The Act of Forwarding

Chen’s act of forwarding the Twitter post is undisputed. The authorities likely obtained electronic data (e.g., Twitter logs) showing Chen’s interaction with the post, as referenced in the indictment and court documents (e.g., “network online extraction records” and “electronic data extraction lists”). This satisfies the actus reus requirement.

b. Falsity of the Content

The post claims that a payslip allegedly belonging to Zheng Tuobin, a former PRC Minister of Trade, has gone viral, detailing his retirement benefits totaling 49,249.5 yuan per month. It further asserts that these benefits are only a fraction of the privileges enjoyed by CCP elites, citing “declassified information.” The Kunming authorities, per the court’s judgment, deemed this content “false information” that “insults and attacks national leaders and the current political system.”

Evaluation:

  • Nature of the Content: The post makes a factual claim about Zheng Tuobin’s retirement benefits, supported by specific figures (e.g., retirement fee 10,079 yuan, living subsidy 25,798 yuan). It also makes a broader claim about CCP elite privileges, referencing “declassified information.” The image, however, is unrelated to the payslip, showing a formal event, possibly a diplomatic meeting, which does not directly corroborate the textual claims.

  • Labeling as “False”: The authorities’ classification of this content as “false” requires evidence that the payslip figures are fabricated or that Zheng Tuobin did not receive such benefits. However, the court provides no evidence to refute the figures—e.g., official records showing different amounts or proof that no such payslip exists. The claim about “declassified information” revealing broader privileges is harder to verify without access to the source, but it is a general assertion rather than a specific fact that can be deemed true or false. Under PRC law, “false information” in the context of Article 293 and the Two Highs Interpretation typically refers to fabricated facts (e.g., rumors about events or disasters) that cause harm, not unverified claims about government privileges unless they are demonstrably false.

  • Context and Plausibility: The figures cited (49,249.5 yuan per month) are high but not implausible for a retired ministerial-level official in the PRC, where senior officials often receive substantial benefits, including pensions, subsidies, and perks (e.g., housing, medical care). Replies to the post on Twitter reflect mixed reactions: some users (e.g., @aporo_peng ) argue 50,000 yuan per month for a ministerial official is not high, while others (e.g., @PeterMei10 ) suggest such salaries are a small part of officials’ wealth, implying the figures might be understated. Without evidence to the contrary, the authorities’ assertion of falsity appears speculative.

  • Legal Basis: The determination of falsity lacks a clear legal or factual basis. The authorities provide no evidence that the payslip figures are fabricated or that the broader claim about elite privileges is false. Labeling the content as “false” simply because it criticizes the political system or exposes alleged privileges stretches the definition of “false information” beyond its legal scope. Moreover, the PRC Constitution (Article 35) protects freedom of speech, and international norms (e.g., ICCPR Article 19, which China has signed but not ratified) suggest political critique and expository content should be protected unless they directly incite violence or harm—neither of which is alleged here.

c. Serious Disruption to Public Order

The court repeatedly asserts that Chen’s forwarding caused “serious disruption to public order,” a necessary element under Article 293(1)(4) and the Two Highs Interpretation.

Evaluation:

  • Lack of Evidence: The court provides no specific evidence of disruption—e.g., forwarding or view counts, public reactions, or incidents (e.g., protests, panic). The Two Highs Interpretation sets quantitative thresholds (500 forwards, 5,000 views) or qualitative impacts (mass incidents), but the authorities offer no data. Chen’s lawyer noted his account had fewer than 100 followers (mostly inactive) and his total forwards over decades were under 100, far below the statutory thresholds.

  • Impact of the Specific Post: The post exposes alleged retirement benefits of a former minister, which may be sensitive due to public discontent over inequality and official privileges in the PRC. However, it does not incite violence, spread panic, or target individuals for harm. The content is critical and expository, potentially sparking debate about government transparency, but it is unlikely to cause “serious disorder” in the PRC, especially given Chen’s limited online reach. Replies to the post on Twitter (e.g.,

@Tico88340587 asking if the salary is high, @qiangtc criticizing blind loyalty) indicate discussion, but there’s no evidence of broader societal impact.

  • Legal Basis: The absence of evidence for disruption undermines the legal basis for this element. The Two Highs Interpretation requires a demonstrable impact, not a speculative one. The court’s conclusory statement violates the evidence standard (Criminal Procedure Law, Article 53).

2. Subjective Element: Intent

The authorities must prove Chen “knowingly” spread false information with intent to disrupt public order. The court inferred intent from Chen’s high education (PhD), claiming he “should have discerned right from wrong.”

