Shiyao believes that faculty members of top universities in China have the responsibility of serving a role of being an outspoken member of the society to help make the country better. This is because professors have the quality of education needed to navigate through formal procedures, are harder to be captured by the vested interests, and enjoy the privilege of having a relatively larger room of opinion expression.
Shiyao has implemented this philosophy, in addition to her academic research and teaching. She also believed that these involvement would be a good way of learning Chinese politics, and more generally, comparative politics in the real world.
Shiyao has implemented this philosophy, in addition to her academic research and teaching. She also believed that these involvement would be a good way of learning Chinese politics, and more generally, comparative politics in the real world.
Formal Proceedings
Liu pro se vs. Shanghai Big Data Center (2023)
Case no: (2023) 沪 0106 民初3367号 Translation: (2023) Shanghai 0106 Civil Case First Instance 3367
Shanghai Big Data Center runs Shanghai Health Code, on behalf of the Shanghai Municipal Government. The Health Code app was invented and put into use since 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 in China, for the claimed purpose of pandemic control and prevention.
After the recategorization of COVID into Class B infectious disease in China by the year-end of 2022, the plaintiff sues the defendant for the potential violation of Articles 6, 13, among others of the Personal Information Protection Law of PRC. The plaintiff believes the Health Code app has obtained access to the plaintiff's personal information without proper consent, seeking a court order demanding the defendant to stop accessing to and to delete the plaintiff's personal information by the app.
The case is pending at Shanghai Jing'an Basic Court.
-- Update after settlement talks in July 2023--
In early August 2023, Shanghai Big Data Center upgrades their system. In the upgrade, the Center makes clear that the Health Code is now transformed into a public service code, yet the residents have their discretion to use the system or not. The decision not to use it would not prevent the user from accessing other public services and/or e-government functions.
The upgrade has also required the users to explicitly authorize the Center to use their personal information before their use of the app. The user can also revoke this authorization anytime through a self-service in the app. The revocation would not prevent the user's access to other public services and/or e-government services.
Liu pro se vs. Shanghai Big Data Center (2023)
Case no: (2023) 沪 0106 民初3367号 Translation: (2023) Shanghai 0106 Civil Case First Instance 3367
Shanghai Big Data Center runs Shanghai Health Code, on behalf of the Shanghai Municipal Government. The Health Code app was invented and put into use since 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 in China, for the claimed purpose of pandemic control and prevention.
After the recategorization of COVID into Class B infectious disease in China by the year-end of 2022, the plaintiff sues the defendant for the potential violation of Articles 6, 13, among others of the Personal Information Protection Law of PRC. The plaintiff believes the Health Code app has obtained access to the plaintiff's personal information without proper consent, seeking a court order demanding the defendant to stop accessing to and to delete the plaintiff's personal information by the app.
The case is pending at Shanghai Jing'an Basic Court.
-- Update after settlement talks in July 2023--
In early August 2023, Shanghai Big Data Center upgrades their system. In the upgrade, the Center makes clear that the Health Code is now transformed into a public service code, yet the residents have their discretion to use the system or not. The decision not to use it would not prevent the user from accessing other public services and/or e-government functions.
The upgrade has also required the users to explicitly authorize the Center to use their personal information before their use of the app. The user can also revoke this authorization anytime through a self-service in the app. The revocation would not prevent the user's access to other public services and/or e-government services.
Liu pro se vs. Shanghai Public Security Bureau Exit-Entry Administration Bureau (2023)
The Administrative License Law of PRC stipulates that a government agency must make a decision within a pre-specified publicly announced timeframe for all applications for licenses (Article 37). It further stipulates that a government agency at a lower level cannot request additional documents beyond what has been decided by the upper level (Article 16).
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in China in 2020, Shanghai Public Security Bureau Exit-Entry Management Bureau (the Immigration Authority) introduced a quota system which requested applicants to secure an appointment, which could be weeks away, before they could appear in front of the agency to submit their application. This rule also applied to the application of travel permits (EEP) to Hong Kong and Macau for mainland residents of China. The travel permit is considered as a "license" under the jurisdiction of the Administrative License Law of PRC.
On December 16, 2022, the complainant challenged the arrangement with an adiminstrative reconsideration filed to the Shanghai Municipal Government, under the basis that the arrangement is essentially circumventing the requirement that a government agency must make a decision within a pre-specified publicly announced timeframe - seeing that the waiting for an appointment lasted for weeks if not months and the pre-specified timeframe for the travel permit is only 5 to 10 business days since the date of submission.
