August 29th, 2014, Unirule Institute of Economics held a press conference in Beijing to release the latest report on “government information openness 2014”. Among a series of institutional arrangements, government information openness should be one of the key institutional arrangements. No matter the disclosure of government budget, or the disclosure of the information of government officials, this arrangement will not only guarantee the public participation and its right of supervision, but also greatly lower the possibility for government wrongdoings and the corruption of government officials. Unirule Institute of Economics has been keeping a close eye and acting on promoting government information openness for ages. A research report on Improving Transparency in Local Governments was completed and released in order to push forward the reform in this area and reforms in the general political and legal reforms. Joining this seminar were Mr. ZHENG Zhenyuan, former Office Head of Ministry of Land and Resources of the PRC, Professor XU Xin from Law School of Beiing Institute of Technology; Professor ZHAO Nong from CASS; Dr. YANG Junfeng from Chinese People’s Public Security University; Professor BI Honghai from Beihang University; Mr. JIANG Su, Editor of China-review.com; Mr. KONG Kai from Liaison Office of Guangzhou Province, and Dr. LIU Gang from Peking University. Also present at the meeting were journalist from China Finance, The Economic Observer, Reforms(Internal Review), Global Times, and Economy and Society. Mr. ZHANG Lin, Project Researcher of Unirule, reported the finding in the seminar. To begin the press conference, Mr. ZHANG Lin introduced the background and significance of the report on Improving Transparency in Local Governments. He thought that government, as representative elected by the public, was entrusted with the obligations to handle public affairs and provide public goods. Therefore, it is necessary for the government to disclose relevant information to the public. We can take government information openness as a starting point for further reforms. And by doing so, the public is overlooking the government, which could also institutionalize the anti-corruption acts. In the meantime, the openness of government information is helpful for the administration of government as it provides critical information for decision-making. 
This report sorted out and analyzed the status of government information openness in 2013 for more than thirty provincial capital cities. The report put together the number of information related cases by provincial capitals, the proportion of “approve of disclosure” and “disapprove of disclosure” in these cases, and the amount of cases for administrative reviews and administrative appeals. Among those requested for disclosure cases, the number of “approve of disclosure” cases accounted for 72%, and the proportion of non-disclosures cases was high, for example, proportion of “Information not exist” and “Information beyond department’s reach” was 11% and 7% respectively. Put them with “Not to be disclosed” cases, the proportion reaches 20%. The amount for requesting the disclosure of government information accounts for over RMB40,000. Mr. ZHANG Lin thought in terms of government information openness, the principle of “exhaustion of local remedy” should be applied, which meant certain remedy should exist to guarantee the citizens’ right to request for government information. In the survey of 30 provincial capitals in 2013, those cases that went through administrative reviews accounted for only 3%, and that in the case of administrative appeals only accounted for 2%, which means administrative remedy was not enough. Cases won by citizens instead of government entities in administrative reviews and administrative appeals accounted for only 9% and 6% respectively. Surveys were employed in Beijing, Guiyang, Yinchuan, and Zhengzhou which covers dimensions such as transparency of government official information, fiscal information, political decision-making, public services, social assurances, and maintenance of citizens’ rights. And the findings were basically the same, evaluation of transparency of government official information, state-owned enterprises, and maintenance of citizens’ rights was very low. Conclusions were drawn from the survey above: Two things need to be done, one is the openness of information of government officials, and the other is the openness of information of affairs. The openness of information of government officials has to be undertaken in a top-down manner with distinction made between government officials related to administration and civil servants related to public services. Incremental reforms should be undertaken for improving the transparency of information of government officials, and income information of executive personnel and administrative staff of state-owned enterprises should be disclosed to the public. If the Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Committee of the CPC aims at institutional construction after the anti-corruption movement, it should shift itself from a function-oriented department to a normal state organization, such as an Office of Government Ethics or an Independent Commission Against Corruption. Regarding the openness of information of affairs, the relation between government and the society, government and the market, and government and the public should be clearly defined. The expenses for providing public goods by the government should be overlooked by the general public, therefore information of the government budget should be disclosed. Information of government procurement, and the construction of government projects should be communicated with the public. Judicial trials should be open to the public, so is the information of management of state-owned enterprises. At last, Mr. ZHANG Lin summarized that it took comprehensive and synchronized efforts of the legislation, administration and jurisdiction to improve the transparency of government information, and to rebalance the power allocation to bring about real progress in China. Professor XU Xin proposed that key efforts should be made on “improving” the transparency of government information. And the driving force not only came from within the system, but also from the civil society. He thought that civil society should be the main driving force. Actions of the government and citizens were both needed. We need to request, promote, and make policy appeals to achieve positive results. Besides, the media should be encouraged to evaluation the progress of such efforts. Professor XU also thought improving the transparency of government information was only a short and medium term goal, and the ultimate goal had to be clear and detailed institutional goals. 
Professor ZHAO Xu thought good communication of information was the key to effectiveness and efficiency in any organization. The goal of transparency of government information was to encourage truth over lies and make the real situation known to relevant departments and the public. 
Mr. ZHENG Zhenyuan thought transparency of government information was the basic condition for a democratic government. Regarding the limit of government information, it was important to define clearly whether information of the CPC belonged to government information. Besides, there should be clarified boundaries for information disclosure and matching secrecy laws. Any information except that listed in the secrecy law should be disclosed to the public. 
Dr. YANG Junfeng thought a more practical measure to take was to disclose fiscal information, which was very helpful for improving governance of China for the current stage of development. Even though a consensus could be reached in regard with government information openness, obstacles were still hard to overcome, for example, information of property was hard to disclose. 
Mr. JIANG Su thought that the implementing of transparency of government information had much to do with the general background of the system, such as judicial independence and civil society, etc.. Therefore, certain goals should be set. For example, Regulation of the People's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information should be upgraded to law, and the general public should pay more attention to judicial appeals related to information disclosure. 
Professor BI Honghai thought it was very important to adopt a win-win mentality in solving the problem of poor information communication in the government. When drafting laws for government information disclosure, from a perspective of information management, definitive regulations should be made in regard to the types of information that needs to be disclosed. 
Dr. LIU Gang thought the duty of the government was not only limited to maintaining order. The government should also actively build market order, for example, actions should also be taken by the government in regard to financial rules, technology application, and environmental protection. When the government carries out such actions, more information will be handled by the market and society, instead of the government. 
Mr. KONG Kai thought there was also a problem of information disclosure within the government, between different local governments, and governments of different levels. They also needed to share information among themselves. He also stressed the stimuli mechanism in improving the transparency of government information. |
