Shenzhen Government Affairs Red-Black List One-Year Anniversary: Administrative Duty Performance and Legal Boundaries Behind 3,600 Public Voices

In August 2025, the "Wenzheng Shenzhen" (Inquiry into Shenzhen) studio under Shenzhen Press Group was launched, handling over 3,600 forum posts within a year, with a response rate exceeding 95% and a total online readership of 180 million. From the lightning-fast removal of the "nail tree" in Longgang within 40 hours, to the week-long full-chain crackdown on "scalper ticket reselling" at park parking lots, to the normalization of "posting in the morning and rectifying by the afternoon," these figures and cases not only demonstrate the efficiency of grassroots governance in Shenzhen but also delve deeper into core legal issues such as the statutory obligations of administrative agencies in performing their duties, the legal pathways for citizens to participate in public governance, and the legal nature of government response actions. As a Shenzhen lawyer who has long focused on administrative law and public governance, I believe it is necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of this "red and black list" data from a legal perspective.

I. The Legal Nature of Online Political Engagement: A "Barometer" and "Watchtower" for Administrative Performance

The "Ask Shenzhen" platform is essentially a comprehensive channel that integrates public opinion collection, administrative supervision, and dispute resolution. From a legal perspective, its core value lies in advancing the concrete practice of citizens' rights to criticism and suggestion as stipulated in Article 41 of the Constitution. When citizens report issues through the platform, it reflects their exercise of democratic supervision rights; meanwhile, the responses and handling by administrative organs represent their fulfillment of statutory duties and their concrete response to social concerns.

The change in the data, where "the number of responses to public inquiries continued to rise, with participating units increasing from 68 to 126," reflects the growing importance that administrative organs at all levels in Shenzhen attach to online public opinion. It also aligns with the requirement in the *Implementation Outline for Building a Law-Based Government* to "uphold the principal position of the people and ensure smooth channels for expressing public demands." From the perspective of administrative law principles, when citizens' appeals point to clearly defined legal responsibilities, the timely response and handling by relevant departments is itself an act of administrative performance. For example, in the case where Xinqiao Subdistrict in Bao'an District quickly addressed the issue of greenery obstructing sightlines within "1 hour and 59 minutes," this was not only a resolution of a specific problem but also the fulfillment of maintenance obligations prescribed by regulations such as the *Urban Greening Regulations*.

However, from a lawyer's perspective, more attention should be paid to the legal effect of the responses. If the administrative authority's reply merely stays at the level of "acknowledged" or "being processed" without addressing the substance of the issue, it may constitute administrative inaction or insufficient performance of duties. The data showing that "approximately 29% of response records to political inquiries exceeded 72 hours" and cases where "responses failed to address the core points" precisely remind us that there is still room for improvement in the rule-of-law and standardization of online political engagement.

II. Legal Evaluation Behind the Red and Black Lists: A "Benchmark" for Response Quality and Administrative Compliance

The "Shenzhen Governance Inquiry" Red and Black List uses response volume, response rate, response timeliness, and resolution effectiveness as indicators, effectively establishing a comprehensive evaluation system for administrative agencies' performance of their duties. From a legal perspective, these indicators inherently align with the requirements of the Administrative Litigation Law regarding administrative agencies' participation in litigation and burden of proof. Timely responses and proper handling often indicate that administrative actions are more lawful in both procedure and substance; conversely, perfunctory responses or evasive answers may serve as triggers for subsequent administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation.

Taking the "long-term vehicle occupation issue" in the case as an example, citizens pressed for specific handling outcomes, yet the response only outlined "general measures"—this is precisely a typical manifestation of "emphasizing substance over procedure" or "selective enforcement" in administrative law enforcement. Under the relevant provisions of the Administrative Compulsion Law and the Road Traffic Safety Law, administrative authorities bear the statutory duty to investigate and handle vehicles illegally occupying road space in accordance with the law. If the response merely cites "strengthened management" without specifying the outcome of enforcement against the specific violation, it may constitute a defect in the performance of duties.

