It has been a month since the revised Public Security Administration Punishments Law (PSPAL) [治安管理处罚法] returned to the spotlight—this time because of Article 136, a new provision that generally requires the police to seal the records of all PSAPL violations.1 We explained and commented on the controversy in this piece for The Diplomat (summarized for our newsletter here). Here is the gist: Several official social-media accounts, in promoting the law ahead of its taking effect on New Year’s Day, focused public attention on Article 136’s application to drug offenses specifically. Netizens criticized both the substance of the record-sealing requirement—worried that it signals a softened official stance on drugs—and the process whereby the provision was adopted.
Our commentary focuses on the procedural issues. Though we rejected accusations of procedural irregularities, we argued that the “online uproar suggests that the NPCSC’s public engagement mechanisms may be malfunctioning, limiting its ability to accurately gauge public opinion and inform the Chinese people about its work.” Among other things, we questioned “the NPCSC’s continued silence more than two weeks after the controversy erupted,” which we saw as evidence of “a general reluctance to engage with public concerns outside pre-scheduled occasions,” such as bimonthly press conferences. (Interestingly, the Commission said nothing about this controversy at a regular press conference on December 19.)
On December 24, a week after our commentary went live,2 the legislature finally broke its silence. Ostensibly responding to a request for comment from the official Xinhua News Agency (though we suspect this was a coordinated move), the NPCSC Legislative Affairs Commission (Commission) issued a lengthy statement addressing five issues relating to Article 136 and its application to drug offenses.
- Section I explains the PSAPL revision’s legislative history and how Article 136 came to be. (We did the same in our commentary in more detail.) The Commission noted that it had received no objections to Article 136 between June 27 (when the revision passed) and November 27 (when Article 136 went viral)—seemingly justifying the delay in issuing a statement. Fair enough. We still maintain that the legislature should have anticipated this controversy and, in any event, should not have waited almost a month to respond to the intense public backlash. But better late than never.
- Section II addresses the viral comment “So which young master was using?” [哪位少爷吸了] that ignited the online firestorm. The commenter (a local government agency) seemed to insinuate that the recording-sealing requirement would serve only to protect privileged, drug-using members of the society from public scrutiny. The Commission reiterated the principle that no one “may have any privilege beyond the Constitution or the law,” while rejecting claims that any special interest group had improperly influenced the legislative process (some netizens levied such an accusation against the legal academy in this case).
- Section III explains the meaning of record-sealing under Article 136, emphasizing that sealed records “remain on file.”
- Section IV discusses China’s distinction between crimes and public security violations, clarifying that more serious drug-related offenses (such as trafficking) are crimes and will not be subject to record-sealing under the PSAPL.
- Section V reaffirms China’s tough stance on drugs, while also explaining its longstanding approach of prioritizing drug rehabilitation and controlling disclosure of drug users’ information. The Commission thus concludes that Article 136, as applied to drug use, will result in “no substantive change” in practice.
An annotated translation of the Commission’s statement follows. We added some paragraph breaks to improve readability.
Explanations and Responses Concerning Issues Related to Article 136 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law
BEIJING, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) — The revised Public Security Administration Punishments Law [PSAPL] will take effect on January 1, 2026. Recently, some online media outlets and netizens have paid close attention to Article 136 of the PSAPL and have raised some questions. A reporter has therefore contacted the spokespersons’ office of the NPCSC Legislative Affairs Commission, seeking clarification on the concerns and questions raised in online discourse. The relevant responsible official from the Commission provided explanations and responses from the following five perspectives.
I. On the Deliberation of the Draft PSAPL Revision and the Formation of Article 136
In August 2023, the 14th NPCSC conducted the first review of the draft PSAPL revision at its fifth session. In June 2024, the 14th NPCSC conducted the second review of the draft PSAPL revision at its tenth session. It twice released the draft revision to the public to solicit comment through the NPC’s official website. In the second draft, the provision on sealing the records of public security violations applied to minors and covered all types of public security violations committed by minors.
