Professor Jia Xijin: Two Years of the Overseas NGO Law

中文 English

Editor’s Note

This is an abridged translation of the talk that prof. Jia Xijin, from Tsinghua University’s School of Public Policy and Management, gave at CDB’s forum for overseas NGOs, held in Beijing on the 6th of November. We have also included translations of some of the slides that Prof. Jia used during her talk, and the final Q&A session. A few parts have been omitted for clarity. 

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.19.50
It is clear to see that several important legal documents were published within half a year of the law being released. This year has not seen as much reform, but what there has been has mainly been regulations in the areas of taxes and personal affairs.

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 13.28.58

Comparatively speaking, there has been a much larger increase in filings for temporary activities, while there has been a relative slowdown in the growth of full registrations.

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 11.47.39            The number of registrations from January 2017 to October 2018

 

It is evident both that the peak in the first year was anomalously high, and that there remains significant volatility. In the latter half of that year and the first ten months of this year, the curve has slowed down, with a particularly low point in June. It is clear that there are particular reasons behind several notable points in this period.

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 15.01.47

Across 2017, registrations from just six places comprised 78% of the national total. In 2018, Sichuan just edged past Liaoning – however, the same basic structure of the previous year is still very much present, and the registrations are still quite concentrated.

In 2017 there were six places which had not seen any registrations, and currently there are still four places with no registrations. Other than that there has not been much change. The two places with the highest number of registrations are still Beijing and Shanghai for historical and socio-economic regional reasons, followed by Yunnan, Guangdong, Liaoning and Sichuan.

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 15.03.46

The data from 2017 until present has also remained consistent in the area of registration of PSUs. Of these, one fourth are at the ministerial level and three fourths at the provincial level.

The fields of activity are very interesting; the data structures of 2017 and 2018 have seen almost no change. The proportion of national, cross-provincial and provincial registrations across the whole country is essentially 1/3 for each.

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 15.04.43

 

The place with the greatest distribution of NGOs in China is the US, followed by Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Germany, which collectively account for 60-70%. Those from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan account for 25%.

 

Summary

The following are the particularities of the situation from the end of 2017 until today.

The first thing is that the degree of dynamism of different places in terms of registrations and of filings of temporary activities is not exactly the same. Beijing, Shanghai, Yunnan, Guangdong, Sichuan and Liaoning are the most dynamic places in terms of registering representative offices, while Beijing, Guangdong, Guizhou, Yunnan and Sichuan have seen the most temporary activity filings.

Some places however are active in both permanent registration and temporary activities filing, for instance Beijing and Yunnan, which lead in both areas. Then there are some places where it is different, such as Shanghai, which clearly has a high number of permanent registrations but a low number of filings. Then there are provinces like Guangdong, Sichuan and Guizhou that have seen relatively few registrations, but are very active in terms of filing for temporary activities. It can clearly be seen that the situation varies a lot according to the place.

Another thing is that the attitude of local governments is not necessarily reflected by the statistics. Some regions may not have that many organisations coming to apply, but it can still be seen from the filings that the government has an open and positive attitude. For example in Yunnan, the structures we have just discussed have not changed much, but the number of filings rose very fast in 2018.

 

Progress and points of difficulty

The trend in registrations

This year’s peak period did not match the highest few months of last year, so it can be said that there has been slow down in the peak period; the gap between last year’s peak and the lower points was also very large, whereas this year was generally more uniform.

 

The trend in filings

This year filings for temporary activities have grown much faster than last year. This tells us that in the long term, for organizations with difficulties in registering representative offices, filing may become easier.

Of course, the legality provided by filing and registering are not the same. With registration, legality is comprehensive. However, with filing legality is based on each individual project or event, but this sort of legality could perhaps turn into a routine channel. The tendency towards filing is likely to increase in the next couple of years. If so, it could turn into a normalized channel towards legality.

 

What are the challenges for development?