The Shanghai Municipal Government rejected the reconsideration request citing the reason that it falled out of the jurisdiction of an administrative reconsideration (Article 6 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of PRC), but later informed the complainant that they had communicated with the relevant agency to remove the pre-requisite for an appointment spot. The pre-requisite for an appointment was announced to be removed on March 8, 2023.
To further make the case potentially applicable nation-wide, it is now being considered at the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China under (2024)最高法行申4628号.
The Administrative License Law of PRC stipulates that a government agency must make a decision within a pre-specified publicly announced timeframe for all applications for licenses (Article 37). It further stipulates that a government agency at a lower level cannot request additional documents beyond what has been decided by the upper level (Article 16).
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in China in 2020, Shanghai Public Security Bureau Exit-Entry Management Bureau (the Immigration Authority) introduced a quota system which requested applicants to secure an appointment, which could be weeks away, before they could appear in front of the agency to submit their application. This rule also applied to the application of travel permits (EEP) to Hong Kong and Macau for mainland residents of China. The travel permit is considered as a "license" under the jurisdiction of the Administrative License Law of PRC.
On December 16, 2022, the complainant challenged the arrangement with an adiminstrative reconsideration filed to the Shanghai Municipal Government, under the basis that the arrangement is essentially circumventing the requirement that a government agency must make a decision within a pre-specified publicly announced timeframe - seeing that the waiting for an appointment lasted for weeks if not months and the pre-specified timeframe for the travel permit is only 5 to 10 business days since the date of submission.
The Shanghai Municipal Government rejected the reconsideration request citing the reason that it falled out of the jurisdiction of an administrative reconsideration (Article 6 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of PRC), but later informed the complainant that they had communicated with the relevant agency to remove the pre-requisite for an appointment spot. The pre-requisite for an appointment was announced to be removed on March 8, 2023.
To further make the case potentially applicable nation-wide, it is now being considered at the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China under (2024)最高法行申4628号.
Liu pro se vs. Shanghai Jing'an Government (2022)
Shanghai Municipal Government imposed restrictions on access to specific public spaces for travellers who have been outside Shanghai in past 5 days in late November and early Decebmer 2022. The restriction explicitly exempts access to convenience stores.The complainant tried to visit a convenience store, but was blocked by the order of Shanghai Jing'an government, a district government under the Municipality of Shanghai.
The complainant filed an administrative reconsideration but was rejected by the Shanghai Jing'an Government. A lawsuit has been filed to a governing court with respect to the block.
Liu pro se vs. CITIC Bank (2021)
Case no: (2021) 京0105民初53252号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 0105 Civil Case First Instance 53252
Case no: (2021) 京74民终942号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 74 Civil Case Second Instance 942
Case no: (2022) 京民申4316号 Translation: (2022) Beijing Civil Case Appeal 4316
CITIC launched a credit card exclusively for customers with a gender marker of female. The credit card provides shopping benefits not available on other credit cards. Following Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) of RBG, the plaintiff challenges under discriminatory concerns - the nature of exclusiveness + stereotyping and profiling, after several failed attempts of complaints submitted to regulatory authorities.
The final result of the case is pending at the Superior Court of Beijing after two verdicts in favor of the defendant at the basic court and the intermediate court.
Liu pro se vs. Air China Limited (2022)
Case no: (2022)京0113民初12282号 Translation: (2022) Beijing 0113 Civil Case First Instance 12282
Case no: (2023)京03民终163号 Translation: (2023) Beijing 03 Civil Case Second Instance 163
After several failed attempts of complaints to regulatory authorities, the plaintiff sues the defendant of a fraud - selling an air ticket to the plaintiff between Dubai and Beijing, despite internally knowing that the plaintiff has already applied to and approved by the Chinese government regarding the suspension of the service, when the ticket was issued in 2021. The defendant cancelled the ticket when Chinese government formally suspended the flight in Feb 2022, but did not automatically restored the ticket when the flight was re-approved in June 2022. Both courts ruled in favor of the Airline claiming the practice of the Airline being "customary", but also requested the Airline to (a) make clear notations during the sale of airline tickets regarding the possibility of schedule changes; (b) strengthen communication with the passengers when a schedule change happens; (c) improve quality of service and provide necessary remedies to passengers (regarding their itinerary).
