Friday, March 27, 2026

*Secret Documents: The"Diabolical" Chinese Mass Detention Camps/How They Are Run

*Secret Documents: The"Diabolical" Chinese Mass Detention Camps/How They Are Run 


March 26 2026 [updated]

A sample of classified Chinese government documents leaked to a consortium of news organizations, is displayed for a picture in New York, on Nov. 22, 2019. Beijing has detained more than a million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs and other Muslim minorities for what it calls voluntary job training. 

Secret Documents Reveal How China's Mass Detention Camps 

Are Run

November 24, 2019
The watch towers, double-locked doors and video surveillance in the Chinese camps are there “to prevent escapes.” Uighurs and other minorities held inside are scored on how well they speak the dominant Mandarin language and follow strict rules on everything down to bathing and using the toilet, scores that determine if they can leave.
“Manner education” is mandatory, but “vocational skills improvement” is offered only after a year in the camps.
Voluntary job training is the reason the Chinese regime has given for detaining more than a million ethnic minorities, most of them Muslims. But a classified blueprint leaked to a consortium of news organizations shows the camps are instead precisely what former detainees have described: Forced ideological and behavioral re-education centers run in secret.
The classified documents lay out the Chinese regime’s deliberate strategy to lock up ethnic minorities even before they commit a crime, to rewire their thoughts and the language they speak.
The papers also show how Beijing is pioneering a new form of social control using data and artificial intelligence. Drawing on data collected by mass surveillance technology, computers issued the names of tens of thousands of people for interrogation or detention in just one week.
Taken as a whole, the documents give the most significant description yet of high-tech mass detention in the 21st century in the words of the Chinese regime itself. Experts say they spell out a vast system that targets, surveils and grades entire ethnicities to forcibly assimilate and subdue them —especially Uighurs, a predominantly Muslim Turkic minority of more than 10 million people with their own language and culture.
In this Monday, Dec. 3, 2018, file photo, a guard tower and barbed wire fences are seen around a section of the Artux City Vocational Skills Education Training Service Center in Artux in western China’s Xinjiang region.
“They confirm that this is a form of cultural genocide,” said Adrian Zenz, a leading security expert on the far western region of Xinjiang, the Uighur homeland. “It really shows that from the onset, the Chinese government had a plan.”
Zenz said the documents echo the aim of the camps as outlined in a 2017 report from a local branch of the Xinjiang Ministry of Justice: To “wash brains, cleanse hearts, support the right, remove the wrong.”
China has struggled for decades to control Xinjiang, where the Uighurs have long resented Beijing’s heavy-handed rule. After the 9/11 attacks in the United States, Chinese officials began justifying harsh security measures and religious restrictions as necessary to fend off terrorism, arguing that young Uighurs were susceptible to the influence of Islamic extremism. Hundreds have died since in terror attacks, reprisals and race riots, both Uighurs and Han Chinese.
In 2014, Chinese leader Xi Jinping launched what he called a “People’s War on Terror” when bombs set off by Uighur militants tore through a train station in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, just hours after he concluded his first state visit there.
“Build steel walls and iron fortresses. Set up nets above and snares below,” state media cited Xi as saying. “Cracking down severely on violent terrorist activities must be the focus of our current struggle.”
In 2016, the crackdown intensified dramatically after Xi named Chen Quanguo, a hardline official transferred from Tibet, as Xinjiang’s new head. Most of the documents were issued in 2017, as Xinjiang’s “War on Terror” morphed into an extraordinary mass detention campaign using military-style technology.
The practices largely continue today. The Chinese regime says they work.
“Since the measures have been taken, there’s no single terrorist incident in the past three years,” said a written response from the Chinese Embassy in the United Kingdom. “Xinjiang is much safer….The so-called leaked documents are fabrication and fake news.”
The statement said that religious freedom and the personal freedom of detainees was “fully respected” in Xinjiang.