Filing for temporary activities has become more and more normal compared to registration, and the pathways for filing temporary activities have similarly been normalized in some places. For example, if some organizations have already used a certain pathway for registration, this channel will already be established for the next event or the next organization. Many places have already made attempts to improve or simplify the process. If it is an organization’s first time filing, they might need to provide all the original documents, but be able to request photocopies at the time of filing. The registration platform of the Ministry of Public Security is a nationally standardized platform, and technology allows for the original information of each organization to remain on the platform.

The next time an organization files for an activity, or if it files in a different place, the original documents will be available on the platform so they will not need to be provided every time. Therefore, once an organization has filed once, the previous information can be shared in each subsequent filing. This should be the process that is being promoted everywhere now. There are still many limitations on time requirements, especially in some places. For example, the period for most filings in Guangdong is one year. The process is flexible and with a standardized structure for the filing process, it is possible everywhere to obtain legality within a fixed annual period. Therefore,in the future there should be further exploration into creating greater space for the filing process.

From the formulation of the PSUs, we can clearly see the particularities of the different departments. Some departments have thought up some technical measures. For example, in their role as PSUs the Forestry Departments have done well in the aspect of system standardization, which is probably related to their long-standing interactions with foreign non-governmental organizations. But there’s one problem with this: manpower limitations. The pathways are open, but because there is no specialized personnel, it actually becomes an additional task for the former department. So, limitations are not based on a willingness to implement, but on the ability of the department to fulfil its duties. The Forestry Department, the Environmental Department and others are all relatively active, and there are other departments that have also issued their own rules and regulations. Registration authorities are also trying to promote the systematization of the process, but it has not yet been applied on a national scale at the institutional level.

The Public Security departments have had to change their role this year, and it will now conform to the full legal obligations of the registration process. This includes filing, supervision, and coordination. It will no longer revolve solely around registration and filing as it did in the first year, but will fulfil the full legal duties required by the law.

 

What are the current problems?

I remember that in 2017 almost all of the attention was focused on the PSUs, and about 90% of the problems were related to obtaining a PSU.

Obviously, these difficulties have changed greatly from last year. Up to this year, there have been more than 400 organizations that have legally registered and over 1000 that have filed. The problems we now face are related to the operational procedures that arise after obtaining legalization. Once theoretical legality has been obtained, can this legality really become operational?

For example, theoretically an organization can run programs across the country, but does this mean that any activity within the aim and scope of registration can be run on the national level? This would require a long journey because it would involve the connection and mutual cooperation of each province, as well as the problem of costs. In terms of costs, NGOs are often flexible. Would they need to report every activity? Would they need to provide all the materials for larger events? Would a list of the year’s plans need to be provided a full year in advance? Would this include the annual financial report and plan from within the organization, along with the legally required annual plan and financial report? Regarding tax and auditing requirements, how do organizations conform to legalization on a technical level?

There are issues here because the time stipulations of the law do not always match the NGO’s fiscal year or the auditing fiscal year. There are also issues related to technical operations, for example, if I register in Province A, do the activities I conduct in Province B all need to be re-registered and reported? The law says this is not required. But if you don’t do this will you be able to operate? This could require the further expansion of legal responsibilities.

So, these are the obvious problems being faced this year. I think they will also be the core issues to be studied and explored as a next step. How can organizations obtain legality, and then translate this legality into the operational level, rather than just obtaining it on a theoretical level but still seeing a large disparity with practical operations?

There are other problems related to the systematization of policy, for example the relationship between registration and filing. The reforms for Chinese social organizations have led to a decoupling, so that they no longer have a PSU themselves. So when they go and file for a temporary activity, who should they file with? The direction of the reforms for local Chinese social organizations and the legal requirements of the Overseas NGO Law are sometime the exact opposite of each other. For example, right now these organizations have no PSUs, but when they file they need a PSU, so a good reform in this case is actually causing greater problems of entanglement.

