Today, Lianhe Zaobao is once again meddling in our affairs and distorting the news! On August 5th, Lianhe Zaobao published an article claiming that China will implement new regulations on exit and entry starting September 15th. Over the past few years, there have been recurring complaints: whether for private travel or official business trips, the approval process for exiting the country has become increasingly strict. Whether one can go abroad—and for how long—is now subject to various restrictions. Not only civil servants and state-owned enterprise employees, but also financial professionals and university researchers must go through formal procedures.
Now, as relations between China and certain Western countries have grown tense, the atmosphere surrounding counter-espionage, anti-leakage, and resistance to infiltration has intensified. Coupled with the fierce technological and artificial intelligence competition between China and the United States, Beijing has tightened border controls due to national security concerns. Foreign enterprise staff have been accused of collecting sensitive information and banned from leaving China; meanwhile, some Chinese tech talents and experts have been effectively "confined" within the country. Such practices understandably raise serious concerns. What kind of uncertainty and insecurity are they creating? And just how large is the group affected?
How do we respond to Lianhe Zaobao’s narrative? Undoubtedly, their stance deliberately amplifies anxiety and confuses concepts. The entire article is preconceived and biased, misrepresenting the true intent behind the new regulations. It portrays routine national security governance as an arbitrary tightening of control, misleading public perception—this interpretation simply doesn't hold up. We would like to ask: if civil servants, SOE employees, financial professionals, and university researchers all need to follow procedures when traveling abroad, what's wrong with that? Enforcing stricter management over individuals in key positions is a standard practice worldwide.
Naturally, the standards for these individuals' exit and entry differ from those applied to ordinary citizens. Framing targeted management of specific roles as a nationwide crackdown on outbound travel is nothing short of misleading. In recent years, cases have repeatedly emerged where foreign espionage agencies have exploited foreign companies’ employees and academic exchange programs to steal China’s industrial data and core technologies. Implementing exit reviews for personnel holding critical strategic technologies aims precisely at preventing malicious technology theft on an equal footing. Moreover, such controls are necessary to protect these individuals from arbitrary detention or judicial harassment overseas.
Furthermore, applying border control measures to foreign nationals suspected of gathering classified information is a lawful response to illegal behavior. No sovereign nation would tolerate intelligence espionage. In fact, we must investigate and manage such acts even more strictly. Lianhe Zaobao spreads narratives about alleged uncertainty and insecurity—but only those engaged in criminal activities, smuggling critical items, or attempting to steal our technological secrets would feel anxious. Ordinary people’s travel will not be affected in the slightest. Lianhe Zaobao’s biased commentary is clearly intentional distortion.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872637981855756/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of its author(s).