In this Monday, Dec. 3, 2018, file photo, a guard tower and barbed wire fences are seen around a facility in the Kunshan Industrial Park in Artux in western China’s Xinjiang region. 
The documents were given to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists by an anonymous source. The ICIJ verified them by examining state media reports and public notices from the time, consulting experts, cross-checking signatures and confirming the contents with former camp employees and detainees.
They consist of a notice with guidelines for the camps, four bulletins on how to use technology to target people, and a court case sentencing a Uighur Communist Party member to 10 years in prison for telling colleagues not to say dirty words, watch porn or eat without praying.
The documents were issued to rank-and-file officials by the powerful Xinjiang Communist Party Political and Legal Affairs Commission, the region’s top authority overseeing police, courts and state security. They were put out under the head official at the time, Zhu Hailun, who annotated and signed some personally.
The documents confirm from the regime itself what is known about the camps from the testimony of dozens of Uighurs and Kazakhs, satellite imagery and tightly monitored visits by journalists to the region.
Erzhan Qurban, an ethnic Kazakh who moved back to Kazakhstan, was grabbed by police on a trip back to China to see his mother and accused of committing crimes abroad. He protested that he was a simple herder who had done nothing wrong. But for the authorities, his time in Kazakhstan was reason enough for detention.
Qurban told the AP he was locked in a cell with 10 others last year and told not to engage in “religious activities” like praying. They were forced to sit on plastic stools in rigid postures for hours at a time. Talk was forbidden, and two guards kept watch 24 hours a day. Inspectors checked that nails were short and faces trimmed of mustaches and beards, traditionally worn by pious Muslims.
Those who disobeyed were forced to squat or spend 24 hours in solitary confinement in a frigid room.
“It wasn’t education, it was just punishment,” said Qurban, who was held for nine months. “I was treated like an animal.”

Who Gets Rounded Up and How

On February 18, 2017, Zhu, the Han Chinese official who signed the documents, stood in chilly winter weather atop the front steps of the capital’s city hall, overlooking thousands of police in black brandishing rifles.
“With the powerful fist of the People’s Democratic Dictatorship, all separatist activities and all terrorists shall be smashed to pieces,” Zhu announced into a microphone.
With that began a new chapter in the state’s crackdown. Police called Uighurs and knocked on their doors at night to take them in for questioning. Others were stopped at borders or arrested at airports.
In the years since, as Uighurs and Kazakhs were sent to the camps in droves, Chinese authorities built hundreds of schools and orphanages to house and re-educate their children. Many of those who fled into exile don’t even know where their children or loved ones are.
The documents make clear that many of those detained have not actually done anything. One document explicitly states that the purpose of the pervasive digital surveillance is “to prevent problems before they happen” — in other words, to calculate who might rebel and detain them before they have a chance.
This is done through a system called the Integrated Joint Operations Platform or IJOP, designed to screen entire populations. Built by a state-owned military contractor, the IJOP began as an intelligence-sharing tool developed after Chinese military theorists studied the U.S. army’s use of information technology in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“There’s no other place in the world where a computer can send you to an internment camp,” said Rian Thum, a Xinjiang expert at the University of Nottingham. “This is absolutely unprecedented.”
The IJOP spat out the names of people considered suspicious, such as thousands of “unauthorized” imams not registered with Chinese authorities, along with their associates. Suspicious or extremist behavior was so broadly defined that it included going abroad, asking others to pray or using cell phone apps that cannot be monitored by the regime.
The IJOP zoomed in on users of “Kuai Ya,” a mobile application similar to the iPhone’s Airdrop, which had become popular in Xinjiang because it allows people to exchange videos and messages privately. One bulletin showed that officials identified more than 40,000 “Kuai Ya” users for investigation and potential detention; of those, 32 were listed as belonging to “terrorist organizations.”
“They’re scared people will spread religion through ‘Kuai Ya,'” said a man detained after police accused him of using the app. He spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity to protect himself and his family. “They can’t regulate it….So they want to arrest everyone who’s used ‘Kuai Ya’ before.”
The system also targeted people who obtained foreign passports or visas, reflecting the regime’s fear of Islamic extremist influences from abroad and deep discomfort with any connection between the Uighurs and the outside world. Officials were asked to verify the identities even of people outside the country, showing how China is casting its dragnet for Uighurs far beyond Xinjiang.
In recent years, Beijing has put pressure on countries to which Uighurs have fled, such as Thailand and Afghanistan, to send them back to China. In other countries, state security has also contacted Uighurs and pushed them to spy on each other. For example, a restaurateur now in Turkey, Qurbanjan Nurmemet, said police contacted him with videos of his son strapped to a chair and asked him for information on other Uighurs in Turkey.
Despite the Beijing’s insistence that the camps are vocational training centers for the poor and uneducated, the documents show that those rounded up included party officials and university students.
After the names were collected, lists of targeted people were passed to prefecture authorities, who forwarded them to district heads, then local police stations, neighbor watchmen, and Communist Party cadres living with Uighur families.
Some former detainees recalled being summoned by officers and told their names were listed for detention. From there, people were funneled into different parts of the system, from house arrest to detention centers with three levels of monitoring to, at its most extreme, prison.
Experts say the detentions are a clear violation of China’s own laws and constitution. Maggie Lewis, a professor of Chinese law at Seton Hall University, said the Communist Party is circumventing the Chinese legal system in Xinjiang.
“Once you’re stamped as an enemy, the gloves go off,” she said. “They’re not even trying to justify this legally….This is arbitrary.”
The detention campaign is sweeping. A bulletin notes that in a single week in June 2017, the IJOP identified 24,612 “suspicious persons” in southern Xinjiang, with 15,683 sent to “education and training,” 706 to prison and 2,096 to house arrest. It is unknown how typical this week might be. Local officials claim far less than a million are in “training,” but researchers estimate up to 1.8 million have been detained at one point or another.
The bulletins stress that relationships must be scrutinized closely, with those interrogated pushed to report the names of friends and relatives. Mamattursun Omar, a Uighur chef arrested after working in Egypt, was interrogated in four detention facilities over nine months in 2017. Omar told the AP that police asked him to verify the identities of other Uighurs in Egypt.
Eventually, Omar says, they began torturing him to make him confess that Uighur students had gone to Egypt to take part in jihad. They strapped him to a contraption called a “tiger chair,” shocked him with electric batons, beat him with pipes and whipped him with computer cords.
“I couldn’t take it anymore,” Omar said. “I just told them what they wanted me to say.”
Omar gave the names of six others who worked at a restaurant with him in Egypt. All were sent to prison.

