China’s catch-all border laws: A deterrent or cause for unnecessary anxiety?

(Edited and refined by Bai Kelei, with the assistance of AI translation.)

Before flying from Xiamen back to Singapore last October, I heard a border inspection officer ask a traveller ahead of me in the queue, “Where are you going? Is this for business or leisure?”

When the traveller answered that he was heading to Myanmar for work, the officer followed up with more questions: What work would you be doing there? Where would you be staying? Do you have family there? How long would you be away this time?

After that, the traveller’s two companions were also called over to a counter for questioning that lasted about ten minutes before they were allowed through.

Such questioning was uncommon in my previous experiences of leaving China. Given that online scams operating out of northern Myanmar are a key target of the authorities, it is understandable that officials would scrutinise residents travelling there for work. But with China’s new exit and entry regulations taking effect on 15 September, netizens are wondering whether such questioning by border officers will become the norm.

Sweating through border control

Since the new rules came into force, many Chinese social media users have posted about the changes they have noticed. One netizen departing from Beijing Capital International Airport said border officers asked a series of questions, including which school he attended, how long his trip would be, whether he was travelling with friends and whether his parents knew about the trip. He was also asked to show his chat records with his parents. “It took about six or seven minutes and I was sweating throughout,” he shared.

Another traveller departing from Beijing Daxing International Airport said the automated lanes he had routinely used were closed, with all travellers directed to manned counters instead. Officers also asked about his destination, purpose of travel, length of stay and travelling companions.

Another netizen posted about a document issued by the authorities barring someone from leaving the country. The “decision to prohibit exit” document, dated 16 September, stated that the Guangzhou Baiyun Exit and Entry Border Inspection Station had barred the person from departing for “providing false materials and making false statements”.

The image spread widely online. Some people wondered what false materials the person had provided, and whether it involved forged passports or other documents. Others questioned the document’s authenticity because it stated that anyone dissatisfied with the decision could file a lawsuit with the Guangzhou Railway Transportation Court. “Why would exit and entry matters fall under the jurisdiction of a railway transportation court?”

Alongside this unverified information were rumours that wealthy Chinese families had fled the country before the new rules took effect. Some even claimed, in elaborate detail, that Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei had fled overseas with his entire family. The absurd rumour collapsed when Ren’s younger daughter, Annabel Yao, appeared at a public event in Beijing on 14 September.

While such claims are groundless and highly implausible, their viral spread reflects public concern over the tighter exit and entry controls. At the same time, the circulation of such anxieties online is itself fuelling panic.

Grey areas and vague boundaries

The State Council’s Regulations on Exit and Entry Administration published at the end of July strengthen exit and entry controls and widen the scope of people subject to restrictions. But they do not clearly define which groups of people, or under what circumstances, may be barred from leaving the country.

For instance, Article 4 of the new rules states that relevant authorities may prohibit Chinese citizens who violate export controls or regulations on technology import and export administration, and who “may endanger national industrial security or technological security”, from leaving the country. But it does not specify what conduct constitutes such endangerment.

The border control implementation is another area that lacks clarity. Authorities may withhold notifying individuals who “may affect national security or criminal investigations” that they have been barred from leaving, or of the reasons and legal basis for the decision. But it is unclear what circumstances might affect national security or criminal investigations, and who gets to decide.

The new rules also state that immigration authorities may require travellers to provide relevant documents, materials and electronic data when verifying their identities. But they do not spell out what should be included as part of the electronic data, whether it involves private information, or the consequences of refusing to provide it.

After the rules were announced, these ambiguous provisions triggered public debate. Chinese authorities published two online posts during the week of 7 September, stressing that the regulations were not intended to restrict ordinary people in their travels but to pre-emptively dissuade those travelling to high-risk destinations or making unusual journeys. Normal activities such as tourism, visiting relatives, studying abroad and business travel would not be affected. The posts also clarified that claims that overseas travel would be comprehensively tightened and become more difficult for ordinary people were a misreading.

But apart from emphasising that normal overseas travel would not be affected, the posts did not further clarify the provisions that could cause misunderstandings. As a result, even after the rules took effect, online speculation persisted. Those who are more anxious remain uneasy, and can only play it by ear at the border control.

Catch-all laws and public fear

As the old Chinese saying goes: “If punishments are not known, then deterrence is immeasurable”. People may become fearful when they cannot predict the punishment they might face. In light of the official posts, broader wording could deter those who are deceived into travelling overseas, engage in illegal activities such as cross-border gambling and online scams, or illegally transfer technology abroad.

Meanwhile, vague definitions may leave the public fearing catch-all offences. The absence of clear standards also raises concerns over how enforcement discretion will be exercised, whether the rules may be abused and even whether they could create opportunities for rent-seeking. Most people travelling abroad normally are unlikely to worry that their plans will be affected. Yet the ambiguity of the regulations has already created room for both inadvertent and deliberate misreadings, as well as rumours spread by those with ulterior motives.

For a populous country such as China, tighter exit and entry management amid the current international climate is not unreasonable. But rules need to be clear and transparent to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. New regulations need to be explained in advance, just as irregular travel needs to be pre-emptively deterred.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “中国出入境新规为何被误读？”.

Related: [Video] Is China stopping its own citizens from leaving? | Passports surrendered: Inside China’s expanding web of exit controls