And there are some even more detailed issues. For example, is it permitted to have another legally regulated source of income? If so, what kind? Can this be fully realized? Can an account be created? Can a tax receipt be issued? Many of these situations are theoretically feasible, but details regarding the issuing of receipts or income account deposits can influence the realization of an organization’s goals.

There are further problems with some organizations that have not registered regarding their subsequent registration, and issues of legal interpretation. There are also some government organizations, like the Forestry Department, that are facing issues of capacity saturation.

There are some core issues that might require different conceptual approaches going into the future. I will just raise a few here, and later on we can give them further consideration and investigation.

These issues include: the definition of non-profit, the definition of non-governmental, and which social organizations fall under the scope of the law. What does “legally established abroad” mean? In which fields are the exception clauses and the exception for institutions of higher education valid? What are legitimate activities? What are illegal religious activities? What is considered political? Regarding the solicitation of donations, it is clear that this is not permitted. But are there other legal sources of income? Other forms of revenue like consultation, fee collections, government purchases, and investment income all need to be explained. How can we increase membership within China? What about affiliations within China?

 

Directions for the future

Regarding registered organizations, I mentioned the issue of how to make the organizations’ legalization operational. When legal permission has already been obtained, can the legalization be put into practice at the local level? If it can be, I think most of the problems have already been solved. Actually, whether legalization can make itself evident within the operational system depends on the linking up of different processes.

Regarding unregistered organizations, there is the issue of the temporal requirements for such organizations. For example, if you can’t register in the future and temporary activities become routinized, this routinization can cause challenges to your donors and the organization’s strategic positioning. If you continue to prepare for registration, what will you do if the process takes too long?

Here the PSUs are still the core difficulty. From practical observations, the PSUs are not unchangeable. It is possible for them to change their ideas in order to carry out those duties that have been overlooked and operate more smoothly. This would involve a few key factors:

 

  • Awareness;

 

  • Authority;

 

  • Human resources;

 

  • Qualifications (may relate to some bodies like Youth League Committees, they may be willing, but are they qualified?);

 

  • Experience (experience can be accumulated through temporary activities, and on that basis the further step of registration can be made);

 

  • Incentive mechanisms;

 

PSUs will change along with the concepts, laws and the people in charge of management, and many factors including internal work settings and the definition of functions will all change. Currently the path to registration is not smooth, but this does not mean that it cannot be smooth in the future.

In the future we will see the strategic choices of overseas NGOs, including how they position themselves in the current conditions, and under the social and legal circumstances of existing Chinese development. How will they regard the position of China within their overall strategy? This is also the next challenge.

Finally, I think that what has just been discussed are all specific things. However in our research, and especially in our contact with government departments in different regions, I found that when the law is implemented, what matters most is still the attitude. When the government’s attitude and understanding of the law are satisfactory, the rest of the process will have innovation and momentum. What is needed even more is awareness of the national perception and of the overall environment. If the treatment of overseas NGOs at the national level is like the reform and opening up, and the legality deriving from the reform and opening up, then governments from each region will find their own transformations and innovations.

Nowadays, at the national level, how are overseas NGOs perceived, especially under the new security concept? Will things be more diversified and open? This is linked not just with the law itself, but also with the current stage of social development. From the Reform and Opening up until now, how China should position itself and undertake its development remain difficult questions.

 

Q&A Session

Q: Just now you talked about the management awareness of the Ministry of Public Security in recent years, and how it has turned from registration to regulatory follow-up on everyday management. As an NGO, what can be done?

Jia Xijin: It has now changed from registration being the only focus point, to having multiple focus points. Registration is still an important aspect, but it is not the only one, and subsequent problems will continue to emerge. A large portion of subsequent problems relate to processes. There is still no way to smoothly connect these processes. At this time, each region will have their own innovations and breakthroughs.

What I think would be particularly meaningful is if we could collect and bring together every good practice, and then present these to all the law enforcement departments, and especially the Ministry of Public Security. If we could disseminate every good point, this could benefit many regions.

