无锡访民在五中全会期间接连遭拦截：朱正明监视居住期满当日改遭行政拘留十天，多名访民在车站与家门口被拦Wuxi petitioners repeatedly intercepted during the Fifth Plenum: Zhu Zhengming given 10 days' administrative detention on the day his six-month residential surveillance expired; others stopped at stations and at home

据聚焦中国综述引述《民生观察》10 月 28 日的报道，朱正明的争议可以追溯到与工作单位的劳动纠纷：他曾在位于无锡的公安部交通研究所工作，自称遭到无故解雇，此后长期举报有关单位和人员的问题。2026 年初，无锡梁溪公安以涉嫌“扰乱国家机关工作秩序罪”对他采取取保候审措施；4 月 28 日，公安又以其违反取保候审规定为由，把措施改为监视居住。到 10 月 27 日，监视居住已满六个月。《刑事诉讼法》第 79 条明文规定，监视居住最长不得超过六个月，期限届满应及时解除。梁溪分局的解除决定书编号为梁公（治）解监字〔2026〕7 号。然而解除文书与新的处罚决定在同一天出现：警方改以“阻碍执行职务”为由行政拘留十天。两项措施名称、法律性质不同，却使同一个人几乎没有恢复自主生活的间隙。综述强调，这里最关键的调查对象，是新处罚所依据的具体行为、发生时间和证据，以及谁作出决定、如何审查其必要性。[1]

朱正明并非无锡唯一在这一时期受到限制的申诉者。10 月 26 日，惠山区访民樊永平准备从无锡火车站去南京，被山北派出所相关人员拦下并带回；报道指其店铺门口随后有人持续看守。樊永平长期就 2014 年在启东的一起医疗收费和人身伤害争议申诉，自述多次行政及司法救济没有解决问题。同日，梁溪区访民姜龙妹也在无锡火车站被属地公安带回。据维权网披露，家门外随后出现保安公司人员，阻止她外出，甚至影响日常买菜；她报警后，得到的回应竟是让她与保安公司交涉。综述指出，如果执行限制的是社会雇员，公众更有理由追究究竟是哪一个政府部门作出安排，谁付钱、谁指挥、谁对人身自由受到限制承担责任。[1]

10 月 27 日，锡山区访民顾学星抵达北京南站后遭无锡驻京人员拦截，随后由无锡公安和信访人员带回，28 日凌晨到达无锡。另有锡山区访民朱乐英在 24 日、25 日前往自然资源规划部门反映问题，两次被东亭派出所口头传唤，每次据报被留置约八小时。无锡新吴区访民黄民菊则在区政府信访时被社区人员带回。综述写道，车站、行政机关门口、住宅楼下成了不同的控制节点，参与者除了警察，还有信访干部、社区人员和保安。这一组事件的政治背景，是北京重要会议期间地方政府对上访活动的高度防范；但申诉者要去南京或北京，原本就是因为他们认为本地机关没有解决自己的争议。[1]

十月的无锡还有更深的一层。77 岁的陆琴媛 10 月 25 日公开举牌，控诉自己因声援当地维权人士沈爱斌而长期受到看守和限制。她宣称遭非法拘禁达 350 天，并指控公安人员及受雇人员侵害她的权利。围绕沈爱斌的诉讼也未结束：无锡市滨湖区法院 10 月 14 日作出（2026）苏0211行初186 号行政判决，驳回他针对十天拘留处罚的诉讼请求。综述指出，访民不只是路途受阻；有人因支持另一个申诉者而加入被监控群体，有人取得判决后仍无法消除对执法合法性的争议。综述还援引《宪法》第 37 条保障公民人身自由、第 41 条保障申诉控告检举权利并明令不得压制和打击报复，指出地方政治会议不会自动暂停这些保障；截访和上门看守究竟依据什么法律程序、如何救济、能否获得书面决定，才是围绕无锡案件必须追问的内容。[1]

核实说明与本站关联：本记录的核心事实——朱正明监视居住期满当日改遭十天行政拘留及其文书编号与时间线、樊永平与姜龙妹 10 月 26 日在无锡火车站被拦、顾学星 10 月 27 日在北京南站被拦截带回、朱乐英两次被口头传唤、黄民菊在区政府信访时被带回、陆琴媛 10 月 25 日举牌与沈爱斌 10 月 14 日判决——均来自聚焦中国 10 月 31 日综述所引述的《民生观察》与维权网报道；警方与有关部门未就这些拦截与处罚公开回应，新处罚的具体行为与证据未见披露，本记录全程保留归属。同一篇综述中关于卢思位出狱后遭跟踪与北京嘉泉教会牧师被批捕的内容，本站此前已分别收录（卢思位 10 月 28 日、嘉泉教会 10 月 30 日更新），本记录不再重复，仅收录其中此前未报的无锡访民部分。本记录定性为持续核实，将继续跟进朱正明拘留期满后的状况与相关申诉的后续。[1]

