Those so-called administrative offenses will not be easily disclosed to just anyone.
This is following the trend of the globalization to reaching out to the international legal standard.
I do think it is an overall progressive development.
The whole society becomes so alert about this coming back.
And also, plus what we have just imagined, a historic memory.
Some of the second or third offenses probably should be subject to more severe sanctions.
I do think we have to be very careful about not moving in the same direction of drug liberalization that we've seen in the West.
The Chat Lounge.
The Chat Lounge unpacks views and opinions on hot issues in a more casual way.
Welcome to the chat lounge.
I'm Tien, joining me to discuss China's new rule to seal public security violation records.
Mr. Bai Xingyue, partner of a grand old law firm, Tianjin Office in China.
Professor Joseph Mahoney, professor of politics and international relations, East China Normal University.
And Professor Qi Qian, a fellow of the Belt and Road Research Center, Wenzhou University of China.
It's great to have you all back on the chat, gentlemen.
So the newly revised public security administration punishment law introduces a ceiling mechanism for public security violation records under article one three, six.
So Xianrui, can you first tell us which records will be sealed and what does this change actually mean?
Well, according to the latest amendment to this piece of law, some of the so-called records to be sealed really focus on some of the minor offenses which, under Chinese law as it stands at the moment, would usually be categorized as some administrative.
You know, some of the offenses that would be subject to administrative sanction instead of a criminal offense.
So basically, those offenses hasn't reached a level that would be, you know, subject to criminal sanction including, for example, like drug abuse, possession of opium, using of those prohibited drugs including, you know, using selling, etc.
And some of the drugs that are intended for psychological diseases in a hospital, etc.
So those offenses in the past, from the perspective of those who are sanctioned, wouldn't make much difference for them in terms of many ways, because those offenses would have a huge impact on those people.
Although they, legally speaking, haven't committed any criminal offense and haven't been subject to any criminal offense as well.
So it's kind of unfair and make things much difficult for those offenders in terms of finding a job, changing their career, all types of activities, all types of their endeavors in society.
Well, there's consequently being subject to discrimination and there's a lot of adverse impact on their life.
So these changes will, from now on, upon coming to effect, those so-called administrative offenses will not be easily disclosed to just anyone.
Because previously those records are easily available.
They are made public just basically many people can access those records.
And all the government agencies, they're not under an obligation to keep them confidential.
So from now on hopefully, because it's not a criminal offense like DUI, you know, driving under influence or drunken driving, etc.
Those will, I guess from now on will be well, once it comes into effect, of course, will be something that not everybody can easily access, not easily accessible, to be disclosed to the public, not to be publicized and not everyone can have access to it.
But those records are still accessible to some particular agencies like kindergarten or ride-hailing companies and security companies, right?
Of course there are exceptions for sure, like the judicial authorities, the police, the public prosecutors, etc.
So for some of the designated legitimate reasons, they can be disclosed.
They can be accessed by certain authorized personnel.
All right.
And Chang, do you see it as a historic reform?
I don't think this is a historic.
If you're talking about general law, about misdemeanor, I think China actually in the previous law enforcement practice, especially in the past 10 years or even five years, you're going to see the basic spirit for legislation changed.
Or the revision of the law actually has been shifting a little bit.
And I think this has been following the trend of the globalization, because China is opening up to the whole world, which means trying to have this kind of demand to reaching out to the international legal standard.
So, which means in China, lots of judgment indictment actually will need to take reference of international common practices.
So actually there's a trend recently in the international society that is for the misdemeanor, which is very light crime.
Actually, the offender will deserve a second chance.
So I think that's the general spirit all over the world right now.
So if China – just consider that.
If you want to welcome more of the international investors, international students, international tourists when they come to China.
Due to the negligence, due to the carelessness, due to the differences of the culture, there is a possibility that some of them will offend this misdemeanor.
And also domestic citizens will sometimes also due to the similar reason.
So now you cannot have two laws, right?
One facing foreigners, one facing your own citizens.
So you have to use the same standard for the same crime.
So for misdemeanors.
If we want to welcome the international standards, I think we should follow the same rule.
So they deserve a second chance or do not let them be haunted by just one offense.
I think that's the whole thing when it started.
In occurrence practices, we see many things.
For example, drunk and drive.
Yes, if you are a civil servant, well, it can be haunting you for a whole life.
But if you're just a normal citizen and if your drunk and drive behavior does not hurt anyone, just caught by regular inspections and that kind of a record will be due with the same kind of treatment.
Well, it will not be publicized to the public.
And only law enforcement will know that you have this record.
But the other people who do not necessarily need to know will not need to know.
And also about some other misdemeanors. we also have a cooling down period of time for example after five years you're good to go and meanwhile i think same thing happened with the financial area for example central bank also said if you actually you know breached your credit record for example you delayed your payment on your credit card you know, or your bank loans, and you will get into this credit, you know, list in the government.
