Fears are growing for labor-rights advocate and citizen journalist Feng Rui (also known by his pen name 小五, Xiǎo Wǔ), who has reportedly fallen ill due to lengthy interrogations while in detention. Feng was detained in Guangzhou on September 14 for allegedly “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” a charge widely seen as retaliation for his research and advocacy work on labor issues such as wage arrears, labor-law violations, workplace accidents, worker deaths, strikes and work stoppages, and more.
As editor of the independent labor-focused media outlet Chiapas Dongfeng TV (恰帕斯东风电视机, Qiàpàsī Dōngfēng Diànshìjī, literally "Chiapas Dongfeng TV Set"), Feng has contributed to and helped to publish an annual review of labor-rights events for five consecutive years. After “Review of Labor Rights Incidents in 2025" was censored online and the Chiapas Dongfeng TV WeChat account suspended, Feng reportedly came under intense pressure, and he and his parents were harassed by local authorities and law enforcement.
CDT Chinese editors have noted online censorship of content about Feng’s detention, and have archived seven related articles and reports, five of which were deleted from the platforms on which they first appeared.
Over the years, [Feng Rui] has documented many things that we have come to take for granted, though we shouldn’t take for granted: unpaid wages, layoffs, unemployment, labor disputes, workplace injuries, excessive overtime, and the travails of ordinary workers who so rarely appear in mainstream narratives.
Many workers are voiceless. No journalists write about them, nor do they have public social-media accounts or the means to turn their experiences into articles that might reach a wider audience.
A worker is owed several months of back wages. A food-delivery rider works all day in the rain for a pittance. A young worker is suddenly laid off. Someone suffers a workplace injury and doesn’t know to whom they can turn for help. For the people involved, events such as these are real-life crises, but they disappear from public view far too quickly.
Luckily, there are some people willing to document these events, so that at least others will be aware that these things happened.
This is the most basic significance of labor-rights investigations and reports. They don’t "create" labor conflicts; such conflicts already existed before they were documented. By documenting them, the chroniclers are simply bringing individual experiences into public view.
That’s why I’ve always found the idea that people who pay attention to societal conflict are just “stirring up trouble” so repellent.
It’s like thinking that as long as no one speaks up about a problem, it will somehow cease to exist.
Someone who is owed back wages won’t get paid just because no one talks about it. Someone who was unfairly sacked won’t get their job back just because there’s no written record of the matter. Silence doesn’t make injustice go away; it only makes it invisible.
But if a person who has spent years researching and documenting labor rights issues can be held criminally liable for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" simply because of the nature of their particular work, then it merits a serious discussion about the nature of that particular criminal charge.
[…] The charge of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" has long been controversial due to its broad application and vague boundaries. A wide range of actions—disturbing the peace, causing a public scene, and even certain online behaviors—may fall within the scope of this criminal charge.
And therein lies the problem: when a criminal charge can encompass so many different types of behavior, its boundaries must be made abundantly clear.
Otherwise, a criminal charge meant to target specific illegal acts can easily morph into a “pocket crime” open to interpretation.
Exactly what is meant by "picking quarrels” and “provoking trouble"? What specific behaviors cross the line and go from misdemeanor to “criminal offense”?
When it comes to this, vague interpretation isn’t good enough. Just because a person says something that makes the authorities uncomfortable or brings some societal conflict to the attention of the public, they cannot be shunted into the catch-all category of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble."
This holds especially true for labor rights issues, and it is why the charge of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" warrants particular vigilance.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that anyone operating under the banner of "labor rights" is exempt from the constraints of the law. If someone commits an act that is clearly illegal or criminal, they should certainly be dealt with according to the law.
But conducting research surveys must not be criminalized, nor should documenting labor disputes, or interviewing workers.
The act of compiling and analyzing labor incidents that have already occurred should not be construed as "picking quarrels and provoking trouble” simply because some of the incidents make people uncomfortable.
Were that to happen, the resulting loss would not be a single article, but our courage to face up to reality.
This is why I believe this matter cannot simply be interpreted as the “criminal detention of an independent blogger.” If someone who has been documenting labor issues for so many years faces criminal prosecution because of his work, our concerns must extend beyond Feng Rui’s individual case.
What we should be concerned about is whether anyone will even dare to conduct such investigations in the future, and whether anyone will be willing to document the experiences of workers who often have no say.
We may disagree with [Feng’s] judgment, criticize his articles, and even believe that some of his reports are problematic. But these things should be hashed out through discussion, questioning, and public expression, not by arbitrarily resorting to the criminal justice system.
I remember these lines from the introduction to “Review of Labor Rights Incidents in 2025": “We hope that one day we will have fewer incidents to take stock of. People will come together not to document injustice, but simply to dance.”
That’s actually a very restrained and modest hope.
No one wants these annual labor-rights reports to go on forever. No one wants to have to tally up the unpaid wages, the layoffs, the workplace injuries, and the unemployed year after year. More than anyone, those who keep these records hope that someday, some of these problems will abate.
A day when we truly no longer needed these annual “labor rights reviews” would be the best possible outcome.
But until that day comes, someone ought to be keeping a record of such events.
If the mere act of documenting injustice requires us to walk on eggshells and police our every word, then we might find ourselves left with a very clean, very quiet, and very deserted society.
And such quiet is nothing to celebrate. [Chinese]