"Suggestions" and "Proposals" from Two Sessions

Examining what NYT dismissed as "usually harmless suggestions about their pet causes"

Mar 02, 2021

(Click on the title of the newsletter in the body of the email for an in-browser read.)

The 两会 Two Sessions, or the annual sessions of the National People’s Congress (the national legislative body) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (the political advisory body), are just around the corner - opening on Friday, March 5 and Thursday, March 4, respectively.

This newsletter looks at one often overlooked institutional arrangement related to the Two Sessions, which your Pekingnologist believes is not only informative but also of practical use: 代表委员建议提案办理 the handling of 建议 suggestions of NPC deputies and 提案 proposals of CPPCC members.

This newsletter is divided into four parts:

I. A brief overview of the mechanism behind suggestions by NPC Deputies and proposals by CPPCC members;

II. Select examples of Chinese government ministries’ replies;

III. Educated guess of select suggestions and proposals, and observations;

IV. How to find the suggestions and proposals.

But before examining what a New York Times report in 2017 dismissed as usually harmless suggestions about their pet causes, allow your Pekingnologist to re-emphasize this is a PERSONAL newsletter where all the views are of himself. This does NOT represent the view of his day-job employer Xinhua News Agency, let alone “China.” Please also note all the suggestions and proposals in this newsletter are NOT part of the upcoming 2021 Two Sessions, but from last year.

***

Part I

NPC deputies and CPPCC members are NOT full-time legislators or political advisors. They don’t earn their living wages at the bodies. The annual sessions, held in early March every year except last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, see them submitting written documents to their respective bodies - in the case of NPC, it’s called 建议 suggestions and in the case of CPPCC, it’s called 提案 proposals.

In the case of suggestions at the NPC, Article 21 of the current 中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会组织法 (CHN) Organic Law of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (ENG) says

全国人民代表大会代表向全国人民代表大会或者全国人民代表大会常务委员会提出的对各方面工作的建议、批评和意见，由全国人民代表大会常务委员会的办事机构交由有关机关、组织研究处理并负责答复。
The suggestions, criticisms and opinions put forward by deputies to the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee concerning any sphere of work shall be referred by the office of the Standing Committee to the relevant agencies or organizations for study, handling and a responsible answer.

But it is in the process of being amended, and two clauses have been proposed to be added

“对全国人民代表大会代表提出的建议、批评和意见，有关机关、组织应当认真研究办理，与代表联系沟通，充分听取意见，及时予以答复。”
“全国人民代表大会常务委员会办事机构、承办单位应当及时向代表反馈代表建议、批评和意见的办理情况。全国人大常委会工作机构和有关专门委员会应当加强对办理工作的督促检查。代表建议、批评和意见办理情况的报告，应当予以公开。”
The suggestions, criticisms, and opinions put forward by NPC deputies, relevant organs and organizations should carefully study and handle, stay in contact with the deputies, listen to their views sufficiently, and respond in a timely manner."
The administrative body of the Standing Committee of the NPC and the responsible organizations should provide timely feedback to the deputies’ suggestions, criticisms or opinions on the handling of the situation. The NPC special committees and standing committees should strengthen the supervision and inspection of the work. Reports on the handling the deputies’ suggestions, criticisms or opinions shall be made public."

It’s clear that the amendment, to be presented in the coming NPC session, intends to increase the burden of repliers and thus strengthen the effectiveness of suggestions.

In the case of proposals at the CPPCC, according to this 2016 Xinhua report in English

there is no restriction on timing, scope and number of sponsoring members. Generally, CPPCC members can raise a proposal in one of the following ways:
-- by one member or a group of members;
-- by one group or more groups jointly during the sessions of the CPPCC;
-- in the name of a party or people’s organization that has joined the CPPCC;
-- in the name of a sub-committee of the CPPCC National Committee.

In the observation of your Pekingnologist, the suggestions and proposals are quite similar in function and substance, as well in their handling by their targeted organs. For example, as you have seen above, the bar for raising them is quite low - one single NPC deputy or CPPCC member can do it. In addition, for the sake of simplicity, this newsletter will NOT make a conscious difference between them.

But NPC deputies theoretically could also submit 议案 motions, and they are different from NPC deputies’ 建议 suggestions or CPPCC members’ 提案 proposals.