Well, previously, it's going to be really bad.
You cannot get loan, you cannot borrow money and you are not allowed to use all kinds of banking services related to credit.
And now Governor Pan Gongsheng actually said well, we consider that if you're not out of your subjective, you know willingness, and you are forced to do so because you're really in a very bad financial situation.
Well, we will give you five years of cooling down period of time.
And after that, you're good to go.
Your credit will be hidden.
And then you'll offend it a second time.
And then you'll get the more serious punishment.
So I think this kind of spirit has become a common practice in all kinds of legal-related areas.
Right.
I think that's called a purging practice in countries like Germany.
But anyway, the spirit behind it is basically the same thing.
So like Chang just mentioned, it's... kind of get China in line with international practice.
So Joseph, as an American, what's your evaluation of this revised legislation or rule?
You think it's a lift the country to the international standards?
Well, I think the first point is I think a lot of listeners, at least international listeners, wouldn't understand the distinction between administrative law and criminal law in China.
I know that Cheng was using the word misdemeanor.
I don't know that that's the word that we would use in China, but I assume that he means administrative law offenses largely.
China does have this dual system of administrative law and criminal law.
With the administrative law, you tend to have a lower judicial standard.
You don't necessarily have police investigations.
They're simply sort of a finding of offense.
For example, you were caught speeding, you were caught with evidence of drug use or possession, and the level of the violation corresponds with a lower level, and therefore it can be adjudicated through administrative means.
Whereas more serious offenses violent crime, gross forms of corruption, so forth and so on these would be criminal offenses that we go through the judicial system, be investigated prosecuted, so forth, and so on.
So that's, I think, the first thing that listeners should understand.
The second thing is We've seen China in the last five or six years really accelerating the development of administrative law.
I think the other two guests can speak more directly to this or more expertly.
But one of the things that we've seen in some of the international narratives about these developments have been largely negative.
In other words, the idea that China was transferring laws or criminal offenses to the administrative category, which meant that they didn't have to go through the judicial system and therefore the system could just impose offenses without due process.
I think what we're seeing here is that China is actually trying to use the administrative system function to not simply take some of the burden off the courts, but also to mitigate some of the penalties and some of the long-term consequences of minor lawbreaking.
And so it's probably more progressive in terms of how it's actually being applied in China than some of the international critics have suggested that it might otherwise be.
The next point that I would raise is I don't think this is primarily about international visitors or arrivals, or students.
I would suggest that there's much lower tolerance for foreigners than for Chinese generally.
If it's determined that you have a criminal record, or if you legally use drugs, even under a doctor's supervision, in the United States that are considered illegal in China and then you're tested in China, you can face administrative sanction and deportation for that.
And I don't think that this change in the law has anything to do with those sorts of implications.
I think that what we're talking about here are really just Chinese people who have been found guilty of an administrative offense and after a period of time they might be able to have that record sealed and not have to carry it forward.
I do think it is an overall progressive development.
I do think it has more to do with Chinese students and certainly potentially Chinese who studied abroad or worked abroad, as they're coming back now, as a lot of them are.
The Chat Lounge.
The Chat Lounge unpacks views and opinions on hot issues in a more casual way.
There's a huge, literally a huge outcry in this country.
The ceiling of drug use records sparked a particularly intense concern nationwide.
Chang, can I ask why this issue specifically?
Because Chinese people really do have this kind of a hatred or very bad memory about the drugs.
Like just record 1840.
That's the first time when uh, the great britain's using the opium to bridge china's sovereign rights and started a war.
And ever since that moment china has been falling from a very important nation, the whole world, a great and ancient civilization, to half colonized, you know, by the western powers.
And the drug has been used frequently by, you know, the british, and by americans, by japanese, by franches.
They've been using this drug to poison chinese people, taking away, robbing away chinese wealth and destroy the whole spirit of our people.
So this kind of the bloody, sanguinating kind of history actually has been lingering and haunting the whole nation for centuries.
So, ever since the founding of the new China, I think the number one thing we need to do is try to root cut the drug in China.
So fighting against the drug is basically the same thing as the national spirit when new China was established.
This is our, you know, funding spirit of the whole nation.
I think that's the reason why people understand that so importantly.
And also even though currently, when China has reformed and opening up, when Western influences are coming into China, we find out.
You know, some bad things also happen with this kind of a trend.
For example, So many of the so-called modern behavior has been introduced in with rock music, with everything, with the Beatles, with the hippies movement.
The use of drug.
Drug abusing has also been coming in to become a fashionable practice by the young people.
And ever since that time, there's a new wave of using drug also coming back to China.
We've been seeing heroin.
We've been seeing the ICE-related crime has been coming up.
