Feng Zhenghu: A Question for the Rule of Law: Why Have I Applied to the Ministry of Public Security to Revoke the “Exit Restriction” Decision?

By / Feng Zhenghu

March 17, 2026， should have been an ordinary day on which my wife and I set out on a trip to Japan to visit relatives。 I was already holding our boarding passes， and our luggage had been checked in， yet at the customs and border inspection checkpoint， an invisible gate suddenly came crashing down——I was abruptly informed that I was “restricted from leaving the country”。

The reason given was shocking and deeply absurd：“May endanger national security and interests。”

There was no written ban， no specific facts， and no explanation of the duration。 As an ordinary citizen who retired long ago and obeys the law， my elderly wife， who is in poor health， and I were forcibly left inside the country’s borders， and our plans for a family reunion were forced to end。

When public power is exercised without the support of facts and procedural justice， it can easily become an arbitrary constraint。 For this reason， I formally submitted an application for administrative reconsideration to the Political Security Protection Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security。 Today， I have chosen to make this petition public， not only to safeguard my personal lawful rights and interests， but also to defend the basic dignity and freedom that every citizen should enjoy in a society governed by the rule of law。

I. “May Endanger National Security” Should Not Be an Abstract Catch-All Offense

Since 2019， my wife and I have traveled normally between China and Japan every year to visit relatives， holding multiple-entry visas。 Our travel records are transparent and lawful， we have never been subject to any restrictions， and we have never caused any harm to the country or society。

Yet， in the spring of 2026， the relevant authorities blocked me from leaving the country solely on the basis of the abstract statement that I “may endanger national security and interests”。

Within the framework of the modern rule of law， “national security” is an extremely serious legal concept with clearly defined boundaries， not a “catch-all” that can be applied arbitrarily。 Determining whether a citizen “may endanger national security” must be based on specific facts， conclusive evidence， and rigorous logic， and must never be based on subjective speculation， abstract suspicion， or some unspoken internal directive。

Linking an ordinary retired elderly person’s personal trip to Japan to visit relatives with “endangering national security” lacks factual support and defies common sense。 This practice of generalizing and arbitrary use of “national security” is in essence an erosion of the dignity of the country’s laws， as well as a serious abuse of administrative power。

II. Procedural Violations and the Black-Box Operation of an “Invisible Ban”

Even more unacceptable is the extreme lack of due process in this exit restriction decision。

The Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China and relevant laws governing entry and exit administration clearly stipulate that when an administrative authority makes a decision restricting a citizen’s rights， it must issue a formal written document， explain the factual and legal grounds， and inform the person concerned of the channels for seeking redress and the duration of the restriction。

But on March 17， border inspection personnel merely informed me orally and refused to provide any written decision concerning the “exit restriction”， nor did they explain when the restriction would be lifted or what conditions had to be met。 The evidence in my possession—the boarding passes， valid multiple-entry visas， and records of the rejected itinerary—can only prove the objective result that I was stopped， but cannot reach the “invisible ban” concealed behind the scenes。

This “black-box operation,” which leaves no trace and provides no documents， directly deprives citizens of their right to know and their right to make representations， leaving me in the predicament of having “no target to challenge” when seeking legal redress。 Public power must not operate like a ghost， and law enforcement in the open and procedural justice are the baseline of a society governed by the rule of law。

III. The Heavy Humanitarian Cost and Infringement of Rights and Interests

Every arbitrary exercise of administrative power， when it falls upon an ordinary family， is an unbearable burden。

My wife is elderly and in poor health。 This trip to visit relatives was originally intended to fulfill the elderly woman’s long-held wish and provide the comfort of family affection。 Because I was restricted from leaving the country and could not accompany her， my wife was also forced to abandon the trip。 This not only caused us direct financial losses for airfare， accommodation， and other expenses， but also dealt a huge psychological blow to the elderly woman’s physical and mental health。

The foremost task in governing a great country is to ensure the people’s peace and security。 Although the broader climate of China-Japan relations is indeed complex， the normal exchanges of ordinary people and the everyday needs of visiting relatives and friends should rightly be respected and protected by law。 The rash decision by the relevant authorities completely shattered the peace of an ordinary family， and the humanitarian harm it caused is heartbreaking。

IV. My Legal Requests

Based on the facts and legal principles set out above， I have formally submitted the following requests for administrative reconsideration to the Ministry of Public Security：

1. Immediately revoke the “exit restriction” decision made against me by the relevant authorities on March 17， 2026；

2. Immediately suspend enforcement of this unlawful decision， restore my personal freedom and normal right to enter and leave the country， and prevent further irreparable harm to the lawful rights and interests of my family and me；

3. Order the respondent to submit all factual and legal grounds and relevant documentary records underlying the restriction decision， and subject them to legal and public scrutiny。

Conclusion

The essence of the rule of law lies in restraining power through definite rules and safeguarding rights through proper procedures。

By submitting this application for administrative reconsideration， I am not only seeking justice from the Ministry of Public Security， but also posing a question to basic principles of the rule of law。 I firmly believe that no power may stand above the law， and no excuse may deprive citizens of their legitimate and basic human rights。

I hope that the reconsideration authority will uphold the principles of objectivity， impartiality， and compliance with the law， examine this administratively flawed action， correct the error， restore justice to me， and allow ordinary people to genuinely feel the warmth of the law and the strength of the rule of law。