第九条全国人民代表大会主席团，全国人民代表大会常务委员会，全国人民代表大会各专门委员会，国务院，中央军事委员会，最高人民法院，最高人民检察院，可以向全国人民代表大会提出属于全国人民代表大会职权范围内的议案，由主席团决定交各代表团审议，或者并交有关的专门委员会审议、提出报告，再由主席团审议决定提交大会表决。

第十条一个代表团或者三十名以上的代表，可以向全国人民代表大会提出属于全国人民代表大会职权范围内的议案，由主席团决定是否列入大会议程，或者先交有关的专门委员会审议、提出是否列入大会议程的意见，再决定是否列入大会议程。
(not verbatim)
According to the Organic Law of the NPC and NPC rules for the discharging of its duties, a motion on issues within the power of the NPC can be raised by the presidium of the NPC, the NPC Standing Committee, special committees of the NPC, the State Council, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, a provincial-level delegation (of deputies) to the NPC, or a group of at least 30 NPC deputies.
Afterwards, the NPC presidium decides if a motion is to be included in the agenda of an NPC session, or to be first handed over to a relevant special committee for examination. The special committee is to suggest to the presidium whether or not the motion is to be included in the agenda.

As you can see, the bar for making a 提案 motion at the NPC session is considerably higher. Also, a motion’s viability and thus significance is closely linked with the agenda of the session. Generally speaking, a motion can only be raised when the NPC is in the session.

On the other hand, suggestions and proposals are not tied to the Two Sessions’ agenda and can be raised outside of the sessions, despite that most of them are submitted during the sessions.

The overwhelming majority of NPC deputies’ suggestions and CPPCC members’ proposals go to the ministries under the State Council, China’s cabinet, which said in a Feb. 18, 2021, executive meeting readout :

国务院各部门克服疫情影响等多重困难，创新和完善办理工作机制，共牵头办理全国人大代表建议8108件、全国政协委员提案4115件，分别占建议提案总数的88.3%和84.9%
……various ministries of the State Council……led in handling 8,108 suggestions from NPC deputies and 4,115 proposals from CPPCC members, accounting for 88.3% and 84.9% of the total number of suggestions and proposals respectively.

Other suggestions and proposals could go to the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, provincial governments, and other organs.

***

Part II

What happens after the suggestions and proposals are delivered to their targets?

According to Article 29 of 全国人民代表大会议事规则(CHN) Rules of Procedure for the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (ENG), which stand to be amended in the upcoming session:

全国人民代表大会代表向全国人民代表大会提出的对各方面工作的建议、批评和意见，由全国人民代表大会常务委员会办事机构交由有关机关、组织研究处理，并负责在大会闭会之日起三个月内，至迟不超过六个月，予以答复。代表对答复不满意的，可以提出意见，由全国人民代表大会常务委员会办事机构交由有关机关、组织或者其上级机关、组织再作研究处理，并负责答复。
The proposals, criticisms and opinions put forward by deputies to the National People's Congress concerning any sphere of work shall be referred by the office of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to the relevant organs or organizations, which shall study them, handle them and be responsible to give an answer within three months of the conclusion of the session or within six months at the latest. If the deputies are not satisfied with the answer, they may raise their opinions, which shall be referred by the office of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to the relevant organs or organizations or those at a higher level to be studied and handled anew for a responsible answer.

Therefore, replies are obligated. Your Pekingnologist is not familiar with rules governing the publication of replies, but many ministries disclose a massive number of them on their websites - the National Health Commission’s replies to NPC deputies are over 400 in number.

The most visible replies so far this cycle - from last year’s Two Sessions to now - have been the ones from the National Health Commission on possible relaxation of the family planning policy, which as it stands now generally says each couple can give birth to two kids.

Since it’s been well-reported, including in English by CNBC, South China Morning Post, the Wall Street Journal, and most recently your Pekingnologist’s friend and colleague Yang Liu’s newsletter Beijing Channel, this newsletter will not discuss that. Instead, below are some other interesting replies:

An unidentified number of CPPCC members proposed to legalize human-assisted reproductive technology to single women, officially banned but an increasingly hot topic on social media in China. The National Health Commission reiterated and detailed its opposition:

