Legal website today published an article recently written by Xia Zemin,former vice chairman of the Yangzhou Municipal Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and chief consultant of the Beijing Gaopeng(Yangzhou,Taizhou)Law Firm,titled"Research on the Punishment of Administrative Breach of Faith from the Perspective of Administrative Rule of Law".The author hopes that all friends will study this issue together to promote the construction of the rule of law and social credit system.

Research on the Punishment of Administrative Breach of Faith from the Perspective of Administrative Rule of Law

--Concurrently on Article 26(4)of the Civil 

Servant Law stipulates that the modern market economy is a credit economy.Accelerating the construction of the social credit system is of great significance for enhancing the integrity awareness of social members,creating a good credit environment,enhancing the overall competitiveness of the country,and promoting social development and civilization progress.In the construction of the social credit system,a core mechanism is to fully utilize credit incentives and constraints,praise integrity,and punish dishonesty.The Decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Adhering to and Improving the Socialist System with Chinese Characteristics and Advancing the Modernization of the National Governance System and Capacity requires in the seventh issue,"Adhering to and Improving the System for the Prosperity and Development of Socialist Advanced Culture,and Solidifying the Common Ideological Foundation for the Unity and Struggle of All the People","Improving the long-term mechanism for building integrity,improving the credit reporting system that covers the entire society,and strengthening the punishment of dishonesty"clearly put forward the goals and tasks of building a social credit system.According to the provisions of the Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Establishing and Improving the System of Joint Incentive and Punishment for Breach of Credit and Accelerating the Construction of Social Integrity,the restraint and punishment for breach of credit include administrative restraint and punishment,market restraint and punishment,industrial restraint and punishment,and social restraint and punishment.Administrative restraint and punishment are administrative sanctions imposed by administrative organs on dishonest acts.They are specific administrative actions of administrative organs,and should follow the basic principles of administration according to law.In view of this,the author,as a practical worker who has been engaged in government legal work for a long time,strives to conduct empirical analysis and research on administrative dishonesty punishment from the perspective of administrative rule of law,and hopes to provide professional and immature opinions on several legal issues related to administrative restraint and punishment,seeking advice from leaders of party and government organs at all levels,as well as theorists in the fields of law,modern credit science,and social governance,And leaders,experts,and practitioners engaged in the construction of credit systems.

1、"Dishonesty:A concept that must be defined

In the construction of a credit system,especially when identifying the subject of dishonesty and implementing punishment for dishonesty,the first question that should be clarified is:What is dishonesty and how to define it?"?How to define its connotation and extension?However,in the relevant national ministries and commissions,the standing committees of local people's congresses at all levels,the people's governments and their working departments regarding the construction of credit systems,and in the local regulations,rules,or administrative normative documents related to the punishment of dishonesty(hereinafter referred to as the local regulations,rules,and normative documents related to the construction of credit systems in various ministries and commissions,or various legal or administrative norms),almost no answer is given as to what constitutes dishonesty,There is no definition of dishonesty and no disclosure of the essential characteristics of dishonesty.It is worth noting that it is in situations where the concept of dishonesty is not very clear that people identify the subject of dishonesty and implement punishment for dishonesty.Various legal or administrative norms generally provide for the acts and circumstances of citizens,legal persons,and other organizations recognized as subjects of dishonesty or serious dishonesty by way of enumeration.Some also directly enumerate the dishonesty information of credit subjects,or bad information,prompt information,and warning information,For example,Article 12 of the Administrative Measures of Shanghai Municipality on the Collection and Use of Public Credit Information stipulates:"The dishonest information of legal persons and other organizations includes the following contents:(1)information on unpaid taxes and social insurance premiums;(2)information on unpaid administrative fees and government funds;(3)information on providing false materials and violating the notification and commitment system;and(4)information on unpaid administrative fees and government funds."Information on administrative penalties made in accordance with general procedures,and information on administrative enforcement;(5)Information that is ordered by the regulatory authority to demolish illegal buildings within a time limit but refuses to demolish or fails to demolish within the time limit,or that is ordered by the regulatory authority to make other decisions but refuses to correct or fails to correct within the time limit;(6)Information that has been handled by regulatory authorities in the event of liability accidents such as product quality,safety in production,food safety,and environmental pollution;(7)Information banned from the industry by regulatory authorities;(8)"Other dishonest information stipulated by the state and this city.".

Generally speaking,legal or administrative regulations of various regions and departments that contain bad information,prompt information,or warning information for credit subjects will,under certain circumstances and contexts,be converted into dishonest information,or directly provide for disciplinary measures to be taken against them.Article 23 of the Administrative Measures of Shanghai Municipality on the Collection and Use of Public Credit Information stipulates that"For natural persons,legal persons,and other organizations with poor credit status,the administrative authorities shall take the following disciplinary measures according to law.".

Various ministries,commissions,and localities use enumeration methods to describe dishonest behaviors(or situations).Some provisions are consistent in different regions and industries,and some have significant differences.But one thing is almost certain:when everyone is dedicated to promoting the construction of the credit system,seriously and seriously punishing dishonest behavior,or jointly punishing,can people know what the concept of credit is?Do you all know that in the rich vocabulary of credit,there are far more than just two contradictory concepts:keeping promises and breaking promises?The reality is that this is a problem that has not been clarified.

First,what is credit?

What exactly is credit?Wu Jingmei,a modern credit scholar,believes that"credit is the capital to obtain trust,which is composed of credit willingness and credit ability.The symbol or result of obtaining credit is to obtain social contacts and achieve credit transactions.Credit is capital,a kind of wealth that can not only be traded,measured,and managed,but also social,economic,and time values.".As a kind of capital,the capital composition of modern credit includes three parts,that is,from the perspective of credit dimension,credit manifests itself in a three-dimensional space,and one dimension is the degree of integrity."It manifests the basic integrity quality of the credit subject,involving the moral and cultural concepts,spiritual qualities,and codes of conduct of the credit subject,reflecting the credit value orientation of the credit subject,and is an ideological concept.".It is to understand credit from the perspective of moral culture."It is also a kind of credit culture,but not all of it.At this time,honesty and credit are separated;to be precise,in this sense,honesty and credit are not equal.".The two-dimensional dimension refers to the degree of compliance,which is"manifested in the level and ability of credit subjects to comply with social administrative regulations,industry rules,and folk customs in social activities,involving general social activities of credit subjects,and embodied in the credit value orientation and credit responsibility of credit subjects in social activities."."Three dimensions refer to the degree of fulfillment,which is expressed as the ability of credit subjects to abide by transaction rules in credit trading activities,mainly the ability of individuals to conclude transactions and perform contracts,involving the economic activities of credit subjects,and reflecting the credit value orientation and credit responsibilities of credit subjects in economic activities.".Wu Jingmei believes that,"No matter who the subject is,the capital of credit is composed of three parts:the basic quality of honesty and trustworthiness,the degree of trust in social relations,and the ability to conclude and fulfill economic transactions.Each subject has these three parts of capital,but in different situations and conditions,each part of capital is relatively independent,and sometimes externalized,sometimes internalized.In real life,these three parts of capital are related to each other"The present and the role are different.".It can be seen that credit is a concept with rich connotations.The three dimensions of credit are in a relationship of mutual independence,distinction,infiltration,and influence.Different standards and methods should also be adopted for their evaluation.Obviously,it is not possible to measure the credit level of credit subjects only by keeping promises and breaking promises.

