National Business Daily:
The General Office of the State Council recently released a notice on this year's key tasks concerning government transparency, stating that government departments should make information related to law enforcement on anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competitive practices more transparent, and exercise impartial regulation equally across the board. What arrangements does the State Administration for Market Regulation have in this regard? Thank you.
Gan Lin:
Thank you for your question. It is fair to say that we have always been committed to disclosing information on law enforcement regarding anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competitive practices. We conscientiously conduct our work based on the key requirements set by the General Office of the State Council regarding government affairs transparency.
Regarding the disclosure of information for law enforcement on anti-monopoly, we conducted the following tasks.
First, we disclosed legislation information in a timely and active manner. For example, those rules and documents related to the latest regulations and guidelines on anti-monopoly practices. Second, we made information related to specific cases accessible to the public in accordance with the law. We published law enforcement information, law enforcement notices, and relevant legal documents on monopoly cases and explained the handling of cases to create a deterrent for further violations so that the public and the society can truly feel a sense of fairness and justice.
Third, we disclosed interpretations of major policies. We provided policy interpretations through illustrations, articles, and press briefings. For example, when disclosing information regarding cases of wide public concern, the person in charge of our anti-monopoly bureau was invited to answer questions from the media, experts were invited to write interpreting articles, and press conferences were held to release authoritative information. At the same time, since anti-monopoly practices attract international attention, we have expanded publicity and advocacy to effectively level the playing field and create a favorable social atmosphere for fair results. This is the anti-monopoly information disclosure.
Regarding the disclosure of information for law enforcement on anti-unfair competition, we know in 2017, China amended the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. One of the amendments defines specific regulations for disclosing information on administrative penalties. Specifically, businesses fined for violating the Anti-Unfair Competition Law should have their credit history recorded by the supervision and inspection department, which in turn should be made public in accordance with relevant laws and administrative regulations. The administrative punishments handed out by market supervision departments at all levels should then be disclosed via the national corporate credit information disclosure system. The State Administration for Market Regulation has disclosed recent administrative punishments for unfair competitive practices through a website launched last year specifically designed to disclose punishment letters in full as part of efforts to increase the transparency of law enforcement.
In the future, we will further beef up efforts to disclose information on law enforcement regarding anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competitive practices, increase the publicity of cases that violate the law, and explain the handling of cases as part of a legal education drive. Thank you.
Xing Huina:
This is the end of today's press conference. Thank you, to our four speakers and journalists from the media.
Translated and edited by Zhu Bochen, Wang Qian, Liu Sitong, Zhang Rui, Cui Can, Fan Junmei, Gong Yingchun, Li Huiru, Xiang Bin, Liu Qiang, Yang Xi, Duan Yaying, Zhang Liying, He Shan, Zhou Jing, David Ball, Jay Birbeck, and Tom Arnstein. In case of any discrepancy between the English and Chinese texts, the Chinese version is deemed to prevail.