Now each region likely has their own fragmented practices. Firstly, there is no obvious legality, because the law is not specified in many places. At this time, your practices belong to local interpretation or local innovation. Can legality be clarified? Secondly, can such practices be universalised? This even extends to tax receipts. I have come across a case where an organisation could issue tax-exempt receipts. But does this mean that at this time, all organisations can issue tax-exempt receipts? Do you include whether your bank account can receive RMB in China? Some can, and some can’t. If all the good practices could be brought together and presented, as long as they are allowed within the scope of the law, the practices which are more convenient and prone to implementation could be affirmed. This would actually be very meaningful.

I am also willing to do these things. If you all have good practices, they can be slowly collected. We can communicate and even specifically try and find out the real circumstances of a particular issue and see which practices each region has. Other issues involving further explanations of the law will be quite difficult. After all, the judicial interpretation authorities are not involved in the process of implementing the law, but there are some things which the law does not prohibit, so there is still room for doing things tacitly or exploring.

 

Q: On the legislative level, will the regulatory authorities explain unclear points within the law or provide definitions?

Jia Xijin: They are making efforts with this, but at present there has been no unified publication of an explanation of the law, a designation or a definition. But many implementing departments are actually conducting such explorations. For example, collecting the definitions of NGOs from various countries and trying to sort them out from within. If we in China want to define overseas NGOs, how can we use them as a reference? Can every country establish corresponding standards? However, the workload for doing this type of list is relatively large, and it is not mature enough to rise to the level of national policy. If an explanation of the law by unified departments appeared, this will attract controversy and questioning fairly easily. Therefore there might be some concerns about formally launching one, but I think the sharing of experiences internally is still possible.

 

Q: I heard that every ministry and commission has a cross-departmental working group, because an explanation of the law may involve the public security and taxation authorities. I don’t know if this work is still being done now? Do you know the approximate timeline? When will detailed management rules or internal implementation regulations be introduced?

Jia Xijin: There are certainly coordination mechanisms, not only nationally but in all provinces. The law is clearly defined, so in the earliest stage when the law is implemented, these mechanisms have already been established. As for the effectiveness, some provinces are more active and some are weaker. This is a question of efficiency of implementation, but the mechanisms are definitely there.

A unified explanation of the law not only involves the work of the coordination group. If a unified explanation of the law is not conducted by the legislative branch of the National People’s Congress, then from the perspective of the Ministry of Public Security it is perhaps just a summary of experiences.

When the larger environment is not very mature and clear, it is very difficult to determine when detailed legal rules will be introduced. Because the relevant work is being done, if there is a suitable political atmosphere and environment, then it is possible that such an explanation of the law can appear. There are not only technical issues involved, but consensus issues are reflected behind many of these technical issues. If there is no consensus on the key points, this is very difficult.

I said earlier that “the concepts come first”, and behind the concept is the overall environment or the environment of China’s transitional stage. This is a very important factor. Under these circumstances, specific points in time are difficult to predict. Unlike in legislative planning, when it comes to departments providing an interpretation of the law, without a very good legal basis to provide them with authority, it is hard for them to release one. After it is released there will be questions from all directions. Currently they have not said when this will happen, so we don’t need to wait for this. I think it is more feasible to connect at the operational and procedural levels.

简报论坛| 贾西津:在华国际组织注册状况及未来展望

2018-11-22 11:01:08  来源:发展简报  作者:贾西津    点击数量:415

       11月6-7日,由中国发展简报主办的“《境外非政府组织境内活动管理法》实施2周年研讨会”在京开幕。来自清华大学、福特基金会、香港乐施会、国际救助儿童会、绿色和平、美国世界资源研究所、中国扶贫基金会、中国民促会等业内100多名著名学者、相关领域著名机构代表及资深管理人员相聚一堂,共同探讨国际NGO运作的经验、未来挑战,促进在华国际 NGO 在新形势下的有效运作。 论坛结束后,无论是线上还是线下,众多关注此会的粉丝们都期待能在第一时间获取相关资料。为此,发展简报将通过双微、官网陆续整理发布,详细还原研讨会核心要素及重点解读。 敬请大家持续关注!

