Earlier this month, netizens were incensed over a viral video that showed firefighters and other uniformed officers breaking into a shop in Datong, Shanxi province late at night in order to turn on the lights—ostensibly, to force the shop owner to comply with a local initiative “suggesting” that businesses in the city’s historic district leave their lights on all night to make the area look more festive for tourists during the Lunar New Year. Local officials eventually issued an apology, citing "improper methods," “poor communication and misunderstandings,” "impatience for quick results," and "a lack of service awareness in our work." The incident resulted in an outpouring of articles, opinion pieces, and online comments highlighting the illegality of the action, the high-handedness of local officials, and the habitual disrespect for private property and private businesses.
The controversy is being described online as “breaking in (literally, ‘prying open the lock’) to turn on the lights” (撬锁点灯, qiàosuǒ diǎndēng; also 撬门开灯, qiàomén kāidēng). Other permutations of the phrase include “breaking in late at night to turn on the lights” (半夜撬门开灯, bànyè qiàomén kāidēng) and “smashing/forcing the door to turn on the lights” (破门亮灯, pòmén liàngdēng). Some have borrowed a more classical phrase (from chapter 77 of Cao Xueqin’s 18th-century novel Dream of the Red Chamber) to describe the perennial conflict between imperious authorities and the citizenry: “Only magistrates are allowed to set fires, while ordinary folk aren’t even allowed to light lanterns” (只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯, Zhǐxǔ zhōuguān fànghuǒ, bùxǔ bǎixìng diǎndēng.) The implication, of course, is that those in power can do whatever they please, whereas ordinary people are restricted even in their legitimate daily or business activities.
CDT Chinese editors have thus far archived about a dozen articles and essays about the controversy in Datong, as well as a variety of netizen comments. Some online commenters said the unauthorized break-in reminded them of COVID pandemic lockdowns, during which white-suited pandemic workers would sometimes break into private homes to "disinfect" the premises or "cull" dogs whose owners had been placed in quarantine facilities. Others said that it felt like a real-life version of a skit, featured in this year’s televised Spring Festival Gala, in which a noodle shop—in a misguided effort to comply with a local government initiative to make the town streets appear bustling and prosperous—forces a pair of customers to sit outside in freezing temperatures as they attempt to enjoy their noodles.
One Weibo user noted the relative impunity enjoyed by those in uniform, and mocked the “non-apology apology” issued by the neighborhood government in Datong:
When ordinary people break in: We get arrested for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
When the government breaks in: "We were impatient for results and excessively hasty in carrying out our work." [Chinese]
Another comment, from an anonymous netizen, made reference to local authorities’ desire to promote tourism at all costs and to create the impression of economic prosperity, even if it is a sort of “Potemkin prosperity”:
Breaking into a shop in the middle of the night to turn on the lights—how could such a ridiculous thing happen? It’s because to the authorities, “false prosperity” resembles "prosperity,” and they care more about the appearance of prosperity than the “false” part. [Chinese]
A recent WeChat article from Zhao Hong, a professor of law at China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, poses the following questions: "How can a voluntary ‘initiative’ become mandatory? And how do law-enforcement officers turn into scofflaws?" Professor Zhao’s article, published by Phoenix.com’s current-affairs WeChat blog Fengsheng OPINION, offers some legal insights into the supposedly voluntary local initiative asking shopkeepers to keep their lights on overnight for about two weeks during the Lunar New Year to make the historical city center appear more festive. The article also mentions the shopkeeper in question, a Mr. Yue, who had told local authorities that he couldn’t rush to his shop in the middle of the night just to turn on the lights, because he was too busy tending to his newborn child at home:
After the video surveillance footage provided by Mr. Yue was widely circulated, netizens described the scene of law-enforcement officers breaking the lock on the door and turning on the lights as an instance of “absurdly violent enforcement exposed under the glare of incandescent lights." The illegality of their behavior in this case is self-evident.
