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.