Appendix 1 to “CHRD & Coalition NGOs Report Submitted to CESCR” – April 2014

Comments Off on Appendix 1 to “CHRD & Coalition NGOs Report Submitted to CESCR” – April 2014

Appendix 1 to “CHRD & Coalition NGOs Report Submitted to CESCR”:

Discriminatory Population Policies Lead to Unequal Protection of Socio-Economic Rights

(Summary in English, followed by full text in Chinese)

From The Center for Equal Opportunity

I.   Population and family planning law restricts reproduction rights

The Third Plenum of the Chinese Communist Party’s 18th Congress in November 2013 set the goal of gradually adjusting and improving family planning policies to promote long-term, balanced population growth, and initiated a policy that allows a couple to have two children if neither parent has siblings.

Due to sustained population control policies and skewed propaganda, Chinese society has severely distorted views of fertility conditions required to maintain normal population production. Based on gender ratios and the female age-specific death rate, China’s fertility replacement level is 2.2 births per couple. But according to the 2010 national census, China’s birthrate had fallen to 1.18 births per couple. Even taking into consideration a 15% underreporting rate, the birth rate was still only 1.4. This means that, with each generation, the number of people born in China will decline by 36%. China is currently among the countries with the lowest birth rate, which is producing increasingly negative consequences, including aging and a shrinking population. Abolishing the current birth approval system is in accordance with China’s Constitution, which purports to respect human rights.

Recommendations for China:

  1. Abolish the Population and Family Planning Law;
  2. Develop new legislation that incorporates the above law’s provisions on the protection of women’s rights, better prenatal and postnatal care, and technical support.

II.  Eliminate the social rearing fee

A core aspect of China’s family planning policies has been to levy a fee on families having “out-of-quota” children as de facto economic punishment. As explained by the former National Family Planning Commission: “According to the law, those who have more than one child must pay a social rearing fee. It is not a fine but a compensation to society by those who have more than one child, because additional population consumes more social and public resources.”

But such reasoning lacks merit. First of all, providing necessary public resources is one of the basic obligations of the government. While there is more consumption of public resources by these “out-of-quota” children, they will also be creating more public resources as they age. Second, over the past decade or so, more than half of elementary schools in rural China have been shut down, and many Hope Elementary Schools have been abandoned, due to lack of students—a result of dwindling populations in rural areas, both as result of migration to cities and a decreasing birth rate. In some cities, schools have also been closed because of low enrollment. The problem is not that there are too many children and too few public resources, but that there is a huge waste of resources due to insufficient student enrollment.

Third, social rearing fees are spent on funding the family planning system, and only a miniscule amount from the fees is invested in public resources. So far, not a single province or government finance department has disclosed data on how the collected fees have been spent. Fourth, to maintain a balanced population, the government should encourage families with more than one child by paying them a rearing fee, instead of punishing them. Fifth, the social rearing fee levied on families forcibly takes funds from families that they could spend on caring for their children. Finally, it is economically unsound and morally despicable to levy a social rearing fee on those who have more than one child, because couples that give birth to more than one child are in fact contributing more people to eventually support the retirement system. Free reproduction is a basic right that the government recognizes, and the current “social rearing fee” police violates this right.

Recommendations for China:

  1. Abolish the social rearing fee;
  2. Remove provisions about the social rearing fee in Article 41 of the Population and Family Planning Law;
  3. Abolish the Administrative Methods for Levying a Social Rearing Fee, the State Council’s No. 357 order; and
  4. Begin to register and verify the social rearing fees that have been collected in preparation to eventually return the funds to couples who give birth to more than one child.

III.   Disassociate household registration and family planning

In many parts of China, a newborn’s household registration is closely associated with family planning, as parents must submit a “Family Planning Certificate” when adding a newborn to the family’s household registration. In violation of the basic rights of children, these rules have led to many children in China living without household registration, with their parents being unable to obtain the relevant certification.

Some families cannot obtain a “Family Planning Certificate” for other reasons. For example, families with more than one child either cannot afford, or refuse to pay, the “social rearing fee”; some unmarried mothers cannot possibly obtain “Birth Service Certificate” since their children are considered “illegitimate” within the social security system; and some mothers who reject using an intrauterine device cannot obtain an “IUD Certificate.”

