The detention last month of Feng Rui, a labour rights activist in Guangzhou, has sparked rare criticism in China of a broadly worded law used against people who document social grievances. His case has prompted questions about the invocation of the offence of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”.According to information available in the public domain as of October 8, Feng was criminally detained by the Yuexiu District Public Security Bureau on September 14 and held at the Yuexiu District Detention Centre. It remains unclear whether his detention is connected to his labour rights activities or to a “survey and annual review” he released earlier this year.Feng Rui, whose actual name is Xiao Wu, is the editor of the independent platform “Chiapas Dongfeng TV”. He graduated in 2017 from the Chinese Department of Beijing Normal University in Beijing. Rather than pursue a conventional white-collar career, he chose to work with marginalised workers at a workers’ home in Picun, a settlement where hundreds of rural migrant workers live.A few years later, he founded Chiapas Dongfeng TV to document the lives and struggles of migrant and low-wage workers. He also established a labour law support group and criticised the “996” work system, under which employees are expected to work from 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week.Over the years, Feng has documented labour disputes involving unpaid wages, layoffs, unemployment, workplace injuries and excessive working hours — issues affecting workers who rarely feature in mainstream narratives. He has also conducted annual reviews of labour rights.A Chinese online current affairs platform, described as Maoist and radical leftist, reported his detention. The account said he had been criminally detained on suspicion of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”. The precise connection between his work and the allegations against him remains unclear.A broad offence under scrutiny“Picking quarrels and provoking troubles” (寻衅滋事, xunxin zishi) is a broadly worded offence that has been used in cases involving independent reporting and civil activism. The term appears in two distinct legal contexts: the Criminal Law and the Law on Public Security Administration Punishments.Story continues below this adUnder the latter, the relevant provisions cover acts such as gang fights or arbitrary assaults; chasing or intercepting others; forcibly taking, damaging or occupying public or private property; and other acts of provoking trouble that disturb others or disrupt social order.Under the law in force before January 1, 2026, Article 26(4) contained the catch-all provision for other acts of picking quarrels and provoking troubles. The revised Public Security Administration Punishments Law, which took effect on January 1, 2026, places the corresponding provision under Article 30(4). Criminal proceedings under the Criminal Law are separate from administrative punishment under this law.Also Read | What China’s new ‘ethnic unity’ law reveals about its shrinking tolerance for diversityThe broad wording has prompted criticism from lawyers, activists and commentators concerned about arbitrary enforcement. A September 2025 commentary on the issue, published by Guangming Daily and republished on People’s Daily Online, asked how the offence should be defined and how administrative law enforcement could avoid abuse of power.“In the Internet age, the Internet has become a public space for social activities. Because current laws lack a clear definition of what constitutes ‘social order’ on the Internet, and there is also a lack of clear standards for determining what constitutes ‘disorder,’ this may lead to law enforcement actions exceeding legal boundaries and infringing on the public’s right to free expression,” wrote Wang Jinfu.Story continues below this adThe commentary also questioned whether authorities could invoke the offence simply because a person’s remarks were unwelcome or drew attention to social conflict. “Can someone be labelled as ‘picking quarrels and provoking troubles’ just because the person said something that made the relevant authorities uncomfortable or brought social conflicts to the public’s attention,” it asked.Also Read | Why India lost the 1962 war with China, and the lessons that endureA post on Chinese social media, criticising the wide range of conduct to which the law could be applied, warned that “a criminal charge that should be targeted at a specific illegal act can easily become a ‘pocket’ with a lot of room for interpretation”.Detentions for online criticismThe concerns are not limited to labour activists. Two cases involving online comments have drawn attention after courts found the administrative penalties unlawful.Deng, a 36-year-old man from Ning County in Gansu Province, was administratively detained for seven days after posting videos questioning the quality of his son’s school uniform. The Qingyang Intermediate People’s Court subsequently found the police penalty unlawful, citing procedural violations and insufficient evidence.Story continues below this adIn another case, Xiao Xinliang, a resident of Xiangyin County in Hunan Province, was detained for five days after posting a 12-character comment under a video about street renovations. On June 25, 2025, the Hunan High People’s Court overturned the penalty on retrial, finding insufficient evidence that the comment had disrupted public order.The cases illustrate the concerns raised by critics about the breadth of the offence and the possibility of its use against online expression. They also show that administrative penalties imposed under the provision can be challenged in court.From public order to online speechThe offence predates Xi Jinping’s rise to the leadership of the Communist Party in 2013. Critics argue that its application expanded as the authorities increasingly used it to address online speech.In May 2015, The New York Times wrote: “Previously, this charge only applied to disrupting public order, but in 2013 a judicial interpretation expanded the scope of this charge to include the internet, allowing prosecution of those who publish and widely disseminate false information or rumours online.”Story continues below this adAlso Read | An expert explains | Amid Trump-Xi bonhomie, why an island 15,000 km away looms largeThe newspaper described “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” as a “catch-all” crime, one with an exceptionally broad scope of application.Feng Rui’s detention has brought these concerns back into focus. The September 2025 commentary in Guangming Daily warned against treating reports of labour disputes as offences merely because the underlying events were unpleasant or uncomfortable for the public.“The labour incidents that have already occurred should not be compiled and interpreted as picking quarrels and provoking troubles simply because they are unpleasant to the public. Otherwise, what will truly disappear in the end will not be a single article, but rather people’s courage to face reality,” the article said.Hemant Adlakha, formerly a professor of Chinese at Jawaharlal Nehru University, is Vice Chairperson of the Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi.