The Chinese Ministry of Public Security recently announced the “Draft Law on the Prevention and Control of Cyber Crimes” to strengthen the blockade of overseas information channels, with provisions also involving cross-border suppression. This move by the Ministry of Public Security has sparked public outrage, with legal professionals both domestically and internationally pointing out that the move violates the constitution and laws, as well as drawing attention to the expansion of police power by the Chinese Communist Party.
On January 31st, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security released the “Draft Law on the Prevention and Control of Cyber Crimes” for public feedback, which not only targets Chinese citizens domestically but also emphasizes blocking free information originating from overseas. It explicitly prohibits individuals and organizations from providing any technical support (such as VPN tools) to help others access blocked overseas information. The law emphasizes real-name registration for the internet and prohibits using false identity information to register for online services; switching virtual network positioning functions requires reporting. Individuals spreading information not recognized by the authorities will face restrictions within the country, while overseas organizations or individuals may have their assets frozen and face restrictions on entry and investment within China.
On February 5th, prominent human rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang, who was involved in the “709 Crackdown” incident, published a citizen’s proposal on Platform X submitted to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, copied to the State Council and the Ministry of Public Security, urging the withdrawal of the “Draft Law on the Prevention and Control of Cyber Crimes” and opening it for joint signature.
The withdrawal proposal contends that the drafted law seriously violates the Constitution and legislation. The Ministry of Public Security has no authority to establish such a law, and according to the Constitution, laws that involve depriving citizens of political rights and restricting personal freedom must follow the legislative procedures of the National People’s Congress.
Two unnamed mainland Chinese lawyers expressed their support for Wang Quanzhang to The Epoch Times. One lawyer stated, “What Wang Quanzhang did was commendable. The Ministry of Public Security of the Chinese Communist Party is playing the roles of both a player and a referee because it relies on the military police to seize power and govern. Wang Quanzhang’s public expression of opinion aligns with the Constitution.” Another lawyer remarked, “Wang Quanzhang said many things that legal professionals dare not say and expressed the sentiments of many Chinese people.”
Chinese-American human rights lawyer Wu Shaoping told The Epoch Times that the Chinese Communist Party’s Constitution is a joke because the party officials blatantly violate it. The Constitution guarantees rights like freedom of communication and freedom of speech for citizens, but in reality, the party’s laws continuously deprive people of these basic rights as stipulated by the Constitution. “They actually discard the Constitution, which leads to the absurd situation we see today.”
Wu Shaoping stated that the Ministry of Public Security’s draft law clearly violates the Legislation Law, as the ministry does not have the power to propose such a draft. According to Article 17 of the Legislation Law, only the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the State Council, the Central Military Commission, the National Supervisory Commission, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the various specialized committees of the National People’s Congress can introduce legal proposals to the Congress. Also, a delegation or more than 30 delegates can jointly propose legal bills.
“Now a small department like the Ministry of Public Security can propose this draft, indicating that China has completely turned into a police state,” Wu commented.
Chinese-American legal scholar Li Yuqing told The Epoch Times that according to the procedures set by the Chinese Communist Party’s Constitution and Legislation Law, the Ministry of Public Security, being a subordinate department of the State Council, does not have the authority to establish laws.
Li Yuqing explained that administrative regulations established by the State Council cannot be called “laws” but only “measures”; collectively known as “administrative regulations.” Departments under the State Council, such as the Ministry of Public Security, can only formulate regulations; drafting laws is unconstitutional for them. Moreover, since this law involves criminal matters, according to the Legislation Law, such laws can only be formulated by the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee. Therefore, from a procedural standpoint, the Ministry of Public Security drafting laws is also illegal.
The clauses in the Ministry of Public Security’s “Draft Law for Soliciting Opinions” mention the prohibition of individuals and organizations providing any technical support (such as VPN tools) to help others access blocked overseas information; spreading unauthorized information by individuals within the country will lead to border controls, while overseas organizations or individuals may have their assets frozen and face restrictions on entry and investment within China.
In response, Li Yuqing stated that the purpose of the law is to restrict the state’s public authority. As a law enforcement agency, the Ministry of Public Security’s exercise of administrative power should be constrained; for instance, the enactment of the Criminal Law is essentially a restriction on judicial adjudication and judicial procedural rights. Now the Ministry of Public Security is proposing a law to limit and deprive citizens of their rights.
Li Yuqing pointed out that except for a few authoritarian countries, the internet worldwide is supposed to be free, yet the Chinese Communist Party controls access to the internet. The existence of the Great Firewall established by the party itself is unconstitutional because, according to the Constitution, obtaining information freely and freedom of communication are basic rights of citizens. However, the party now claims that bypassing censorship is illegal and argues that providing VPN tools from abroad constitutes a threat to national security as perceived by the party.
“China is like a big prison where everything you see has to go through its (the CCP’s) approval. If you violate the rules, it punishes you in the name of the law, so this law can only be seen as a farce,” Li remarked.
Wu Shaoping stated that the CCP’s “Draft Law on the Prevention and Control of Cyber Crimes” extends its jurisdiction directly to countries worldwide, indicating a very frightening development. For example, in democratic countries, expressing discourse on human rights online is normal, but in the CCP’s case, such content is something to be eliminated.
He believes that once such a law is formulated, it will affect organizations and individuals engaged in economic and trade activities with China, leading to self-censorship and the party reaching its influence worldwide. “Through its domestic laws, it actually affects the basic rights enjoyed by citizens of other countries.”
Li Yuqing mentioned that the CCP is currently facing a political crisis, afraid of people knowing about free information, including the internal struggles within the top leadership and the infuriating issue of forced organ harvesting by the CCP. As internal pressure mounts like a pressure cooker, there might be a small breakthrough someday, possibly leading to an explosion. Employing high-pressure tactics only serves to prolong the party’s rule for a day at a time.
Contributions to this article were made by Epoch Times reporter Luo Ya.