Under the current household registration system, children without household registration cannot enjoy basic rights or obtain an ID card, and face many difficulties when they seek education and employment, when they get married and have children, and even when they travel. Household registration is a Chinese person’s primary legal proof of citizenship. Without it, a citizen cannot enjoy many basic rights as a citizen, and children should not be punished even if their parents have contravened domestic regulations.

Recommendations to China:

  1. Public security authorities should use the birth certificate as the basis to issue household registration to newborns, and they should not require parents to present a “Birth Service Certificate,” receipt of a “Social Rearing Fee,” a mother’s “IUD Certificate,” or any certificate that is meant to reflect the implementation status of family planning policies.
  2. Household registration should be issued to all children who are not/will not be registered for one of the following reasons: “out-of-quota” birth, non-marital birth, or mother’s rejection of use of an IUD. The authorities shall not require parents to submit any documents other than one proving the child’s identity.
  3. The State Council, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Education, and the National Health and Family Planning Committee shall promptly abolish legal provisions and regulations that link newborns’ household registration to family planning policies. They should further issue a joint order to counties and districts across the country to strictly prohibit the practice of requiring that parents provide various birth control-related certificates when adding a newborn to the family’s household registration.

IV. Disassociate school enrollment and family planning

In some areas, school enrollment is linked with the household’s family planning status, requiring that parents provide a “Family Planning Certificate” and, in some cases, even a mother’s “IUD Certificate,” when enrolling their children. When parents fail to produce these documents, children’s enrollment is at least temporarily denied, and these children, once eventually enrolled, will face discrimination compared to other children. This practice clearly contravenes the Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China, and violates the legal right of young children and youth to receive free compulsory education.

Recommendations to China:

  1. The government should strictly carry out the Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China by completely disassociating enrollment and family planning status, and removing any restrictive measures that affect young children and youth to receive compulsory education.
  2. The State Council, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Education and the National Health and Family Planning Committee should promptly abolish legal provisions and regulations that link children’s school enrollment to family planning. They should also issue a joint order to counties and districts across the country to strictly prohibit the illegal practices of requiring that parents provide various family planning-related certificates when enrolling their children in school.

Chinese report:




十八届三中全会提出了“逐步调整完善生育政策,促进人口长期均衡发展”的目标,并且启动夫妇一方为独生子女可生育二孩政策, 这表明中国的人口政策已经开始了重大转向。为了贯彻这种政策改变,适应新的人口形势,我们建议废除现行的,以严厉生育限制为特征的《人口与计划生育法》。

《人口计划生育法》于2001年12月29日在第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十五次会议上通过。如果一部法律的立法思路出现了问题,最好办法是废除这部法律,而不只是修改其条款。比如《人口与计划生育法》第十八条规定:“提倡一对夫妻生育一个子女。” 如果是修改条款,或许可以将此修改为:“提倡一对夫妻生育两个子女。” 但如果结合中国的人口现状,仅仅提倡二胎或放开二胎都还是不够的。

实际上,由于长期实行生育限制政策以及一面倒的宣传,中国社会对维持正常繁衍所需的生育状态的预期已经被严重扭曲。根据性别比和女性年龄别死亡率,中国的生育率更替水平是2.2,也就是每对夫妻平均需要生育至少2.2个孩子才能维持人口最终不衰减。但根据2010年的人口普查数据,中国的生育率已降到1.18,即使考虑到15%的漏报率,生育率也仅有1.4;国家统计局2011年的抽样调查生育率更是低至1.04。何况就算生育率处于1.4,那也意味着每过一代人,中国出生的人口将减少36%。在如此低的生育率之下,真正需要的不是提倡生育一个还是两个孩子的问题,而是应当立即放开各种限制把生育权还给民众。而在放开限制的过程中,《人口与计划生育法》正在成为重要的阻力。中国现在的生育率已经处于世界最低之列,并且正在导致越来越多的负面影响, 如人口老化和萎缩。

综上所述,中国应当尽快取消生育限制政策、全面放开生育,“单独二孩”政策已经朝着这个方向迈出了重要的一步。那么既然要全面放开生育,也就没有必要保留《人口与计划生育法》。我国《行政许可法》第十三条规定:“公民、法人或者其他组织能够自主决定的,可以不设行政许可。” 生育权体现了个人和家庭的主体性地位,确认生育权作为一项基本人权,废除现行的生育审批制度,既体现了《宪法》尊重人权的基本精神,又能与现行的《行政许可法》相吻合。

建议:(一)废除《人口与计划生育法》; (二)原有法律中涉及到妇女权益保障、优生优育以及技术服务等内容,可以添入到新通过的法律中。











建议:(一)取消征收社会抚养费。(二)删除《人口与计划生育法》第四十一条有关社会抚养费的内容。(三)废除国务院令第 357 号《社会抚养费征收管理办法》。(四)开始登记查证过去已征收的社会抚养费,今后如数归还给“计划外”生育的夫妇。










将上户口与计划生育挂钩的做法,引发了很多社会问题甚至人伦悲剧。比如,2013年12月19日《新民周刊》报道,因父母无法缴纳33万元的巨额社会抚养费,一个8岁的孩子一直没有户口。面对记者的采访,孩子说道,“我觉得计生委和公安局的人真坏,我将来长大了想参加黑社会,报复他们。” 无辜的孩子被剥夺本该拥有的基本权益,很自然会产生仇恨和报复心理,也会给社会埋下未来不稳定的种子。又比如,2013年7月25日《羊城晚报》报道,四川省泸州市叙永县赤水镇檬梓村16岁的少女蔡艳琼喝农药自杀,原因是她没有户口,无法参加中考。蔡艳琼为家中第二胎,因家里无钱缴纳社会抚养费而成为“黑户”。在自杀引起舆论关注后,当地才为蔡艳琼办理了入户手续。例如,2014年1月3日《新快报》报道:广州市白云区石井街夏茅村富民居委会规定上环与村中分红和孩子上户口挂钩。


(二)因父母“计划外”生育、非婚生育、或母亲未上环等原因造成孩子未上户口的,一律凭《出生医学证明》给孩子办理入户手续,不得要求父母提交任何与证明孩子身份无关的文件。 (三)国务院以及公安部、教育部、卫生和计划生育委员会尽快清理各地将新生儿入户与计划生育挂钩的违法规定,并联合发文至全国各县区,严格禁止在新生儿入户时要求家长出具各种“计划生育证明”的违法行为。




《中华人民共和国义务教育法》明确规定:“义务教育是国家统一实施的所有适龄儿童、少年必须接受的教育,是国家必须予以保障的公益性事业。” “凡具有中华人民共和国国籍的适龄儿童、少年,依法享有平等接受义务教育的权利。”部分地区将学生家庭的计划生育状况与孩子入学注册挂钩的做法,明显违反了《中华人民共和国义务教育法》的规定,侵犯了适龄儿童、少年接受义务教育的合法权利,应立即纠正。

例如,2012年12月14日《南方日报》报道:近日,广州番禺华碧学校通知,孩子入学要家长提供“孩子准生证、孩子医院出生证明,母亲查环证明”。家长对这种做法表示极为不解:“母亲的查孕证明跟学生学籍档案有何关系? 居委会都不硬性要求上环,学校反倒来查环,真是荒天下之大谬!”番禺区教育局表示,华碧学校的这一举措,是“教育部门配合计生部门齐抓共管的一项政策,2008年开始广州已有,是对非广州户籍新生入学的要求”。



建议:(一)教育部门应严格执行《中华人民共和国义务教育法》,将孩子入学注册与家长计划生育状态完全脱钩,取消任何影响适龄儿童、少年接受义务教育的限制性措施,积极创造良好的就学环境,确保每一位适龄儿童、少年按时入学接受义务教育。 (二)国务院以及教育部、卫生和计划生育委员会尽快清理各地将孩子入学与计划生育挂钩的违法文件和条例,并联合发文至全国各县区,严格禁止在孩子入学注册时要求家长出具“计划生育证明”和“上环证明”的违法行为。



中国青年报:《社会抚养费遭挪用成普遍现象 地方也不知到底怎么用》



新华网: 《没户口无法参加中考 女孩“黑户”16载 自杀后才落户》



南方都市报:《生了两个小孩 办入学计生证明 被告知须结扎》

深圳晚报:《孩子上学要办计生证明 家长办证遭拒因妻昏迷无法查环》

中国青年报:《超生女孩没有户口难入学 跑腿15年仍是”黑孩子”》

Back to Top