And also, young people, there is a trend among young people that using cannabis is not using drugs.
It's just fashionable behavior.
So young people argue this is our freedom to do so and that will not cause addiction of the cannabis.
All these kind of voices are forming this kind of related crime.
They're coming up and up, and the numbers and also related damages are happening.
So the whole society becomes so alert about this coming back.
And also, plus, what we have just mentioned, the historic memories.
And people are thinking, we're going to stop that, this biting movement.
We're not going to let that happen again or evolving into the situation in America or in Thailand or in Japan.
But when young people are using that and the government has a very vague line in Thailand, in Japan well, you can use it as long as you're not caught.
In America, in Canada, they even just legalize the use of a certain kind of drugs by categorization.
So, yeah, morally, I can tell you 100 times, it is a goddamn wrong thing.
You should never do that.
But if you're talking about the legal issues, if you're talking about legislation and the rule of law, then this is a very different situation.
We're talking about technical issues.
We're talking about the legal legislation spirit, because you have to understand morality are supposed to be the roof of a nation in their spirit world.
But the legislation is like the floor of a whole society.
So you cannot use this kind of the highest moral standard to judge the spirit of legislation.
But some argue that drug abuse or use of narcotics is an entirely different one from other misbehavior or misconduct, or whatever you call it.
They're fearing that the system actually weakens Even if the intention isn't to encourage experimentation, lighter consequences may lead some people to take risks.
Is this concern justified?
No, it's not justified.
Well, as I mentioned, from morality standard, yeah, 100%, that's correct.
We will never allow that to happen with anybody to any extent.
But we're talking about legislation.
Then you will have a very different standard.
So if you're gonna say okay, using narcotics or drugs are very different from the other behaviors like drunk drive or something else, then you need to have a standard.
Well, by what standard do you think that is more serious?
Well, if you use drugs, you kill more people than drunk and drive.
Well, actually, drunk and drive kills more people.
So does that mean we need to stop selling the alcohol?
Or you're saying they have bad social influences, and then you need to tell me how, in what way.
Then you have to tell... They are not illegal, right?
But this use of drugs used to be illegal.
So they're arguing that you dare to say you can seal it off today and tomorrow someone will dare to tell a kid to try it.
No consequences, no way to trace it back to you.
Then how much will it increase the likelihood that people will try drugs for the first time?
And what does that imply?
Well, sometimes we need to do the things with education.
You cannot just use the law to do everything.
Law is not everything.
Law is just a bottom line, like you just mentioned.
You have to use your education, your health education, your public education system to let the young people know about this argument, about the damage.
Education is not about everything because you can educate people, don't commit crimes.
But once they're committed, the committer should be punished.
That's what people are arguing.
Let me ask Xianyue, what does this ceiling mean?
I think, well, this is the right question to ask.
Well, the latest amendment to this piece of law has nothing to do with the sanction itself, really.
It doesn't change anything regarding the penalty, the standard of a penalty, how it is applied, etc.
It's simply to make the consequence less difficult for those who are affected, those minor administrative offense type of things.
But in terms of the seal, it's really a matter of making this type of data that is related to this type of administrative offenses less easily available or accessible to just anyone in the public.
Of course, it is still, as we discussed just now, still accessible to the judiciary, to the police, to the public prosecutors, you know, some of the government agencies, etc.
So the idea is really to mitigate some of the adverse impact on the people, including those offenders and their family members as well, because this will be a blemish that is to be carried by the offenders as well as the family members, simply because of the fact that those information was not, under any restrictive measures, to be kept confidential.
You end up with everybody knows that, although it's a minor offense, but basically everybody knows it.
When you seek employment, when you move to a new place, when you want to have a job in some of the government agencies.
Whatever the impact is long lasting.
It never goes away.
You're haunted for the rest of your life.
So this is a bit unfair.
And the consequence is too much.
It's kind of a disproportional. to the offenses that it committed.
And there should be some measures to protect this type of people who are affected by this.
And they deserve a second chance.
They should be given an opportunity, you know, to sort of have a new life, to start afresh.
Although the consequences could be a bit, you know debatable, a bit controversial.
You do see some of the different sort of views of this change.
Of course, to a certain extent it kind of condones some of the, although administrative, but it still is something, not something good to see happening.
So to a certain extent, it incentivizes those minor offenses.
But I guess overall, the idea is, I think, something lofty is go to pursue.
So, of course, there's a balance to be struck.
There are certain areas that are really gray.
It's hard to make a distinction.
It's difficult to say this is 100.
It's not a black and white thing.
Like you said, the intention in the first place may be benign or maybe good, but the consequences could be, you know, out of expectation.
Or, like I think Joseph mentioned, there are also concerns that I might not be able to tell whom I'm working with right.
It may be a drug dealer. abuser if he's not getting along with someone else.