Second,what is dishonesty?

According to the usual interpretation,dishonesty refers to breaking an agreement or promise and losing credibility.The prerequisite for breaking promises is a prior engagement,but due to breach of contract,breach of contract,breach of contract,and breach of promise,it leads to breaking promises."If both parties have not agreed in advance,have no agreement,have no commitment,there is no breach of faith.".From the perspective of the three dimensions of credit,generally speaking,dishonesty is more applicable to evaluating compliance.

Nowadays,it is common for people to have a too narrow understanding of the concepts of credit and dishonesty,believing that the connotation of credit and honesty is either keeping promises or breaking promises.Citizens,legal persons,and other organizations have weak credit awareness,low integrity,and any behavior related to the credit dimension,including various types of bad information,negative information,and prompt information described in local documents on public credit information management,are included in the category of dishonesty.Obviously,people do not fully understand the definition,value,and function of credit,and even have not really clarified the relationship between credit and the categories of law,morality,civilization,culture,and social governance.Therefore,credit is confused with these categories.In addition,due to improper evaluation of the role and significance of credit construction,a few localities and departments have even developed a tendency to use credit construction to cover and replace the functions of other social governance tools.It is against this background that there is a situation where dishonesty is regarded as a"big basket",where everything can be stuffed in.The reason is simple,because this big basket has no legal boundaries,and the issue of expanding and generalizing the punishment for dishonesty arises from this.Many places cite ticket evasion when running red lights or taking public transportation;Information about cheating in unified national or local examinations;Providing false information to administrative authorities,as well as employee job-hopping,bad behavior in marriage registration,notarization,letters and visits,and improper filial piety towards children are all included in personal credit records.The Ministry of Civil Affairs,together with 12 departments,including the Supreme Procuratorate,the National Development and Reform Commission,the Ministry of Education,and the Ministry of Public Security,has jointly issued the"Opinions on Further Strengthening the Safeguarding Work for Factually Unattended Children,"which clearly stipulates that the dishonesty of guardians should be recorded in credit records,and joint punishment for dishonesty should be imposed on parents and other guardians who maliciously abandon children.

Thirdly,does violating the law belong to the category of dishonest behavior?

In recent years,local regulations,rules,and administrative normative documents related to the construction of credit systems in various ministries,commissions,and localities have increasingly included violations of laws and regulations by citizens,legal persons,and other organizations in the category of dishonesty,and have included information on the handling of responsible accidents such as safety in production,food safety,environmental pollution,and product quality by administrative authorities;Administrative penalty information,administrative enforcement information,and other information made in accordance with general procedures are all listed as dishonest acts,and they are called illegal and dishonest,or dishonest and illegal,thus completely confusing the two concepts of illegal and dishonest.Illegal is dishonest,and dishonest is illegal.

On September 14th,2015,under the leadership of the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce,36 national ministries and commissions,including the Central Civilization Office and the Supreme People's Court,jointly signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperative Supervision and Joint Punishment of Dishonest Enterprises,which directly used terms such as"serious violations of law and credibility","parties to serious violations of law and credibility",and"parties to serious violations of law and credibility".The"Interim Measures for the Administration of the List of Serious Illegal and Dishonest Enterprises"issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on December 30,2015 directly classifies dishonest enterprises as illegal and dishonest enterprises.Article 2 of the Measures stipulates:"The term"serious illegal and dishonest enterprises"as used in these Measures refers to enterprises that violate industrial and commercial administrative laws and regulations and have serious circumstances.";Article 5 specifies that one of the ten situations in which an enterprise is subject to administrative penalties and other administrative sanctions imposed by administrative authorities shall be"managed by the administrative department for industry and commerce at or above the county level on the list of serious illegal and dishonest enterprises.".

It can be seen that both national ministries and commissions,as well as local regulations,confuse illegality with dishonesty,treat illegality as dishonesty,and identify citizens,legal persons,and other organizations(referred to as dishonest subjects)who violate legal norms,mainly criminal and administrative legal norms,are punished by judicial organs,and are subject to administrative penalties and other administrative sanctions by administrative organs as dishonest individuals,or even seriously dishonest individuals,So as to include them in the blacklist,and then impose disciplinary or joint punishment on them for breach of trust.Therefore,the relationship between dishonesty and illegality,and whether illegality is dishonesty,is a principled issue in the construction of the current credit system,which cannot be avoided or ambiguous.

Generally speaking,illegal acts can be used as one of the information sources for evaluating the credit awareness and credit level of credit subjects,and cannot be directly identified as dishonesty,let alone should they be subject to disciplinary action or joint punishment for dishonesty.This is a problem worthy of attention and research.

"In the broad sense,social credit refers to the(objective)ability and(subjective)ability of a subject to fulfill agreed obligations desire.Agreements include both'conventions'and'private agreements'.The law is a social convention that has a mandatory binding force on all members of society.Therefore,breaking the law is a breach of trust towards other members of society."Violation of'private agreements'such as contracts and commitments is a breach of trust towards a specific subject.".This view is clearly inconsistent with the nature and characteristics of legality.Law is a social norm formulated or recognized by the state and enforced by the state.Law is the embodiment of the common will of the ruling class."The common will of the ruling class is not a simple summation of the will of each member of the ruling class,but a general will gathered by the official representatives of the ruling class based on the common fundamental interests of the class.In other words,law embodies the"general will"of the ruling class,not the"common will"of the ruling class.".

