Why are people classified as having an agricultural household registration?

The household registration system, this identity restriction, traps people within a framework of geographic and blood ties, and that is deeply unjust. On what grounds are people classified as having an agricultural household registration? Is it based on their “occupation”? But just look at today's “farmers” and you will find that most of them no longer farm, and most of their income no longer comes from agriculture, yet they are still called farmers. There is no such logic anywhere in the world.

Occupation is merely a division of labor. If someone farms the land, then of course they are a farmer. But if they are already making machines for industry every day, for export, and yet are still called farmers, and then told that city affairs have nothing to do with them, how can that be right? It does not make sense.

The rule of law means handling matters according to the law, and everyone is equal before the law. This unreasonable thing has been dragged out for too long and should have been changed long ago. This time, resolving to change it, I think, is a good thing, and for farmers it is a great liberation.

The resistance to reform comes from one source: mindset, and another, of course, is certain objectively existing practical problems. The most important question is whether there is any way to solve these problems. Sometimes we overemphasize practical difficulties, and then find the excuse to “not act,” and that amounts to reform inaction, a tendency that must be guarded against in governance. Practical difficulties can actually be solved, so why can they not be solved?

Of course, urban household registration comes with a set of benefits, and this set of benefits was formed by the past system. In recent years we have carried out urban-rural coordination, and within that coordination there have been many reforms, including the equalization of public services.

In the past, the government indeed did not manage rural affairs much, but now, one item after another, it manages quite a lot, covering compulsory education, the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme, old-age support, and low income, all of which are involved. Only, from an overall perspective, the level of rural security is indeed a bit lower. Does being a bit lower mean that farmers can never cross that threshold in status? In Chengdu I saw the local reforms, and I was deeply inspired —— they said there are differences, but there is no status gulf.

What does that mean specifically? For example, farmers' housing and land have been marketized, their incomes have risen, and by paying a bit more money they can upgrade their social security to a higher tier; just like us, by paying a bit more money, they can move up another tier. In the past this was not possible. In the past, if a citizen had rural household registration, their various benefits and protections could not be upgraded into the city, and it could fully be seen as two worlds. Now, we want to tear down the barrier between those two worlds.

The central government, local governments, enterprises, and families each need to bear their own responsibility

Of course, bringing urban and rural residents to the same welfare level in the short term is still not possible, because there is a rigidity here: if you want to push down the already achieved higher level, that is a joke, but to raise everyone to the same level is fiscally impossible and also impossible in terms of financing.

A relatively good approach is to first eliminate the “dead threshold” between urban and rural areas, turn it into different levels of protection, and then, when conditions allow, add one piece and push it up one piece; when conditions allow again, add a little more and push it up another piece, and let time flatten it out. Here, the central government budget, local government budgets, and social enterprises bear part of the responsibility, including families themselves paying part, lifting it together. That is the only way.

To narrow the gap, we must acknowledge the gap, but we must not turn the gap into a status threshold; some people, even if they have money, still cannot pay in. Why? Because they are farmers. Can farmers only join rural social security? We still need to open it up, turning it into, say, level 15, level 14, level 13, level 12, and then combine it with your past history.

Many experts on security issues are also studying reform, and they have many very good opinions, and many places have also made attempts; we can only proceed on that foundation. As for the central government budget, we also need to think about how it can become a bit more capable in this regard and better bear the universal obligation to the entire citizenry.

For another example, schooling. Why must it be said that the money for a child's schooling is given by some provincial government? Since compulsory education was passed by national law and is a right that citizens of the People's Republic of China should enjoy, then no matter where one goes to school, it should be funded by the public finances.