China Aid Association
(Hefei City – Feb. 25, 2013) Editor’s notes: China Aid Association reported in October 2012 the incident of persecution suffered by Pu Wanming and his wife, pastors of Chaoyang TSPM church in Shushan District, Hefei, Anhui Province （http://www.chinaaid.net/2012/10/blog-post_30.html). So far, things have not improved, so these victims are asking a Christian human rights lawyer to submit an application for administrative reconsideration in accordance with law to defend their own legitimate rights.
Brother Pu Wanming and his wife Zheng Fang graduated from Nanjing Union Theological Seminary and Wuhan Zhongnan Theological Seminary. Together, they went to work at Chaoyang Church (a TSPM church) in Shushan District of Hefei. In November 2010, Pu Wanming applied for the pastor’s ordination but did not pass. In the meantime, he was fired from Shushan District by the Bureau of Religion and was barred from delivering a sermon in the churches within Shushan District. He was deprived of his qualification as a clergyman and his salary was stopped. On the excuse that Chaoyang Church was mismanaged, the director of the Bureau of Religion came to Chaoyang Church in September 2011 and announced the termination of the management-labor relationship between his wife Zheng Fang and Chaoyang Church. He also stopped Zheng Fang’s salary and issued a government document in the name of Bureau of Religion of Shushan District (please see the photo on the left). He posted public notices for this. Therefore, Pu Wanming started to serve in house churches since October 2011. As a result of his relationship with house churches, the government authorities retaliated by escalating their persecution and even using violence against Pu Wanming.
—————————————————————
Following is a letter of appeal and a statement for administrative reconsideration from Pu Wanming:
I am Pu Wanming, a citizen of Hefei, Anhui Province. My wife’s name is Zheng Fang. In 2005, we respectively graduated from Nanjing Union Theological Seminary and Wuhan Zhongnan Theological Seminary. Then we went together to work at Chaoyang Church in Shushan District of Hefei. In November 2010, as I didn’t give gifts to Director Wang Chao of Shushan District Bureau of Religion before my ordination as the pastor (another applicant gave him gifts), Wang Chao was furious and used his power to fire me from Shushan District on wrongful charges that I didn’t obey the management by the government while I served in the church. They don’t allow me to preach in the churches in Shushan District. They deprived me of my qualification as a clergyman and stopped my salary. In September 2011, Director Wang Chao, using the excuse that Chaoyang Church was mismanaged, went to Chaoyang Church and announced that they had terminated the labor relationship between my wife Zheng Fang and Chaoyang Church. They stopped my wife’s service and her salary. In addition to this, they issued a public document in the name of Shushan Bureau of Religion and posted public notices. (I have photocopies of these documents.)
The believers of the church where we were pastors are very angry at seeing the persecution perpetrated by Director Wang Chao. They came forward one by one and spoke for us and left the TSPM church together and we became an independent church not under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Religion. Since October 2011, we have been gathering for worship at the independent church. Little did we anticipate that at 10 o’clock on the morning of September 6, 2012, when neither I nor my wife was at home, Director Wang Chao, working in conjunction with Zhou Feng, director of Nanqi Police Station of Shushan District and a group of unidentified thugs, smashed through the door of my residence right under the broad daylight. They injured my father (there are photos to prove this), and seized all my property in the home. Nanqi Police Station not only failed to stop this, they also took my father to their police station. Director Zhou Feng didn’t go away until he saw the thugs had taken everything away from my home. At 1 p.m. in the afternoon, my wife and I came back home and found my home was burglarized and the door was sealed. I immediately called 110 for police. Half an hour later, Officer Yao from Nanqi Police Station came to the scene and said only one sentence to me: “I can’t handle this matter.” After saying this, he went away. I continued to call 110 for police and Nanqi Police Station never sent out officers out by 7 p.m.
Helpless, my wife and I went to Nanqi Police Station to report the case and to look for my father. The police in Nanqi Police Station were very aggressive and said the home doesn’t belong to me and that my home was searched by Bureau of Religion of Shushan Government, adding that the police station was only doing its public duty. Director Zhou Feng said my father was suspected of beating people and that after he was taken to the police station, he was sent to a hospital. When I asked him which hospital my father was at, Director Zhou Feng refused to answer and asked me to look for my father myself. On that night, with the help of a brother, the three of us in the family stayed at a hotel in the vicinity of the police station.