Looking again at the "qualification issues of outsourcing for chain restaurants," the response from Futian District Human Resources Bureau sidestepped the core issue of "outsourcing company qualifications." According to the Interim Provisions on Labor Dispatch, if an employing unit uses a dispatch agency without proper qualifications, it itself faces compliance risks in employment. By avoiding this point in its response, the administrative body not only failed to effectively address public concerns but also risked being questioned for regulatory oversight failures. This reminds us that high-quality government responsiveness is not just a matter of attitude, but also a reflection of legal expertise.

III. Pathways for Citizens to Protect Their Legal Rights: From "Posting for Help Online" to "Seeking Legal Remedies"

The "Ask Shenzhen Government" platform provides citizens with a convenient channel to express their concerns, but lawyers must remind the public: posting online is not a statutory administrative remedy. When citizens' legitimate rights and interests are infringed upon, or when they are dissatisfied with the handling results of administrative agencies, they should promptly shift to the legal track to safeguard their rights.

Specifically, citizens may apply for administrative reconsideration or file administrative lawsuits in accordance with the Administrative Reconsideration Law and the Administrative Litigation Law, targeting inaction or illegal performance of duties by administrative organs. For example, if a citizen reports a noise disturbance issue and the ecological environment department, despite conducting an investigation, fails to make a legally required handling decision, the citizen may apply for reconsideration to demand that the department fulfill its statutory duties. Additionally, for personal losses caused by improper performance of duties by administrative organs, compensation may also be claimed under the State Compensation Law.

In addition, the four major areas reflected in the platform data—"environmental protection, urban construction, road facilities, and traffic management"—account for 70% of the total, and these areas happen to be the focus of administrative supervision. While using the government inquiry platform, citizens should retain relevant evidence (such as photos, videos, and correspondence records) for potential subsequent legal proceedings. Lawyers suggest that for issues involving significant interests or those that have remained unresolved for a long time, directly engaging a professional lawyer to intervene—through legal notices, administrative reconsideration, or litigation—can often more effectively drive the resolution of the problem.

IV. Compliance Implications for Administrative Agencies: Turning "Public Voices" into "Rule of Law"

The insights from the "Ask Shenzhen" red-and-black list data for administrative agencies lie in the fact that responding to governance is not merely a "reply," but an administrative act. Every response should be treated as the drafting of a legal document, one that must withstand legal scrutiny. Several points in practice are worth noting:

First, responses should be specific and clear, directly addressing the core of the issue, avoiding "template-style" replies. For example, the practice of "clear pathways" in the case explicitly informs the processing procedures and time limits, which aligns with the principles of convenience and transparency under the Administrative Licensing Law and the Regulations on Open Government Information.

Second, establish a "look-back" mechanism to prevent problems from resurging. For recurring issues such as street occupation and noise disturbance, administrative authorities should, based on the principle of "combining punishment with education" under the Administrative Penalty Law, continue to follow up and ensure that rectification is fully implemented.

Third, for complex problems, one should be adept at applying the mindset of "collaborative governance." In the case, the joint handling of the bar noise issue by the Ecological Environment Bureau and the sub-district office is a vivid practice of the provision in the Environmental Protection Law that "local people's governments at all levels shall be responsible for the environmental quality of their respective administrative regions."

Finally, administrative agencies should pay attention to the legal risks behind the data from online political engagement. For cases of overdue non-response or poor response quality, internal supervision and accountability mechanisms should be established. This is not only an improvement in administrative efficiency but also an inevitable requirement for building a law-based government.

Conclusion: Shenzhen's Practice from "Political Accountability" to "Rule of Law"

The one-year data from "Wenzheng Shenzhen" reveals the innovation and efforts of a megacity in grassroots governance. As a Shenzhen lawyer, I deeply feel that the online political inquiry platform serves as a bridge connecting the government and the public, and is also a crucial lever for building a law-based government. Looking ahead, I hope Shenzhen can further integrate "inquiry" data with statutory remedy channels such as administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation, ensuring that every "voice" of citizens receives the most robust response within the legal framework. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm will also continue to focus on administrative rule-of-law practices, providing professional and precise legal services to citizens and administrative agencies, and jointly contributing to the development of Shenzhen as a pioneering demonstration city for law-based governance.