Liu pro se vs. China EMS (2021)
Case no: (2021)京0102民初9990号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 0102 Civil Case First Instance 9990
Case no: (2021)京02民终17178号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 02 Civil Case Second Instance 17178
The plaintiff sued the Express Mail Services of China Post for a package, full of personal mails and postcards, delay in 2020, after serveral failed attempts of complaints to the defendant and regulator authorities. The plaintiff believed that the package was delayed due to a mistaken declaration of the contents in the package to the Customs of China, which later led to a hold-up of the backage by the customs. The plaintiff also believed that China EMS failed to provide a channel where the mail recipient could clarify and/or challenge the hold-up decision of the customs. The basic and intermediate courts ruled in favor of EMS, but citing that "although EMS does not have a responsibility under the prevailing law, there is indeed a necessity for EMS to improve the quality of service".
Shanghai Municipal Government imposed restrictions on access to specific public spaces for travellers who have been outside Shanghai in past 5 days in late November and early Decebmer 2022. The restriction explicitly exempts access to convenience stores.The complainant tried to visit a convenience store, but was blocked by the order of Shanghai Jing'an government, a district government under the Municipality of Shanghai.
The complainant filed an administrative reconsideration but was rejected by the Shanghai Jing'an Government. A lawsuit has been filed to a governing court with respect to the block.
Liu pro se vs. CITIC Bank (2021)
Case no: (2021) 京0105民初53252号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 0105 Civil Case First Instance 53252
Case no: (2021) 京74民终942号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 74 Civil Case Second Instance 942
Case no: (2022) 京民申4316号 Translation: (2022) Beijing Civil Case Appeal 4316
CITIC launched a credit card exclusively for customers with a gender marker of female. The credit card provides shopping benefits not available on other credit cards. Following Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975) of RBG, the plaintiff challenges under discriminatory concerns - the nature of exclusiveness + stereotyping and profiling, after several failed attempts of complaints submitted to regulatory authorities.
The final result of the case is pending at the Superior Court of Beijing after two verdicts in favor of the defendant at the basic court and the intermediate court.
Liu pro se vs. Air China Limited (2022)
Case no: (2022)京0113民初12282号 Translation: (2022) Beijing 0113 Civil Case First Instance 12282
Case no: (2023)京03民终163号 Translation: (2023) Beijing 03 Civil Case Second Instance 163
After several failed attempts of complaints to regulatory authorities, the plaintiff sues the defendant of a fraud - selling an air ticket to the plaintiff between Dubai and Beijing, despite internally knowing that the plaintiff has already applied to and approved by the Chinese government regarding the suspension of the service, when the ticket was issued in 2021. The defendant cancelled the ticket when Chinese government formally suspended the flight in Feb 2022, but did not automatically restored the ticket when the flight was re-approved in June 2022. Both courts ruled in favor of the Airline claiming the practice of the Airline being "customary", but also requested the Airline to (a) make clear notations during the sale of airline tickets regarding the possibility of schedule changes; (b) strengthen communication with the passengers when a schedule change happens; (c) improve quality of service and provide necessary remedies to passengers (regarding their itinerary).
Liu pro se vs. China EMS (2021)
Case no: (2021)京0102民初9990号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 0102 Civil Case First Instance 9990
Case no: (2021)京02民终17178号 Translation: (2021) Beijing 02 Civil Case Second Instance 17178
The plaintiff sued the Express Mail Services of China Post for a package, full of personal mails and postcards, delay in 2020, after serveral failed attempts of complaints to the defendant and regulator authorities. The plaintiff believed that the package was delayed due to a mistaken declaration of the contents in the package to the Customs of China, which later led to a hold-up of the backage by the customs. The plaintiff also believed that China EMS failed to provide a channel where the mail recipient could clarify and/or challenge the hold-up decision of the customs. The basic and intermediate courts ruled in favor of EMS, but citing that "although EMS does not have a responsibility under the prevailing law, there is indeed a necessity for EMS to improve the quality of service".
Complaints without Formal Proceedings
1. “Designated RT-PCR Labs" of overseas Chinese missions for issuance of "Health Code" (International Version)
During the pandemic, the Chinese authority has imposed travel restrictions on incoming travellers, which require travellers with or without a Chinese citizenship to obtain a Health Code (International Version) issued by an overseas Chinese mission before allowed to board the plane for China. Most, if not all, Chinese missions designate a few (usually no more than 5) clinics/labs to serve as the designated clinics/labs. Only RT-PCR reports issued by these clinics/labs would be accepted for the purpose of obtaining a Health Code (International Version) from the overseas Chinese mission. As one may imagine, customers may be overcharged by these clinics/labs because of their monopoly in issuing RT-PCR reports for the purpose of travelling to China.
