「汕头村民维权行动升级，数百人连日围堵干部占领村委（2026.06.26-07.01）」6月26日，在持续静坐维权一个月后，广东省汕头市龙湖区外砂街道林厝村村民升级维权行动，连续多日占领村委会，并一度围堵村党组织书记及外砂街道一名干部。截至6月30日，村民的维权行动仍在持续。 事件起因可追溯至5月下旬，林厝村村民突然得知，自己的户口性质在未获本人告知、未提出申请的情况下，由农业户口变为非农业户口。最初，不少村民对此感到意外，但随着消息持续发酵，越来越多村民对此表示质疑和愤怒。他们意识到，这并非天降福利，而是一个精心设计的陷阱：背后原因是村里的土地已被地方政府和村委卖光，此举不过是想借此让村民”户口非农化”，从而日后无法以”农村集体经济组织成员”的身份追问土地下落，免去后续追责的麻烦。据村民透露，村里已经46年未分配过宅基地，有村民一家七口仍挤在33平方米的房屋中。 5月26日起，村民发起集体行动，在村委、街道办等地维权，并持续在村委会外集会及静坐，要求恢复农业户口、查处涉嫌违法卖地行为、返还集体土地，并公开土地处置情况及相关资金账目。 6月26日上午，在村民的抗议行动持续了整整一个月后，外砂街道及村委书记在维权现场就村民诉求作出答复，但这份看似”面面俱到”的答复，却彻底回避了村民最核心的四项诉求。通报涉及户口代码解释、学费减免政策、土地清查数据、宅基地分配方案，却始终未对村民最关心的问责问题（究竟是谁卖地、资金流向何处）和切身利益问题（住房安置、户口恢复）给出实质性回应，反而透出一种”程序合规即可、无需追责”的态度。 答复结束后，现场情绪迅速升级，近千名村民围堵村委办公楼，将村党组织书记及外砂街道干部长时间堵在楼内，直至次日才离开。27日凌晨，现场一度爆发村民与警察之间的肢体冲突。 截至7月1日，村民对村委的占领行动仍在持续。
Villagers escalate rights campaign in Shantou, hundreds besiege officials and occupy village committee for days (June 26–July 1, 2026)
On June 26, after a month of continuous sit-in protests, villagers in Lincuo Village, Waisha Subdistrict, Longhu District, Shantou, Guangdong, escalated their campaign, occupying the village committee building for several consecutive days and at one point surrounding the village Party secretary and a Waisha Subdistrict official. As of July 1, the villagers’ campaign was still ongoing.
The dispute traces back to late May, when Lincuo villagers discovered that their household registration status had been changed from agricultural to non-agricultural without their knowledge or consent. Many were initially surprised, but as word spread, more villagers grew suspicious and angry. They came to see the change not as an unexpected benefit but as a calculated maneuver: the village’s land had already been sold off in full by local authorities and the village committee, and the reclassification was designed to strip villagers of their status as “members of a rural collective economic organization” — the status needed to question what had happened to the land — foreclosing any future accountability. Villagers said the village had not allocated homestead land in 46 years, and one family of seven was still living in a 33-square-meter house.
Starting May 26, villagers launched collective action, petitioning at the village committee and subdistrict office and holding sustained rallies and sit-ins outside the village committee building. Their demands: restoration of agricultural household registration status, investigation into the suspected illegal sale of land, return of collective land, and public disclosure of how the land was disposed of and where the proceeds went.
On the morning of June 26, after a full month of protest, Waisha Subdistrict officials and the village Party secretary issued a response to villagers’ demands at the protest site. The response appeared comprehensive but sidestepped villagers’ four core demands entirely. It addressed the household registration code, tuition subsidy policy, land survey data, and a homestead allocation plan, but offered no substantive answer on the questions villagers cared about most — accountability for who sold the land and where the money went, and their immediate concerns over housing and restoration of registration status. Instead, it conveyed an attitude that procedural compliance was sufficient and no accountability was required.
After the response, tensions on the ground quickly escalated. Nearly a thousand villagers surrounded the village committee office building, trapping the village Party secretary and a Waisha Subdistrict official inside for an extended period; the officials did not leave until the following day.
In the early hours of June 27, physical clashes broke out between villagers and police.
As of July 1, villagers’ occupation of the village committee was continuing.