What Happens Inside the Camps

The documents also detail what happens after someone is sent to an “education and training center.”
Publicly, in a recent white paper, China’s State Council said “the personal freedom of trainees at the education and training centers is protected in accordance with the law.” But internally, the documents describe facilities with police stations at the front gates, high guard towers, one-button alarms and video surveillance with no blind spots.
Detainees are only allowed to leave if absolutely necessary, for example because of illness, and even so must have somebody “specially accompany, monitor and control” them. Bath time and toilet breaks are strictly managed and controlled “to prevent escapes.” And cell phones are strictly forbidden to stop “collusion between inside and outside.”
“Escape was impossible,” said Kazakh kingergarten administrator Sayragul Sauytbay, a Communist Party member who was abducted by police in October 2017 and forced to become a Mandarin camp instructor. “In every corner in every place there were armed police.”
Sauytbay called the detention center a “concentration camp…much more horrifying than prison,” with rape, brainwashing and torture in a “black room” were people screamed. She and another former prisoner, Zaomure Duwati, also told the ICIJ detainees were given medication that made them listless and obedient, and every move was surveilled.
AP journalists who visited Xinjiang in December 2018 saw patrol towers and high walls lined with green barbed wire fencing around camps. One camp in Artux, just north of Kashgar, sat in the middle of a vast, empty, rocky field, and appeared to include a police station at the entrance, workshops, a hospital and dormitories, one with a sign reading “House of Workers” in Chinese.
Recent satellite imagery shows that guard towers and fencing have been removed from some facilities, suggesting the region may have been softening restrictions in response to global criticism. Shohrat Zakir, the governor of Xinjiang, said in March that those detained can now request time and go home on weekends, a claim the AP could not independently verify.
The first item listed as part of the curriculum is ideological education, a bold attempt to change how detainees think and act. It is partly rooted in the ancient Chinese belief in transformation through education — taken before to terrifying extremes during the mass thought reform campaigns of Mao Zedong.
“It’s the dark days of the Cultural Revolution, except now it’s powered by high-tech,” said Zenz, the researcher.
By showing students the error of their former ways, the centers are supposed to promote “repentance and confession,” the directive said. For example, Qurban, the Kazakh herder, was handcuffed, brought to an interview with a Han Chinese leader and forced to acknowledge that he regretted visiting abroad.
The indoctrination goes along with what is called “manner education,” where behavior is dictated down to ensuring “timely haircuts and shaves,” “regular change of clothes” and “bathing once or twice a week.” The tone, experts say, echoes a general perception by the Han Chinese government that Uighurs are prone to violence and need to be civilized — in much the same way white colonialists treated indigenous people in the U.S., Canada and Australia.
“It’s a similar kind of savior mentality — that these poor Uighurs didn’t understand that they were being led astray by extremists,” said Darren Byler, a scholar of Uighur culture at the University of Washington. “The way they think about Uighurs in general is that they are backward, that they’re not educated….these people are unhygienic and need to be taught how to clean themselves.”Related image
Image result for Chinese torture camps
Students are to be allowed a phone conversation with relatives at least once a week, and can meet them via video at least once a month, the documents say. Trainers are told to pay attention to “the ideological problems and emotional changes that arise after family communications.”