 

以下为论坛首日,作开篇发言的清华大学教授贾西津的演讲,主题为《在华国际组织注册状况及未来展望》(梳理内容有删减)。

 

 

回顾与观察 法律制度回顾

 

 

可以看出,在法律出台半年多的时间内,几个重要的法律文件差不多已出。这一年没有相关更新,主要还是税务、人事等有这样的几个规定。 登记备案情况

 

 

相比而言,临时活动备案的增长率显然较高,登记增长率相对放缓。

 

很明显第一年的峰值会很高,但波动性也很大。到后半年,今年的前10个月,曲线显然放缓,有一个低谷点就是6月份,可以看到它一些时节点是有相关原因。

 

 

2017年全年,6个地方登记注册占全部数据的78%,2018年,四川稍稍超辽宁一点点,但基本延续了2017年的结构,还是相当集中的。

 

临登记的地方,2017年整年有6个地方是没有登记的,而到今天为止还有4个地方没有登记的。后续变化不大,登记最多依然是北京、上海,这两个是有历史原因以及地域原因的,后面接着就是云南、广东、辽宁、四川等地。

 

 

从业务主管单位登记的情况看,2017年至今的数据也是结构类似。部级的约占1/4、省级的占3/4。

 

活动地域上非常有意思,2017年全年数据和到2018年目前为止的数据结构几乎没变,在全国领域跨省和当省登记的,基本上是各1/3的比例。

 

 

国别分布最多的是美国,其后是香港、日本、韩国、德国,这些合起来占到的比例约有60%~70%。港澳台约占1/4。 归纳总结 2017年底到目前看起来特点类似。 一个是登记和备案地方活跃度不完全一致,登记活跃度是北京、上海、云南、广东、四川、辽宁;备案的活跃地是北京、广东、贵州、云南、四川。 但有些是登记和备案都比较活跃的,像北京、云南,都属于在登记和备案里都靠前的。也有一些不太一样的,像上海明显是高登记、低备案。临时活动备案像广东、四川、贵州,登记相对不多,但备案非常活跃。能看到是和地域有关。 一个是地方政府作为的特点跟数据不完全一致,有些地方可能没那么多组织去申请,但政府的作为,从备案里能看到态度、开放度还是较积极的。像云南,刚才看到的这些结构都变化不大,只是2018年备案上升地特别快。 登记效应至今还是有类似的,这也跟去年的特点类似:

 

先期效应:从起步到后续结构性没有发生太大的变化,就是在第一个月的时候比较快,很早的做了准备进入执行登记。数量较多的,后续还是这些地方。能够看出政府在一进入的时候,是对执法的态度接受性会影响整个执行过程,不会发生突然变化。 具体效应:在很多方面都是聚集的,注册地集中在5个地方。业务范围有一半是商业协会。今年登记的,尤其是商业协会比率逐步上升,业务主管单位也是。另外,批量登记在第一年特别明显,到目前进入平和期,这种批量现象还有,但不像第一年那么的明显,逐渐常态化。 进展与难点 登记趋势 高峰放缓。今年的高峰没有达到像去年那几个月最高的时期,所以高峰值是降低的;去年峰谷落差非常大,而基本上今年曲线趋于平缓。再有还是经济类作为主导,这是登记的趋势,可看到进入到执法的常态期,可能未来执法会是这样的一个方向。

 

这个状态没有像预期经过一年的探索进入到常态,而是变成平缓上升的曲线。像中国的组织每年10%的增长,基本上是很平缓的上升。

 

所以,未来窗口一直开放,但也没有像中国社会组织有这么强的增长率,境外组织在中国也面临有存量问题,新增量没有那么大。 备案趋势 今年的备案比去年增长要快很多。提醒我们可能在较长时间内,在登记代表机构有困难的机构中,备案有可能作为常态化的状态。

 

当然,备案与登记的合法性在运用上是不一样的,毕竟登记之后是全面的合法性,但备案是某个项目或事件的合法性,但这种合法性有可能作为一种常规渠道。备案趋势有可能到明年、后年呈较快增长。如果是这样也可以打通一种常规的合法性通道。 发展挑战在哪里?