Illegality refers to acts that violate existing legal provisions and cause some harm to society."Illegal acts violate the law,not morals,policies,disciplines,or non legal dogmas.Although violations of other social norms may also be subject to certain penalties or sanctions,such penalties or sanctions must not be in the legal sense.Otherwise,it will confuse the gap between morals,policies,disciplines,non legal dogmas,and the law,leading to erroneous understanding of the nature of the act,leading to the consequences of abusing the law.".As a code,standard,and yardstick of conduct,law itself has the function of evaluating,judging,measuring,and people's behavior."The evaluation role of law is mainly reflected in determining whether people's actions are effective or legitimate,focusing on judgments and measures in the legal sense,and generally not involving moral,political,or religious judgment issues.",The evaluation of law is"mandatory,which is mainly reflected in the evaluation and ruling of effective law.Once the judgment and ruling come into force,it is mandatory for the actor,regardless of whether the actor is willing to accept the judgment.".The law is binding on all members of society,and all members of society should become law-abiding subjects.Due to the obvious differences in the objective environment and personal qualities of each social member,the motivation and basis for abiding by the law are not entirely the same,and sometimes multiple factors are mixed together.In summary,the main factors are:abiding by the law is a requirement of the law;Observing the law is due to fear of legal sanctions;Observing the law is the psychological obedience inertia of the law-abiding person;Observing the law is due to social pressure;Observing the law is a moral requirement.Obviously,the observance of the law by all members of society is not based on a commitment to make or not to make certain actions in accordance with the norms of the law.Undoubtedly,in our country,law is the embodiment of the common will of the people and represents the fundamental interests of the people.Since it embodies the common will of the people,it is not everyone's will;Representing the fundamental interests of the people,not everyone's interests.In short,no law can be legislated without the unanimous consent of all members of society."With respect to the laws that have been promulgated,on the one hand,members of society have the obligation to abide by and enforce the laws,on the other hand,legislators,law enforcers,and legal workers have made every effort to enhance the consciousness of social members in abiding by the laws through legal publicity,legal education,law enforcement,and judicial means,but it is impossible(or even not authorized)for any law,any state agency,or social group to require every member of society to abide by the laws after they have been promulgated,",Or before implementing a certain legal act,it is necessary to make a commitment to comply with legal norms before implementing the act."If a promisor violates the law,the law enforcer will determine that he has broken his promise.".This is an illogical judgment.Marx had a wonderful argument,"It is only because I express myself,and only because I step into the realm of reality,that I enter the realm of domination by the legislator.For the law,apart from my actions,I do not exist at all,and I am not the object of the law at all.My actions are the only realm in which I interact with the law,because actions are the only things that I demand for the right to exist and the right to reality,and therefore I am governed by the current law."

Obviously,identifying illegal acts,which of course mainly refer to violations of administrative and criminal legal norms,as dishonesty,fundamentally confuses the differences between legal norms and other moral norms,industry norms,community norms,and other types of norms.It is also bound to combine the legal means and measures(such as administrative penalties,administrative coercion)to sanction illegal acts with the means to restrain and handle violations of other norms The mixed use of measures(such as punishment for breach of trust)will inevitably undermine the authority and unity of the law,cause logical confusion in the practice of the rule of law,and do not meet the goals and functions of the construction of the credit system.

2、Punishment for Breach of Faith:A behavior

study that cannot be obscured at all.The first question that must be answered is,what is dishonesty,and the second question is to answer:What is dishonesty punishment,how to characterize and position it,including the nature,scope,types and settings of punishment,implementation subjects,and other issues.If these issues are not regulated by law,there will be no legal basis and legal basis for punishing dishonesty.

In social life,if there are dishonest behaviors,there will inevitably be measures to criticize,confront,restrict,and sanction them,which are called dishonest punishment.According to the social foundation of dishonesty and its punishment and the structure of the current social credit system construction,dishonesty punishment includes several fields such as government affairs,market,industry,and society.This article focuses on the punishment of dishonesty in the field of government affairs.The subjects of punishment are administrative organs and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs,while the objects of punishment are dishonest or serious dishonesty among citizens,legal persons,and other organizations.The author focuses on the punishment of dishonesty in the field of government affairs,the most important of which is the administrative punishment of dishonesty,which is not specifically described below.

First,the positioning and characteristics of administrative dishonesty punishment.

Administrative dishonesty punishment is an administrative act of administrative organs,and is an administrative sanction imposed on dishonest or serious dishonesty.Administrative sanctions are specific administrative actions implemented by administrative organs with the purpose of punishment and the nature of sanctions.It has the following characteristics:1.The main body implementing administrative sanctions is the administrative organ;The object of administrative sanctions is the citizens,legal persons,and other organizations that are the opposite party;"The administrative counterpart has committed acts that violate laws,regulations,and rules,and should be subject to administrative sanctions in accordance with the provisions of laws,regulations,and rules;";Administrative sanctions are specific administrative actions that can be sued.

It can be seen from this that if administrative organs impose penalties for dishonesty on citizens,legal persons,and other organizations,it is because the dishonest behavior of the dishonest subject violates administrative legal norms,and should be subject to administrative sanctions in accordance with the provisions of laws,regulations,and rules;If the dishonest behavior of the dishonest subject does not violate legal norms,it should not be subject to administrative sanctions.From the perspective of the essential characteristics of dishonesty,at the legal level,if the dishonesty behavior of the credit subject violates legal norms,it is mainly civil legal norms,occasionally violating administrative and criminal legal norms.For example,if one party breaches a contract and the other party files a lawsuit or arbitration,the people's court or arbitration institution determines that the breaching party performs its obligations.At this time,the breaching party violates the contract law.If the breaching party fails to perform the ruling,the people's court must make a mandatory ruling,which is a judicial sanction for breach of trust;If the breaching party violates the criminal law,it will be subject to criminal sanctions.As long as the punishment of dishonesty is implemented by administrative organs,not by social organizations,industry organizations,or market entities independently,nor by judicial organs,it is administrative sanctions.In other words,if the behavior of a dishonest person violates the administrative legal norms on credit construction,it should be subject to administrative sanctions.A dishonest act only becomes an illegal act when it violates administrative legal norms,undermines social management order,and infringes on social and public interests.In this case,it will be subject to administrative sanctions according to law.Strictly speaking,this situation is rare,at least the author has not yet seen such legislation.When discussing the relationship between breaking the law and breaking faith,the author once proposed that"generally speaking,illegal acts cannot be directly recognized as breaking faith",which is the reason.Compared to the current measures for punishing dishonesty stipulated by various localities and departments,the main body of implementation is mainly administrative organs,rather than social and market punishment.This is in itself a problem worth considering in the construction of the credit system.

Secondly,an analysis of the penalties

for breach of trust set by local regulations,rules,and administrative normative documents on social credit management in various regions.From the perspective of various legal or administrative norms related to the construction of the credit system,there is basically no qualitative or positioning of the punishment for breach of trust,and generally,specific provisions are made directly on the content and methods of punishment for those who have committed a serious breach of trust.Article 33 of the"Interim Measures for the Administration of Public Credit Information in Fujian Province"states that"Disciplinary action for dishonesty refers to the imposition of certain restrictions on the authority of natural persons,legal persons,and other organizations that violate their trust to participate in specific economic and social activities within a certain period of time.".Obviously,this definition is not accurate and complete,and cannot reveal the essential characteristics of punishment for breach of trust.

