China: Family planning violations in the province of Liaoning; whether information about a person who is wanted by family planning authorities in Liaoning province is entered in the Golden Shield or Policenet databases

1. Family Planning Violations in Liaoning Province

Sources state that the enforcement of China's family planning laws is carried out at the provincial level (US 9 Oct. 2014, 1; Australia 8 Sept. 2013, 4). A 2013 report published by Australia's Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal states that "[f]amily planning policy in China is not ... uniformly applied. There are variations from one province or area to the next, since central government regulations specify that provincial and local governments can adapt and implement the national guidelines to the area" (ibid.).

According to sources, women in Liaoning province are expected to terminate pregnancies that violate China's family planning policy (Canada 24 Mar. 2015; US 27 Feb. 2014, 55). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Canada in Beijing, based on information gathered from the website of the Liaoning Health and Family Planning Commission, explained that Article 26 of the 2014 Liaoning Province Population and Family Planning Regulation states that "a woman who does not meet the requirements of having another child should voluntarily terminate her pregnancy in a medical way" and that, if the pregnancy fails to be terminated, "legal responsibilities shall be borne" (Canada 24 Mar. 2015). A copy of the Liaoning Province Population and Family Planning Regulation could not be found by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. The US Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013 on China similarly notes that women who violate family planning policy in Liaoning province are required to terminate their pregnancies (US 27 Feb. 2014, 55). According to a 2014 report by the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Liaoning is one of 22 provincial jurisdictions in China with family planning regulations that "explicitly instruct officials to implement abortions, often referred to as 'remedial measures' (bujio cuoshi), for 'out-of-plan' pregnancies, with no apparent requirement for parents' consent" (ibid. 9 Oct. 2014, 2).

The official at the Embassy of Canada in Beijing quoted a representative from the Liaoning Health and Family Planning Commission as stating that "in most cases, breaking the Family Planning Regulations is not considered a crime" (Canada 24 Mar. 2015). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a research scholar affiliated with New York University's US-Asia Law Institute, whose research focuses on Chinese criminal law and procedure, similarly stated that, according to the Liaoning Province Population and Family Planning Regulation, "refusal of abortion itself is not a crime" (Research Scholar 20 Mar. 2015). The same source noted, however, that if there is a "violent obstruction against law enforcement, criminal liability might be imposed" (ibid.).

According to sources, individuals who violate family planning policy in Liaoning province are required to pay a "social maintenance [or compensation] fee" (Canada 24 Mar. 2015; Research Scholar 20 Mar. 2015). The Research Scholar stated that "[f]or those who have a second child in violation of the family planning law, a social maintenance fee should be collected from them" (ibid.). The embassy official similarly quoted Article 48 of the Liaoning Province Population and Family Planning Regulation as stating that "for anyone who does not meet the requirement of this regulation and has given birth to the child, there will be social compensation fees charged according to the current standard when the behaviour is noticed" (Canada 24 Mar. 2015). According to information gathered from provincial websites in 2012, All Girls Allowed, an American NGO which lobbies to end the One-Child Policy and gendercide in China (All Girls Allowed n.d.), states that the minimum fine for family planning violations in Liaoning province is 80,760 Chinese yuan renminbi (CNY) [C$16,339], while the maximum fine is 229,160 CNY [C$46,344] (ibid. 1 Nov. 2012). The same source notes that the minimum fine is equal to 9.7 times the average annual rural income (8,297 CNY), while the maximum fine is equal to 27.6 times the average annual rural income (ibid.). Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

The embassy official also quoted Article 51 of the Liaoning Regulation as stating that

anyone who is fined with social compensation fees will be affected in the following ways: there will be no bonus during maternity leave; all social benefits will be cancelled; there will be no promotion or bonus wage during the following three years; there will be no chance to be employed as government staff during the following five years. (. (ibid.)(Canada 24 Mar. 2015)

Regarding the general situation in China, Freedom House's 2014 Freedom in the World states that "[r]elatives of unsterilized women or couples with unapproved births are subject to high fines, job dismissal, reduced government benefits, and occasionally detention" (Freedom House 2014). The Australian government's background paper likewise states that family planning officials in China are known to utilize a variety of methods to enforce regulations such as issuing fines, terminating the employment of the parents, forced abortion, sterilization, detention, beatings, and land confiscation (Australia 8 Sept. 2013, 11). According to Country Reports 2013, there have been instances of local planning officials using physical coercion to meet government goals (US 27 Feb. 2014, 54). The source further notes that "[a]lthough the family-planning law states that officials should not violate citizens' rights in the enforcement of family-planning policy, these rights, as well as penalties for violating them, are not clearly defined" (ibid., 57). For more information on China's family planning regulations, as well as penalties imposed by authorities for violating such policies, see Response to Information Request CHN104963.

2. Reporting of Family Planning Violations

The embassy official quoted a representative from the Liaoning Health and Family Planning Commission as stating that, to his knowledge, a person who violated family planning policy in Liaoning province should not be referred to police authorities since the behaviour is not considered a crime (Canada 24 Mar. 2015). The same representative stated that

failing to pay the social compensation fees would probably affect personal credit records, as Liaoning Province is establishing a personal credit record system at present. But again, it [a family planning policy violation] is not related to criminal record and the credit record system is not maintained by police authorities. (ibid.)

The Research Scholar stated that to her knowledge, there are no regulations on database sharing between the local family planning agency and the public security bureau in Liaoning (Research Scholar 20 Mar. 2015). The same source noted that the Liaoning Population Administrative Measures state that local public security bureaus are in charge of "household registration and population administration" but the measures "do not specify whether a person who violates local family planning regulations will be entered in the police database" (ibid.). Further and corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. For information on the Policenet and Golden Shield databases, see Response to Information Request CHN104762.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

References

All Girls Allowed. 1 November 2012. One-Child Policy Fines Relative to Income Level in China. [Accessed 8 Apr. 2015]

_____. N.d. "Who We Are." [Accessed 8 Apr. 2015]

Australia. 8 September 2013. Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal. Background Paper. China: Family Planning. [Accessed 20 Mar. 2015]

Canada. 24 March 2015. Embassy of Canada in Beijing. Correspondence from an official to the Research Directorate.

Freedom House. 2014. "China." Freedom in the World 2014. [Accessed 31 Mar. 2015]

Research Scholar, US-Asia Law Institute, New York University. 20 March 2015. Correspondence with the Research Directorate.

United States (US). 9 October 2014. Congressional-Executive Commission on China. "Population Planning." Annual Report 2014. [Accessed 7 Apr. 2015]

_____. 27 February 2014. Department of State. "China." Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013. [Accessed 23 Mar. 2015]

Additional Sources Consulted

Oral sources: The following individuals were unable to provide information for this Response: professor of law at Columbia University; professor of law at Fordham University; professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law; professor of law at the University of Michigan; senior researcher at the Yale China Law Center.

Attempts to contact the following were unsuccessful within the time constraints of this Response: Beijing Jin Tian Cheng Law Firm; Beijing Liangbe Law Firm; PangBiao Law Firm; professor of law at Cornell University.

Internet sites, including: Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada; Agence France-Presse; British Broadcasting Corporation; Brookings Institution; China - Ministry of Public Security; Chinese Human Rights Defenders; ecoi.net; The Economist; Factiva; Human Rights Watch; International Business Times; Laogai Research Foundation; Radio Free Asia; Reuters; United States - Central Intelligence Agency; Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Xinhua News Agency.