小隐

 

 

文/安然

 

城市的茧衣

层层包裹，

紧致、窒息，

要瘦，

一直瘦，

最好瘦成一条线！

才能像坝上的荠菜，

挤在嘻嘻哈哈的同族之中，

眺望对岸的故乡。

 

村庄死得如此彻底，

连墓碑上也没记录它古老的姓氏。

乱坟岗边，

一个失地的妇人认得野菜，就像认得

她全部的亲戚：

婆婆纳、播娘蒿、麦瓶草……

都上楼了，

就在大桥的左边。

Qing Dynasty Officials Using the Da Ming Code to Adjudicate Cases

 

 

By Cui Haoxin

 

The idea of Qing Dynasty officials using the Da Ming Code to decide cases sounds utterly absurd, something that would only appear in one of Liu Baorui’s long, hilarious xiangsheng routines.

I admit, that line was something I made up—it’s rather disrespectful to the magistrates of the Great Qing. It’s likely that even the most muddle-headed and incompetent bureaucrats back then wouldn’t have dared commit such an outrageous act of defiance.

Yet in reality, I am personally experiencing something equally bizarre: a current case being handled by citing a version of the law that has already expired.

On April 29, 2025, I was assaulted at my doorstep. This was the second assault I’ve suffered since being released from criminal detention (which lasted over a month) in the “Qingzhen Poetry Case” in 2020.

After nearly a year of investigation and review, the Lixia District Branch of the Jinan Municipal Public Security Bureau issued an administrative penalty decision on March 16, 2026 [Ligong (Dongguan) Xingfa Juezi (2026) No. 426].

Far from accepting my claim of legitimate self-defense, this decision imposed 9 days of administrative detention and a fine of 400 yuan—exactly what I had anticipated. Following my lawyer’s advice to exhaust all legal remedies, I applied for administrative reconsideration, which gave me the chance to closely examine this legal document.

Right away, I noticed that the decision incorrectly stated my ethnicity: I am Hui (Muslim Chinese), but it was recorded as Han.

Then came the real shock: this administrative penalty decision dated 2026 cited the Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People’s Republic of China as revised in 2012.

The Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People’s Republic of China was revised in 2025 and officially took effect on January 1, 2026 (the new law, for the first time in the public security domain, established a system of legitimate self-defense, breaking the old notion that “fighting back equals mutual assault”—something I had genuinely hoped for). This means that, from that date onward, all newly occurring or ongoing public security cases must be handled in accordance with this newly revised law. The principle of legal application is that “the new law prevails over the old law.” The 2012 version became invalid upon the new law’s entry into force. Therefore, public security organs, when enforcing the law, must cite the currently effective legal provisions. Continuing to cite the expired 2012 version violates legal regulations and constitutes a procedural error. Issuing an administrative penalty decision that applies an already invalid legal version to a current case is as ridiculous and laughable as Qing Dynasty officials using the Da Ming Code to handle cases.

An administrative penalty decision typically goes through multiple stages—handling, review, approval, and so on. For such an obvious mistake as citing an invalid law to slip through every layer and end up in the hands of the party concerned shows serious negligence across the entire process, from the case handler to the reviewers. It reveals a complete lack of the most basic reverence and prudence toward the power they hold. The internal legal review and supervision mechanisms of the law enforcement agency, as people commonly suspect, have utterly failed to function.

Such an unlawful administrative penalty not only infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the party involved but also further erodes the already much-questioned credibility of government authority.

I hope that superior departments and disciplinary inspection organs will intervene to deliver justice for me.

清朝的官用《大明律》断案

 

文/崔浩新

 

像清朝的官用《大明律》断案这种事，听起来就匪夷所思，似乎只会发生在刘宝瑞的长篇爆笑相声里。

我承认，这句话是我编的，对大清朝的清知府们实在有所不敬。估计当时的官僚再颟顸无能，也断不敢行此大逆不道之事。

可在现实中，我却在亲历一件引用已失效的法律版本处理现行案件的咄咄怪事。

2025年4月29日，我在家门口被人袭击。这是我自2020年“清真诗案”(近月余的刑事拘留)出狱以来，第二次遭遇袭击。

济南市公安局历下区分局经过近一年的侦查、审理，最终在2026年3月16日做出一份行政处罚决定书[历公(东关)行罚决字(2026)426号]。

这份决定书，非但没有支持我正当防卫的辩护，而且给予了9日行政拘留和四百元罚款的处罚，这在我预料之中。本着用尽法律救济途径的精神，律师建议我申请行政复议，这也给了我仔细审视这份法律文书的机会。

首先，我第一眼就发现该法律文书写错了我的民族身份，我是回族人，它写成了汉族。

再接下来，我发现，这份2026年的行政处罚决定书引用的是2012年修订的《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》。

《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》已于2025年修订，并于2026年1月1日起正式施行(新法首次在治安领域确立了正当防卫制度，打破了“还手即互殴”的旧观念，我本对此存有希望)。这意味着，自该日期起，所有新发生的或正在处理的治安案件，都应当以这部新修订的法律作为执法依据。法律的适用遵循“新法优于旧法”的原则。2012年的版本已经随着新法的生效而失效。因此，公安机关在执法过程中，必须引用现行有效的法律条文。继续引用已失效的2012年版本，不符合法律规定，属于程序错误。[历公(东关)行罚决字(2026)426号]决定书引用已失效的法律版本处理现行的案件，就如同清朝的官引用《大明律》办案一般，荒唐可笑。

一份行政处罚决定书通常需要经过承办、审核、审批等多个环节。引用失效法律这种如此明显的错误能够“过关斩将”最终落到当事人手上，说明从案件承办人到审核人，整个流程都存在严重的疏忽，对手中的权力缺乏最基本的敬畏和审慎态度，执法机关内部的法制审核和监督机制就像人们通常怀疑的那样，完全没有发挥作用。

这样一份不合法的行政处罚不仅侵犯了当事人的合法权益，还进一步侵蚀了备受质疑的政府公信力。

我希望上级部门和纪检监察机关能予以介入，还我公道。