The measures for punishing dishonesty vary from place to place.To summarize,there are six main categories:

1.List dishonest individuals as key inspection objects in administrative management:for example,during the process of handling administrative licensing,focus on verification;In arranging daily and special inspections,increase the frequency of inspections and strengthen on-site inspections.

2.Restriction of rights:for example,restricting the application for government subsidy fund support;Restrict participation in government procurement,government procurement services,state-owned land transfer,government investment projects,or bidding for projects that primarily use financial funds;Restricting participation in infrastructure and public utility franchising activities;Restricting participation in recognition and reward activities organized by the government;Restricted from serving as the legal representative,responsible person,or senior management of the entity;Limit high consumption.

3.Cancellation of rights:for example,cancellation of facilitation measures enjoyed in administrative management;Cancellation of relevant honorary titles.

4.Exit from the market:Implement market and industry entry(exit)measures.

5.Others:For example,in public resource transactions,credit reduction measures are taken.

"Other measures that can be taken according to laws and administrative regulations".

There are many measures worth studying regarding the above-mentioned disciplinary measures for dishonesty.For example,listing dishonest individuals as key inspection targets in various administrative management systems does not have a disciplinary nature in itself and should not be listed as disciplinary measures for dishonesty.For another example,canceling the facilitation measures that have been enjoyed in administrative management is not in line with the goal of administrative reform of administrative organs.Receiving facilitation services is a right that every citizen,legal person,and social organization should enjoy.No matter what happens,discriminatory policies cannot be implemented.As for disciplinary measures such as restricting rights and cancelling rights,they are even more worthy of discussion.

Third,an analysis of the provisions of national ministries and commissions on disciplinary measures for breach of trust

.The provisions of national ministries and commissions on disciplinary measures for breach of trust are not only found in the regulations or administrative normative documents formulated by various ministries and commissions,but also concentrated in joint memorandums of punishment for breach of trust between various ministries and commissions.Since the first joint disciplinary memorandum in September 2015,there have been 43 memorandums to date.Taking

only the second and third parts of the first memorandum led by the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce,"Memorandum on Cooperative Supervision and Joint Punishment

of Dishonest Enterprises,"as an example,the second part is"Market access and job qualification restrictions imposed by the industrial and commercial administration departments on the parties",It mainly stipulates that the industrial and commercial departments"shall implement the market access and qualification restriction measures listed in this article for the parties who make administrative penalties and dishonest evaluations on the industry competent departments",which are specifically divided into 12 areas such as the field of safety production,the field of travel agency operations,and the field of supervision and management of state-owned enterprises,plus"universal restriction measures",in a total of 13 aspects.Each area mainly provides for restriction measures and legal and regulatory basis,For example,in the field of food and drug trading,there are three restrictive measures,taking the third of which as an example,The content is"Personnel of food inspection institutions who are dismissed for violating the provisions of the Food Safety Law shall not be engaged in food inspection work within 10 years from the date of the decision on punishment;personnel of food inspection institutions who are subject to criminal penalties for food safety violations or who are dismissed for issuing false inspection reports resulting in major food safety accidents shall not be engaged in food inspection work for life.".This is the market access and qualification restrictions stipulated in the memorandum.Let's consider where this"restrictive measure"comes from?Looking at Article 138 of the Food Safety Law,the first paragraph stipulates the administrative penalties or sanctions that should be imposed on food inspection institutions,directly responsible executives,and food inspection personnel who violate the law,while the second paragraph stipulates the restrictions on the qualifications of food inspection personnel involved in the case and subject to administrative,criminal,or administrative sanctions.This is the provision of the Food Safety Law that administrative penalties or sanctions should be imposed on them,"Or criminal penalties,as well as other administrative sanctions,are the legal responsibilities that the relevant food inspection personnel should bear due to their illegal acts.".The content of this memorandum is identical to the provisions of Article 138,Paragraph 2,of the Food Safety Law,but it merely turns this administrative sanction measure into a"disciplinary measure for breach of faith".In other words,the memorandum divides an administrative sanction act into two parts,one is administrative penalty and administrative sanction,and the other is the so-called disciplinary measure for breach of faith.What is the significance of doing so?

The third part is"Collaborative regulatory measures between industrial and commercial administrative departments and various departments",with a total of 59 items.What is a collaborative regulatory measure?Just take the provision in Item 3 of Category 2,"Each department shall notify the industrial and commercial administration department of licensing,punishment information,and case clues,and the industrial and commercial administration department shall determine its responsibilities for supervision according to law.",This provision states that"if the industrial and information technology departments,public security and transportation management departments discover that they have produced or sold motor vehicles without the permission of the national competent department for motor vehicle products,as well as produced or sold assembled or modified motor vehicles without authorization,they shall notify or transfer them to the industry and commerce administrative departments at the same level,and the industry and commerce administrative departments shall investigate and deal with the producers and sellers in a timely manner in accordance with the law",which is the so-called"collaborative regulatory measures"for dishonest persons.The third and fourth paragraphs of Article 103 of the Road Traffic Safety Law provide for administrative penalties for illegal perpetrators of"unauthorized production and sale of motor vehicle models produced without the approval of the national motor vehicle product authority","production and sale of assembled motor vehicles,or production and sale of unauthorized modifications of motor vehicles","If there is a business license,it shall be revoked by the administrative department for industry and commerce,and if there is no business license,it shall be sealed up."This is the responsibility of the administrative department for industry and commerce to punish this illegal act.This was originally one of the 103 legal norms of the Road Traffic Safety Law,but the memorandum proposed that"the industry and information technology,public security and traffic management departments should notify or transfer to the same level of industrial and commercial administration departments,which should promptly investigate and deal with producers and sellers in accordance with the law,"which is called"collaborative regulatory measures.".

The above-mentioned memorandums led by the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce have a exemplary role in the subsequent memorandums.Throughout the various memorandums between national ministries and commissions,the identity of violators is basically transformed into dishonest ones,and the administrative penalties and other administrative sanctions imposed by administrative organs on violators in accordance with various separate laws,regulations,and rules are conversely deduced into disciplinary measures against dishonest ones.Another situation is that many memorandums regard the administrative penalties set forth in legal norms as punishment for illegal acts,while other administrative sanctions set forth in legal norms become disciplinary measures for breach of trust.In other words,problems that were originally dealt with in the field of administrative law enforcement were artificially copied to the field of disciplinary action for breach of trust.Obviously,this is purely a word game that does not exist in actual administrative management and law enforcement.Doing so has no practical significance and will affect the healthy development of the credit system construction.

3、Administration according to law:The principles that administrative organs should adhere to when implementing punishment for breach of trust.

As an administrative act,punishment for breach of trust should follow the basic principles of administration according to law,and should not deviate from the track of the rule of law at any time.This positioning is the starting point and destination of our research.

