Yesterday, I discussed Article 34 (2) and (3) of the amendment to the “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” in several groups:
It really feels like two very strange provisions at first glance.
The most imprecise of these is the so-called “spirit of the Chinese nation, feelings of the Chinese nation“. The two concepts are very vague. Spirit and feelings are very subjective things. Your spirit and feelings may be completely different from mine. The positive energy you speak of may very well be negative energy in my eyes. Your patriotic behavior may very well be harmful to the country.
Then the concepts of “clothing, symbols” are also very vague. What clothing harms the so-called “spirit of the Chinese nation, harms the feelings of the Chinese nation”?
Japanese kimonos are likely to be counted, but what about Western suits?
What about those international brand clothing and bags that have once insulted China?
What about Tesla and Apple phones, which may steal secrets?
Besides, who will determine these vague concepts? The “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” is enforced by the public security department and does not need to be tried by the court, which is itself controversial. How can a person be convicted without a court trial?
Concepts cannot be vague. This is the most basic requirement of logic, especially when it comes to legislation, which is a serious matter concerning the rights of every citizen. It stands to reason that the legislators of the National People’s Congress are all legal professionals, so why are they so imprecise?
In my opinion, the fourth paragraph of Article 34 is also very imprecise. “Propagating and beautifying aggressive wars“, I guess the legislators have something in mind, and it should refer to the Japanese invasion of China. But if it is not specifically clarified, then is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Ukrainian territory not an aggressive war? It is generally considered so internationally, and our policy is also to maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
So, are the people who cheer for Russia on the simplified Chinese Internet already in violation of the law?
Also, “picking quarrels and provoking trouble, disturbing public order” is also a very vague one.
Perhaps the more vague, the greater the room for operation, and the more things can be put in. But this should not be the original intention of legislation.
Instead of discussing and complaining online, I think it’s better to express my own objections on the website of the National People’s Congress. After all, the amendment to the “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” is still in the stage of soliciting opinions. Besides cursing it on social platforms, we should express our opposition directly on the platform for soliciting opinions, and let the legislators hear the voice of each of us.
The picture above is a photo of me expressing my opposition on the website of the National People’s Congress yesterday afternoon. My reason for opposition is that “the concept of ‘harming the spirit of the Chinese nation, harming the feelings of the Chinese nation’ is too broad and easy to become a pocket crime, and it is recommended to refine it“. I regretted it a bit after sending it. I think it should be abolished rather than refined, because it cannot be refined at all.
After submitting my opinion on the NPC website, I posted it on my WeChat Moments, calling on my readers in my Moments to express their opposition through formal channels. So, if you object, go to the website of the National People’s Congress to submit your opinion. Here is the website:
https://www.npc.gov.cn/flcaw/userIndex.html?lid=ff8081818a22132f018a499710595932
Doesn’t it sound like I’m quite rational and brave? But I’m ashamed to say that this is the first time I’ve expressed my opinion on legislative issues in so many years. I have published many current affairs comments on my public account, and have encountered more than 150 times of censorship, and some people think I am bold, including the first day of the Ukrainian war, I clearly opposed the invasion.
But expressing opinions on legislation through formal channels, exercising the rights and obligations that a citizen originally has, I am still doing it for the first time.
There have been many such solicitations of opinions before, including the annual “I make suggestions to the Two Sessions” and so on, and many people will speak up. But I have never participated, and I naturally think it is useless. But in fact, sometimes it is still useful, and some rights are fought for, and these rights must be maintained. I have actually enjoyed the rights that others have fought for, such as some rights of retired military officers who choose their own employment, but I have never participated in the actions to fight for these rights.
So, on public issues, try to speak up as much as possible, especially those outside the system, be less worried, less “useless”, and less “others work hard, I enjoy the fruits” of selfishness.
Maybe we can’t change anything, but when it comes to our most basic rights, we should still try, right?
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.