In June 2025, the 14th NPCSC conducted the third review of the draft PSAPL revision at its sixteenth session. Various parties recommended that the Law expressly provide for a system for sealing the records of public security violations on the grounds that implementing [such a system] would help reduce and avoid situations in which [a person is] “punished once and restricted for life,” and would also provide useful practical experience for the future establishment of a system for sealing the records of minor crimes. For these reasons, [we] revised the relevant provision in the draft PSAPL revision with reference to the wording of statutory provisions such as Article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Law [刑事诉讼法] [which requires sealing the criminal records of certain juvenile offenders, with two exceptions], producing what later became Article 136 of the PSAPL.
After the 14th NPCSC voted to approve the draft PSAPL revision at its sixteenth session on June 27, 2025, [the draft] became a current law and will take effect on January 1, 2026. Under the relevant provisions of the Legislation Law [立法法], once a draft law is passed, it becomes law and is promulgated for implementation according to law. From June 27, 2025, when the revised PSAPL was promulgated, through November 27, we received no dissenting opinions regarding Article 136 of the PSAPL.
II. On “Which Young Master Was Using?”
Recently, some commentary has raised the question “Which young master was using?” over the sealing measure under Article 136. From a rule-of-law perspective, all citizens of the People’s Republic of China are equal before the law, a fundamental principle established by [Article 33 of] the Constitution.
Across all aspects of law-based governance, including lawmaking, law enforcement, administration of justice, and observance of the law, no organization or individual may have any privilege beyond the Constitution or the law, and any act that violates the Constitution, laws, or regulations must be subject to accountability according to law.
The Constitution, Legislation Law, relevant organic law, and relevant rules of procedure have made comprehensive and systematic provisions on—thereby providing firm legal safeguards for—legislative activities and legislative work. Legislative work is not subject to improper influence from any special interest group, organization, or individual.
III. On the Meaning of Sealing the Records of Public Security Violations
Sealing the records of public security violations is a measure for managing and controlling information about such violations—it is not a punitive measure. The goal of implementing [such a system] is to carry out the necessary regulation and standardization of information about public security violations, and to reduce and avoid situations in which [a person] is “punished once and restricted for life.” Sealing does not mean erasing or deleting the records; the relevant information about violations remains on file, but may not be queried, provided, or disclosed at will.
Article 136 provides that sealed records may not be provided or disclosed to any entity or individual, while also establishing two exceptions: first, where relevant state organs need to make inquiries to handle cases; and second, where the relevant entities make inquiries in accordance with State provisions. Article 136 further provides that entities making lawful inquiries must preserve the confidentiality of the sealed records of violations.
IV. On the Relationship Between the PSAPL and the Criminal Law in Application
The various types of violations governed by the PSAPL are all acts that do not constitute crimes and warrant public security administration punishments—a basic principle set forth in Article 3 of the PSAPL. For any act that constitutes a crime, the actor’s criminal responsibility must be pursued under the Criminal Law [刑法]. In law enforcement and judicial activities, if an act that constitutes a crime and warrants criminal prosecution is treated as a public security violation and is penalized under the PSAPL, this would constitute an erroneous application of the law and must be corrected; the reverse situation would likewise constitute an erroneous application of the law and must also be corrected.
As to the relationship between the two laws in application, three types of situations warrant attention. First, some acts, such intentional homicides, amount to crimes and do not constitute public security violations; they must be criminally prosecuted under the Criminal Law, and there is no question of applying the PSAPL to handle them.
Second, some acts, such as using drugs, do not amount to crimes and must be penalized under the PSAPL, so there is no question of applying the Criminal Law to handle them.
Third, some acts, based on the way they are defined or described, appear in both the Criminal Law and the PSAPL, such as Article 353 of the Criminal Law and Article 85 of the PSAPL [both of which penalize those who “induce, instigate, trick, or coerce” others into using drugs]. In such cases, it must first be determined whether the act constitutes a crime; whenever it constitutes a crime, criminal responsibility must be pursued under the Criminal Law. Only where the act does not constitute a crime is it to be published under the PSAPL.
V. On “Sealing Drug-Use Records”
Under Chinese law, drug use is an unlawful act but not a crime. Because the record-sealing measure for public security violations under Article 136 of the PSAPL covers drug use, some opinions have raised questions about “sealing drug-use records,” expressing concerns and confusion. The following points are explained in response.