目前，以延迟生育为目的，为单身女性冻卵不符合我国法律法规有关规定。主要考虑以下几方面因素：一是应用卵子冷冻技术存在健康隐患。与男性生育力保存技术不同，女性卵子冷冻技术是有创性操作，技术实施难度大于冻精。在取卵和卵子冻存、解冻、移植过程中均存在技术风险，例如促排卵药物应用可能带来的卵巢过度刺激综合征以及手术取卵操作的出血和感染风险，危害女性健康。35岁以上高龄孕产妇发生妊娠期合并症、并发症以及出生缺陷的风险将会显著增加，为单身女性冻卵有进一步延后女性生育年龄的可能性，不利于保障女性和子代健康。二是为延迟生育为目的的卵子冷冻技术应用在学术界依然存在较大争议。由于技术起步较晚，受开展时间所限，卵子冷冻技术的安全性和有效性、尤其是子代安全性仍然需要长期随访资料进一步证实。美国生殖医学会、欧洲人类生殖与胚胎学会均认为没有足够证据支持女性以推迟生育为目的应用卵子冷冻技术应用，并明确提出商业化推广卵子冷冻技术可能会给晚育女性带来虚假希望，造成女性进一步推迟生育计划。国外相关人群研究表明，卵子冷冻技术的成功率随女性年龄增加而下降。三是严防商业化和维护社会公益是辅助生殖技术实施需要严格遵循的伦理原则。超出医学指征、将辅助生殖技术作为商品向健康人群提供，会不可避免地促使以盈利为目的导致技术滥用。目前部分媒体使用“后悔药”“生育险”等说法对卵子冷冻技术进行渲染，容易产生误导，带来技术滥用的风险和不良社会影响。
At present, egg freezing wfor single women for the purpose of delaying childbirth does not comply with the relevant provisions of our laws and regulations.
The main considerations are the following:
First, there are health risks associated with the application of egg freezing technology. Unlike male fertility preservation technology, female egg freezing technology is an invasive operation and the technical implementation is more difficult than sperm freezing. There are technical risks associated with egg retrieval, egg freezing, thawing and transplantation, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome due to the use of ovulation-promoting drugs and the risk of bleeding and infection during surgical egg retrieval, which can endanger women's health. The possibility of egg freezing for single women further delays the woman's reproductive age, which is not conducive to protecting the health of the woman and her offspring.
Second, the use of egg freezing for the purpose of delaying childbirth remains controversial in academic circles. Due to the late start of the technology and the time constraints, the safety and efficacy of egg freezing, especially in the offspring, still need to be further confirmed by long-term follow-up data. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology have both concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of egg freezing for the purpose of delaying childbearing in women, and have clearly suggested that commercial promotion of egg freezing may give false hope to women with late childbearing, causing women to further delay their fertility plans. Relevant foreign population studies have shown that the success rate of egg freezing technology decreases with increasing female age.
Third, strict prevention of commercialization and maintenance of social welfare are ethical principles that need to be strictly followed in the implementation of assisted reproductive technologies. Exceeding medical indications and offering assisted reproductive technology as a commodity to healthy people will inevitably lead to misuse of the technology for profit. Currently, some media are using terms such as "regret medicine" and "fertility insurance" to promote egg freezing technology, which can be misleading and bring about the risk of misuse of the technology and negative social impact.

China’s securities regulator, in a reply to a CPPCC member(s) proposal, signaled its openness to amend the fundamental Company Law, to adopt the harsher “no-fault liability” principle for publicly-traded companies’ abuse of related party transactions; and enable Chinese courts to revoke shareholder meeting’s resolution that is “obviously unfair,” which so far is not provided for in the Company Law.

一、关于完善有关关联交易的规定
提案建议，在《中华人民共和国公司法》（以下简称《公司法》）中禁止上市公司控股股东、实际控制人、董监高等利用关联交易损害公司利益，对上述主体采用无过错责任，并规定控股股东在败诉后应返还关联交易获利、失去董事资格。
……
我们同意提案所提建议，并将配合立法机关完善《公司法》有关关联交易的规定。
I. Improve the provisions on related party transactions
The proposal suggests that the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Company Law") should prohibit controlling shareholders, actual controllers, directors and supervisors of listed companies from using related party transactions to harm the interests of the company, adopt no-fault liability for the above-mentioned subjects, and provide that controlling shareholders should return the profits from related party transactions and lose their directorship after losing a lawsuit.
......
We agree with the proposal and will cooperate with the legislature to improve the provisions of the Company Law on related party transactions.
二、关于规定显失公平的股东大会决议可撤销
提案提出，建议在《公司法》中增加规定，明确股东会或者股东大会的决议事项显失公平、损害股东利益的，股东可以请求人民法院予以撤销。
……
我们同意提案所提建议，并将配合立法机关进一步完善可以撤销股东会或股东大会决议情形的规定。
II. Resolutions of shareholders' meetings that provide for obvious unfairness may be revoked
The proposal proposes to add a provision to the Company Law to clarify that shareholders may request the People's Court to revoke the resolution of the shareholders' meeting or general meeting if the matter is obviously unfair and detrimental to the interests of shareholders.
......
We agree with the proposal and will cooperate with the legislature to further improve the provisions on the circumstances under which resolutions of shareholders' meetings or general meetings can be revoked.

