These past few days, the clause in the amended “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” regarding the sealing of violation records has caused quite a stir online, with almost all mainstream media weighing in. Especially, cultural and tourism accounts and anti-drug accounts from various regions have pushed public opinion to its peak. However, upon closer examination of this round of discussion, an interesting phenomenon stands out: the legal community seems to have collectively fallen silent. Apart from a sporadic interview with a professor from China University of Political Science and Law, other prominent figures in the legal circle have almost all remained quiet.

Origin of the Issue

The core of the matter lies in the fact that, in the past, the inquiry into public security punishment records existed in a gray area. There were no laws explicitly prohibiting such inquiries, nor were there regulations mandating them. In practice, this led to a situation where inquiries were made based on “individual capabilities.”

This was particularly evident during employment background checks. Conservative localities and units would go to great lengths to dig up all past punishment records, while ordinary units would only check for content explicitly required by law.

The new “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” establishes a system for sealing punishment records, essentially stating: “Except for situations explicitly required by law to be checked, all other inquiries are prohibited.”

A simple search of the legal and regulatory database reveals that industries requiring inquiries into specific public security punishment records are actually quite few, mainly concentrated in specific fields involving public safety. For example, jobs involving contact with children require checks for sexual assault history, based on clear legal provisions (Article 62 of the “Law on the Protection of Minors”: When recruiting personnel, units in close contact with minors must inquire with public security and procuratorial organs about whether the applicant has records of sexual assault, abuse, or other illegal or criminal activities. Those with such records shall not be employed).

Why Has the Legal Community Fallen Silent?

Setting aside the special trigger point of “drug use,” and looking solely at the restriction on arbitrary inquiries into public security punishment records, the intention might not be a bad thing. After all, the lower limit for public security punishments is indeed quite low. Just the other day, I encountered an example: a couple breaking up, where the woman, in a fit of anger during the breakup, smashed the man’s phone and was charged with “intentional destruction of public or private property,” resulting in five days of detention.

If such an incident leads to obstacles in job hunting or applying for civil service positions, it would indeed be quite unfair.

However, some behaviors under public security punishments are difficult for the public to tolerate. Typical examples are prostitution, gambling, and drugs, especially “drugs”! Since modern times, the Chinese people’s hatred for “drugs” has been etched into their bones over nearly two hundred years, almost becoming a natural imprint in their minds.

Precisely because of this, public sentiment is surging. Even the most “courageous” individuals find it difficult to speak out at this time, somewhat like being afraid to act for fear of causing collateral damage.

However, a legal provision that has been finalized by the highest-level meetings, revised by the highest-level authorities, and issued by the highest-level leadership exists for a reason. It’s just that many people might not have delved into the considerations behind it.

For example, the purpose of this sealing is not primarily to regulate social behavior, but to lock the cage of public security power operation.

Its placement in the law indicates this clearly; it is in Chapter Five, “Law Enforcement Supervision.” The core is to prevent the abuse of power by public security organs.

The provision states clearly:

Records of violations of public security administration shall be sealed and shall not be provided or disclosed to any unit or individual, except where state organs require them for handling cases, or relevant units inquire based on state regulations.

In short, punishment records cannot be inquired into at will; there must be clear legal authorization as a prerequisite. This completely blocks the ambiguous operational space of the past, where people relied on “their own capabilities” and the principle that “what is not prohibited by law is permissible.”

Many people worry: Could this allow individuals with histories of prostitution or drug use, especially those “privileged sons” involved in drugs whom the public deeply detests, to slip through the cracks and become civil servants, police officers, or join the military?

The answer is actually quite clear: Sealing records has nothing to do with this!

Sealing does not equate to abolishing or lowering existing political review thresholds. The reviews for civil servants, police officers, and military service already have their own separate regulations. If a position requires inquiries into relevant records, such inquiries remain unimpeded. Sealing only clarifies that inquiries without a basis are not allowed, but lawful inquiries are not affected in the slightest.

As for establishing prohibitions for certain specific professions (such as jobs involving minors mentioned earlier), that falls within the scope of specialized laws for other industries. The “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” does not govern this; it only delineates the boundaries of public security law enforcement supervision within its own domain.

Looking back over the past decade, public security organs have indeed become much more regulated in issuing certificates. Bizarre requests like “proving my mother is my mother” have basically disappeared.

In recent years, ordinary enterprises and individuals have found it difficult to obtain from public security organs a certificate stating that “someone has no public security punishment record,” because such a document was never on the statutory list of certificates.

Why Did the “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” Specifically Include This Clause?

Based on personal observation, there are mainly three intentions:

First, to reinforce the responsibility of public security supervision: Firstly, it sets an iron rule for public security organs themselves. Without legal basis, even internal public security personnel cannot arbitrarily access or provide these records, tightening authority at the source to prevent abuse.

Second, as a defense against the rampant “proof fever”: In recent years, although ordinary citizens have requested fewer certificates from public security organs, there has been a sharp increase in requests from certain powerful departments for public security organs to conduct batch inquiries. Examples include cadre promotions, evaluations for awards, and transfers. For instance, in a medium-sized county, the education bureau alone might request public security to check the records of teachers within its jurisdiction tens of thousands of times per year, with repeated and overlapping inquiries being common. Some of these inquiries have a legal basis, while others are purely driven by a mindset of “having more stamps for greater safety.” Coupled with the limited internal verification capacity of public security systems, which often can only conduct inquiries one by one, it was difficult in the past to seriously refuse requests involving lists of thousands of people, especially from powerful units. Now, this “sealing” gives public security organs the confidence to “refuse lawfully.” Whoever wants to inquire must first present legal basis. Inquiring without basis could lead to accountability.

Third, to block external channels: Clearly defining the sealed status of records also completely cuts off any ideas that certain individuals or companies in society might have about obtaining others’ private public security punishment information through informal channels or by “exploiting loopholes.”

Regarding the Issue of “Drugs”

When it comes to drug-related issues under public security punishments, I fully understand the torrent of anger online, including the emotions conveyed behind the six咬牙切齿 (gnashing teeth) characters from a certain local cultural and tourism account.

However, it needs to be clarified: “Sealing records” is essentially unrelated to whether certain drug-involved “privileged sons” can re-enter the public eye or specific fields.

A fundamental misconception lies in the fact that the “sealing” effect imagined by the public (as if it erases records, making them uncheckable) is completely different in nature from the “sealing” defined by the legal provision, and even from the mature “sealing of juvenile criminal records” in criminal law!

Even after juvenile criminal records are formally sealed, judicial organs can legally issue “no criminal record certificates” based on them, but this absolutely does not mean these records vanish into thin air!

For strict background checks involving state secrets or specific public positions (such as applying for civil service, police, or military service as mentioned earlier), if laws explicitly require inquiries, judicial organs still have the authority to conduct inquiries based on legal procedures and substantive reasons. The so-called sealing merely adds a step of applying to the sealing authority to prevent unwarranted disclosure; it does not provide an umbrella of protection for situations where access should legitimately be restricted.

To put it plainly, the significance of sealing leans more towards prohibiting arbitrary inquiries and arbitrary disclosure. Such a measure cannot and does not exist to block lawful inquiries.