Why Did a Citizen Use a “Reminder” to Pursue a Written Decision?

On March 17, 2026, at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport, Feng Zhenghu and his wife had completed baggage check-in, passed through customs, and were preparing to travel to Japan to visit relatives with boarding passes for flight JL082. At the departure inspection checkpoint, he was stopped.

The border inspection police gave a brief verbal explanation: under Item 5 of Article 12 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China—“may endanger national security and interests”—the relevant competent department of the State Council had decided not to allow him to leave the country. Feng Zhenghu therefore concluded that the competent department should be the Ministry of Public Security, and that the specific agency handling the matter might be connected to the Ministry of Public Security’s Political Security Protection Bureau. However, from beginning to end, he never received any written Decision on Restricting Exit. Being “stopped” was real, but “what was the basis?” has remained a black hole in legal terms.

Step One: Applying to Disclose Three Key Pieces of Information

On March 25, 2026, Feng Zhenghu chose a lawful and restrained course of action. Relying on the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Government Information Disclosure, he mailed the Ministry of Public Security an Application for Government Information Disclosure and three Ministry of Public Security Government Information Disclosure Application Forms, corresponding to three requests:

1. The document number of the document made or retained by the Ministry of Public Security concerning “not allowing Feng Zhenghu to leave the country”;

2. The contents or original of the above-mentioned document;

3. The duration of Feng Zhenghu’s restriction on leaving the country—that is, the year, month and day on which it would end.

The attached materials were clear and complete: the Japanese visa, the purchase receipt for the round-trip air tickets, the boarding pass from the day he was stopped, and a copy of his identity card. The EMS mailing record showed that the Ministry of Public Security’s Government Information Disclosure Office signed for the materials on March 26, 2026 (tracking number: 1155329975874).

These three requests were highly targeted—they did not broadly demand “an explanation,” but went directly to the core verifiable elements of an administrative decision: whether a document existed, what the document said, and when the restriction would end. If “not allowing someone to leave the country” was a formal decision, then it should exist in written form and be capable of being indexed, consulted and challenged.

Step Two: Pursuing Answers After the Silence

Under Article 33 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Government Information Disclosure, where an administrative agency cannot respond on the spot, it must provide a written response within 20 working days of receiving the application. If an extension is genuinely necessary, the extension may not exceed 20 working days, and the applicant must be notified. Feng Zhenghu’s application was signed for on March 26, 2026. Excluding the statutory holiday for the Qingming Festival, the statutory deadline for a response expired on April 22, 2026.

However, as of April 22, he had received no response. There was no notice of acceptance, no notification requesting supplementation or correction, no explanation of an extension, no response stating that the information did not exist, and no decision refusing disclosure.

Several more days passed, and there was still nothing.

On April 28, 2026, Feng Zhenghu separately sent the Ministry of Public Security’s Government Information Disclosure Office a legal document titled Reminder Regarding the Failure to Respond Within the Time Limit to the Application for Government Information Disclosure. This was not an attachment to the March application, nor was it an informal inquiry sent on the spur of the moment—but a rigorously structured document asserting his rights.

The logic of the reminder was clear and restrained: (1) set out the basic facts of the original application and the list of attachments; (2) cite the legal provisions and establish that the statutory deadline for a response had passed; (3) demand that the Ministry of Public Security “immediately perform its legal duty to respond to the government information disclosure application”; (4) if the information fell within the scope of information that could not be disclosed, request a written explanation of the reasons and legal basis; and (5) if the information had not been made or retained by the Ministry of Public Security, request that it legally notify him of the means of obtaining it.

In the reminder, Feng Zhenghu also made a noteworthy statement: “The applicant sincerely hopes that this incident was delayed due to an oversight in work or poor communication, and that it can be properly resolved without the need to initiate subsequent legal proceedings.” This was an extended hand, giving the other side room to provide a dignified response. At the same time, however, the reminder clearly stated the next avenues of legal redress: if there was still no response, he would apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit in accordance with the law.

Why Is a Written Decision So Important?

Many people may ask: Isn’t it simply that he was verbally told he could not leave the country? Why insist on that piece of paper?

The answer is this: without a written decision, there is no effective avenue for redress.

If the person concerned hears only a verbal notification, he cannot determine which agency made the decision, which document it was based on, which provision was applied, or how long the restriction was set to last. Yet these pieces of information are precisely the basis for applying for administrative reconsideration or filing an administrative lawsuit. Without them, a citizen before the legal process is effectively “a blind man trying to identify an elephant”—aware that his rights have been restricted, but unable to precisely identify the specific action that imposed the restriction.

In other words, a verbal notification may provide the “result,” but only a written document can provide the “basis subject to review.” The role of government information disclosure here is precisely to bring the operation of administrative power onto a visible track where it can be documented in text, understood through logic, and followed through procedure.

Conclusion: The Pursuit of Answers Is Itself an Exercise of Rights

In the reminder, Feng Zhenghu wrote that he “travels to Japan every year to visit relatives and sightsee; all of his trips in previous years were normal and lawful, and he has never engaged in any conduct endangering national security.” A normal departure was stopped, with the reason generalized to “may endanger”—the space between those two words is large enough to contain any citizen’s anxiety.

Yet he did not respond to this anxiety through emotional confrontation. Instead, he proceeded step by step along the path laid out by the law: first applying for government information disclosure, then issuing a reminder, and possibly next turning to administrative reconsideration or litigation. Each step had a clear legal basis, a definite timeline and a complete chain of evidence.

To outside observers, this may have been merely “one person sending a letter to a huge institution.” But measured by the standards of the rule of law, the letter meant that a citizen was exercising his right to know and demanding that power respond according to the procedural rules it had itself established. Its weight came precisely from its restraint and legality. It did not make any grand declaration, but expressed a simple yet forceful message: “Under the regulations, you should respond to me.”