Judging from this summary of reply published by the Ministry of Commerce, Li Xiangping, who is not identified on the website but apparently chairman of Dongming Petrochemical Group (a significant privately-owned oil refinery known in the trade as a “teapot” in Shandong Province), apparently suggested in his capacity as an NPC deputy to MOFCOM that privately-owned oil-refinery be granted the license to export fuel.

So far, only one privately-owned oil-refinery Zhejiang Petroleum & Chemical Co., has been given the license (ENG, Reuters), in addition to the big state-owned refineries Sinopec, CNPC, CNOOC, Sinochem Group, and China National Aviation Fuel Company.

But MOFCOM’s reply is so diplomatic that your Pekingnologist doubts if any further license could be granted any time soon:

下一步，商务部将会同有关部门，在总结浙江自贸试验区先行先试经验基础上，综合考虑国家能源安全和国内外生产、需求等因素，统筹各类企业诉求，进一步研究完善成品油出口管理体制。
In the next step, the Ministry of Commerce will work with relevant departments to summarize the early and pilot experience in the Zhejiang Pilot Free Trade Zone based on comprehensive consideration of national energy security and domestic and foreign production, demand and other factors, comprehensively review the wishes from various types of enterprises, and further study and improve the export management system of refined oil products.

NOTE: the mentioning of “national energy security” may imply the caution against granting too many fuel export licenses, which MOFCOM may find to result reduce domestic supply; the word “types” in “the wishes from various types of enterprises” may signal that when considering granting fuel export licenses to privately-owned refineries, MOFCOM may take into consideration the views of other stakeholders.

And with sharp eyes and enough patience, the authorities’ analysis of the status quo and industrial policy can be found in these replies. For example, the summary from this reply, also by MOFCOM, says:

当前，我国石化产业过剩与短缺并存、结构性矛盾突出。为化解炼化行业产能过剩风险，发展改革委会同有关部门，要求各地控制新增炼油产能，严格按照石化产业规划布局方案有关要求布局炼化一体化项目。同时，鼓励炼化企业“控炼少油增化”，延长产业链，增加高附加值产品比重。
At present, our country's petrochemical industry's surplus and shortage coexist, with prominent structural contradictions. To resolve the risk of overcapacity in the refining industry, the National Development and Reform Commission, together with the relevant departments, required all regions to control new refining capacity, and plan integrated refining and chemical projects in strict accordance with the relevant requirements of the petrochemical industry planning and layout program. At the same time, refineries are encouraged to "control refining (capacity?), reduce oil (refining?), and increase chemical (output)", extend the industrial chain, and increase the proportion of high value-added products.

Your Pekingnologist believes replies like these have news reporting and research value, for a number of reasons: they reflect formal government positions in an on-the-record fashion and thus can be reliably cited; they usually engage in substantive discussions of serious policy issues; granted, they perhaps more often than not reflect the government’s existing positions, but sometimes they do offer hints to possible changes in the future; some replies do shed light on frontline issues where credible reports of government positions are otherwise in short supply; and lastly, perhaps this is one of the substantive aspects of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics - one of the ways that the government responds to the official representatives of the people.

Share Pekingnology

***

Part III

Your Pekingnologist is unaware of a centralized publication channel of NPC deputies’ and CPPCC members’ suggestions and proposals, but some of them sometimes choose to publish by themselves, in one way or another.

As far as your Pekingnologist is concerned, the replies themselves don’t include the entirety of the suggestions or proposals, and sometimes don’t even include the name of the NPC deputies or CPPCC members making them, perhaps to protect their privacy, pre-empt controversies, or that the identities are deemed irrelevant since the real issue is already addressed in the replies.

