[Cross-Strait] RFI: Too Many "Possibilities" - China's New Exit-Entry Regulations Cause Anxiety
RtiTalk 小編12d ago
A "Regulations on Exit and Entry Administration by the State Council" in China, which was not prominently launched, has caused considerable panic. Online comments show some people comforting themselves, thinking it has little to do with ordinary people. However, others believe that the regulations are vague on the surface but highly subjective and arbitrary in reality, forming an invisible net that can ensnare anyone, ordinary or not.
According to a report by the Chinese website of Radio France Internationale (RFI), the new regulations repeatedly use the word "possible," granting immense flexibility and broad scope. Individuals may be prohibited from exiting the country based on "possible" speculation. Furthermore, provincial governments, the Ministry of Commerce, and even county-level authorities can prohibit individuals from exiting based on "potential harm."
The "Passport Law of the People's Republic of China" was officially implemented in 2007, allowing Chinese citizens to apply for passports and travel abroad without any conditions. It has been less than 20 years since then. However, the new regulations significantly increase restrictions and border controls on exit and entry, with a very broad scope, potentially leading to many difficulties for those wishing to leave the country from now on.
Regarding the provision to dissuade travel to high-risk countries and regions, some netizens question why China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued multiple reminders and warnings for countries like the United States and Japan. Specifically for Japan, from July 2025 to March 2026, China issued at least five safety reminders, escalating the wording from "cautious travel" to "avoid travel." Yet, for countries like Myanmar and Cambodia, where Chinese citizens have been repeatedly kidnapped, no "safety reminders" have been issued, nor have they been listed as high-risk countries and regions.
It is reported that information exposed on social media platforms indicates the new regulations will take effect on September 15th. Some Chinese state-owned enterprises not involved in confidential business have already begun tightening approval for employee exits. An employee posted on August 2nd that their company has listed Japan as a "high-risk region" and prohibits travel there, as well as to the Philippines.
The mandatory provision to "dissuade travel to "high-risk countries and regions" when necessary" will have significant consequences for individuals planning to study, travel, conduct business, or visit relatives in related regions, undoubtedly leading to unpredictable outcomes for personal lives, plans, and financial investments.
The new regulations' requirement for relevant agencies to "request the presentation and provision of relevant documents, materials, electronic data, and other information" when verifying the reasons for exit and entry applications has also raised many questions. Specifically, what is meant by "electronic data and other information"? It likely refers to the content on personal mobile phones and computers, including information exchanged on social media. Such data is private, and conversations are often casual, but they could potentially violate the new regulations' mention of "publishing false information, exaggerated publicity, or misleading publicity," leading to a ban on exiting the country.
Article 4 stipulates: "Chinese citizens engaged in illegal activities abroad that endanger national security and interests shall be prohibited from exiting the country for a period of 6 months to 3 years from the date of their return." Analysts believe this clearly refers to overseas words and actions by citizens that are deemed non-compliant by the authorities, carrying a threatening nature and potentially creating a chilling effect: "Even though you are abroad, you must be careful in your conduct." The question is, what exactly constitutes "endangering national security and interests," where are the boundaries, and what are the standards? Some worry that posting something or saying something abroad could be deemed as such.
Another provision states: "If national industrial security or technological security may be endangered, relevant competent departments such as the Ministry of Commerce of the State Council may decide to prohibit their exit." This leaves many individuals engaged in semiconductor, artificial intelligence development, data, and other industries in a state of uncertainty.
What exactly constitutes "endangering national industrial security"? Netizen Finging analyzes that someone involved in chip foreign trade, technical consulting, or even someone who says the wrong thing on overseas social media could theoretically be caught in this net. Therefore, one should not assume they are safe just because they are a "small figure."
Article 6, in particular, states that for individuals legally decided to be prohibited from exiting, reasons can be provided in writing to the individual, but "may not be informed to the individual" if it "may affect national security, criminal investigation, etc." This deprives individuals of their right to prior knowledge, instantly shattering all their plans, and using a mere "possibility" to deny them any opportunity for judicial review.
The new regulations strengthen supervision over study abroad, immigration, and visa intermediary agencies. However, some netizens believe the most terrifying aspects of the new regulations are: first, the expansion of exit-entry restrictions from specific groups to all individuals departing from Chinese ports, regardless of nationality. Second, the delegation of the power to restrict exit to every grassroots port inspection officer, greatly increasing the risk of abuse of power. Third, the extremely broad review standards make it highly uncertain whether an individual will be allowed to leave the country.
Consequently, border inspection personnel have significant discretionary power, which may lead to expanded interpretations or the risk of escalating measures during implementation. Provincial governments can make decisions, the Ministry of Commerce can block individuals based on "potential harm," and even county-level authorities can decide to prohibit exit, with vague standards. (Editor: Shen Zhenjiang)
Source Link: https://www.rti.org.tw/news?uid=3&pid=224053
How does this article make you feel?
0 people reacted