First, the State punishes drug crimes in accordance with the Criminal Law. Chapter VI, Section 7 of the Separate Provisions of the Criminal Law clearly provides for drug-related criminal acts and their corresponding penalties, listing a total of twelve offenses. Among them, the “crime of smuggling, trafficking in, transporting, or manufacturing drugs” under Article 347 carries the maximum statutory penalty of death. There has been no change in the State’s stance, measures, and systems with respect to punishing and combatting drug crimes according to law, and there has been no relaxation in its anti-drug efforts. Globally, China is one of the countries with the severest penalties for drug crimes.
Second, the State’s fundamental approach to and central task in addressing drug use is to strengthen rehabilitation measures. Under Chinese law, drug use is not a crime but a public security violation warranting public security administration punishments. Yet, without enabling drug users to achieve rehabilitation, any punishments imposed would have limited practical significance and effectiveness. The crux—and the difficulty—of addressing drug use therefore lies in rehabilitation.
China has long attached great importance to drug rehabilitation efforts and has established robust and effective systems and related working mechanisms for rehabilitation. In December 2007, the NPC enacted the Narcotics Control Law [禁毒法], which clearly provides for rehabilitation measures. In June 2011, the State Council adopted the Regulations on Drug Rehabilitation [戒毒条例], further specifying rehabilitation measures. Other laws and administrative regulations also contain provisions relating to rehabilitation.
Article 6 of the Narcotics Control Law provides: “The people’s governments at or above the county level shall incorporate anti-drug work into plans for national economic and social development, and include funding for anti-drug work in the fiscal budgets at the corresponding level.” China’s drug rehabilitation measures include voluntary rehabilitation, community-based rehabilitation (three years), compulsory isolation for rehabilitation (two years, extendable by one year), and community-based recovery (three years). The State implements a range of measures to help drug users overcome their addiction and to educate and rehabilitate drug users. Voluntary rehabilitation is encouraged, and where drug users voluntarily accept rehabilitation treatment, public security organs will not impose punishment for their prior drug use.
Upon the discovery of drug users, the relevant organs must register them, incorporate them into rehabilitation efforts, and implement rehabilitation measures, conducting regular testing, providing rehabilitation treatment, and subjecting them to dynamic management. Those who have not relapsed for three years are no longer subject to dynamic management.
Third, the State has long maintained control over the information on individuals undergoing rehabilitation and drug users. Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Regulations on Drug Rehabilitation provides in part: “The personal information of persons undergoing drug rehabilitation shall be kept confidential in accordance with law.” Article 43 provides: “Where the staff members of public security, justice administration, health administration, and other relevant departments disclose the personal information of persons undergoing drug rehabilitation, they are to be given disciplinary sanctions according to law; where a crime is constituted, criminal reasonability is to be pursued.” Articles 52 and 70 of the Narcotics Control Law and Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Regulations on Drug Rehabilitation prohibit discrimination against individuals undergoing drug rehabilitation in areas such as education, employment, and access to social security, and require the relevant parties to provide necessary guidance and assistance.
Accordingly, information on individuals undergoing rehabilitation and drug users has long been controlled and kept in confidential state. It does not fall within the category of government information subject to disclosure, and the relevant organs and entities may not disclose it at will. Only specific personnel may access or query such information. Even non-personalized information relating to anti-drug work is controlled and may not be released or provided externally without authorization. When reporting on or publicizing drug rehabilitation efforts, the media should anonymize any content involving persons undergoing rehabilitation or drug users.
Applying the record-sealing measure for public security violations under Article 136 of the PSAPL to drug use will not, in fact, change China’s longstanding approach controlling information relating to drug rehabilitation or drug use. As to the control of information on individuals undergoing rehabilitation and drug users, there will be no substantive change before or after implementing the sealing measures. The two exceptions set out in the proviso to Article 136 of the PSAPL embody improvements of existing information-control mechanisms.
Finally, [we] take this opportunity express our gratitude to the media, netizens, and all sectors of the society for their concern and support for China’s rule-of-law development and legislative work!
- Just over the last few days, yet another PSAPL provision has created a bit of a stir. Several media outlets reported that the revised law will prohibit sending obscene materials through additional online channels and could ensnare consensual sexting. This interpretation has been widely debunked. ↩︎
- We may or may not be implying causality. ↩︎