Wang Yajun: Open Letter to the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Calling for a Filing Review of the Constitutionality and Legality of the “Persuasion” Clause in Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the Regulations of the State Council on Exit and Entry Administration

Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress:

Recently, the State Council promulgated Order No. 841, the Regulations of the State Council on Exit and Entry Administration (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”), which took effect on September 15 this year. I believe that the “persuasion” clause in Article 2, Paragraph 3 — “When necessary, Chinese citizens preparing to travel to countries or regions with the highest risk level or where cases that seriously endanger personal safety occur suddenly and frequently shall be dissuaded from traveling there” — although well-intentioned, does not stipulate the legal consequences of ineffective persuasion and could easily result in de facto bans on exit in practice. It is suspected of conflicting with relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Exit and Entry Administration Law, the Administrative Compulsion Law and the Legislation Law. Pursuant to Article 110, Paragraph 2 of the Legislation Law, I hereby submit a proposal for a filing review of the constitutionality and legality of this clause, for the following reasons.

1. There is no legal basis for “persuading” people not to exit, and it is suspected of conflicting with the Exit and Entry Administration Law.

“Persuade” is a verb composed of two morphemes and actions combined: “persuade” (to verbally encourage and guide) and “stop” (to intercept and prevent through action). In other words, if verbal persuasion is not heeded, the next step is to intercept and prevent the person from exiting through action; the legal consequence is that the person is not allowed or is prohibited from exiting. Clearly, this “persuasion” clause grants immigration authorities discretionary power and the power to prohibit exit when accepting and approving Chinese citizens’ applications for exit-entry documents and conducting exit border inspections.

Article 12 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law stipulates six circumstances in which exit is prohibited; these do not include “traveling to countries or regions with the highest risk level or where cases that seriously endanger personal safety occur suddenly and frequently,” as provided in Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the Regulations.

Therefore, the “persuasion” clause in the Regulations has no legal basis and is suspected of conflicting with the above provisions of the Exit and Entry Administration Law.

2. The “persuasion” clause is suspected of conflicting with the Administrative Compulsion Law.

When a citizen does not heed the “persuasion” and is prohibited from exiting, their personal freedom of exit is, in substance, restricted.

Article 9, Item 1 of the Administrative Compulsion Law stipulates: “Types of administrative compulsory measures: (1) Restriction of citizens’ personal freedom.” Article 11, Paragraph 2 stipulates: “Where administrative compulsory measures have not been established by law, administrative regulations and local regulations may not establish administrative compulsory measures.”

The Exit and Entry Administration Law does not establish an administrative compulsory measure restricting personal freedom by prohibiting exit for “Chinese citizens preparing to travel to countries or regions with the highest risk level or where cases that seriously endanger personal safety occur suddenly and frequently.” The “persuasion” clause in the Regulations, however, establishes the act of preventing exit after verbal persuasion has proved ineffective, thereby restricting citizens’ personal freedom to exit in accordance with the law. It is clearly suspected of conflicting with the above provisions of the Administrative Compulsion Law.

3. The “persuasion” clause is suspected of conflicting with the Legislation Law.

Article 11, Item 5 of the Legislation Law stipulates: “The following matters may only be governed by laws: (5) Deprivation of citizens’ political rights, compulsory measures restricting personal freedom, and penalties.”

As an administrative regulation, the Regulations’ “persuasion” clause establishes, with respect to citizens’ acts of exiting the country, an administrative compulsory measure restricting personal freedom — prohibiting exit after verbal advice has proved ineffective. It is clearly suspected of conflicting with the above provisions of the Legislation Law.

4. The “persuasion” clause is suspected of conflicting with the Constitution.

Article 33, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution stipulates: “Every citizen enjoys the rights prescribed by the Constitution and laws and, at the same time, must fulfill the obligations prescribed by the Constitution and laws.”

Citizens’ right to exit in order to “travel to countries or regions with the highest risk level or where cases that seriously endanger personal safety occur suddenly and frequently” is a statutory right granted by the Exit and Entry Administration Law. I understand that the government conducts “persuasion” out of the good intention of “doing what is best for you,” but legally speaking, if the “persuasion” clause established by the Regulations prohibits exit when verbal advice has proved ineffective, it infringes citizens’ personal freedom to exit and deprives them of their right to exit. It is not only suspected of violating the Exit and Entry Administration Law, but also conflicts with the above provision of the Constitution.

Article 110, Paragraph 2 of the Legislation Law stipulates: “Where citizens believe that administrative regulations, local regulations, autonomous regulations or separate regulations are inconsistent with the Constitution or laws, they may submit written proposals for review to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and the working body of the Standing Committee shall conduct a review; when necessary, it shall refer the matter to the relevant special committee for review and the submission of opinions.”

I hereby submit this review proposal in accordance with the law. Please handle it in accordance with the law.

Respectfully,

Proposer: Wang Yajun

August 7, 2026

Contact telephone number: 18620888738

Email: 31658559@qq.com