He might do some nasty things to his colleagues or something undesired.
So people are saying that this literally exposed the entire or a lot of people to enormous risks.
Is that claim overstated?
Well, let me add something to that.
In a city like Shanghai, there are a lot of bars and a lot of young people Go to the bars.
I have children that I raised here.
I tell my children, stay away from people who do this.
You don't want to get my children don't do it.
But or if someone is smoking marijuana, you need to stay away from them.
Not only because you could be considered guilty by association, not only because you're a foreigner you could be deported, as opposed to a Chinese who would simply face an administrative sanction.
But also because if, even if someone's smoking nearby and you don't even know them, you need to know what marijuana smoke smells like, because it can get in your hair.
Just the smoke can get in your hair.
And then if you get your hair tested, you'll test positive, even though you never use the drug.
So, you know, there is, I think, sort of this incredible vulnerability that a lot of people face because of these rules and because of the ways that they're sometimes enforced.
At the same time, I would push back a little bit and say is the case that I wouldn't call it morality, although that's not the wrong word.
But you know, a society has its ideas and its values.
And clearly a very large part of Chinese society is very opposed to illegal drug use.
And given the fact that so many people are now being exposed to drugs and drug culture, given the incredible normalization of cannabis and cannabis related products that we've seen in the United States, in Europe,
And in Europe, it's not just cannabis.
It's, you know, cocaine is extremely normal.
But the bottom line is I think there is some concern, and should be some concern, that we don't want China moving in that direction, because I don't think it's personally, as someone who's observed this in the United States and in the West, I don't think it's good for a society to move in that direction.
I think, for example you know we have in the United States, A lot of people are using so-called medical marijuana or CBD products or other things to handle their stress and anxiety.
The real reason is why do we have so much stress and anxiety in modern society?
And maybe we should find more constructive ways to deal with those problems instead of legalizing drugs that have other negative social and health effects to compensate for those problems.
I hear people in China, some young people, saying the same thing, who talk about why we should have decriminalization of marijuana.
Oh, because we face so much stress, the industrial education system and these very stressful situations.
I think that's the wrong path to take, not only because it's out of step with Chinese civilization or civilizational values.
It's merely sort of trying to cover up one problem with another.
And also, it's something that people are saying that they fear that's kind of like a slippery slope.
First, you know, sealing minor offenses like drug use, then gradually loosening drug policies, eventually mirroring marijuana legalization in parts of the West.
So...
Is this anxiety unfounded or could it shape future policy evolution?
It's not unfounded.
I think that the policy change is a smart change.
It's moving in the right direction.
But you said that there are a lot of concerns, right?
There are a lot of concerns.
The key is how to dispel those concerns.
This has been The Chat Lounge.
With millions speaking out online, could public pressure reshape how the role is ultimately implemented?
That's coming up next.
Stay tuned.
The best military commander is not he who fights a hundred battles and wins every one of them.
The best military strategy does not lead to the desiccation of the enemy's capital city.
Decoding the art of war will help you understand why there's no art in war and how Sun Tzu stayed undefeatable using the science of war, with fun stories and insightful breakdown of famous battles.
Find Decoding the Art of War wherever you listen.
Welcome back to the chat lounge.
We continue our chat on why sealing drug use records triggers widespread concern in China.
How to dispel those concerns.
There are two issues.
I think there are two issues here.
Firstly, I think people have made it very clear that they don't want to see a liberalization of drug laws.
Even the sealing of records is something that makes them a little uncomfortable.
I'm suggesting that the sealing of records is probably a smart decision, given all the other issues that have been raised.
But I think it's also clear and I don't think we see any indication from the central government that they're interested in liberalizing drug laws.
We don't see that indication even in Hong Kong.
We don't see that in the Republic of Korea or Japan.
We don't see it in the Taiwan region.
Everyone is very clear that this is something that is still zero tolerance.
Again, the only outlier is Thailand.
But there are a lot of exceptions in Thailand that are maybe worse than marijuana use.
But I don't think that that's the trend.
I don't think that's where the government is heading.
I think it's just trying to make sure that young people can continue to invest in their lives and be productive.
And let's keep in mind that young people do face a lot of challenges.
I can draw a parallel here.
It's sort of an awkward parallel, but I was living in Shenyang in 98. by some local accounts.
I don't think this is an official figure.
The real unemployment rate was around 40%.
And people were burning tires on the street for warmth in the winter.
You know you'd have snow fall and within two hours the snow would be black from all the particulates falling out of the sky.
And this was because we had accelerated reform and opening up.
We had the collapse of the old industry.
And because that had moved so quickly, Shenyang became unfortunately, the center for organized crime in China.
And later, the party secretary and the mayor would be executed for gross corruption and all of that.