 

1.临时活动备案逐渐常态化与登记注册相比,临时活动已在有些地方形成了类似常态化的通道。比如有些机构已经打通了备案通道的时候,到下一个活动或者下一个组织的时候,这个渠道已比较成熟了。现在各地也有很多试图去改进、去简化程序。如果一个机构做第一次备案的时候,可能所有原件都要提供,但是提供的时候可以要复印件。公安部登记的平台是全国统一的平台,在技术上,以后让每一个机构原始信息都留在平台上了。那下一次备案活动或在另外的地方去备案的时候,都能从平台上看到你的原始信息,就不需要每一次都提供原始信息。所以,一个组织只要做过一次之后,可能在其后的备案中可共享前面的信息,这应该是现在正推进的流程。还有很多备案的时间限度,特别是在某些地方。比如广东很多的备案是一年度的。备案有灵活度,通过备案对某一类同质化的活动构成打包,确定一年合法性,这是完全有可能的。所以,未来可做较多探索的是在备案层次上有较大空间。

 

2.业务主观单位创制上,很明显地表现出部门特色。有些部门想到的是一些技术手段。比如林业部门看起来在业务主管单位中的态度、制度常规化上面都做的比较好,这也跟林业部门长期跟境外非政府组织打交道有关。但这里会有一个问题:人手限制。路径是打通的,由于没有特别的编制,其实是在原有部门之上,额外多出的一项任务。所以上限不是在于愿不愿意接受谁,而是他还有没有能力进一步去履职。友协、林业部门、环境部门等是比较活跃的,其他也有一些部门相应出台自己的规章制度。 3.登记管理机关现在也进行着自己的尝试,试图去推进制度的流程化。但还没上升到整个国家的制度层面。 4.公安部门在这一年中面临角色的转变,从第一年重登记备案转到法律所赋予全方位角色的履行。包括了登记备案、监管、协调。其工作重点不再像第一年都围绕在登记备案,今年已全面履行法律职责。 目前的难点在哪儿?

 

我记得2017年所有的注意力都关注在业务主管单位,几乎业务主管单位90%的问题汇集在如何获得业务主管上。 这个难点上显然比去年有较大变化,也就是到今年为止,已有400多家获得合法登记的组织,再加上1000多备案事件。在获得合法性之后的问题已开始显现,面临着很多运作机制上的问题,这种运作是属于法律上、理论上合法性已经获得了,但是合法性能不能够运行起来?

 

比如理论上你是全国都可以开展活动的,是不是意味着你在宗旨之内的、登记范围之内的活动在全国都能开展了呢?这中间还有很长的一个路径,因为会涉及各省之间要去互认、衔接,还有是成本的问题。成本上,NGO很多时候是非常灵活的,是不是每一件事情需要去报告,包括有重大事项的时候需要提供所有的材料,所有年度的计划能不能提前一年全部把它列出来,包括我们的财年跟组织的计划年度和财年与中国的法律要求的计划年度和财年,还有税务上、审计上的要求,几个匹配的时候在技术层面上面如何去衔接合法性?今年变成了特别突出的问题。

 

这里有一些困难的,是因为法律里面规定了时点,这个本身的时点和NGO财年和中国的审计财年是不太一样的。有些是属于技术操作上面的,比如说,我在A省登记的,在B省的时候是不是所有的这些还需要再向他登记、在向他报备?法律上是不需要的。但是你如果不这样做活动能不能开展?那可能就需要很多法律规定额外的一些责任。

