Premier Wen Two Years Three Official Property Declaration

The property declaration system, known as the "sunshine bill", has attracted more and more attention from the central government and the public.

Wen Jiabao, member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Premier of the State Council, attended the fifth summer Davos forum 14.

Three years to declare "official property"

In March 5, 2010, Premier Wen Jiabao said in his report on the work of the government that we should lay an important position in combating corruption and building a clean government. Leading cadres at all levels, especially senior cadres, should resolutely carry out the central provisions on the reporting of personal economy and property, including income, housing, investment and the employment of matching children.

In February 28, 2011, when Premier Wen Jiabao communicated with netizens online, he suggested that "many netizens put forward why they do not establish property declaration system for officials." this proposal is correct and should be a major measure against corruption.

We say that we should open our government affairs and make public the income of officials.

It is necessary to establish a system and make laws, and maintain it in the long run, so that it can get real results.

We are actively preparing for this work. "

In September 15, 2011, Premier Wen Jiabao pointed out that during the fifth summer Davos Forum on anti-corruption, we have formulated some systems, including leading cadres' property and family members' settlement and business in foreign countries. We should further improve them and gradually declare from the public to the public. This is the most important supervision of the power of cadres.

Against occupation encroachment.

It is strictly forbidden for leading cadres to use their hands.

Strengthening the supervision of public officers' property has become a general consensus.

In 2010, around the supervision of public officials' property, the prohibition of sexual behavior and official consumption, the research group of the rule of law state of the Academy of Social Sciences of China Academy of Social Sciences launched the national conditions investigation of "legal measures for honest administration of public officials".

The survey results show that with the increasing anti-corruption efforts of the state, many anti-corruption measures have aroused widespread social response, especially the supervision system of public officials property has reached the stage of how to design and operate.

At present, there is no legislative activity or institutional innovation, such as the supervision of public officials' property, which is highly concerned by the public and a broad consensus has been formed.

"In the areas of high corruption, such as engineering and construction, property declaration can effectively curb the high incidence of corruption."

Tian He, director of the rule of Law National Situation Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told reporters that the director of the pportation department has been "sacking" and "going all the way" is very serious in the whole country. Therefore, property declaration should be started from the high incidence of corruption, and it will be extended to other fields after the pilot.

The most important thing is to enhance public trust in the government.

From the experience of anti-corruption all over the world, strengthening the supervision of public officers' property plays an important role in preventing corruption and promoting clean government.

Li Lin, the director of the Institute of law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told reporters that the supervision of public officials' property can improve the pparency of public officers' economic status and changes in their property, which is conducive to further supervising the behavior of public officials, greatly restricting the abuse of public power by public officials or making use of their special status to seek illegal interests, and urging them to consciously restrain their behavior.

Li Lin believes that strengthening property supervision will also increase the cost of public officers seeking private benefits by using public power, in particular, help to raise public trust in public officials, eliminate public doubts and speculation about the integrity of public officials, protect the legitimate property of public servants, and maintain the reputation of public servants who already have a certain number of legitimate assets.

From public servants to spouses' children

With the advance of anti-corruption work, people have realized that the supervision should not be limited to the property of public officials.

The existing system has expanded from only supervising the property of public officials to the property of their spouses and children who live together, and some places have even extended to the property of parents who live together.

As far as the scope of supervision is concerned, the Research Report on the supervision system of public officials property in 2010 by the Academy of Social Sciences pointed out that the system of income declaration and personal matters reported in recent years is mainly applicable to leading cadres at county level and above.

Some local pilot implementation of the relevant system has correspondingly reduced the level of supervision objects, for example, the Aletai District of Xinjiang has brought the rank cadres into the scope of supervision objects, and the scope of supervised property has been gradually extended from personal income of former public officers to personal property and even the property of children who live together and live together.

According to the Research Report of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, respondents tend to apply the objects of property supervision to a wider range of public officials.

Only 1.4% of the public officials who recognized the public supervision of property implementation agreed that the open measures were only applicable to the provincial and ministerial level personnel; that the identification was only applicable to 6.8% of the staff in the Department of the land hall and bureau level; 35.8% of those who agreed only to apply to the county level or above; 18.6% of those who were only suitable for the division level, and 32.7% of the public servants.

In the public recognition of public supervision of public property, the proportion of the five views agreed was 1.1%, 3.7%, 17.6%, 26.6% and 43.7% respectively.

It can be seen that both the public and the public tend to supervise the property of a wider range of public officials.

The difference is that the public officers prefer to restrict the supervision to the personnel above the county level, while the public tends to supervise all the public officers' property.

"It is not advisable to delineate the scope of supervision objects in strict accordance with the administrative level."

Researcher Li Lin said there are great differences in the level of public officers who hold the public power in different levels of government organs.

In many central organs, only public officers above the Deputy level can actually affect the operation of public power.

At the grass-roots level, such as district and county level local governments, a public officer of the section and even the deputy section level can grasp the more substantive public power.

It is still necessary to increase the openness of officials' property from supervisor's report to the public.

To implement effective property supervision for public officers, we must constantly expand the objects of public property and expand all kinds of open channels.

According to the survey report, at present, from the central to local implementation of the property supervision measures, the supervision of public officers' property is mainly based on reporting property to the competent authorities. In some places, the practice of appropriate disclosure of relevant information to the public has been carried out in some places.