So Shenyang became sort of a lesson of how we needed to handle reforms in a more orderly and responsible way.
That said, I used to go for walks in the parks in Shenyang.
And what would I see in the parks?
I would see discarded injection drug kits.
People who were shooting up in the parks with heroin or other hard drugs.
And this was something that was related in part to the presence of organized crime, but more substantially because Shenyang was undergoing a hard time at that time.
You know, people were struggling.
Now, we don't have anything comparable like that in China today.
We're in a much better position.
My point is that when societies go through challenges, we tend to see an increase in crime and we tend to see an increase in illegal drug use as populations face stress.
People are not saying that the young people committing some light crimes are not forgivable, but they are just asking why not just differentiate?
What I'm saying is right now.
What the stakes are here really is whether or not we are able to ensure that young people, who may have indiscretions for whatever reason, for whatever pressures, for whatever misguided steps they take because of international norms that are likely moving in the wrong direction, whether or not they're going to be able to continue to move forward in a productive way in society, when what we really really need to be careful of in the relatively smaller young population and the need to be able to cultivate them to be responsible citizens in the future, is to ensure that they feel, do have these opportunities to take care of themselves, because they're going to take care of us.
Yeah.
It's not like all young people.
As long as they're young, they automatically deserve to be forgiven when they commit serious crimes.
But this is where classification can come into play, right?
So people are asking why you know classify or distinguishing different offenses and the verifying degrees of harm they cause.
Why not classify them instead of just simply say, their records should be sealed.
So, Shen Yue, what's your take here?
Well, that's a good point.
I guess it takes a whole package of different measures and sort of appropriate responses or reactions from all circles of life, different government agencies, different ways of doing things etc.
To remedy this unintended consequence of the previous practice, the previous law including, for example, as what you said.
That is, to categorize different crimes, different administrative offenses into different ways of being treated by the society.
For example, some of the second or third offenses probably should be subject to more severe sanctions.
And for those first-time offenders or really minor offenses, they should be given a much less astringent sort of a sanction.
And part of the purpose of sealing this record, I guess, is to offer more protection to those first-time offenders.
And a unified sanction across the board would have, as I said, unintended consequences.
That is not the right way to do things.
Of course, there are other measures that should be taken.
As I said, it's a pretty complicated issue.
It's much, much more complex than what the other guest speakers just mentioned.
I think this takes a whole package of different things.
For example, the law itself has its limits.
It's pretty obvious.
There's only certain things that the law can achieve.
When it comes to some of the manna offenses, the drug use or whatever I mean, it takes a lot of other part of the society to be part of it to be taking some more proactive.
You know, actions like education, the parenting.
A kid growing up in a single parent family certainly would tend to have more problems or easily susceptible to some of the bad influences of society.
And you know, spending time with the kids the parents are usually too busy, you know doesn't have much chances to Spend time with the kids.
They're under very stressful work commitment, for example, too much other responsibilities.
And also education of the kids, schooling.
The school should probably take some more measures, etc.
So you know, if you can ever hope on the law itself, on the legislation, on the law enforcement, you know that's already too late.
You know things should have in the measures, the precautionary measures.
Some of the risks happens much earlier than when it comes to the stage of law enforcement, when it comes to the sanction of the offenders.
So again, as I said, it's a much, much more complicated issue than the law itself.
I think another reason for the public outcry concerns the transparency of those process.
Some question why the public learned of this major change barely a month before implementation, because earlier drafts never mentioned sealing or applied it only to minors.
So no public feedback around discussive sealing drug use records for adults.
Yet about one month before implementation, Article 136 had quietly expanded ceiling to all public security violations, including drug use.
So, Shengrui, what do you make of this criticism about opacity?
I guess it has a lot to do with the way the Chinese legislation is structured, and you know the way things are run.
You know, the legislation is really mainly the responsibility of the legislature of China.
Sometimes it's not a sort of a mandatory process for the public to be involved in the process of legislation, which should be the right way to adopt new legislation.
I mean it helps the legislature to have a more comprehensive perspective of things.
You know where things stand, you know what are the public sort of reaction to the new proposal of amendment etc.
And I guess it has also something to do with the pressure, the caseload, the workload of the legislature.
They are extremely busy.
You know, one thing that the public probably don't realize is there's a whole lot of things on their plate to deal with every day.
For example, like the arbitration law, which was recently just amended and just came into force.
It took like more than 20 years to make some major amendment which should have happened much earlier.
Recently, simply sports law, for example, many other major piece of laws are amended recently.
It took much longer than they should have taken, simply because the legislature is overwhelmed by because China is such a huge country.
Legislature is coming up or receiving proposals or suggestions, because the law needs to be constantly amended.
They have to be updated to be, you know, adapting to the new business or economic situation.
You know, things are changing.
You know, society is moving ahead.