According to the ChinaFocus synthesis, citing a Minsheng Guancha report of October 28, Zhu Zhengming's dispute traces back to a labour conflict with his employer: he formerly worked at a Ministry of Public Security traffic research institute in Wuxi, says he was dismissed without cause, and has since persistently reported the units and individuals concerned. In early 2026, Liangxi police placed him under residential bail pending trial on suspicion of 'disrupting the order of state organs'; on April 28, police changed the measure to residential surveillance, on the ground that he had violated his bail conditions. By October 27, the surveillance had run its full six months. Article 79 of the Criminal Procedure Law states expressly that residential surveillance may not exceed six months and must be lifted promptly upon expiry. The Liangxi branch's lifting decision was numbered Liang Gong (Zhi) Jie Jian Zi [2026] No. 7. Yet the lifting document and the new penalty appeared on the same day: police instead imposed 10 days' administrative detention for 'obstructing the performance of official duties'. The two measures differ in name and legal character, but left the same person with almost no interval of restored autonomous life. The synthesis stresses that the most critical questions are the specific conduct, time and evidence behind the new penalty, who decided it, and how its necessity was reviewed. [1]

Zhu Zhengming was not the only Wuxi petitioner restricted in this period. On October 26, Fan Yongping of Huishan district was preparing to travel from Wuxi railway station to Nanjing when he was stopped by Shanbei police officers and taken back; reporting says people were then posted outside his shop to keep watch. Fan has long petitioned over a 2014 medical-billing and personal-injury dispute in Qidong, saying that repeated administrative and judicial remedies have not resolved it. The same day, Jiang Longmei of Liangxi district was also taken back by local police at Wuxi railway station. According to Weiquanwang, security-company personnel then appeared outside her home, preventing her from going out — even affecting routine grocery shopping; when she called the police, she was reportedly told to negotiate with the security company. The synthesis notes that if the people enforcing a restriction are company employees, the public has all the more reason to ask which government department arranged it, who pays, who commands, and who bears responsibility for the restriction on personal liberty. [1]

On October 27, Gu Xuexing of Xishan district was intercepted by Wuxi personnel stationed in Beijing upon arriving at Beijing South station, then taken back by Wuxi police and petition-office staff, arriving in Wuxi in the early hours of October 28. Separately, Zhu Leying, also of Xishan district, was orally summoned twice by Dongting police on October 24 and 25 when she went to the natural resources and planning department to raise issues, each time reportedly held for about eight hours. Huang Minju of Xinwu district was taken back by community workers while petitioning at the district government. The synthesis writes that railway stations, government office entrances and residential stairwells became different control points, with petition-office cadres, community workers and security staff joining police as participants. The political backdrop, it says, was local governments' heightened vigilance against petitioning during an important meeting in Beijing; but petitioners travel to Nanjing or Beijing precisely because they believe local organs have not resolved their disputes. [1]

There is a deeper layer to Wuxi in October. On October 25, 77-year-old Lu Qinyuan held a public placard accusing the authorities of keeping her under watch and restriction for a long period because she had voiced support for local rights activist Shen Aibin. She claimed to have suffered 350 days of unlawful detention and accused police officers and hired personnel of violating her rights. Litigation around Shen Aibin is also unresolved: on October 14, the Binhu District Court of Wuxi issued administrative judgment (2026) Su 0211 Xing Chu No. 186, rejecting his suit against a 10-day detention penalty. The synthesis notes that petitioners are not only blocked on the road: some join the monitored population for supporting another petitioner, and some, having obtained a judgment, still cannot dispel doubts about the lawfulness of enforcement. Citing Article 37 of the Constitution, which protects personal liberty, and Article 41, which protects the right to make complaints, accusations and reports against state organs and staff and expressly forbids suppression and retaliation, the synthesis argues that a local political meeting does not automatically suspend these guarantees; the legal procedure behind interception and doorstep watch, the available remedies, and whether written decisions exist are the questions the Wuxi cases demand. [1]

Verification note and links to this site's records: the core facts of this record — Zhu Zhengming's 10 days' administrative detention on the day his six-month residential surveillance expired, with the lifting document number and timeline; Fan Yongping's and Jiang Longmei's interception at Wuxi railway station on October 26; Gu Xuexing's interception at Beijing South station on October 27 and return; Zhu Leying's two oral summons on October 24–25; Huang Minju's removal while petitioning at the district government; and Lu Qinyuan's October 25 placard and Shen Aibin's October 14 judgment — all come from the ChinaFocus synthesis of October 31, 2026, drawing on Minsheng Guancha and Weiquanwang reporting; police and the relevant departments have not publicly responded to these interceptions and penalties, and the specific conduct and evidence behind the new penalty have not been disclosed, with attribution preserved throughout. The same synthesis also covers the post-release surveillance of Lu Siwei and the arrest approval for the Beijing Jiaquan Church pastor, both already recorded separately by this site (Lu Siwei on October 28; Jiaquan Church in the October 30 update); this record covers only the previously unreported Wuxi petitioner portion and does not repeat them. This record is graded 'under ongoing verification' and will follow Zhu Zhengming's situation after his detention term and the subsequent course of the petitions. [1]