Lead
China’s top legislature has removed nine serving military officers from its list of deputies ahead of the annual “two sessions” in Beijing next week, state news agency Xinhua reported. The removals include five full generals, one lieutenant general and three major generals across multiple PLA branches. Named figures include information support force political commissar Li Wei and ground forces commander Li Qiaoming; authorities offered no public explanation. The adjustments come as the National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference prepare to convene, a period when delegate rosters are routinely finalized.
Key Takeaways
- Nine military deputies were removed from the NPC/CPPCC deputy lists, according to Xinhua; the change was reported ahead of the two sessions next week.
- The group includes five full generals, one lieutenant general and three major generals, preserving the precise rank breakdown reported by state media.
- Named full generals are Li Wei, Li Qiaoming, Shen Jinlong, Qin Shengxiang and Yu Zhongfu; the lieutenant general is Wang Donghai.
- Three major generals listed are Bian Ruifeng, Ding Laifu and Yang Guang, representing several PLA services including ground, navy, air and rocket forces.
- State authorities did not provide a reason; such removals have in past cases reflected status changes, loss of qualifications or probes.
- The timing coincides with final delegate roster adjustments as Beijing prepares the National People’s Congress and CPPCC meetings.
Background
China’s annual “two sessions”—the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC)—are the country’s most important political gatherings, held this year in Beijing next week. Delegates to those meetings include a mix of civilian officials, business figures and military deputies who represent the People’s Liberation Army’s interests in legislative and consultative forums. Lists of deputies are typically published in advance and occasionally revised to reflect promotions, retirements, administrative disqualifications or disciplinary actions.
Historically, removals from deputy lists do not always mean immediate dismissal from military posts; in some cases they reflect simple administrative updates such as transfer, retirement paperwork or changes to political representative status. At other times, removals have preceded or followed formal investigations or disciplinary measures—though state reporting does not always disclose which scenario applies. The PLA’s representation at the two sessions is both symbolic and practical: it signals the military’s institutional position within the Party-state and ensures armed forces perspectives reach national policy discussions.
Main Event
On the list released and then revised by the top legislature, Xinhua identified five full generals among those removed: Li Wei (political commissar of the Strategic Support Force), Li Qiaoming (ground forces commander), Shen Jinlong (former navy commander), Qin Shengxiang (former navy political commissar) and Yu Zhongfu (former air force political commissar). The report also named Lieutenant General Wang Donghai, political commissar of the Central Military Commission’s National Defence Mobilisation Department, as removed from the deputies list.
Three major generals were additionally omitted: Bian Ruifeng of the Central Military Commission, Ding Laifu of the ground forces and Yang Guang of the Rocket Force. Xinhua’s brief bulletin presented the roster change as a factual update and listed the ranks and positions; it did not attach explanation or indicate any personnel sanctions. The timing—immediately before the two sessions—makes the adjustments visible and prompts attention from domestic and foreign observers alike.
Officials handling delegate rosters routinely adjust entries in the run-up to the meetings; those changes can be clerical, linked to rank transfers, or tied to internal personnel processes. Without a formal statement from the Central Military Commission or the Ministry of National Defence explaining the removals, the public record is limited to the state agency’s announcement and historical practice. Observers note that the mix of services named (ground, navy, air, rocket, strategic support/national defence mobilisation) reflects cross-branch representation among PLA deputies.
Analysis & Implications
At face value, removing nine military deputies—including five full generals—alters the visible composition of military representation at two sessions that set policy direction and personnel endorsements. Such roster edits can be administrative, but they also matter politically: who appears as a deputy is a signal about which military leaders are in favor, sidelined, or undergoing status changes. The absence of an explanation increases scrutiny because the PLA is a highly structured institution where rank, title and political roles are tightly managed.
If any removals stem from disciplinary probes, the moves would reflect the continuing emphasis on intra-military accountability and the Party’s interest in maintaining control over promotions and public representation. Alternatively, if changes are due to retirement, reassignment or qualification adjustments, the effect is primarily procedural but still affects the optics of leadership continuity. Foreign governments and analysts will monitor whether the roster revisions presage deeper personnel reshuffles inside the CMC or ministry-level posts after the two sessions conclude.
Economically and geopolitically, shifts among senior PLA figures can influence defense planning and procurement priorities, although direct policy change would typically require broader institutional decisions beyond delegate lists. For domestic politics, the incident underscores the opacity of internal personnel management: state outlets report outcomes, but not the internal deliberations that produce them. For analysts tracking civil-military relations, the episode reinforces the need to differentiate confirmed personnel moves from speculative links to investigations or political disputes.
Comparison & Data
| Category | Count |
|---|---|
| Full generals | 5 |
| Lieutenant generals | 1 |
| Major generals | 3 |
| Total officers removed | 9 |
The table above summarizes the rank distribution of the nine officers removed from deputy lists. They represent several PLA components: Strategic Support Force (information support), Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Rocket Force and a CMC mobilisation department. While count-based comparisons are straightforward, they do not reveal whether the removals reflect uniform causes or a mix of administrative and disciplinary reasons.
Reactions & Quotes
Xinhua reported the roster change as an official update that removed nine officers from the deputies list ahead of the two sessions.
Xinhua (state news agency)
“Such removals can be administrative or linked to internal probes; without an official rationale, multiple interpretations remain plausible,” said a Beijing-based military affairs analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Independent analyst (anonymized)
“The revisions come during the finalization of delegate lists and mirror past practices of late-stage adjustments,” the South China Morning Post noted in its coverage.
South China Morning Post (news media)
Unconfirmed
- Whether any of the nine officers are subject to formal disciplinary investigations has not been confirmed by official statements.
- It is not publicly verified whether removals from the deputies list equate to removal from military posts or retirement in each individual case.
- No authoritative source has linked the roster changes to a single cause such as promotion, transfer or disqualification; the precise reasons remain unannounced.
Bottom Line
The documented removal of nine military deputies—including five full generals—before Beijing’s two sessions is a notable personnel update that the state media Xinhua presented without explanation. Such roster adjustments are not uncommon in the run-up to high-level political meetings, but the prominence of the ranks involved elevates the event beyond routine administrative edits.
For observers, the key task is to watch for follow-up disclosures from the Central Military Commission, the Ministry of National Defence, or subsequent state reporting that clarify causes and any downstream personnel or policy effects. Until then, analysts should distinguish the confirmed factual roster change from broader inferences about investigations or political sidelining.