The notice listed 14 petitioning actions including some not listed in a petition regulation issued by the State Council, such as lodging complaints by shouting slogans, waving banners, wearing clothes emblazoned with petitions, handing out leaflets or holding sit-ins at public places, according to a report in Wednesday’s Southern Metropolis Daily.
Also banned are actions that “may cause public panic,” such as self-mutilation, suicide and jumping off buildings, displaying corpses or funeral urns or spreading infectious viruses such as HIV, the announcement said.
The notice also pointed out some “politically sensitive” spots in Beijing that should be off limits for petitions, such as Tiananmen Square and the locations of the central government, the State Council, and embassies.
People who have a record of carrying out two ‘abnormal petitions’ will be detained if they attempt to hold a petition a third time, and those who have been detained for ‘abnormal petitions’ may be subjected to indoctrination through labor if they try again, the notice said.
The controversy of petitioning has intensified in recent years in China. There is a dilemma between the government’s protection of the right to petition and repeated petitions for personal interest and even actions of confrontation.
Some experts suggested “malicious petitioning” should be restricted and even asked for its abolishment, calling the petitioning system part of “the rule of men by men.” But their opinion has not gained support from the public, especially among Web users, who are accustomed to backing petitioners.
The issue of ‘abnormal petitioning’ became a focus on various Web forums after the report was published, with a number of questions and criticisms popping up.
“The notice is a further restriction of petitioners, but who should the petitioners turn to if they are not treated fairly?” the Oriental Morning Post said Thursday.
A comment on the Nanfang Daily’s website argued that authorities should make more efforts to improve their working procedures and take the initiative to help resolve the problems of petitioners.
Legitimacy questioned
The controversy over petitioning is hardly anything new. Dating back to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), the petition system is like a last chance saloon for those seeking redress for perceived injustices from officials. The system permeates all levels of government above county level, and most cabinet ministries have their own petition offices in Beijing.
The issuing authorities in Shenzhen told the Southern Metropolis Daily in a written answer that the notice is based on the relevant article of the Constitution and several other relevant laws and regulations.
The notice is not meant to restrict citizens’ legal petition rights, which can be applied for by letter, phone, email or by visiting specific agencies, the authorities said.
Some lawyers, however, challenged the legitimacy of the notice. Chen Tao, a member of the criminal law committee of the Beijing Bar Association, said the notice is only a government regulatory document that could only be seen as a reference, instead of a basis, for law-enforcement.
Some of the clauses are reasonable and benefit the regulation of petitioning, others are beyond the scope of local authorities, Chen said, citing indoctrination through labor as punishment.
0.2 percent reach resolution
Wang Yukai, a professor with the China National School of Administration, told the Global Times that the notice could serve to guide petitioners to express their requests, but it failed to differentiate the reasons behind each and every petitioner.
“Most people seek a proper resolution of their problems by filing petitions. Some may become frustrated by the inefficient response of the government in dealing with their requests and therefore choose a more extreme way to get heard,” Wang said.
The phone number listed on the State Bureau of Letters and Calls’ website is an automated message, which informs callers where to send letters and where to visit.
One out of every 500 petitioners, or 0.2 percent, have their problems actually solved, noted Yu Jianrong, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in his 2004 report ‘The Deficiency of the Petition System and its Political Consequences. ‘
Wang said that the notice is not conducive to the resolution of petitioners’ requests from Shenzhen, the frontier of China’s economic development, which faces a rising number of social conflicts as the city embraces a growing population and further economic boom.
Three new advisory documents were released in May by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council, stipulating that all township officials must receive petitioners at any time and all county Party leaders must set aside one day a month to receive petitioners.
Central and provincial government leaders are also encouraged to receive petitioners.