Mandarin is mandated. Beijing has said “the customs of all ethnic groups and the right to use their spoken and written languages are fully protected at the centers.” But the documents show that in practice, lessons are taught in Mandarin, and it is the language to be used in daily communication.
A former staffer at Xinjiang TV now in Europe was also selected to become a Mandarin teacher during his month-long detention in 2017. Twice a day, detainees were lined up and inspected by police, and a few were questioned in Mandarin at random, he told the AP. Those who couldn’t respond in Mandarin were beaten or deprived of food for days. Otherwise, speaking was forbidden.
One day, the former teacher recalled, an officer asked an old farmer in Mandarin whether he liked the detention center. The man apologized in broken Mandarin and Uighur, saying it was hard for him to understand because of his age. The officer strode over and struck the old man’s head with a baton. He crumpled to the ground, bleeding.
Related image
“They didn’t see us as humans,” said the former teacher, who declined to provide his name out of fear of retribution against his family. “They treated us like animals — like pigs, cows, sheep.”
Detainees are tested on Mandarin, ideology and discipline, with “one small test per week, one medium test per month, and one big test per season,” the documents state. These test scores feed into an elaborate point system.
Detainees who do well are to be rewarded with perks like family visits, and may be allowed to “graduate” and leave. Detainees who do poorly are to be sent to a stricter “management area” with longer detention times. Former detainees told the AP that punishments included food deprivation, handcuffing, solitary confinement, beatings and torture.
Related image
Detainees’ scores are entered in the IJOP. Students are sent to separate facilities for “intensive skills training” only after at least one year of learning ideology, law and Mandarin.
After they leave, the documents stipulate, every effort should be made to get them jobs. Some detainees describe being forced to sign job contracts, working long hours for low pay and barred from leaving factory grounds during weekdays.
Qurban, the Kazakh herder, said after nine months in the camp, a supervisor came to tell him he was “forgiven” but must never tell what he had seen. After he returned to his village, officials told him he had to work in a factory.
“If you don’t go, we’ll send you back to the center,” an official said.
Qurban went to a garment factory, which he wasn’t allowed to leave. After 53 days stitching clothes, he was released. After another month under house arrest, he finally was allowed to return to Kazakhstan and see his children. He received his salary in cash: 300 Chinese yuan, or just under $42.
Long an ordinary herder who thought little of politics, Qurban used to count many Han Chinese among his friends. Now, he said, he’s begun to hate them.
“I’ve never committed a crime, I’ve never done anything wrong,” he said. “It was beyond comprehension why they put me there.”



'Have You Witnessed Forced Labour?'

'Have You Witnessed Forced Labour?' Floor-Crossing Liberal MP Michael Ma Challenges Former Senior Canadian Official and China Expert

OTTAWA — A Liberal member of Parliament who crossed the floor from the Conservative Party to support Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government — and whom Carney subsequently chose to accompany him on a trade mission to Beijing — used his time at the Industry Committee on Thursday to abruptly challenge a senior former federal official’s credibility on China and demand she confirm whether she had personally witnessed forced labour in Xinjiang.

The broader context surrounding Michael Ma’s political trajectory has been the subject of sustained investigative reporting by The Bureau.

The Chinese Canadian Conservative Association — of which Ma was listed as a director in 2019 — is identified in the Jamestown Foundation’s landmark study published this year as part of the Chinese Communist Party’s overseas United Front influence network.

The report names the organization explicitly among political party-focused United Front groups designed, in the study’s words, to ensure Beijing can address all sides of the political spectrum regardless of which party holds power. The same association orchestrated pressure campaigns calling for the resignation of two successive Conservative leaders — Erin O’Toole and Pierre Poilievre — over their stances toward Beijing.

Ma’s floor crossing in December 2025 came directly in the wake of the Paul Chiang scandal: Chiang, the Liberal incumbent in the Markham riding that Ma won as a Conservative, had been forced to step down as a candidate after acknowledging he had suggested Joe Tay — the Conservative candidate targeted during the 2025 federal election by Hong Kong national security authorities with online “wanted-style” campaigns and safety threats — could be handed over to Chinese diplomats in connection with a Hong Kong bounty.