[…] In this case, Mr. Yue simply failed to keep his lights on overnight during the Spring Festival holiday, as recommended by his local neighborhood committee. His behavior was not in violation of public security enforcement protocols, nor did he fail to carry out any obligations as prescribed by the law. Public security organs are only tasked with enforcing the law, thus there was no conceivable legal basis for law-enforcement officers to break into Mr. Yue’s shop.
Merchants have significant legal property rights over their own shops. As Article 13 of the Constitution clearly stipulates, “Citizens’ lawful private property is inviolable. The state shall protect the right of citizens to own and inherit private property in accordance with the provisions of law.” And Article 240 of the Civil Code also emphasizes, "Those with ownership rights enjoy the rights to possession, use, earnings, and disposition of their own real estate and chattel.”
By forcibly entering Mr. Yue’s shop to turn on the lights without the express permission of the owner, the neighborhood committee property-management and law-enforcement departments committed a serious violation of Mr. Yue’s property rights. This violent action by law enforcement not only disrespects private property rights expressly protected by the Constitution and the Civil Code, but also disregards the owner’s right to exercise autonomy over his own business operations. It may even constitute a violation of Article 245 of the Criminal Law, which defines the crime of "unlawful entry into a private residence." According to paragraph two of Article 245, “Any judicial officer who abuses his power and commits the crime [unlawful entry into a private residence] mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be given a heavier punishment.”
[…] From the audio [of the phone call] that Mr. Yue publicly shared, one is struck anew by the sheer arrogance of the [local] authorities: "If you don’t open the door, then the police are just going to show up and force it open. We’ll open that door for you—just see if we don’t.” “You don’t have to stay [in the shop], but the lights have to stay on.”
It is astonishing that even now, as we enter 2025, public authorities could show such blatant disregard for private property rights. Is this due to law-enforcement officers’ indifference to the rule of law, or do those in power genuinely believe that their authority supersedes the rule of law? Are those in power so protected that they can simply cast off the constraints of the rule of law?
A photo showing the shop door’s broken ground-level lock after it was cut. (source: Dafeng News)
[…] Mr. Yue informed reporters that the local propaganda department had told him that nearly 97% of the shops in the city were actively cooperating with the guideline to keep their lights on overnight for the duration of the Spring Festival holiday. Regarding the 3% of shops that decided not cooperate, Mr. Yue asked, "Do those 3% deserve to have their doors pried open?"
Surveillance video from Mr. Yue’s shop shows uniformed officers after they broke into his shop. (Source: Dafeng News)
[…] After law-enforcement officers broke into his shop, Mr. Yue called the 12345 hotline to report the incident, and also attempted to consult Pingcheng District authorities and the district’s Urban Management Bureau, but received no response to his queries.
[…] Facing tremendous public opinion backlash, the Gucheng Neighborhood Committee in Pingcheng District finally issued an apology letter early on the morning of February 7. Unfortunately, the apology letter made no mention of the legal consequences for the law-enforcement officers who broke in and turned on the lights, nor did it reassess the policy of requiring shops to keep their lights on all day and night throughout the Spring Festival. It simply attributed the problem to "improper working methods" and what it called “our impatience for quick results, a crude and heavy-handed approach, and a lack of service awareness in our work." Such an apology is undoubtedly disappointing to Mr. Yue, the shopkeeper whose rights were violated, as well as to the many netizens who have been paying close attention to the matter.
Today is only the tenth day of the first lunar month, and the traditional Spring Festival holiday is not yet over, but this incident in Datong, Shanxi province, serves as a reminder that if we wish to foster harmony, the rule of law must be our guiding light: it is only by respecting the rights of every individual that we can enjoy a fine, festive, vibrant city. [Chinese]
Another Weibo article, from the former publisher and editor-in-chief of China Blog magazine, is titled, “Breaking in to turn on the lights in Datong: Was it really just the product of ‘excessive enthusiasm?’” The author is deeply critical of both the wording and sentiment of the apology issued by local officials, and points out that local enforcers in general—whether they call themselves “chengguan” or “comprehensive enforcement teams”—frequently take a heavy-handed approach, and seem to behave with impunity:
During Chinese New Year, an utterly ridiculous incident occurred in Datong.
