Case

The Sitong Bridge Slogan: How One Banner Triggered Citywide Control

How the Sitong Bridge protest exposed the stability logic connecting sensitive periods, public space, keywords, and imitation risk.

Peng Lifa's protest and removal from Sitong Bridge

On October 13, 2022, three days before the CCP's 20th Party Congress, a man in work clothes hung two white banners with red lettering from Sitong Bridge in Beijing's Haidian district. He opposed Xi Jinping's zero-Covid controls, demanded freedom, dignity, reform, and elections, and called directly for Xi's removal. Video showed smoke rising from the bridge while a loudspeaker repeated his slogans. Police arrived and took him away. The protester has been widely identified as Peng Lifa, also known online as Peng Zaizhou. The Chinese government has not publicly confirmed his identity or released an account of the case. ^[2]

The protest was brief, but its photographs and videos escaped Beijing. Versions of the slogans appeared on overseas campuses, and people repeated similar demands during the White Paper protests that November. Sitong Bridge became a political marker for open opposition to zero-Covid controls and Xi's personal dictatorship.

After police seized Peng, platform censorship, search restrictions, and mapping services continued to remove the record. Control spread from one person and one physical site to images, keywords, and the place name. The scale of the response shows what the stability-maintenance system feared. Peng had demonstrated in the heavily guarded capital that public resistance remained possible, and that the Party's display of unanimous support depended on police power and censorship.

Police and platforms removed the record of the protest

Police cleared the bridge that day, and online controls took over. Social media platforms removed photographs, video, and related keywords; accounts sharing the material also faced restrictions. In June 2023, the Guardian found that a simplified-Chinese search for Sitong Bridge on Baidu Maps returned no related place. The road sign had reportedly been removed, although searches in traditional Chinese or for a nearby bus stop could still locate the area. ^{[4] [1]}

By then Peng was in custody, the banners were gone, and traffic had resumed. Reducing the visibility of the place name made it harder for people to return to the location through search. Control of the bridge stopped the protest that day; removing the location from common search results targeted its later public memory.

Police, social platforms, and mapping services never presented the public with a joint action document, but their work fitted together. Police controlled the person and the site. Platforms blocked circulation. Search and mapping services reduced the chance of rediscovery. Under the CCP's censorship system, each enforcer knew the political prohibition and carried out its part without a public explanation.

The CCP concealed Peng Lifa's detention and case information

Public legal procedure almost vanished after Peng was taken away. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China recorded his detention date as October 13, 2022, his location as unknown but believed to be in Beijing, his charges as unknown, and his status as detained. ^[3] In October 2024, Human Rights Watch said the authorities had still released no information confirming his identity or whereabouts and that he had not been seen since police took him away. ^[2]

Reports circulated online in July 2025 that Peng had secretly received a nine-year sentence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and arson. Media outlets repeating the report acknowledged that they could not independently verify it. No detention notice, indictment, judgment, or prison record appeared in public channels, so the reported sentence remains unconfirmed. The established record is that police seized Peng and the state has since controlled both his person and every official record of the case. His family and the public have had no open process for determining his detention site, charge, or term.

Withholding procedure was not an administrative oversight. The CCP used coercion and simultaneously monopolized the records needed to test whether that coercion was lawful. Peng could not speak, his family could not publicly organize a defense, and the courts supplied no searchable record. The state moved a detention that occurred in public and was captured in numerous images into an information black box.

Sitong Bridge exposed the Party's fear of open resistance

Peng had no political organization and controlled no media outlet. During rush hour, he placed demands that the CCP excludes from public speech on two banners: end the lockdowns, hold elections, and remove Xi Jinping. The stability response quickly moved beyond the bridge into social platforms, search engines, and maps.

The system concentrated on preventing imitation. If an ordinary person could challenge Xi in Beijing just before a Party Congress, others could see that political obedience was produced by surveillance, arrest, and information control. Peng's slogans were later repeated, and similar bridge protests continued to appear. Censors removed the original material without eliminating the example he had set.

The case also exposed the emptiness of the Party's claim to rule according to law. Police took a man away for public political expression, while years passed without verifiable information about charges, access to counsel, or judgment. The regime still expected the public to presume that its coercion had a legal basis. When legal documents, court proceedings, and the detained person are all hidden, “rule of law” becomes approval that party-state agencies grant to their own force.

As long as opposition to the top leader can be treated as a security threat, political rights remain permissions the CCP can withdraw. Ending political disappearance requires more than asking platforms to remove fewer words. It requires dismantling CCP control over streets, media, police, and courts so that the ruling party can no longer decide who may speak, who vanishes from the public record, and which places society is allowed to remember.

Sources: The Guardian report on removal of Sitong Bridge search results^[4], Yuhua Wang's study on the rise of the Chinese security state^[5], U.S. State Department 2024 human rights report on China^[6], Human Rights Watch on Peng's disappearance^[2], and the CECC detention record^[3].

Sources

1. Sitong Bridge Protest Site Removed from Online Maps and Searchinvestigative-reportingLive

   View captured page
2. Human Rights Watch Account of the Detention of the Sitong Bridge Protesterhuman-rights-reportLive

   View captured page
3. CECC Record of Peng Lifa's Detention Statushuman-rights-reportUnchecked
4. The Guardian report on removal of Sitong Bridge search resultsLive

   View captured page
5. Yuhua Wang's study on the rise of the Chinese security stateRedirected

   View captured page
6. U.S. State Department 2024 human rights report on ChinaLive

   View captured page
7. 2023 Party and state institutional reform planLive

   View captured page
8. Constitution of the People's Republic of ChinaUnchecked
9. Investigation into the Sitong Bridge Protester's Detention One Year Laterinvestigative-reportingLive

   View captured page

×