However, it is still interesting to make some educated guesses and observations.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as your Pekingnologist’s friend and colleague Yang Liu noted in his latest Beijing Channel newsletter, made public only one suggestion from one NPC deputy named Lü Jianzhong.

In the first sentence of its reply, the MFA in effect summarized Lü’s suggestion

您提出的关于支持我国主导的国际商协会等非政府组织在提升中国国际话语权方面发挥更大作用的建议
Your proposal to support non-governmental organizations such as international business associations that are led by (people from) our country to play a greater role in enhancing China's international discourse

Your Pekingnolgoist is unfamiliar with Lü, so he set out to Google 吕建中+商会 (Lü Jianzhong + business association). It turns out Lü， despite his first and foremost identity being a private entrepreneur as head of 大唐西市集团 Tang West Market, a conglomerate which includes the HK-listed DTXS Silk Road (0620.HK), also has such titles as Chairman of Silk Road Chamber of International Commerce and President of China Cultural Chamber of Commerce for the Private Sector.

Lin Yinsun, chairman of Zhengbang Group, whose homepage prominently features pig farming, apparently suggested in his capacity as an NPC deputy to the Ministry of Finance to 给予养殖骨干企业特殊融资政策 give special financing policies for major companies in meat farming.

Shi Jiaxin, who became an NPC deputy in his former capacity as the mayor of northeastern oil town Daqing where its oilfields are affiliated with central government state-owned enterprises, apparently suggested in his capacity as an NPC deputy to the Ministry of Finance to take measures 充分调动央企和地方政府两个积极性加快建设百年油田百年大庆 fully mobilize both central enterprises and local governments to speed up the construction oil fields and of Daqing to its centennial.

There are also many suggestions that are of no apparent interest to the NPC deputies’ personal or professional business. For example, according to this reply from the Ministry of Finance, Choy So-yuk, an NPC deputy from Hong Kong and from 1997 to 2008 a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and its forerunner, apparently suggested that China speed up introducing the 灵活会计年度 flexible fiscal year, allowing alternatives to the traditional January to December fiscal year stipulated in Article 8 of China’s Accounting Law (CHN).

Some observations for this part:

It’s unclear if there are any conflict-of-interest restrictions governing suggestions or proposals.

But some NPC deputies and CPPCC members apparently aren’t concerned about such appearances. For example, the chairman of pig-farming Zhengbang Group went to the media to publicly advertise his suggestions for preferential financing policies for pig-farming companies, apparently out of his conviction that that is also in the interest of the entire industry and, to a larger extent, China’s overall pork supply.

Completely different from the Western liberal democracies, many NPC deputies and CPPCC members are NOT professional politicians so the logic in this context may be also completely different - which, as your Pekingnologist tries to understand - they gather in the Great Hall of the People in early March every year NOT in spite of their full-time jobs, but because of them.

Li Lianning, a former Member and Deputy Secretary-General of the Standing Committee of the NPC, recently wrote

西方议会的议员一旦当选之后，往往沦为职业政客，成为利益集团的代言人。我国的人大代表是兼职的。这样一种制度安排，就是为了使我们的人大代表不脱离人民群众，始终和人民群众在一起。人大代表从事着各自不同的职业，有着各自的工作岗位，工作和生活始终与人民群众保持密切的联系，能够最直接地感知人民群众的冷暖、了解人民群众的意愿和要求、反映人民群众的心声。
Once elected, members of parliaments in the West are often reduced to career politicians and become spokespersons for interest groups. Our NPC deputies are part-time. Such an institutional arrangement is to make sure that our NPC deputies are not separated from the people and are always with them. The NPC deputies are engaged in different occupations, have their own jobs, work and live in close contact with the people, can most directly sense the people's warmth and cold, understand the people's wishes and demands, reflect the people's voice.

And that may be part of the reason that they appear insensitive to what in the West could be regarded as allegations of potential conflict of interest, as long as they feel comfortable in explaining their suggestions and proposals as also broadly in line with the overall interest of the people in a convincing fashion - or at least hopefully so.

Pekingnology

"Suggestions" and "Proposals" from Two Sessions

Examining what NYT dismissed as "usually harmless suggestions about their pet causes"

Discussion about this post