Their reasoning is really ridiculous. I lived in this home of mine for seven years and my household registration was filed at this address. Each month, we only have a few hundred yuan of salary and we simply cannot afford a house in Hefei. This is the only residence we have. Who has the right to search our home and seize my property? I am a legal citizen of Hefei and I have not violated the law. Why did the Bureau of Religion of Shushan District seal my home? What makes me most angry is as a law enforcement work unit, Nanqi Police Station, not only failed to safeguard my legitimate rights, they’ve become accomplices of the dark forces. They not only failed to stop the thugs’ action but wrongly accused my father of beating people and made my father disappear.
On September 7, 2012, my wife and I and a few believers went to petition Shushan District Government. Deputy Director Jin Feiyan of Shushan District received us (photo attached) and promised to solve our housing problems and let the Bureau of Religion return my property to me. However, as of now, they still have not returned my property. The three of us live at another house and no one has claimed responsibility for the search of my residence. Wang Chao of the Bureau of Religion told us to report it to the police station and the police station told us to go to the Bureau of Religion.
My child is only five years old. Each time he comes back from the kindergarten, he asks my wife: “Mom, why don’t we go back to our old home? I don’t like this present home of ours. I want to go back to our old home.” Hearing these innocent words of my child, my heart hurts as if it were cut out. I’m really afraid that the child is affected by the search of the house and is emotionally adversely affected by it. Does all this happen just because we are Christian missionaries? (My phone number: 13866137365)
Pu Wanming, Victim
—————————————
Application for administrative review
Applicant:
Respondent: Shushan District Branch of Hefei Municipal Public Security Bureau
Legal representative: Title: Address:
Requests in the review:
1. Confirm that the following concrete administrative conduct of the respondent is a violation of the law and should be repealed.
1） Sealing the door of the applicant’s residence
2） Hauling away the furniture from the applicant’s home.
3） During the law enforcement, they didn’t show any identification papers or legal document. Since then they have not delivered to me any documents concerning their law enforcement.
2. Return all the furniture of the applicant and compensate all loss resulting from this.
3. Pay the medical expense of 626 yuan to my father.
4. Confirm that the administrative non-feasance of failure to dispatch police officers after receiving 110 emergency calls is illegal.
Facts and reasons:
On the morning of September 6, 2012, Zhou Feng, director of Nanqi Police Station of Shushan District of Hefei brought with him a group of people to the home of the applicant. Without showing any legal identification papers or documents, they smashed through the door of the applicant’s home and hauled away the furniture in the applicant’s home. They also injured the father of the applicant. At one o’clock on the afternoon of the same day, the applicant came back home only to find his home had been robbed and that the door was sealed. He immediately called 110 for police. Officer Yao of Nanqi Police Station came very late and he only said one sentence to the applicant before he left: “I can’t handle this matter.” The applicant continued to call the police but no one came and Nanqi Police Station didn’t have any response by 7 o’clock.
Given the above facts, the applicant thinks:
The above concrete administrative act of the respondent has no legal basis and it did not do so through a legal procedure, which is a serious violation of the legitimate rights of the applicant.
Article 39 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China states: “The home of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen’s home is prohibited.” The respondent intruded into the home of the applicant without any legal procedures or documents and they hauled away the furniture by force and injured the father of the applicant without giving any explanation to the applicant. In the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administrative Punishments,” the “Administrative Coercion Law of the People’s Republic of China” and the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment” and other related laws, it is all stated that when an administrative organ delivers a concrete administrative act, there must be related legal basis and the officers must implement the rightful legal procedure. In fact, the respondent disregarded the legal stipulations and violated the law while knowing it. It is already a serious violation of the legitimate rights of the applicant and the authority of the law.
Besides these, after receiving the call of the applicant, Nanqi Police Station has the obligation to arrive at the scene in a timely manner and handle the matter accordingly. However, the applicant called the police many times requesting that the police station handle the matter accordingly, but the police station give no response. The applicant thinks that the failure of the respondent to implement one’s legally defined duties has constituted the typical administrative non-feasance. I hereby request that your organ confirm that such an act is a violation of the law.
In summary of the above, the conduct of the respondent has seriously violated the legal stipulations and violated the legitimate rights of the applicant. I hereby request that your organ confirm according to law a series of concrete administrative acts of the respondent is a violation of the law, repeal the acts and restore them to their original state.
To: Shushan District People’s Government of Hefei Municipality
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
