Several institutions across China became notorious for imposing military-style discipline and physical punishment before public backlash forced the industry to rebrand itself as family education centres, behavioural intervention programmes, or youth development organisations. While the terminology has changed, the underlying business model has expanded to include adults whose personal choices clash with parental expectations, a report said.According to a report in online magazine ‘The Diplomat’, romantic relationships, excessive gaming, unemployment, unconventional career paths, and irregular sleep patterns can all become grounds for intervention.In March, a 21-year-old music student in Beijing went to an apartment complex to give a piano lesson. Her father, aunt, and two staff members from a private disciplinary institution were waiting there. Her relatives told her the strangers were police officers investigating a family matter. They forced her into a vehicle, seized her phone, and took her hundreds of miles to an institution in Henan province, where she remained for the next 11 days, the report mentioned.Citing Southern People Weekly, it stated that her parents disapproved of her relationship and believed that their once-compliant daughter was no longer easy to manage. They hired the institution to isolate her, oversee her daily activities, and persuade her to break off the relationship. Reports indicate that the facility charged 26,800 yuan (about $4,000) for six months and 36,800 yuan for a year, covering living expenses including room and board.A July investigation by China Newsweek documented several adults placed in similar institutions by their own families. One 21-year-old man said his parents paid for a facility to ‘correct’ his sleeping habits.Referring to an investigation by Chinese media outlet Jiemian News, the report revealed one behavioural correction school in China houses adults as old as 33 years living alongside teenagers.According to the report, Chinese law criminalises the unlawful restriction of an individual’s personal freedom, with offenders facing up to three years in prison. A June commentary by The Beijing News emphasised that: “a contract authorising ‘military-style management’ is not a valid defence.”