Local officials in the Pingcheng historic district had asked all shop owners to keep their lights on, even after closing hours, but one shop owner turned off his lights and went home. The neighborhood committee later called him up and asked him to come back to turn on the lights. As a new father trying desperately to coax his one-month-old infant to sleep, the shop owner told them he couldn’t rush back immediately just to turn on the lights in his shop.
So a group of guys wearing high-visibility jackets emblazoned with the words "comprehensive enforcement team" broke the lock on the shop’s door, turned on all the lights, installed a U-shaped padlock on the door, and left.
[…The subsequent apology from Datong authorities] expressed the superficial belief that "There was poor communication, which led to misunderstandings, which incited negative public opinion.” This was their original assessment of the situation.
Note that despite the commas used in that sentence, they are not parallel events, but a series of events. The logic of the apology is very confusing.
Later, under pressure from a public opinion backlash, they issued a new assessment.
This time, they blamed “our impatience for quick results, a crude and heavy-handed approach, and a lack of service awareness in our work.”
If you have any experience in writing official documents, you will know that when such words appear, the people who made mistakes won’t lose their jobs, nor will they even be punished. That kind of wording means: “Our intentions were good, but our execution was clumsy.”
Did the people who picked the lock and broke into that shop to turn on the lights have good intentions?
Of course not! Do well-intentioned people go around breaking and entering for no good reason? Even if you gave me lock-picking tools and asked me to break in, I still wouldn’t know how to pick a lock. If you tried to coerce me to smash the lock, I could probably manage it, but I’d still be too afraid to do it.
If you’ve ever lived in a second-tier or even lower-tier city, you’ll know that those so-called “comprehensive enforcement teams” are more than likely just thugs.
So why is Datong protecting these lock-picking thugs?
Because these thugs are loyally carrying out orders from above, and you can’t punish someone for loyally carrying out your orders. Managers and higher-ups rely on these thugs for their survival. If you start punishing them, they won’t want to work for you anymore.
[…] But we are modern citizens, not imperial subjects, so we shouldn’t just stand aside and gawk at the misfortunes of others. When things go wrong, we must employ logic to explain why things went so wrong, so that the truth eventually becomes clear.
Was Datong’s order to “keep the lights on" really aimed at helping tourists? Were they trying to prevent tourists from tripping in the dark and spraining their ankles?
No, of course not. They just wanted the city to look prettier at night. [Chinese]
Lastly, a WeChat article by Yang Naiwu for Planet Business Review explains Datong’s enthusiasm for all-night lights in terms of the increasing competition for tourist income. As local governments struggle with more debt, declining land revenues, and demands to provide more local services, there is more incentive than ever to pull out all the stops to attract tourists and generate holiday tourism income:
Why are [local authorities] making such a fuss this year? Many of my local friends say it’s connected to the Lantern Festival taking place in Datong’s historic district.
I looked into it and learned that Datong’s Lantern Festival started in 2016. In 2019, Datong’s tourism revenue exceeded 70 billion yuan, 60 billion of which was generated during the Spring Festival holiday period.
But tourism revenue hasn’t returned to the pre-pandemic level of 2019.
In 2023, Datong welcomed 1.66 million tourists during Spring Festival; during the same period in 2019, there were over two million visitors. Tourism revenue has only recovered to two-thirds of the pre-pandemic level.
Last year, due to the popularity of the video game Black Myth: Wukong, travel to Shanxi became very popular. For that reason, Datong has attached great importance to this year’s Spring Festival Lantern Festival, which started 20 days earlier than it did in previous years. The Pingcheng District environmental and commercial brigades also carried out major inspections. Datong’s entire historic district was festooned with lanterns and colorful decorations, and the government website promoted the slogan, "The lights of the ancient capital burn as bright as day, and in Pingcheng, the night is never-ending." [Chinese]