Firework ban lifted after public hearings
Xing YanChina Daily  Updated: 2005-06-06 05:24

Beijing is set to lift its 12-year-old ban on fireworks for the traditional Spring Festival holidays, probably starting from next Chinese Lunar New Year in January 2006.

Zhou Jidong, director of the Legislative Affairs Office of the Beijing municipal government, told a press conference last Thursday that his office has completed the draft regulations on firework safety supervision.

Under the draft regulations, setting off fireworks will be allowed in the capital city's eight downtown districts from the eve of the Lunar New Year to the Lantern Festival 15 days later.

It is hoped that the Standing Committee of the Beijing Municipal People's Congress will approve the draft ahead of next year's Spring Festival.

Zhou stressed that the government's decision to abandon the firework ban is its way of respecting the people's will.

When the draft regulations were posted on the municipal government's website for suggestions, local residents gave a total of 969 pieces of advice, with 70 per cent in favour of lifting the ban.

Related surveys suggest local people who want to light fireworks during Spring Festival range from 50.4 per cent to 86.3 per cent.

In fact, the voice of opposition and criticism has never ceased since the municipal government introduced the ban in 1993, citing pollution, noise, fire worries and personal injuries caused by letting off fireworks.

Opponents accused the government of introducing the ban solely for the sake of facilitating its management role while disregarding the will of the people.

Worse, they say, the ban threatened to break down the age-old traditions of celebrating Spring Festival among Chinese people.

Partly due to this ceaseless objection, about 106 out of a total 282 Chinese cities that had followed Beijing's lead in banning fireworks have already dropped the ban.

As the first one to introduce the firework ban and a late one to give it up, Beijing should have more to ponder.

One point to note is that the municipal government also claimed that it was acting in the interests of the people when it imposed the ban on fireworks 12 years ago.

So why have policy-makers made two contrary decisions in line with the same principle?

Obviously, the government's out-of-date management was to blame for its rough decision-making process when introducing the ban.

Authorities concerned used to believe that administrative power was omnipotent and thus tended to overemphasize it while neglecting civic rights.

That tells us why the firework ban was believed to have hurt the freedom of most residents who wanted to enjoy the festival by setting off fireworks despite the policy-makers' good intentions in trying to ensure public security in the city.

Such a management practice has met with more and more challenges since the emergence of diverse interest groups, and increased people's awareness over individual rights in a modern society.

In response, the government has actually learnt to play its social management role and balance different interests in a wise and better way.

For instance, the surveys about the firework ban in Beijing also showed a large proportion of respondents strongly oppose lifting the ban, saying it is dangerous for a city with a population of nearly 17 million.

Fortunately, the government did not move to wield its power this time. Instead, it is encouraging local communities to exercise their rights and find a way out to ensure the legitimate interests of those who oppose the ban be also safeguarded.

Meanwhile, the regulations also require related government departments, such as the work safety administration, public security bureau and the administration for industry and commerce, to strengthen safety measures during the production, transport, sale and setting off of fireworks.

So it is good for Beijing, along with other cities, to review and revise the firework ban. If such a move can greatly help the government improve its management methods, this is a bonus.

(China Daily 06/06/2005 page4)

Close