And the regulation rules needs to be adopted.
It needs to be amended.
So, as you suggested, yes.
I mean it would be much better and much more effective to involve the general public, to receive more feedback, some more comments, providing a certain period of time for the general public to give their comments and their suggestions.
I guess to absorb those suggestions you would have a much better case of law and more adapted to the society as it stands now.
I'd like to add to that and say I think the point though there is, there's sort of two or three things to note about this from a political perspective.
And the first is, I really think it's marvelous.
You know, we have this proposal that, And now we have a great number of Chinese people questioning whether it's a good idea.
This is, I think, a very relatively progressive form of political engagement.
I think it's an interesting way to interpret this whole thing.
Sure.
But it could be better, right?
So here, one of the challenges that we've seen in the last couple of years is that we've seen the central government floating laws or floating ideas, sometimes through proposed legislation or by maybe floating an idea in an influential publication.
And then we see how the public reacts.
So I think one of the things that would be a little bit better not putting aside the fact that the legislatures at all levels are incredibly overtaxed right now as they try to move forward with the rule of law but it would be useful if someone could take responsibility and come out and explain to people, step by step, why the government thinks this is a good idea and what the limits are.
Now, this is not a step towards liberalizing drug laws.
So here, I think the policy is a good proposal.
I like the way that they're making things public and the way that they are listening and allowing for people to voice their concerns, but they need to do a better job communicating why the policy is a good policy, why the change is a good change, and they need to engage the public in that way if they want to create a much richer discussion of legal reform.
Yeah, may i, if i may, add one more thing?
So this type of a conversation that Professor Mahoney mentioned it does happen sometimes, but not always.
So it's purely at the discretion of the legislature whether to do that or not.
But of course it'd be nice to be able to produce a better piece of law if we have that conversation constantly, because the legislature might have its own thoughts and ideas about what type of a piece of law need to engage the public and to seek their opinion, their reaction.
A proposal suggestion, whatever.
But I guess, if you know, let's have a kind of institutionalized, this type of arrangement, that would be much more effective.
And we'll have a better prepared piece of law that is really, you know, suitable or well adapted to the current circumstances of the society.
We'll come to more about the public opinion solicitation later on.
But I wanted to put this question to Chang, but he's left for some emergency meeting.
But I'll ask Joseph.
Many ask, if we give drug users another chance, who gives fallen narcotics officers another chance?
You know, police departments, especially those in Yunnan province, which is renowned for, I should say, cracking down on drug crimes, have posted tributes to anti-drug heroes and expressed confusion or opposition to ceding drug use records.
So as an American, Can you understand this or how would you respond to the sentiment?
You mean, how can I respond to those people who are really, really unhappy about this?
Yeah, there are a lot of police officers who sacrifice their lives in cracking down on illegal drug crimes.
And people are saying, when it comes to drug crimes, even if it's just a minor one, it's not tolerable in this society.
There is this tremendous anti-drug cultural value in China.
And it was made clear already by John why that's the case.
And so if you are choosing to use drugs, and there are people who make that choice.
I'm not talking about the incidental person who gets caught up in a sting.
But there are people who are choosing to use marijuana on a regular basis.
And they're doing so for whatever reason.
But the bottom line is they're flaunting the law and they're flaunting the sociocultural value.
It's not unreasonable that society would say okay, that's an indication of someone who is really dangerous.
This is an indication of someone who is not only violating the law, but running very contrary to something that is very important to a lot of Chinese people.
And so I think that's where that concern is located.
The Chat Lounge.
The Chat Lounge unpacks views and opinions on hot issues in a more casual way.
And I got another question concerning the sealing.
For example, right now, if two people are getting married, they can go to the police station by mutual consent, request a certificate showing no criminal record.
But once the record is sealed, such a certificate can no longer be issued, potentially actually exposing them to greater risks.
Is that so, Shengrui?
Well, I don't know the answer to this specific question, but I guess it would be controversial in the first place.
On the one hand.
I mean you know two couples getting married to each other.
I guess you know culturally, that's something that you know being you're going to be a couple.
You're getting married to each other.
You know this is a huge commitment and the biggest commitment ever, one of the biggest commitment in life.
I guess you know the other party is supposed to be, just you know, honest about what happened or whether there is any such offense.
And from the police perspective, I guess, as long as the guy who had committed any drug abuse type of offense, as long as he consents himself consents, I guess, the police station or whoever, I mean the government authorities I guess it would be fine to release that type of information to anyone that he himself agrees to.
So I just don't see any reason why that should not be the case.
And also I think I'd be surprised if you know the couple who are getting married has to go to the police station to get something that he himself knows well.
That would be, you know, a bit bizarre for the even.
You know they do go to the police station and the police release that record, basically showing that he has committed some offense.
That would be extremely embarrassing.
