By EO Editorial Board 
Issue 592, Oct 29, 2012 
Cover
Translated by Ji Menghui 
Original article: [Chinese]

We have the same concerns as Zhao Zhengjun. Why are our new national standards for milk so much lower than those of foreign countries? Some of the standards, like lower protein levels and higher allowances for bacteria, are even lower than they were in the past. How did this happen? Have there been any vested interests involved? Last year Zhao Zhengjun requested that the Ministry of Health publicize the minutes of the meeting where the new standards were decided, but he was refused.

So Zhao took the Ministry of Health to court. On Oct 17, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court ordered that a reply to Zhao’s request be offered. The judgment gives hope to weak individuals seeking empowerment. Through the law, we can drain some arrogance out of strong public powers.

The general understanding of a law-based society is that individual citizens are law-abiding. However, it also means that the government abides by the law. So what if the government doesn’t do so?

In regard to freedom of information, the government's compliance needs to be improved. The 21st article of “The Decree of Government Information Openness,” which was enacted in 2008, says that the government should take the initiative to publicize information affecting immediate interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations.

However, in 2010 the Center for Public Participation Studies and Supports of Peking University issued a report about the transparency of government administrations nationwide. The study covered 30 provinces and municipalities and showed that the average score of government agencies in transparency was 63 percent. Meanwhile, 43 subordinate agencies of the State Council received 51.7 percent on average; that figure being lower than in 2009.

Recent instances of citizens applying for government information disclosure fully illustrate these problems. For instance, there’s the university student who requested a Shaanxi official disclose wage information. Then there was the application for information about the bidding process and construction of the wildly expensive and inefficient China Railway Customer Service Center website. These requests were both rejected.

The biggest problem is whether our judicial system can stay independent in conflicts between citizens and the government, which is the most fundamental element of current judicial reform.

The latest “Judicial Reform in China” states that the fundamental objectives are to ensure that the people's courts exercise power fairly and independently, establish an impartial, efficient and authoritative socialist judicial system, and provide solid and reliable judicial guarantees for safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the people, social equity, justice and lasting national stability.

In fact, we should acknowledge that societies with relatively moderate social conflicts have higher judicial authority and prestige. Contemporary Chinese society is in a period where it’s prone to contradictions. The government’s engagement in handling these contradictions then leads to exhausting resources. And with government interests often involved, the government, in many cases, ends up completely discredited. Consequently, the contradictions intensify.

We believe it’s high time a new social management model was established, in which the legal system and social organization exert practical influences in conflict mediation. Social organization is to prevent social contradictions, while the legal system is the main force in resolving contradictions and disputes. In other words, the judiciary is the last line of defense for social justice.

In this sense, it’s mandatory to establish the authority and prestige of the judiciary and resort to the courts rather than governments when meeting disputes. The independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed.