On July 1st, the new petition regulations “National Letter Reply (2026) No. 4” issued by the Chinese National Petition Bureau came into effect, sparking criticism among petitioners. The regulations stipulate that individuals petitioning in Beijing must present a written notice or reply from a provincial-level authority, and repeated visits to Beijing will not be accepted. Petitioners widely believe that these new rules are oppressive and aim to suppress the public’s right to petition.
The “National Letter Reply (2026) No. 4” document, titled “Measures for Further Standardizing Registration of Public Visits to the National Petition Bureau,” focuses on guidelines for various aspects of petitioning, including the form of petition requests, registration and processing procedures, new rules for visits to Beijing, handling of repeat visits and violations, responsibilities, and supervision.
Guo Guoping, a retired professor from Shanghai University and a rights activist, criticized the new regulations as unconstitutional and unlawful. He argued that the regulations aim to restrict citizens’ rights to defend their rights, raise the threshold for complaints, impede the expression of public opinion, and tolerate failures at the grassroots level.
Guo emphasized that the new regulations restrict grassroots activism, raise the bar for complaints, cut off channels for public opinion, and turn a blind eye to injustices and flaws in law enforcement and judicial proceedings. The regulations create obstacles for legitimate petitions, delaying and ultimately thwarting citizens’ legitimate demands.
He further noted that the regulations are not enforced effectively, allowing local authorities to ignore complaints, manipulate responses, and create insurmountable barriers for petitioners. This situation results in a lack of accountability for abuses of power at the grassroots level, ultimately undermining citizens’ right to petition.
The provision in the new regulations regarding “new rules for visits to Beijing” requires petitioners to provide written documentation from provincial authorities for registration at the National Petition Bureau, or else they are directed to report their grievances locally in accordance with the law.
In response to this requirement, petitioner Liu Hongxia from Henan expressed frustration, stating that provincial petition bureaus often fail to provide written responses to petitioners, prompting them to seek redress in Beijing. She highlighted the corruption within the National Petition Bureau, where officials engage in bribery, tamper with petition contents, and prolong unresolved cases, leading to continued suppression of petitioners.
Xi’an petitioner Wang Xiaoqin criticized the existing “local management system,” stating that over the years, reporting grievances to local authorities resulted in further persecution. With the introduction of new regulations restricting visits to Beijing, the situation worsens for petitioners, leaving them with no recourse for justice.
Another petitioner from Xi’an, Li Qihong, denounced the deteriorating system, chaotic judiciary, and the prioritization of power over the law. She criticized the lack of accountability in the justice system and government sectors in Shaanxi province, leaving aggrieved citizens nowhere to seek justice.
Jiang Jiawen, a petitioner from Liaoning, questioned why the Communist Party suppresses and obstructs people’s right to petition, suggesting that the Party fears the very people it claims to represent.
While some petitioners initially welcomed the emphasis on written forms of petition in the new regulations, they encountered technical difficulties on the first day of implementation, with reports of being unable to upload documents online, leading to suspicions of interference by the National Petition Bureau.