The channels and ways of public participation in supervision are relatively insufficient, and the pparency and openness of property supervision is not high enough, which restricts the actual effect of property supervision.

People pay more attention to the property of public officials.

Research shows that a considerable number of respondents want to disclose the property status of public officials to the public and allow the public to participate in supervising the property of public officials.

Of all respondents surveyed who recognized public property in an open manner, 68.3% of the public believed that the public property status of the public should be disclosed to the public. Only 15.1% of the public believed that it was only necessary to disclose to all the staff of the unit, and that only 5.3% of the public leaders were required to disclose it to the public.

Among the public officials, 63.6% thought that the property status of the public officers should be disclosed to the whole society. Only 17.7% of the public officers were required to disclose the property status to all the staff members of the public. Only 7.7% of the public officers were required to disclose to the leaders of the unit.

It can be seen that for the public officers themselves, most of them also agree to expand the scope of public participation and allow the public to participate in supervision.

The above surveys indicate that it is necessary to gradually increase the publicity level of the public officers' property and rationally guide the public to participate in the supervision of the enthusiasm and enthusiasm of the public officials' property, so as to enhance the credibility of the public officers.

Supporting measures for property supervision need to be strengthened, and should be carried out in a progressive way.

At present, the implementation of property supervision measures in China not only takes public officials to declare property and limited publicity, but also lacks relevant supporting measures, so that property supervision itself can not play its due role. It can not guarantee relatively accurate grasp of the actual property status of the public officials, but also can not effectively find public officials who report unreal property or even conceals property, and thus provide a basis for the implementation of severe sanctions.

Tian He believes that increasing the publicity to the public and allowing the public to participate in the supervision of public officials' property will be an inevitable way to promote the building of a clean government system for public officials.

In addition, we must further improve the mechanism of public reporting and complaints, and strengthen the protection and confidentiality of whistleblowers.

Moreover, we must increase the administrative and even criminal sanctions against those who report false matters, especially the relevant provisions on the need to continue to improve the crime of causing huge amounts of property to be unidentified.

Tien Ho said that in order to effectively implement these systems, the key is to strengthen the information sharing mechanism between banks, financial institutions, tax departments, real estate management departments and other departments, so that all relevant departments can cooperate closely with the main property of public officers.

Perfecting the financial real name system and anti money laundering system is the premise of implementing information sharing, and information sharing is the guarantee for the above system to play a real role and is the key to the implementation of good property supervision.

Li Lin suggested that we must choose the right path to promote the supervision of public officials' property and step by step.

First of all, we should clarify the functional orientation of the property supervision mechanism.

On the one hand, public officials are required to report truthfully the property status of individuals and even their families. On the other hand, by implementing supervision, the competent authorities and the public can discover the property status which is inconsistent with their own experience, duties, and time of service, and then investigate and punish their corruption.

Secondly, we should proceed step by step and adopt the way from point to face.

There is a certain difference between the public and public officials in determining the objects of supervision of property, and the differences between public officials at different levels are also great.

In practice, it is bound to encounter enormous resistance to indiscriminately integrate the property of all departments, all localities and all levels of public officials into the supervised area one step at a time.

Now, some places have already started pilot projects, but the pilot sites are relatively low in level, and the legality of the pilot measures can not be effectively solved.

We need to choose pointcuts appropriately and implement them from top to bottom.

Finally, we must establish and perfect relevant systems as soon as possible.

The implementation of property supervision involves the law enforcement authority, public supervision power, the right to know and the right of privacy of public officials and their close relatives. It also involves the powers, duties and procedures of different departments in property supervision.

To solve these problems, we must rely on the state to push the legislation from top to bottom.

Policy background: Central and local regulations

At present, both at the central level and at the local level, some provisions have been issued in the supervision of public officers' property and some practice has been carried out.

In 1995, the general office of the CPC Central Committee and the general office of the State Council promulgated the provisions on the declaration of income of leading cadres of the party and government organs at the county level and above, requiring the leading cadres of the county (above) level to declare their personal income.

In 2001, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the CPC and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the "Regulations on the reporting of family property at the provincial and ministerial level leading cadres (Trial Implementation)", extending the declaration items of the provincial and ministerial leading cadres from personal income to family property.

In 2006, the general office of the CPC Central Committee put forward the provisions on personal matters related to Party members' leading cadres, and further extended the matters that should be reported by leaders at the county level and above to their spouses and children.

In 2010, the general office of the CPC Central Committee and the general office of the State Council also issued the "Regulations on personal matters related to leading cadres' reporting, which refined the provisions on reporting property matters.

In the "Regulations on personal matters related to leading cadres' reports, the leading cadres should declare their property mainly including: their salaries and all kinds of bonuses, allowances and subsidies; I am engaged in lectures, writing, consulting, reviewing, painting and calligraphy, and so on; the housing situation of my spouse and children living together; I, spouses, children living together, or holding other forms of securities, stock (including equity incentive), futures, funds, investment insurance, and other financial products; the situation of spouses, children living together in investing in non-listed company and enterprises; spouses, children living together with children, registered individual businesses, individual proprietorship enterprises or partnership enterprises.

At the local level, Xinjiang Aletai, Zhejiang Cixi, Sichuan High County, Chongqing Kaixian and Jiangbei District, Shanghai Pudong, Hunan Hunan and Hunan have carried out a pilot project of leading cadres' property supervision.

In 2009, Chongqing also announced the pilot of property declaration in the judicial system.