Disciplinary actions against dishonesty must adhere to the principle of legality and be carried out in accordance with the law.This is the specific embodiment and requirement of the principle of administrative legality in the punishment of dishonesty.Due to the fact that punishment for dishonesty is a restriction or deprivation of the rights of dishonest individuals,it is bound to have an adverse effect on them.This requires that the basis,object,type,and procedure of punishment for dishonesty are legal,the subject and authority of punishment for dishonesty are legal,and the protection of the rights and interests of the punished object must be legal.In view of the characteristics of the construction of credit systems,especially the punishment of dishonest acts,across regions,systems,and industries,the implementation of joint punishment is not subject to geographical constraints.If unified disciplinary measures are implemented under different recognition standards for dishonesty punishment,it does not comply with the principles of legality,openness,and fairness in administrative acts.Therefore,the legal norms for the punishment of dishonesty should be clearly stipulated by laws and administrative regulations.Local regulations and rules should not establish the punishment of dishonesty,but can only make specific provisions for the specific implementation of the punishment of dishonesty.

It is worth noting that administrative normative documents cannot provide for the punishment of dishonesty.The"Notice on Strengthening the Formulation,Supervision and Administration of Administrative Normative Documents"issued by the General Office of the State Council clearly stipulates that administrative normative documents shall not add administrative powers beyond the provisions of laws and regulations or reduce legal responsibilities;"Shall not illegally derogate from the lawful rights and interests of citizens,legal persons,and other organizations or increase their obligations;";It is not allowed to exceed matters that should be regulated by the market,self-discipline by enterprises and society,and self management by citizens,as stipulated by its authority;"It is prohibited to illegally formulate measures that exclude or restrict fair competition,illegally interfere with or affect the normal production and operation activities of market entities,or illegally set market access and exit conditions.".Currently,many localities and departments have administrative normative documents that regulate the punishment of dishonesty,including memorandums between national ministries and commissions.Strictly speaking,these administrative normative documents do not have the authority to regulate the punishment of dishonesty that affects the rights and obligations of dishonesty.

Currently,all localities and departments generally restrict the application for government subsidy fund support;Restrict participation in government procurement,government procurement services,state-owned land transfer,government investment projects,or bidding for projects that primarily use financial funds;Restricting participation in infrastructure and public utility franchising activities is a disciplinary measure against dishonesty,based on the provisions already made in relevant State Council documents.In the document of the State Council on the construction of the credit system,provisions have been made for establishing and improving the mechanism for encouraging and punishing dishonesty,"It is required to restrict or prohibit dishonest entities from operating,investing and financing,obtaining government supplied land,import and export,entry and exit,registering new companies,engineering bidding,government procurement,obtaining honors,safety permits,production permits,professional qualifications,qualification reviews,and other aspects in accordance with the law,and to implement a market prohibition system for serious violations of law and dishonest entities.This is a principle provision made by the State Council.How to apply these disciplinary measures?",Specific regulations must be separately formulated by laws,administrative regulations,or the State Council,and cannot be applied universally regardless of the object or condition.From the perspective of administrative management and administrative law enforcement,administrative organs implement a specific administrative management with specific purposes,specific conditions,and specific methods and measures.For example,government subsidy fund support,which belongs to the scope of payment administration,is a special fund arranged by the financial department or in conjunction with relevant departments to support the development of a certain field or support a specific group through the general public budget.The management and use of such special funds will be regulated through regulations,rules,or administrative normative documents,clarifying the management principles,scope of fund use,conditions for applying for funds,approval procedures,fund management and supervision,and so on.The government grants subsidy funds for administrative purposes.When reviewing and approving application reports,only factors related to the management of special funds should be considered,rather than unrelated factors."Applicants who commit dishonesty in other fields should be dealt with in accordance with the principle of equivalent liability,but such dishonesty is not related to the application for special funds and should not be unfairly treated.".Even if there is a breach of trust in the process of applying for special funds before or now,it should be treated differently,and it is not appropriate to restrict or cancel their right to apply.This right should not be deprived or restricted without legal reasons.

2.Determine the subject qualification of the organ on the dishonest blacklist.Nowadays,it is common to blacklist dishonest people(most of them refer to serious dishonest people).So,what department has the authority to identify blacklists?The National Development and Reform Commission The Guiding Opinions of the People's Bank of China on Strengthening and Standardizing the Management of the List of Objects for Joint Incentive and Punishment of Breach of Credit stipulates:"National authorities at or above the county level,organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs can identify red and black lists in relevant fields according to unified standards,and relevant national departments can authorize national industry associations,chambers of commerce,and credit service institutions to identify red and black lists according to unified standards as needed.".The Notice on Strengthening the Supervision and Administration of the List of Financial Serious Disruptors issued by the National Development and Reform Commission,the People's Bank of China,the Banking Regulatory Commission,the Securities Regulatory Commission,the Insurance Regulatory Commission,the Ministry of Commerce,and the Supreme People's Court stipulates that:,"The relevant administrative departments shall determine the list of persons with serious financial dishonesty based on court decisions,court rulings,administrative penalties,or administrative determinations.The people's court shall push relevant information,including relevant effective criminal judgments and lists of persons subject to enforcement of dishonesty that comply with the provisions of this circular,to the relevant government administrative departments,who shall include relevant institutions or individuals that meet applicable circumstances in the list of persons with serious financial dishonesty.".Article 4 of the Interim Measures for the Management of the"Blacklist"of Wages of Migrant Workers in Arrears issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security stipulates that"the management of the"Blacklist"of wages in arrears shall be carried out in accordance with the principle of"whoever enforces the law,who identifies it,and who is responsible",and shall follow the principles of legality,fairness,impartiality,and objectivity.".It can be seen from the regulations of various regions and departments that the departments that have the authority to identify the blacklist of dishonesty are administrative organs,organizations authorized by laws and regulations,and even industry associations,chambers of commerce,and credit service institutions.These regulations are worth discussing.Once a credit subject is identified as a dishonest person and enters the blacklist,it will be"jointly punished"by various regions and departments,and will be in a state of"one dishonest person,all restricted".Therefore,it is not advisable to propose"who enforces the law,who determines,and who is responsible"for determining a blacklist.From the perspective of the organizational structure and division of powers of administrative organs in China,the power to identify blacklists can only be exercised by administrative departments at or above the county level in accordance with laws and regulations.Organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs,as well as industry associations,chambers of commerce,and enterprises and public institutions that have certain social management functions,can only undertake a specific administrative function upon authorization or entrustment,and have no right to determine whether the credit subject is a dishonest person or a serious dishonest person.The identification standards can only be formulated by laws and administrative regulations.

