The Chinese Communist Party recently revised the “State Secrets Protection Law” (hereinafter referred to as the “Secrecy Law”), and the State Council of China released the “Regulations on the Implementation of the Secrecy Law” specifying a new provision for “Party-controlled secrecy.” Analysts believe that under the pretext of “national security,” the CCP is further tightening its grip on political opacity, reflecting a heightened sense of regime insecurity.
The State Council of China announced yesterday (22nd) that the revised “Secrecy Law” from June will come into effect on September 1. Officials from the Chinese Ministry of Justice and the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets stated that the implementation of the law began in 2014 and that this revision is deemed necessary to “meet the needs.” It is reported that this revision includes a new provision for “Party-controlled secrecy,” requiring strengthened Party leadership in the realm of secrecy work, as well as specifying the obligation of network operators to cooperate in the investigation of secrecy violations and the detection of warning events.
Since 2014, the CCP has introduced a series of so-called “laws” aimed at safeguarding national security, including the National Security Law (2015), Anti-Terrorism Law (2015), Anti-Espionage Law (2014), Cybersecurity Law (2015), Foreign NGO Management Law (2016), National Intelligence Law (2017), Data Security Law (2021), Anti-Espionage Law (2023), and the revised State Secrets Protection Law enacted in May 2024. The newly revised “Regulations on the Implementation of the State Secrets Protection Law” by the State Council of China aim to ensure the effective enforcement of the State Secrets Protection Law.
Political commentator Li Lin expressed to Epoch Times that over the past decade, an increasing number of laws and regulations focused on regime security have been implemented. Moreover, in recent years, the CCP has been suppressing various external channels, including the Premier’s press conference. This trend indicates that the CCP regime is becoming more precarious and fearful. Despite the additional measures being introduced, it remains impossible to dispel the fear at the highest levels of the CCP.
Li Lin further pointed out that the latest secrecy law emphasizes the regulation of internet service providers, suggesting that the CCP, in addition to the existing internet firewall and various opinion control tools, is intensifying its control measures. This signifies a further regression where it will become even harder for Chinese citizens to access information, the internet will have less freedom, and the CCP’s authoritarian black box will become more closed and obscure.
Former Beijing lawyer and chairman of the China Democracy Movement in Canada, Lai Jianping, previously stated to Epoch Times that the strict revisions to the secrecy law are essential for the CCP because they fear that certain individuals possess the Party’s secrets. If they do not take stringent preventive measures, fearing a leak of secrets could lead to an immediate collapse of their regime without the means to sustain its power.
On February 27th of this year, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China approved a revised version of the State Secrets Protection Law, which came into effect in May. This revision marks the first amendment to the law enacted in 1988 and revised in 2010, introducing ten new articles, changing about two-thirds of the content. The addition of “work secrets” into the scope of secrecy and the introduction of regulations for the “secrecy period” upon leaving one’s position were notable updates.
Former Chief Compliance Officer of a mainland asset management company, Lawyer Liang Shaohua, mentioned to Epoch Times that the expansion of the secrecy law’s applicability after the CCP revision is in line with the amendments to the Anti-Espionage Law’s implementation regulations, signifying the CCP’s increasing legal control over public servants and core positions.
He stated, “In many countries, state secrets are state secrets, and business secrets are business secrets – they are not closely interconnected with the state. The more the country regulates these aspects, the more it might want to expand its control, bringing enterprises under its control.”
Jens Eskelund, President of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, has raised concerns over the revision of the CCP’s secrecy law, suggesting that the deteriorating environment may drive European businesses away.