During the two sessions of the National Peoples Congress this year, Liu Xiaobing, deputy of the National Peoples Congress and Dean of the School of Public and Economic Management of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, submitted a proposal on the formulation of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on Information Disclosure to the second session of the 13th National Peoples Congress. On March 4, Liu Xiaobing, in an interview with reporters of the Beijing News, pointed out that the current legislative level of information disclosure is low, and the right to know cannot be effectively guaranteed. Therefore, it is necessary to upgrade the legislative level and expand the scope of disclosure.
The Limitation of the Subject with Low Level of Legislation at Present
Liu Xiaobing introduced that the current Regulations of the Peoples Republic of China on Government Information Disclosure (hereinafter referred to as Regulations) is the most effective normative document in the field of government information disclosure at present, but it is only the administrative regulations formulated by the State Council, which essentially belongs to the internal self-restraint nature of the administrative system. To protect the peoples right to know, the requirements of the Party and the state have not been confirmed and guaranteed in the form of law.
Liu Xiaobing believes that the legal effect of the Regulations is lower than that of the Confidentiality Law, the Archives Law and the Civil Servants Law enacted by the National Peoples Congress. In practice, the Regulations may conflict with the aforementioned laws and be restricted because of their low level, which may easily lead to problems such as inactivity, timeliness and inaccuracy in the governments initiative to disclose information, and it is also easy for the government departments to become inaccurate. An excuse to disclose information.
In addition, the subject of disclosure stipulated in the current Regulations is limited to the administrative organs, enterprises, institutions and related organizations under the management of the State Council, and the information of legislative organs, judicial organs and social organizations not under the management of the State Council has not been included in the subject of obligation of information disclosure. However, there is no clear provision in the Regulations on the connection between the Regulations and relevant laws, regulations and policies, especially the lack of effective connection and legal definition between the laws and policies related to information disclosure, such as the Secret Law, the Civil Servants Law and the Regulations on Leading CadresReporting on Personal Matters.
Legislative Definition of Subject and Improvement of Relief Ability
Liu Xiaobing suggested that the Law on Information Disclosure be enacted to affirm citizensright to know in the form of law. The subject of information disclosure should be clearly defined in the Law on Information Disclosure. All departments and units involved in the operation of public power and the use of public resources belong to the subject of information disclosure, including administrative organs, public enterprises and institutions, legislative organs, judicial organs and other social organizations, etc. Their obligation of information disclosure should be confirmed by law.
In order to effectively solve the conflict between the information disclosure law and some existing laws, Liu Xiaobing also suggested that the existing Secret Law and Information Disclosure Law be merged into Information Disclosure Law of the Peoples Republic of China.
How to effectively provide relief and make the mechanism of external restriction on the basis of internal supervision after incorporating legislative, judicial, party and government departments and social organizations into the subject of information disclosure obligation is the key point of whether citizensright to know can be truly implemented. Liu Xiaobing believes that, on the one hand, we can increase the content and proportion of information disclosure in the assessment of the performance of leading cadres, and build a practical accountability system; on the other hand, we need to improve judicial supervision and clarify the administrative litigation system of information disclosure cases.