Ma was then elected as a Conservative in the subsequent contest, replacing the Liberal incumbent Paul Chiang, before crossing to become a Liberal months later.

The exchange on Thursday struck some online observers as extraordinary, in part due to the standing of the witness: Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a 37-year veteran of the federal public service who served on the Canada-China Joint Committee on Science and Technology for the final seven years of her government career, holds a master's degree in International Relations with a focus on China, and has visited China multiple times since 1979.

Michael Ma, the member of Parliament for Markham-Unionville, opened his questioning by asking McCuaig-Johnston whether she held an advanced degree in cybersecurity — framing it as a yes-or-no question. She replied that she did not, but added: “I have spent 37 years in that business. Ok.”

Ma interjected repeatedly, pressing her for “short answers.” He noted that she is affiliated with the China Strategic Risk Institute, a line of questioning that appeared designed to suggest the witness was professionally predisposed to identify threats emanating from Beijing.

He then asked: “This question then, is — you claim about forced labour in Xinjiang. Have you witnessed this yourself? Have you been there ever?”

McCuaig-Johnston replied that she had been to China many times, since 1979. Speaking over her answer, Ma pressed again: “Have you witnessed forced labour? Just a short answer. Have you witnessed forced labour in Xinjiang?”

Visibly taken aback, McCuaig-Johnston said: “I work closely with Human Rights Watch, where researchers did witness it.”

Ma spoke over her, saying “so did you get that from hearsay” — and ended with a curt “Thank you.”

The technique — demanding that a witness confirm personal firsthand observation of an atrocity as a threshold condition for the credibility of documented evidence — is not a standard of proof applied in any parliamentary inquiry or human rights investigative framework. Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, the United States government, and multiple allied democracies have each independently documented the forced labour system in Xinjiang through researcher testimony, satellite imagery, leaked internal documents, and survivor accounts.

Commenting later on social media, McCuaig-Johnston wrote: “Mr. Ma says he doesn’t believe it because it was written in a report. He has to see it with his own eyes. I told him the Chinese would never show him forced labour but @hrw has people on the ground. I gave him their very rigorous report Asleep at the Wheel.”

As reported by The Bureau in September 2024, Canada’s lack of diligence in blocking forced labour products from Xinjiang had already become a sticking point in relations with Washington.

Then Trade Minister Mary Ng, who also held a Markham-area riding, found herself at the center of growing concerns from U.S. lawmakers, who were raising alarms about Canada becoming a backdoor for goods produced with forced labor in Xinjiang region, according to a letter from a bipartisan group of U.S. congressional leaders.

The letter, signed by Senators Marco Rubio and Jeff Merkley, hinted at consequences for Ottawa ahead of the 2026 review of North American trade agreements.

Responding to the Ma controversy later Thursday, Conservative Member of Parliament Michael Chong demanded the government clarify whether it still assesses that Uyghur forced labor is taking place in China’s Xinjiang province — the finding that underpins sanctions on a Chinese entity and four officials, imposed after Parliament’s 2021 vote to recognize the Uyghur genocide. The government’s answer, Chong warned, carries consequences for the validity of those sanctions, for Xinjiang imports under the free trade agreement’s forced labor ban, for the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement review, and for bilateral trade at a moment when Washington continues to assess that the forced labor is ongoing.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Meanwhile, regarding Ma’s questions on the matter in Ottawa Thursday, Michael Guglielmin, a Conservative MP, wrote on social media that Ma had used his committee time “to attack a witness and cast doubt on well-documented human rights and forced labour abuses in Xinjiang,” adding that it was “unacceptable from any Canadian member of Parliament” and that “Canadians expect MPs to stand up for human rights, not run cover for the Chinese regime.”

Jason Kenney, the former federal cabinet minister and Alberta premier who has known Ma personally for two decades, wrote that the exchange explained “a lot,” and urged journalists to ask Ma whether he had discussed the hearing with anyone at the People’s Republic of China Embassy.

The committee hearing unfolded on the same day that Hong Kong Watch’s advocacy officer, Landson Chan, testified before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights on transnational repression targeting Hong Kong diaspora communities in Canada. Chan’s testimony named Joe Tay as a documented case of Beijing-directed transnational repression on Canadian soil, noting his campaign had been targeted with online threats and “wanted-style” imagery during the 2025 election.