VZCZCXRO0846
RR RUEHCN RUEHGH RUEHVC
DE RUEHGZ #2442/01 3550758
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 210758Z DEC 06
FM AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5615
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GUANGZHOU 032442 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/CM AND DRL 
USDOC FOR 4420/ITA/MAC/MCQUEEN 
USPACOM FOR FPA 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV SOCI PHUM PINR CH
SUBJECT: Guangzhou Stakes New Territory in Transparency 
 
(U) This document is sensitive but unclassified.  Please protect 
accordingly. 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Guangzhou will implement two transparency 
regulations in 2007 that are reportedly the first of their kind in 
China and signal a shift to more local government accountability. 
One requires public discussion of all draft administrative 
regulations; the other allows the public to request information from 
the government in ways that echo the U.S. Freedom of Information 
Act.  Scholars from Yale and Beijing University consulted with the 
Guangzhou Office of Legislative Affairs in drafting the regulations. 
 Though the measures reflect progress that has its roots in 
Guangzhou's long-standing economic openness and relative political 
independence, the regulations are nevertheless only first steps and 
will need to be supported through more detailed implementing 
regulations and strong backing from city leadership.  END SUMMARY 
 
Public Participation in Draft Legislation 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The Measures on Public Participation in the Formation of New 
Regulations in Guangzhou, released July 7, 2006 and effective 
January 1, 2007, are China's first detailed local measures that 
require all new administrative regulations to go through a notice 
and comment period before taking effect.  The government solicits 
comments in part through informal public meetings and formal 
consultations with experts.  More importantly, the public can submit 
written comments, all of which must be posted on government 
websites.  The public has at least one month to submit comments and 
foreigners are also allowed to participate.  The relevant government 
bureau must post written responses to each comment (thus 
guaranteeing that they read the comments). 
 
¶3. (SBU) The government has already tested these measures on several 
recent draft laws.  Guangzhou officials organized informal public 
hearings with business owners, consumers, academics, and officials 
to discuss a law on the administration of commodity exchange 
markets.  They also posted drafts of the law in the entryways of 
local markets.  Professor Liu Wenjing of Jinan University's Law 
School said it was the first time that a Guangzhou law has undergone 
such broad and intense scrutiny.  When officials sought comments on 
a recent law on community housing issues, they organized separate 
hearings for residents of old neighborhoods, new neighborhoods, 
housing compounds, and outlying rural communities.  Other draft laws 
for public review addressed electricity prices, physical exercise in 
public areas, and a ban on motorcycles in the city. 
 
Guangzhou's "Freedom of Information Act" 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) The Measures on the Sharing of Government Information Upon 
Request, released November 20, 2006 and effective in July 2007, 
share some of the same features regarding transparency as the 
measures on public participation in paragraph 2.  These measures 
mark the first time a local government in China has set up a system 
for the public to request government information.  Under the 
measures, municipal bureaus must designate staff to receive requests 
and must publicize contact information.  The public can make 
requests in person or in writing, and there is no fee.  Officials 
must respond to requests within 45 days or face administrative 
penalties.  Again, foreigners are allowed to participate. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The government will have significant leeway on whether or 
not to release requested information as the measures list eight 
general categories of information that are off limits.  The 
categories include state secrets, commercial secrets, personal 
information, information on leaders' honesty (corruption), internal 
official documents, law enforcement information, information legally 
prohibited to be shared, information already released to the public, 
and draft legislation (presumably before it is released for comment 
under the aforementioned measures). 
 
Involvement of U.S. and Beijing Scholars 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) In formulating these two measures, Guangzhou's Office of 
Legislative Affairs consulted with academics from Yale University's 
China Law Center and Beijing University's Center for Public 
Participation Studies and Support.  Yale's China Law Center has been 
working since 2003 with local governments in Beijing, Guangzhou, and 
Shanghai on developing transparent mechanisms for public 
participation in administrative rulemaking.  Wang Xixin of Beijing 
University established the Center for Public Participation Studies 
and Support, with the assistance of Yale, as China's first such 
 
GUANGZHOU 00032442  002 OF 002 
 
 
advocacy center.  Wang also helped draft an "administrative 
procedures act" that the NPC Standing Committee is currently 
reviewing. 
 
¶7. (U) Guangzhou hosted a workshop in July 2006 on public 
participation in rulemaking that included academics from Yale, 
American University, and Beijing University and officials from the 
Guangzhou, Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen Offices of Legislative 
Affairs.  In addition to discussing Guangzhou's transparency 
measures, U.S. participants highlighted the importance of NGOs in 
channeling input to government and the use of tools such as 
listserves and informal meetings, according to a report by Jamie 
Horsley, Deputy Director of Yale's China Law Center and a former 
lawyer who worked in Beijing in the late 1990s. 
 
The Role of the Office of Legislative Affairs 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Though most observers point to Guangzhou's long history of 
economic openness and relative political independence as the reasons 
it has moved forward with these measures, others also cite 
Guangzhou's Office of Legislative Affairs as a driving force.  The 
office, which includes approximately 30 legal advisors and falls 
under the Municipal People's Congress, is responsible for drafting 
city laws.  Many of the office's staff are reportedly influenced by 
Western legal thinking.  According to Shu Yang, Director of the 
Guangzhou Academy of Social Sciences, the office has drafted laws 
that "are as good as anything in the West," but city officials 
typically demand revisions because of concerns they have gone too 
far. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Li Li, former Director of Guangzhou's Office of Legislative 
Affairs and now Vice Director of the Standing Committee of the 
Municipal People's Congress, was cited by several academics as an 
important backer of the new measures and a driving force behind a 
trend in Guangzhou since 2003 toward more government transparency. 
Li's promotion to her current position is highly unusual for a legal 
professional and signals her influence.  Li was a lecturer and then 
dean of Guangzhou University's law school before joining the Office 
of Legislative Affairs.  Chen Licheng, current Director of 
Guangzhou's Office of Legislative Affairs, studied law in England 
and previously worked as a legal advisor to the Shenzhen government, 
a lawyer in a Shenzhen law firm, and a law professor at Xiamen 
University.  His expertise is in economic law and he is also 
considered a forward thinker. 
 
Comment: A First Step 
--------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) Professors and legal observers all noted that, though 
these two measures are important, implementation will prove their 
significance.  To comply with the measures, government bureaus will 
need to expend additional staff time and will lose some of their 
autonomy.  The measures on public participation will slow the city's 
legislative process.  When dealing with sensitive issues, local 
officials may be more concerned with protecting their careers than 
complying with the letter of the law.  This is particularly true for 
the measures on information sharing, which still offer significant 
room for denial to skittish officials. 
 
GOLDBERG