3.The principle of non bis in idem."If a credit subject commits dishonesty or serious dishonesty and violates administrative legal norms,it should of course be subject to administrative sanctions by the administrative organ(known as dishonesty punishment by comrades in the credit construction system),which is legal and reasonable.".However,if dishonest individuals are included in the blacklist and enter the national credit platform,they will inevitably be subject to various forms of joint disciplinary action(which still refers to joint administrative sanctions by administrative organs,but does not include social,market,industry constraints,self-discipline,or sanctions).The focus of the question is whether a dishonest person has already received due administrative sanctions(administrative sanctions,and other administrative sanctions)in accordance with various separate laws,regulations,and rules for an illegal act(dishonest act).Will they still be subject to secondary or even multiple sanctions?Mr.Gu Minkang wrote in the preface to the"First Excellent Thesis Collection of"The Rule of Credit·Shaoshan Forum"that"the credit status of these dishonest individuals should be recorded and legally shared,so as to achieve a mechanism of joint punishment for dishonest individuals.".An article on the"Credit China"website also states,"The behavior of credit subjects has violated the law and has been subject to corresponding administrative penalties,but the punishment is not strong enough to deter the dishonest subjects,resulting in repeated prohibitions of dishonest behavior.At this time,the market supervision department listed them on the"blacklist"for joint punishment,which is actually an additional and superimposed punishment on the dishonest subjects,"It can also be seen as an extension of administrative punishment in space and time.".This is clearly in agreement with the view that when citizens,legal persons,and other organizations are subject to administrative penalties for illegal acts,they should also be punished for dishonesty(derived from illegal acts).This is a typical idea of reconciling one matter and punishing more for one matter.

"No longer being fined for one matter,including the principle of"no longer being fined for one matter"stipulated in Article 24 of the Administrative Penalty Law,is only a case of no longer being punished for one matter."."Non bis in idem",also known as the"prohibition of duplicate prosecution"principle,means that in civil,criminal,and administrative proceedings,no further litigation can be initiated for cases that have already been adjudicated and have legal effect,otherwise it constitutes duplicate prosecution.This principle also applies to cases that have been prosecuted or are being tried,as well as administrative sanctions against citizens,legal persons,and other organizations.In his book"Administrative Law",Mr.Weng Yuesheng wrote,"There are various forms of State sanctions,such as penalties,administrative order penalties,disciplinary penalties,and administrative enforcement.However,due to differences in the laws,regulations,subjects,and procedures applicable to sanctions,different forms of sanctions often result in the same conduct of the people being sanctioned by multiple countries."."Whether the state is allowed to impose multiple sanctions on the same illegal act of the people is the so-called principle of no two penalties for one matter,"which is also known as the"der Prinzip des Doppelbestrafungsverbot"."Its original intention is to prohibit the State from repeatedly punishing the same act of the people with the same or similar measures.".

The legal significance of the principle of non bis in idem lies in limiting state power,preventing the abuse of public power,and effectively protecting the fundamental rights of citizens,legal persons,and other organizations.Nowadays,it is a common practice in various regions to treat citizens,legal persons,and other organizations who have been subjected to administrative penalties or committed other illegal acts as the object of disciplinary action or joint disciplinary action against dishonesty,and various regions and departments have set a certain deadline for the inquiry of information about dishonesty and serious dishonesty.In other words,the subject of dishonesty may be subject to disciplinary action or joint disciplinary action for dishonesty within a certain period of time.In other words,a one-time violation of the law may be subject to disciplinary action for dishonesty in different administrative areas,different regions,and different departments within a certain period of time.This is called a one-time violation(also known as dishonesty)and multiple sanctions."If an administrative organ imposes administrative sanctions on a citizen,legal person,or other organization that has been punished or imposed other administrative sanctions measures again,or even repeatedly,it will inevitably expose it to endless worries,fears,and tremendous mental pressure.".Obviously,this is contrary to the principle of the rule of law.

4.The principle of proportionality between liability and liability.As an administrative act,punishment for dishonesty should not only adhere to the principle of legality,but also adhere to the principle of rationality."The most significant positive expression of the principle of administrative rationality is the principle of proportionality.","As a principle of proportionality in administrative law,its main content refers to:1.The principle of minimum damage.When an administrative body has multiple choices in making administrative actions,it should choose to sacrifice the interests of the administrative counterpart to the minimum and be closest to the purpose and behavior of implementing administrative law.2.The principle of equivalent punishment for crimes.If the counterpart violates administrative management and should be punished,the punishment decided by the administrative body should be equivalent to the illegal act of the punished person."The principle of minimum damage and the principle of equal liability for breach of trust must be adhered to in the establishment and implementation of punishment for breach of trust.The proportion between the punishment means for breach of trust chosen by administrative organs and the realization of administrative purposes,as well as the damage to the interests of administrative counterparts,should be reasonable and appropriate.Analyze the disciplinary measures for dishonesty commonly prescribed by various regions and departments,and find that one case of dishonesty is limited everywhere;Once you break your promise,you will be blacklisted and restricted from applying for government subsidy funds;Restrict participation in government procurement,government procurement services,state-owned land transfer,government investment projects,or bidding for projects that primarily use financial funds;Restricting the holding of corporate leadership positions,restricting participation in recognition and reward activities organized by the government,and so on,clearly does not correspond to the responsibilities committed.

Under the leadership of the National Development and Reform Commission and the Supreme People's Court,a total of 44 ministries and commissions have signed the"Memorandum of Cooperation on Joint Punishment of Persons Enforced for Breach of Faith",which stipulates that there are as many as 32 joint disciplinary measures to be implemented against"those who violate the law and break their faith"."Due to their civil breach of contract,the people's court has imposed civil sanctions on the person subjected to enforcement of dishonesty in accordance with civil legal norms.When they refuse to implement effective judgments,the people's court has taken enforcement measures against them,which is already a relatively severe judicial sanction.However,administrative organs have intervened in civil violations and taken various administrative disciplinary measures against the person subjected to enforcement of dishonesty,which has no legal basis.".Even if the civil dishonesty of the person subjected to execution causes harm to the social management order and public interests(without such harm,administrative organs cannot intervene),the disciplinary measures for dishonesty imposed on them should also have a reasonable proportional relationship with the degree of harm caused,and should not exceed the necessary limit.It has also been noted that among the disciplinary measures taken against those who violate their promises,some refer to the imposition of inhuman and unreasonable measures,which do not reflect the humanistic spirit of administrative law,such as"restricting children from attending high fee private schools.".