The other party would definitely be pissed off.
You know, why this type of thing should happen in the first place?
That would be very bizarre, I think.
But they got this legitimate right, right?
If the sealing policy is enforced, literally, they don't have the right to do so.
You mean to obtain the information related to this Halloween fest?
As I said just now, the person himself, because he's the one who is sanctioned, who is penalized for this.
So what is the point of, you know, kind of denying the access by himself to this type of information?
What purpose does it achieve?
The purpose is that they can know this person completely, right?
Well, there's a possibility.
There's a possibility this might happen.
I just don't know.
I'm not sure.
Well, this type of a bizarre situation might happen, legally speaking, if a role to that effect is put into place.
For example, the access to this type of information will only be available to the law enforcement agencies, the police, the court, whatever.
Yeah, legally speaking, that can happen.
People are just concerned that their legal rights are deprived because of this.
I think it's a very very very, very small issue in terms of the risks and responsibilities that are routinely violated, in terms of how people move through their personal relationships and marriages in China.
All right.
And then to you how might the state balance social reintegration and personal redemption with public safety and zero tolerance drug policies?
I think you've mentioned some of them.
Would mechanisms like observation periods or re-evaluation windows be helpful?
Well yeah, this is a fine line really for the state, for legislature, for the society, I guess, overall to strike a balance really.
It's not easy.
As I said, it's really a complicated and demanding sort of a task to take on.
And, as some of the other two guest speakers mentioned, I guess it takes a lot of sort of a different, you know experiment, you know fine-tuning of the legislation and And it also needs efforts from other government agencies or other stakeholders in this whole thing to really work collaboratively to find the best solution to address this really compression issue.
Because apparently, the very reason that this piece of law is amended is because the negative impact on the general public, given the size of people that has been impacted, is really getting alarmingly difficult and alarmingly sort of urgent.
This is something you have to address.
Of course, going forward, both the legislature and the law enforcement agencies and government agencies, educational institutions schools, et cetera universities, various parties involved, various agencies involved in this whole matter, needs to sort of be wary of any potential risks that might come with this new amendment, this new piece of law.
And we need constantly review how things are progressing, whether the consequence or the result of this well-intended legislation will achieve the result that we desire.
And it's a piece of working constantly in progress.
And we have to also be mindful That, as I said just now, it doesn't take only the law enforcement agency, the government agencies.
It takes much more than that.
And it's a collaborative sort of work that we need to take on together.
So, going forward yeah, let's give it some try and give some time and see whether there's a new amendment, whether there's some more changes we need to adopt.
This is definitely something we will already be aware of, and I believe it definitely will happen.
So it's not a once-for-all type of job.
So you're saying, since a lot of citizens voiced their opposition through social media and government platforms, you're saying this probably could influence the final implementation details.
Well yeah, this could be one of the things that we need to be aware of because, as I said, one of the reasons I think the legislature take step to make this amendment is really.
I guess one purpose is sort of to catch up or, you know, make our legislation to be more or less in line with some of the best practices in other countries, which I guess some of the more developed countries have adopted, you know, previously.
But as Professor Mahoney just mentioned, it has a lot to do at what stage your country is.
China probably had reached a stage where, for example, the US or European countries was at or were at many years ago.
But we need to realize this type of measures or the amendment will not achieve the purpose necessarily.
All the intended result, or intended good result, probably won't last as long as we would wish.
You know, we need to constantly review our legislation and to be aware of.
You know, the things are changing, things are moving and it can be moving very fast.
We probably, you know, in a time of three five, you know seven ten, eight years.
The law needs to be kind of reamended again.
Was there any precedent for suspension of any rules or regulations faced with like a public opposition or outcry?
Well, there were incidents, although I cannot give you right away off the top of my mind, There were instances where, you know, the legislature, they are not, they make mistakes, yeah?
It happens all the time.
It happens in every country.
So sometimes the law probably is sort of you know, nodding the how do you call it?
Out of step with the current state of the society.
Sometimes
And sometimes they, you know, have to, Or the suspension of a certain piece of law or a certain piece of amendment and they change their mind, or being, you know, being quickly, sort of amended again.
It happens sometimes, I have to say.
You know, nobody is perfect.
Yeah, that's true.
Then, Joseph, a quick question.
What can we learn from an American experience or lessons?
Well, I think there are two lessons to learn.
The first is, you know, generally speaking, for most offenses committed by minors, in other words people younger than the age of 18, the minor record will be sealed and there are certain legal protections that people enjoy so that this information can't be made public.
Now, if a minor commits a very serious felony, in some cases they might be tried as an adult, at which point their name and their crime would become public knowledge, and they may even be incarcerated, firstly in a juvenile facility and then thereafter in an adult prison.
So I do think that once we start talking about okay, we're talking about minors, we're talking about children, people younger than the age of 18.
