Recently, the clause in the revised draft of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law regarding the sealing of public security detention records has drawn widespread attention and discussion from all sectors of society. An answer by Lao T on a Q&A website also received hundreds of comments, with many netizens raising the question: How is our sense of security guaranteed after records are sealed?

However, a notable phenomenon is that amidst the surging public opinion, the legal circle has remained surprisingly quiet. Apart from a few experts speaking out, most legal professionals have chosen silence. What more complex realities lie behind this silence?

In fact, the underlying logic of this matter is quite simple. It is that China must not follow the old path of Western social governance—creating crime maps, enforcing wealth segregation, or allowing ghettos where criminal populations are left to fend for themselves. The root lies in the Maoist principle of “from the masses, to the masses.”

However, for a long time, this “window paper” has never been officially pierced; “acting without speaking” has been the safest approach. Under this premise, various official scholars and experts can only beat around the bush, citing isolated special cases or offering earnest admonitions in an attempt to downplay these issues. But how can the public still believe this today? Hence, this wave of significant public backlash.

I believe that rather than hiding or concealing, it might be better to address this issue more plainly.

1. They Are Among Us

Setting aside emotions, let’s look at some sobering numbers:

• Nationally registered drug users: 747,000.
• Individuals with a history of drug use: 4.286 million.
• Combined, this exceeds 5 million people!
• Equivalent to 1 in every 300 Chinese people.

As of the end of 2024, China had 747,000 existing drug users, a year-on-year decrease of 16.7%, accounting for 5.4‱ of China’s total population. The number of individuals who have abstained from drug use for three years without relapse was 4.286 million, a year-on-year increase of 5.1%. — 2024 China Drug Situation Report

This is only for “drug-related” offenses. Now consider other large groups that are genuinely of concern in social governance:

• Individuals with severe mental disorders: approximately 16 million.
• Ex-prisoners: conservatively estimated at 20 million (over a million new cases annually since 2008).
• Adding community correction personnel, special minors, etc…
• The total number of various key monitored individuals nationwide approaches 42 million, accounting for 3% of the population!

What does 3% mean?

In your daily life:

• A high-rise residential building with 300 occupants? There might be 9 such individuals inside.
• A company with 500 employees? There could be 15.
• Your child’s elementary school with 1,000 students and their 2,000 parents? Proportionally estimated, nearly 60 people.

These individuals do not just exist in the news; they live genuinely among us—they could be neighbors, colleagues, or the parents of your child’s classmates. We have been coexisting with them all along.

2. Is It Better to Know or Not to Know?

Now, think seriously:

If publicizing these records is truly essential for making you feel more “secure,” would you be willing to discuss it clearly with your family, especially the elderly and children: Is it better to “know” or “not to know”?

Imagine this everyday scenario:

The elevator door opens, you step in, and there is a person inside.

• Scenario A: You do not know anything about their past, and they do not know what you might know. The atmosphere is normal; you both look at your phones or the floor indicator, coexisting peacefully until you reach your floor.
• Scenario B: You clearly know they have a drug record (or other “blemish”), and they are fully aware that you know. The air instantly freezes, with tension, defensiveness, and even fear permeating the confined space. Would you subconsciously tense up? Would they sense your vigilance?
• Scenario C: You know through some channel that they have a drug record (or other “blemish”), but they are unaware that you possess this information. However, because you mentioned it to your family, your child or elderly relative encounters them in the elevator and inadvertently says, “Stay away from that drug user.” Could this seemingly not inappropriate remark instantly “ignite” the other person, posing a deadly threat to your family?

Which scenario makes you feel more at ease? Which scenario is more likely to escalate due to an unintentional glance or action?

Our ability to live relatively peacefully in the past was not because we identified every “person with a record” around us. On the contrary, it was often because a veil of ambiguity served as a “buffer”…

3. The “Airbag” of Social Stability

Maintaining stability in a nation of 1.4 billion people cannot rely solely on “iron fists and iron bars.”

It is precisely that small space of “not knowing,” that veil of ambiguous information, that silently defuses countless potential hostilities and conflicts.

This information asymmetry acts like a buffer zone, significantly reducing direct confrontations between ordinary people due to labeling.

This “not knowing” is not indifference but a wisdom in social operation.

• It gives those who have made mistakes and paid the price a chance to start anew and reintegrate into society. It prevents a single misstep from permanently branding them.
• It also allows ordinary people not to live in constant anxiety about “who around them might be a bad person.” They can go out, work, and pick up their children with greater ease.

4. Who Ensures Our Sense of Security? Trust the Professional “Safety Net”

It is important to recognize a reality: Our individual sense of security cannot rely on playing “detective” to identify all potential risks.

Real protection comes from the professional systems built by the state:

• 📡 Dynamic control by public security organs: For key individuals, the police have professional tiered management and early warning mechanisms.
• 🚫 Strict access controls for specific industries: For example, in professions like teaching, civil service, military service, or working with children, the law clearly stipulates what must be checked (such as history of sexual assault), and these screenings remain effective.
• 🏘 Community correction and assistance: Supervision and support for certain groups.
• 👀 Societal oversight and reporting channels: Reporting current illegal activities or dangers to the police at any time.

You feel safe in the elevator not because you see through the history of those around you, but because you believe that if something happens, a professional system will respond swiftly. This reflects the refined management of a rule-of-law society and the pursuit of the greatest common denominator for social harmony.

Leave risk assessment to professional systems, and reserve peace of mind for yourself. This is a more practical and sustainable path to security.

5. In a Complex World, We Need a Little Courage to “Not Know”

We live in an era of information explosion, constantly urged to “know more.”

But sometimes, excessive “knowing” brings not security but anxiety and prejudice.

Appropriate “not knowing” is precisely a protection for one’s inner peace:

• It allows us to treat those around us with a normal mindset.
• It leaves a path to redemption for those willing to reform.
• It preserves space for societal healing and inclusion.

This is not turning a blind eye to danger! The key is to distinguish clearly:

• What should we be vigilant about? — For example, ongoing illegal activities; report them decisively!
• What should be left to professional systems to manage? — For example, an individual’s past records and potential risks.

Finally, ask yourself:

• Would you rather live in a transparent society where everyone is labeled and mutually wary?
• Or in a society where, despite shadows, most people can let down their guard and interact normally?

Sometimes, the greatest protection is not knowing everything but understanding:

• Trust in the baseline of the rule of law.
• Trust in the strength of professional systems.
• And trust in the potential for human goodness.

That veil over past records reflects not indulgence but the tolerance and discretion a mature society should possess.

Of course, the smooth implementation of this policy hinges on law enforcement agencies strictly adhering to legal standards for sealing records with fairness and strengthening dynamic control over key individuals, ensuring that while protecting individuals’ rights to redemption, public safety is never compromised.

(This is also my last blog post on this topic for now. I may write about it again in the future, but likely not in the near term.)