5.Protection of the rights and interests of dishonest subjects."Where there is a right,there is a remedy."This principle is also applicable to the setting and implementation of disciplinary actions against dishonesty.The first step in designing a dishonest punishment system is to collect and publish public credit information.Many localities have stipulated that the collection and publication of public credit information should follow the principles of legality,objectivity,accuracy,necessity,and safety,protect the legitimate rights and interests of units and natural persons in accordance with the law,and prohibit the disclosure of information that is not permitted by laws and regulations.However,in practice,there are still many issues to be studied.For example,after listing administrative penalties as records of dishonesty,various regions have comprehensively carried out the"double publicity"work,which means that all information on administrative permits and penalties should be publicized and subject to supervision by the whole society.According to data,by the end of 2018,the"Credit China"website had collected more than 147 million pieces of"dual publicity"information.The problem is that the"Administrative Penalty Law"does not stipulate that administrative penalty information should be publicly disclosed.Article 4 of the Law stipulates that"administrative penalties shall follow the principles of fairness and openness",and openness refers to the mandatory publication of administrative penalties for illegal acts;The provisions for making administrative penalties should be made public;What administrative penalties are imposed by administrative organs on illegal parties,and what facts,reasons,and bases of administrative penalties should be made public;"If a hearing is held according to law,it shall be held in public,except as otherwise provided for by law.".The disclosure stipulated in the"Administrative Penalty Law"does not mean that the punishment information of illegal parties should be disclosed to the public.Article 40 of the Administrative Licensing Law stipulates that"decisions made by administrative organs to grant administrative licenses should be made public,and the public has the right to consult them."This is also different from administrative penalties.Administrative licensing is the right granted to citizens,legal persons,and other organizations.Even if it is made public,it cannot be made public without restrictions or boundaries,which involves trade secrets and personal privacy."The Administrative License Law stipulates here that the public has the right to consult.".Some local regulations prohibit the disclosure of information that is not required to be disclosed by laws and regulations.This statement is inaccurate.According to the principle of"no disclosure is allowed without authorization by law"by administrative organs,citizen information that is not required to be disclosed by laws and regulations shall not be disclosed.

As a specific administrative act,punishment for breach of trust should be actionable.The administrative organ's recognition of credit subjects as dishonest subjects,even being included in the blacklist,is a denial of the credit capital and social reputation of citizens,legal persons,and other organizations,which will have a direct impact on their rights and obligations;Disciplinary action against dishonest individuals is an administrative sanction that restricts or cancels the rights of dishonest individuals and increases their obligations.Both of these specific administrative acts should be actionable,and the administrative counterpart enjoys the right of defense,administrative reconsideration,and administrative litigation according to law.However,most of the legal and administrative norms on social credit management do not provide legal relief rights to those who break their promises or are punished for breaking their promises.Article 22 of the Beijing Municipal Measures for the Administration of Public Credit Information stipulates that"If an entity or natural person believes that the public credit information recorded by the public credit information service platform is inconsistent with the facts or should not be disclosed according to law,they may file a written objection application with the Municipal Department of Economic Information Technology and provide relevant supporting materials."Article 23 stipulates that:,"The municipal economic and information department shall,within 7 working days from the date of receiving the objection application,conduct a verification with the relevant administrative authorities and make a disposition.If the verification is verified to be true,it shall promptly make corrections and notify the applicant of the correction results in writing.If the verification is not true,it shall notify the applicant of the verification results in writing."This is a relatively common provision in various provinces,cities,and autonomous regions,Basically,there are no provisions on how to solve the problem if the parties are not satisfied with the results of the administrative department's verification."If the administrative counterpart refuses to accept the punishment for breach of trust,there are no legal remedies provided,and there is no way for the parties to file a lawsuit.".This is a prominent issue in the punishment of dishonesty.

4、Article 26(4)of the Civil Servant

Law stipulates that it cannot be used as a sample provision for credit legislation.Article 26 of the Civil Servant Law stipulates that five types of personnel shall not be employed as civil servants,and the fourth item refers to"personnel who are legally listed as the object of joint punishment for dishonesty",which is a new provision added in the 2018 amendment.According to this provision,those who apply for the civil service exam who are"listed as the object of joint punishment for dishonesty according to law"are not eligible to be recruited as civil servants.This may be the first law to provide for joint disciplinary measures to be taken by administrative agencies against objects of dishonesty.The provisions of Article 26(4)of the Civil Service Law are obviously inappropriate.The reasons for this

are as follows:First,both the 2005 Civil Servant Law and the 2018 Civil Servant Law(hereinafter referred to as the new and old Civil Servant Law)have imposed severe penalties and sanctions on personnel who are not allowed to be hired as civil servants.The old Civil Servant Law stipulates three types of personnel:those who have previously received criminal penalties for crimes;Having been expelled from public office;There are other circumstances under which employment as a civil servant is prohibited by law.The new Civil Servant Law stipulates five types of personnel,with the exception of"those who are listed as joint disciplinary targets for dishonesty in accordance with the law",the remaining four types are:those who have received criminal punishment for crimes;Being expelled from the CPC;Being expelled from public office;There are other circumstances under which employment as a civil servant is prohibited by law.In these various situations,criminal punishment,expulsion from the Party,and expulsion from public office are punishment or punishment for personnel who constitute a crime,or who have seriously violated party or political discipline,and have caused adverse effects.It is correct and reasonable to prohibit such personnel from entering the civil service team,but"those who are listed as the object of joint punishment for dishonesty according to law",compared to those who have been sentenced or expelled from the Party or public office,have their dishonesty behaviors in nature with those who violate the law or discipline There are essential differences in harmfulness,and there are various situations in the object of joint punishment for dishonesty.If the joint punishment for dishonesty is indiscriminately rejected as a single vote,all those who are subject to joint punishment for dishonesty will be included in personnel who are not allowed to be employed as civil servants,which is obviously not justified.As for those who have been jointly punished for dishonesty,there are indeed those with bad dishonesty and poor ideological quality.For those who do not meet the requirements of civil servants,in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of the new Civil Service Law,"Civil servants should meet the following conditions",Item(4),"Have good political quality and moral integrity",the recruitment unit is fully able to ensure the purity of the civil service team during the review.

Secondly,as a mechanism for credit construction,joint punishment for dishonesty is still immature and not standardized,and is still at the stage of practice and exploration.Currently,the main basis for joint punishment of dishonesty is the 43 memorandums between national ministries and commissions,and many of these memorandums have principles for the punishment of violations,especially the widespread and extensive use of illegal acts of citizens,legal persons,and other organizations as secondary punishment for dishonesty,without a legal basis,and resulting in confusion in legal logic.To be frank with the author,due to various reasons,these memorandums are also crude in terms of formulation technology,and there are even common sense mistakes.For example,the first"Memorandum of Cooperation on Cooperative Supervision and Joint Punishment of Dishonest Enterprises",in Part I,specifies the market access and qualification restrictions imposed by the industrial and commercial administration departments on parties in various fields,referring to 13 fields,only the first five as examples,the first(1)being the field of safety production,the second(2)being the field of travel agency operations,and the third(3)being the field of supervision and management of state-owned enterprises,The fourth is the feed and veterinary drug business field,and the fifth is the food and drug business field,which is very irregular in the arrangement of various fields.Some memorandums have obvious problems with language,grammar,and logic.The content of a document determines its form,which in turn reacts to the content.Memos like this are difficult to implement as"good laws"in terms of content or form.