Or are we talking about even university students, people who are in their 20s?
We're talking about workers, factory workers, young factory workers in Dongguo or someplace if they are using drugs to help them sustain their position on the line.
So when we start talking about why do people do it, what age, I think that there should be some ability to distinguish and to empower people, local authorities, to weigh things on a case-by-case basis.
I do think that there can be a wide number of mitigating circumstances.
Nevertheless, I think that Chinese law is trying to become more sophisticated, more just, more manageable, and this is creating some uncomfortable moments.
Again, I think that sealing the record is moving in the right direction.
But at the same time, I think the thing that—and all of that we can learn from certain Western countries—
But at the same time I do think we have to be very careful about not moving in the same direction of drug liberalization that we've seen in the West, for two reasons.
First again, because it would be fundamentally out of step with Chinese culture and civilization, and not just Chinese culture and civilization, but all the surrounding regions as well.
And secondarily, I don't think that the decriminalization of Let's not say decriminalization, but the legalization of certain types of drugs has made the United States a better place.
I don't think it's made the people a healthier people.
I don't think it's made society more capable of advancing and serving either society's purposes or individual purposes.
I think quite the opposite.
I frankly wonder, given the problems with alcoholism, given the problems with prescription drugs, given the problems with illegal drugs, given the problems with now legal but formerly illegal drugs,
I often wonder how many people in the United States are sober.
What percentage of the population is sober on a normal basis?
And I also wonder this because historically we know that when societies have become infected with this type of drug use, we see it with the collapse of the Maya.
We've seen studies indicating that one of the problems in Nazi Germany is that so many of the people were hooked on morphine and other drugs, given the depression and the pain that they the physical pain that they encountered from World War I, And this is part of what allows them to do these inhuman things, because they're so doped up.
And also why they lose ultimately because they can't make clear decisions.
I do think that the US is moving down a dark path, that we've seen other civilizations where they had normalized drug use and it's had a negative impact on the ability of society to manage itself and move forward in a progressive way.
And this is something that China should avoid.
Okay.
And I think Joseph already mentioned that he believes it's unlikely for China to change its attitude toward drugs.
But Ximei, last question for you.
Do you share the concern that the ceiling of drug use records may, step by step, gradually lead to like a legalization of things like marijuana?
And in the long run, could this reform mark a new stage in China's drug control strategy?
To your question.
I think it's very unlikely, extremely unlikely, that we will go that direction, to legalize certain drugs as the practice in some of the countries, like in Netherlands or in the US, a few other countries, I guess Thailand, for example.
I don't think that is culturally unacceptable.
That is really against the traditional values of China.
And I think it really contradicts what we call the socialist value system.
And also that will undermine some of the principles of the current Chinese law in many ways.
But like conceding the record is a different story.
That's a completely different thing.
I guess this is more sort of in line with some of the best practices in some other countries, in the sense that it will afford more protection to some of the people who unfortunately, for whatever reasons, commit this type of a minor, really light administrative offenses, particularly those first-time offenders, and also being aware of the really unfortunate and serious consequences or implications for their personal life, for their families, because the discrimination, the sanctions, is longstanding.
And also it touches upon various aspects of their life, their marriages, their employment, their family members, et cetera.
So this should not have happened.
Those consequences are not intended in the first place by the law.
So those type of concerns were never addressed previously.
They should have been.
So this is kind of a remedy measures to be taken to sort of clean up some of the unintended consequences, to remedy some of the adverse impact on those people.
And this thing should not have happened in the first place.
Again, I think going back to the first question, I think that will be a huge change if that happens.
But as I said, That is extremely unlikely.
So I just don't see this will happen in the next 20, 30 years.
This is really out of the question.
The legislature would be completely sort of.
You know, there has to be a complete shake-up for this type of legislation to happen.
On that note, we wrap up our chat for this session.
Many thanks to Mr. Bai Xingyuan, partner of Grandol Law Firm Tianjin Office.
Professor Joseph Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations, East China Normal University, and Professor Chi Chang, Fellow Belt and Road Research Center, Pingsu University of China.
We'd love to know what you think.
Drop us a line anytime at radio at cgtn.com.
Thank you and join us for more chat at the chat lounge next week.
Talk to you soon.
Tales of Chinese Children is a collection of fairy tales and fables written by Edith Eaton, one of the first Asian American women writers from the turn of the 20th century.
Edith focused on children who were treasured.
They are the sweetest gift of all.
Lost.
Get away from me.
Get away from me!
Or misunderstood.
My son, the evil spirit in your sister had almost lost you to me.
In the complicated adult world and much more.
Search for Books and Beyond on radiocgtncom and all major podcast platforms, to delve into an audio journey which allows the sound to linger around and above you for stunning realism.