The complainant filed a formal complaint to State Administration for Market Regulation under the Anti-Monopoly Law of PRC. The Chapter 5 of the Law declared illegal that a government agency if it forces corporates/individuals to purchase goods from a designated merchant. On March 21, 2022, the Administration responded by claiming that the Anti-Monopoly Law only "applies to monopoly within the territory of China" and they considered the complained designation only "affects market competition between PCR test providers outside China", and thus falled outside the jurisdiction of the law.
1. “Designated RT-PCR Labs" of overseas Chinese missions for issuance of "Health Code" (International Version)
During the pandemic, the Chinese authority has imposed travel restrictions on incoming travellers, which require travellers with or without a Chinese citizenship to obtain a Health Code (International Version) issued by an overseas Chinese mission before allowed to board the plane for China. Most, if not all, Chinese missions designate a few (usually no more than 5) clinics/labs to serve as the designated clinics/labs. Only RT-PCR reports issued by these clinics/labs would be accepted for the purpose of obtaining a Health Code (International Version) from the overseas Chinese mission. As one may imagine, customers may be overcharged by these clinics/labs because of their monopoly in issuing RT-PCR reports for the purpose of travelling to China.
The complainant filed a formal complaint to State Administration for Market Regulation under the Anti-Monopoly Law of PRC. The Chapter 5 of the Law declared illegal that a government agency if it forces corporates/individuals to purchase goods from a designated merchant. On March 21, 2022, the Administration responded by claiming that the Anti-Monopoly Law only "applies to monopoly within the territory of China" and they considered the complained designation only "affects market competition between PCR test providers outside China", and thus falled outside the jurisdiction of the law.
Settlements without Formal Proceedings
1. Passport Renewal at The Commissioner's Office of China's Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong S.A.R.
The Commissioner's Office of China's Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong S.A.R. provides consular services including the issuance and renewal of travel documents to Chinese citizens in Hong Kong SAR. On Jan 19, 2023, the Office informed the complainant of their intention to reject the application for the renewal of the Chinese passport because "the signature on the application form, and also to be printed on the passport, is not in Chinese block letters."
The complainant filed a complaint with the Department of Consular Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, copied the Office, challenging the legality of the requirement of a signature being in "Chinese block letters". The complainant believed that such requirement goes beyond those allowed the Administrative License Law of PRC (Article 16) and the Passport Law of PRC (Article 6). The complainant also believed that requiring all applicants to have their signature in Chinese block letters does not go in line with the identification purpose of the passport. The complainant also completed the draft for an application for administrative reconsideration to be submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should the complaint become ignored.
The complainant successfully got the passport renewed with a preferred signature on the day after without the initiation of the administrative reconsideration process. The Office further promised the complainant that they would submit a report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting a review and the possible abolishment of the requirement for the signature to be in Chinese block letters.
The complainant acknowledges and thanks the efforts of the Office to serve and respond to the public in a swift manner.
2. Beijing Housing Provident Fund Management Center
Employers and employees are required to jointly contribute to Housing Provident Funds in China. Regulations allow the withdrawal of funds for leasing properties if the member does not own a property in the city where the employer is located at. Beijing further stipulates that a member only needs to submit a FaPiao ("an official tax invoice stamped by a tax authority") recording the length, address, amount, and names of landlords and tenants to demonstrate the fact that the member has rented a property in Beijing.
On Mar 7, 2023, the Center denied the application for withdrawal of the applicant, citing the reason that "It is necessary to verify the authenticity of the rental documents and the existence of the rental. It is recommended to apply for a monthly withdrawal of 1,500 CNY for the rental purpose which does not require documentation. Your phone cannot be contacted. If you have any questions, please call us." The Center further required the applicant to submit a copy of the lease, because "it is necessary".
On Mar 10, 2023, the complainant filed an application for an administrative reconsideration to Beijing Municipal Government, to challenge the legality of the denial of the Center citing Article 34 of the Administrative License Law of PRC. The article requires the government agency to appoint at least two officials to conduct a review if the agency goes beyond a review examining the formality of the documents ("形式审查") to a review examing the substance ("实质审查"). The decision issued by the Center only bears the signature of one official. Further, there was no on-site visit before the issuance of the denial letter, which indicates that no substance review has ever happened. The complainant also found the comment made by the center contradictory - if the center indeed believed that the applicant was fabricating the document and was not renting a place in Beijing, then the withdrawal of 1,500 CNY should not be permitted either. The complainant also challenged the legality of the Center's requirement for a copy of a lease.