Third,if the provisions of Article 26(4)are implemented in the recruitment of civil servants,it is bound to generate more contradictions and problems.The indisputable fact is that,in general,there are many joint disciplinary measures for dishonesty currently implemented by various regions and departments that are worth studying.The prominent problem is that the legal principles of dishonesty punishment have not been widely recognized and implemented,the criteria for blacklist identification,the subject of identification,and the identification process are unclear,and the legal relief system has not been established at the legal and policy levels.Under such circumstances,the Civil Servant Law stipulates that those who are listed as joint punishment for dishonesty"in accordance with the law"cannot be hired as civil servants,and the basis for"in accordance with the law"is still weak.Therefore,the conditions for implementing joint punishment for dishonesty in the recruitment of civil servants are not mature.In addition,there are significant differences between regions and departments,which determines that the national unity of civil service recruitment and the differences in joint punishment for dishonesty between regions and departments will inevitably lead to conflicts in laws and policies.Once the recruitment target is disqualified by the recruitment unit for being jointly punished for dishonesty,various administrative disputes will inevitably arise,which will also have a negative impact on candidates and society,As a result of various forms of unfair competition,the legitimacy of civil service recruitment is bound to be challenged.

Therefore,the requirement to list personnel who are legally listed as the object of joint punishment for dishonesty as not allowed to be recruited as civil servants has not yet met the conditions and has no legal basis.It is recommended to amend the fourth provision of Article 26 of the Civil Servant Law,which cannot be used as a sample provision of other separate laws,regulations,and rules.

5、Summary

Through preliminary research on administrative dishonesty punishment,the author has come to the following points of view:

1.The construction of social credit system is a systematic project with distinct sociality,marketability,complexity,and gradualness.Credit construction and the construction of the rule of law,morality,ethics,industry,and community complement and promote each other,rather than replace each other.The construction of the social credit system should be carried forward in accordance with the principle of gradual progress,steady and moderate progress.The urgent task is to seriously study and solve the important theoretical and legal issues involved in credit construction,and establish a"long-term mechanism".

The establishment of a social credit system should proceed from reality and highlight key points."Several Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on the Construction of a Social Credit System"(Guo Ban Fa[2007]No.17)points out that the establishment of a social credit system is an important institutional arrangement in the market economy system.This system is based on the legal system,with the credit system as the core,and focuses on improving the credit records of credit,tax payment,contract performance,and product quality.It is necessary to standardize credit service behavior and market order according to law,and establish a credit information sharing system,Gradually build and improve the real name information sharing platform system based on organization code and ID card number,and form a joint punishment mechanism for dishonesty.This document of the State Council sets out the key points and directions for the construction of the social credit system from a practical perspective,and should continue to be carefully implemented.

In the construction of the credit system,the government should actively guide and promote the full play of the role of market players.Punishment for dishonesty should mainly be social,market-oriented,and industrial,and should be selected and determined by market entities;Rather than letting the visible hand dominate.

The punishment of administrative dishonesty must adhere to the principles of legality and rationality.Firmly adhere to the bottom line of legality,and ensure that the setting of punishment for dishonesty is statutory.The administrative organs that implement punishment for dishonesty are statutory in terms of subject matter,authority,content,and procedure.The rights of citizens,legal persons,and other organizations must be strictly protected and administrative power restricted.Various administrative normative documents cannot establish disciplinary measures for dishonesty,restrict the rights of citizens,legal persons,and other organizations,and increase their extralegal obligations.Establish and improve legal remedies.Pay great attention to protecting citizens'basic rights,including their privacy,portrait,reputation,and other personal dignity.Choose appropriate,standardized,and civilized expressions to replace references such as"blacklist"and"laolai".

5.Use the rule of law thinking and methods to summarize and study the achievements and common problems in the construction of the credit system,and strengthen credit legislation in accordance with the principles of scientific,democratic,and law-based legislation to ensure the healthy and smooth progress of credit construction on the track of the rule of law.

References and materials:

Wu Jingmei:Modern Credit Science,China Renmin University Press,first edition,2009,page 1.

See Wu Jingmei,"Modern Credit Science,"China Renmin University Press,first edition,2009,pp.38-43.

Tan Man and Gu Minkang,editor in chief,"Collection of Outstanding Papers of the First"Credit Rule of Law Shaoshan Forum",Law Press,October 2019 edition.

Zhang Wenxian,Editor in Chief:Jurisprudence,Higher Education Press,Peking University Press,4th Edition,June 2011,page 43.

Zhuo Zeyuan:Jurisprudence,Law Press,February 2016,2nd edition,page 260.

Li Buyun,Liu Zuoxiang:"The Basic Theory of Law",edited by Ying Songnian,"Special Lectures on Law",National Academy of Administration Press,June 1999,pp.23,24.

Quoted from Zhuo Zeyuan's"Jurisprudence",Law Press,February 2016,2nd edition,260 pages,"Complete Works of Marx and Engels"(Volume 1),People's Publishing House,1956 edition,page 16.

Tan Man and Gu Minkang,editor in chief,"Collection of Outstanding Papers of the First"Credit Rule of Law Shaoshan Forum",Law Press,October 2019 edition.

He Ling and Meng Jiahuiwen:"Double publicity"engine-China conducts a scanning of administrative licensing and administrative penalty information"double publicity"work,which was logged on the Credit China website on June 19,2019.

Weng Yuesheng:Administrative Law,China Legal Publishing House,September 2002,first edition,Volume II,pages 841-842.

Zhang Chengfu,Wu Peng,editor in chief:"New Concept of Government by Law",National Academy of Administration Press,2015 edition,page 40.

Hu Jianmiao:Administrative Law,Law Press,2015 edition,page 55.

He Ling and Meng Jiahuiwen:"Double publicity"engine-China conducts a scanning of administrative licensing and administrative penalty information"double publicity"work,which was logged on the Credit China website on June 19,2019.

Author profile:

Xia Zemin,a retired civil servant,was once the Executive Deputy County Chief and Member of the Standing Committee of Yuantai County,Jiangsu Province,the Secretary General of Yangzhou Municipal People's Government,and the Vice Chairman of Yangzhou Municipal Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.He has also served as the Director of Yangzhou Arbitration Commission,Deputy Secretary General of China Arbitration Law Research Association,and Chairman of Yangzhou Administrative Law Research Association.His works include:"Memory Retained in Notebooks"and"Theoretical and Practical Research on Administrative Normative Documents".Mailing Address:14th Floor,Building 1,Huacheng Science and Technology Plaza,456 Wenchang West Road,Yangzhou City

(This article is translated by software translator for reference only.)