At Shanghai’s municipal "Two Sessions," CPPCC member Tong Lin pressed for a package of practical fixes to three frictions emerging from the city’s rapid digitalisation: inadequate AI education for minors, opaque data markets dominated by platforms, and lingering credit restrictions on entrepreneurs after corporate bankruptcy.
Tong, a vice‑chair of a Shanghai civic federation and deputy director at a local law firm, said his field research found that AI teaching in primary and secondary schools lacked a coherent top‑level design. Current instruction is often tacked onto information‑technology classes, fragmented across grades and overly focused on programming and algorithms rather than on ethics, societal impact and critical thinking.
To remedy that, Tong proposed that the municipal education commission draw up a white list of approved AI textbooks and build a staged curriculum centred on "AI literacy." He also recommended negotiated "education accounts" with major AI companies so schools and students can access age‑appropriate tools under controlled, noncommercial terms — a step intended to protect minors now compelled to register services with adults’ mobile numbers.
On data governance, Tong highlighted a structural problem: e‑commerce and platform ecosystems have become both rule‑maker and competitor, designing bespoke dispute procedures that leave consumers with inconsistent rights and little recourse. He observed that most online consumer disputes are resolved through platform‑run review processes whose standards vary wildly and whose neutrality is open to question.
His remedy was institutional: propose the creation, under regulator guidance, of a data‑elements industry association that brings together leading platforms, consumer groups, legal and technical experts to set an ethics code, compliance guidance and a unified dispute resolution standard. Tong argued this would help standardise data trading rules, improve algorithmic transparency and reduce conflicts of interest where platforms act as both market operator and judge.
Tong’s third pitch addressed the post‑bankruptcy credit limbo that deters entrepreneurship. He described a practical breakdown in information flows between enforcement divisions and bankruptcy courts: when a company enters bankruptcy, the fact is not always propagated automatically to systems that enforce personal consumption restrictions on its legal representatives. The result is that entrepreneurs remain subject to credit constraints long after a firm’s insolvency proceedings begin.
He urged building automatic data links between court management and enforcement systems, plus standard operating procedures to trigger credit‑relief reviews and a one‑stop credit‑repair service for business owners. Faster, automated processes could remove a costly stigma that keeps experienced founders away from new ventures and dampens business dynamism.
Taken together, Tong’s proposals are modest and technically focused, aimed at lowering frictions rather than rewriting policy at the national level. They resonate with broader Chinese priorities — cultivating digital skills, taming platform power, and stabilising the business environment — but will test the appetite of both technology companies and municipal agencies for cooperative governance. Implementation will require cooperation across departments, legal clarification of roles, and safeguards to prevent industry bodies from simply enshrining the practices of dominant platforms.