On Mar 13, 2023, two officers of the Center conducted an on-site visit and affirmed that the applicant had rented a property in Beijing, and granted the approval of withdrawal notice on the same day. On Mar 15, 2023, the Center reached out to the complainant, seeking a settlement of the case of administrative reconsideration. On Mar 17, 2023, the Center (a) fixed a bug in their electronic system to allow for the submission of applications for withdrawal without the copy of the lease, and (b) updated their electronic system to allow applicants to update their contact information on their side through the Internet - because the complainant also complained through the Mayor's Hotline (010-12345) regarding the requirement of the Center for an in-person visit to their branch offices to update contact information.
The complainant dropped the administrative reconsideration case, as well as acknowledges and thanks the efforts of the Center to serve and respond to the public in a swift manner.
1. Passport Renewal at The Commissioner's Office of China's Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong S.A.R.
The Commissioner's Office of China's Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong S.A.R. provides consular services including the issuance and renewal of travel documents to Chinese citizens in Hong Kong SAR. On Jan 19, 2023, the Office informed the complainant of their intention to reject the application for the renewal of the Chinese passport because "the signature on the application form, and also to be printed on the passport, is not in Chinese block letters."
The complainant filed a complaint with the Department of Consular Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, copied the Office, challenging the legality of the requirement of a signature being in "Chinese block letters". The complainant believed that such requirement goes beyond those allowed the Administrative License Law of PRC (Article 16) and the Passport Law of PRC (Article 6). The complainant also believed that requiring all applicants to have their signature in Chinese block letters does not go in line with the identification purpose of the passport. The complainant also completed the draft for an application for administrative reconsideration to be submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should the complaint become ignored.
The complainant successfully got the passport renewed with a preferred signature on the day after without the initiation of the administrative reconsideration process. The Office further promised the complainant that they would submit a report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting a review and the possible abolishment of the requirement for the signature to be in Chinese block letters.
The complainant acknowledges and thanks the efforts of the Office to serve and respond to the public in a swift manner.
2. Beijing Housing Provident Fund Management Center
Employers and employees are required to jointly contribute to Housing Provident Funds in China. Regulations allow the withdrawal of funds for leasing properties if the member does not own a property in the city where the employer is located at. Beijing further stipulates that a member only needs to submit a FaPiao ("an official tax invoice stamped by a tax authority") recording the length, address, amount, and names of landlords and tenants to demonstrate the fact that the member has rented a property in Beijing.
On Mar 7, 2023, the Center denied the application for withdrawal of the applicant, citing the reason that "It is necessary to verify the authenticity of the rental documents and the existence of the rental. It is recommended to apply for a monthly withdrawal of 1,500 CNY for the rental purpose which does not require documentation. Your phone cannot be contacted. If you have any questions, please call us." The Center further required the applicant to submit a copy of the lease, because "it is necessary".
On Mar 10, 2023, the complainant filed an application for an administrative reconsideration to Beijing Municipal Government, to challenge the legality of the denial of the Center citing Article 34 of the Administrative License Law of PRC. The article requires the government agency to appoint at least two officials to conduct a review if the agency goes beyond a review examining the formality of the documents ("形式审查") to a review examing the substance ("实质审查"). The decision issued by the Center only bears the signature of one official. Further, there was no on-site visit before the issuance of the denial letter, which indicates that no substance review has ever happened. The complainant also found the comment made by the center contradictory - if the center indeed believed that the applicant was fabricating the document and was not renting a place in Beijing, then the withdrawal of 1,500 CNY should not be permitted either. The complainant also challenged the legality of the Center's requirement for a copy of a lease.
On Mar 13, 2023, two officers of the Center conducted an on-site visit and affirmed that the applicant had rented a property in Beijing, and granted the approval of withdrawal notice on the same day. On Mar 15, 2023, the Center reached out to the complainant, seeking a settlement of the case of administrative reconsideration. On Mar 17, 2023, the Center (a) fixed a bug in their electronic system to allow for the submission of applications for withdrawal without the copy of the lease, and (b) updated their electronic system to allow applicants to update their contact information on their side through the Internet - because the complainant also complained through the Mayor's Hotline (010-12345) regarding the requirement of the Center for an in-person visit to their branch offices to update contact information.
The complainant dropped the administrative reconsideration case, as well as acknowledges and thanks the efforts of the Center to serve and respond to the public in a swift manner.