Evaluation:

  • Knowledge of Falsity: No evidence shows Chen knew the content was false. The post presents specific figures about Zheng Tuobin’s benefits, which are plausible for a retired official, and references “declassified information” about elite privileges. Chen’s defense argues he forwarded it for academic interest, not to deceive. The authorities provide no direct evidence (e.g., Chen’s statements admitting knowledge of falsity) to support this claim.

  • Intent to Disrupt: The post’s critical nature and Chen’s limited online presence (small follower base, low engagement) suggest no intent to cause disorder. Chen claims he forwarded it for personal study, a plausible motive given his academic background. The prosecution offers no counterevidence of a malicious purpose.

  • Education as Proof of Intent: The court’s reliance on Chen’s education to infer intent is legally flawed. High education does not equate to criminal intent, especially without evidence he recognized the content as false or aimed to disrupt order. This inference violates the principle that intent must be proven, not presumed (Article 14, PRC Criminal Law).

  • Legal Basis: The subjective element is unproven. PRC law requires clear evidence of intent (Article 14), and the court’s speculative reasoning fails to meet this standard.

3. Legal Application: Applicability of Article 293

The Kunming authorities applied Article 293, arguing Chen’s forwarding of the post constituted “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” by spreading false information online.

Evaluation:

  • Scope of Article 293: This article is a catch-all offense, often criticized for vagueness and overreach. The Two Highs Interpretation aims to narrow its online application by setting specific criteria (falsity, intent, and harm). Here, the lack of evidence for falsity and harm suggests Article 293 may not apply.

  • Alternative Charges: If the authorities viewed the post as defamatory to Zheng Tuobin, Article 246 (defamation) might apply, but this requires a specific victim and intent to harm reputation—neither is clearly established. If deemed subversive, Article 105 (inciting subversion) could apply, but this requires intent to overthrow the state, which is not supported by the post’s content or Chen’s actions.

  • Political Critique and Expository Content: The post’s content is a political critique and expository in nature, highlighting alleged privileges of CCP elites. Under PRC law, such content is sensitive but not inherently criminal unless it incites violence or verifiable harm. The authorities’ application of Article 293 appears to stretch its scope to suppress critical discourse, potentially violating the legality principle (Article 3) and freedom of speech (Constitution, Article 35).

4. Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

Chen alleges procedural flaws, including a non-public trial and restricted defense rights. The use of the Twitter post as evidence also raises questions about selective enforcement.

Evaluation:

  • Selective Enforcement: The original poster (@SoundOfHope_SOH ) and other forwarders were not prosecuted, per Chen’s appeal. This raises equality concerns (Constitution, Article 33), as the authorities singled out Chen without clear justification.

  • Evidence Handling: The authorities likely extracted the post via electronic data collection, but the court does not specify how it assessed the post’s content or impact. The lack of transparency in evidence presentation (e.g., no forwarding/view counts) undermines the conviction’s legitimacy. The image in the post, showing a formal event, is unrelated to the payslip claim, which the court does not address.

  • Procedural Fairness: The closed trial and restricted defense rights (e.g., Chen’s inability to speak) may violate Criminal Procedure Law (Articles 14, 183), further weakening the legal basis for using this evidence.

Conclusion: Legal Basis Assessment

The Kunming authorities’ use of Chen’s forwarding of the Twitter post by “希望之聲 - 中國時局” as evidence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” lacks a robust legal basis under PRC law:

  1. Falsity Unproven: The post’s claims about Zheng Tuobin’s benefits are plausible and unrefuted by evidence. Labeling them “false” without proof misapplies the Two Highs Interpretation’s criteria.

  2. Harm Unproven: No evidence shows the forwarding caused serious public disorder, failing the statutory thresholds (500 forwards, 5,000 views, or mass incidents). Chen’s limited online reach makes such impact implausible.

  3. Intent Unproven: The authorities provide no evidence Chen knew the content was false or intended to disrupt order. Inferring intent from his education is speculative and legally invalid.

  4. Misapplication of Law: Article 293’s use here stretches its scope beyond clear statutory intent, potentially violating the legality principle and freedom of speech protections.

  5. Procedural Flaws: Selective enforcement and procedural irregularities further undermine the conviction’s legitimacy.

Final Assessment: The Kunming authorities’ reliance on this Twitter post as evidence of Chen’s crime does not withstand legal scrutiny. The post’s content, Chen’s limited influence, and the absence of proven harm or intent suggest the charge is unsubstantiated. This case reflects an overbroad application of Article 293, possibly motivated by political considerations rather than legal merit, raising concerns about the rule of law and freedom of expression in the PRC.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.

[Chinese]