|
Recently Beijing, Shanghai and some other cities banned or announced they will ban begging in certain areas in an effort to restore order and improve the cities' image. The measures triggered commentary in the press.
China Economic Times: A draft regulation entitled Management Measures on Safety Operations of Track Transportation has been posted on the website www.beijing.gov.cn for public comment. It says that begging, performing, smoking and lying down are now all forbidden at subway stations in Beijing.
Such a regulation is improper and cannot solve the problem of begging.
There are multiple reasons for the mounting numbers of beggars and vagrants in cities today.
Some of these people fail to find a job in the cities and live in a reduced circumstance while others make begging a profession and gain money through fraud.
Yet no matter the reason, begging on the streets is still an indecent and face-losing way of life and beggars sacrifice their dignity in order to survive. Given another choice, probably few would choose to be a beggar.
Thus when taking active measures to solve the issue of beggars, their freedom should be respected.
The unsound social security system is the prime cause for the existence of begging. Many poverty-stricken people living at the bottom rung of society can get little social welfare. Natural disaster, disease or unemployment all could put them to a helpless situation. Begging then becomes their only means to make a living.
Therefore, a sound social security network covering every inch of our land and providing every citizen with protection is the ultimate resolution.
Beijing News: The recent ban on begging in some areas in Beijing has violated people's legal rights.
The right to subsistence is the most important and fundamental right of a natural person. Any mode of life, as long as it is legal, should be respected. Thus begging without disturbing others' lives should be respected and protected.
Many people revolt at the phenomenon of begging just because some beggars gain money by improper or even illegal means. Banning begging in certain areas may curb these indecent deeds, but at the same time it violates other beggars' rights.
If Beijing establishes "no begging zones,'' it is very likely other cities will follow suit. This would greatly limit the living space of those who subsist on begging.
In fact, all bans are feeble compared to the right of existence.
Without economic development and a valid social security system, the problem of begging cannot be solved.
Establishing "no begging zones'' will harm the seriousness of laws and authority of the government.
China Youth Daily: It is reported that to better manage subway stations, Shanghai local police have started a practice to hold people for criminal detention if they are begging, distributing leaflets, setting up booths willfully, or selling newspapers in subway stations and are found to be doing so more than three times.
Although this measure works well for disciplining the order at subway stations, it has no legal reference.
First, begging in a subway station does not constitute a crime.
Relative departments in Shanghai believe that begging or selling newspapers will disrupt public order.
According to China's Criminal Law, the charge of disturbing public order is equivalent to offences such as disrupting public services and crimes of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
However, in most cases, if law enforcers come, beggars choose to escape and do not influence public services.
If beggars just stand quietly, waiting for other people to give them money, they provoke no trouble and there is thus no ground to blame them for disturbing public order.
So it is hard to charge beggars with the crime of disrupting public order.
Second, according to China's Criminal Procedure Law, begging at subway stations more than three times does not violate the law and does not meet the conditions for criminal detention. In this way, it is not right to punish beggars with criminal detention.
Last, municipal departments of Shanghai have no right to categorize the activity of begging as disturbing public order. Its explanation has no legal validity. And the right of explaining criminal laws should belong to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Supreme People's Court or Supreme People's Procuratorate.
In line with legislative procedure, only laws can limit residents' personal freedom, not a local regulation.
Actually the spirit of the new regulation goes against law. If it is put into force, it will violate the law. Solving the social problem of beggars should be carried out under the legal framework.
Xinmin Weekly: A regulation about prohibiting begging in some urban areas has sparked widespread discussion.
The importance of this discussion is not whether the regulation will be passed, but the fact that policymakers will meet a higher requirement from the public. The public will not just passively accept the management. Legislation has to take public opinion into consideration.
In the discussion, people focus their attention on the government regulation itself. But besides the regulations, another important resource needed by the discussion is missed, that is the investigation about begging. So it is hard to reach a satisfactory result on this issue.
But the discussion still has its value. It pushes people to pay more attention to the beggars' lives in urban areas. More importantly, it ushers in a new phase of discussing legislation by the public.
(China Daily January 6, 2004)
|