 

所以这些是今年比较明显的问题所在,可能我觉得也是为下一步要去核心研究和探索的问题。怎么样能够让我们已经获得合法性的机构,它的合法性能够在活动中运行起来,而不是获得理论上合法性,然后后面和实际运作的合法性之间还有较大落差。

 

其他问题就是涉及到政策有一些配套。比如说,登记和备案的关系,要求备案的时候,可是我们中国社会组织改革已经在脱钩,备案已经没有业务主管了,那你找谁去备案?这时候脱钩改革,就中国国内社会组织变革的方向和我们境外法要求,有的时候恰恰是反向的。比如说,我们现在脱钩没有主管,他在备案的时候恰恰要求主管,所以一个好的改革可能在这里面反而构成了相互纠结的问题。

 

再有一些更细节的。比如说,它的法律规定可以有其他收入,其他收入能不能有?如果有的话是哪些?能不能实现?账户能不能实现?能不能开税票?很多细节上面会发现理论上可行,但细节小额票据或者账户上的钱进不来,细节上也会影响宗旨实现。

 

再有是其他一些组织没有注册,还有后续注册的问题,另外也有法律解释的问题。还有政府有些组织,像林业局面临着能力饱和问题等等。

 

有一些核心的,未来可能需要去试法的几个概念。这里我只是提出来,具体怎么去解释以后可以再思考、探讨。

 

包括:非营利性界定、非政府性界定、社会组织哪些构成了法律归置对象?什么叫做境外合法成立?排除条款,高校排除的领域是哪些?什么是活动?什么是非法宗教活动?什么是政治性?还有关于募捐比较清楚,肯定是不可以的。但是在还有其他合法收入可不可以?其他收入包括咨询、收费、政府购买、投资理财这些还是有解释的。中国境内什么叫发展会员?还有怎么是境内的分支? 未来探索方向 对已注册组织,刚才提到其合法性如何运转,在已获得法律允许范围的,地域合法性能不能有效运作起来?如果能够运作,我想现在有一半或一半多的问题已经解决。其实是已实现的合法性能不能在运作体系中体现出来,涉及到流程上的衔接。

 

对未注册组织,这就面临着组织有时点性的要求。比如未来如果不能注册,以临时活动去常规化,但是这个常规化会对你的捐赠方、对组织自己的战略定位构成很大的挑战。如果继续准备登记,这个过程时间太长怎么办?

 

这里面业务主管单位仍是核心的困境所在。从实践观察,业务主管单位并不是一成不变的,有可能改变观念,也有可能让没有履职的去履职或履职得更顺畅。其中涉及到几个关键要素:

 

认知(观念层次); 职权(他要给自己一个理由,我要能证明自己这件事是可做的,需要有职权界定); 人力; 资格(可能涉及到有些像团委,有意愿做,但是否有资格去做?); 经验(临时活动可以累计经验,在经验之上可以推进下一步注册); 激励机制。

 

业务主管单位是会发生转变的,随着观念、管理负责人、法律,包括内部业务的设置、职能界定等,很多因素是会发生变化的。目前没有通畅的登记路径,不意味着未来就不可能通畅。

 

未来要看到的是NGO境外非政府组织自己的战略选择,包含在现有状态、现有中国发展的社会情景和法律状况之下,境外非政府组织自己将怎么定位?他会怎么看待中国在他整个战略之中的地位?也是下一步的挑战。

 

最后,我觉得前面所说的都是一些具体的东西。但在我们的调研中,特别是与不同地区政府部门接触,我觉得法律在执行的时候还是观念为先,政府的观念对法律的认知比较到位的时候,后面的流程会有创新性与动力,更需要的是国家观念认知,需要的是整体环境的认知。如果在整个国家层面对待境外组织就像改革开放,改革开放所构成的合法性,各地政府都会去找自身的变革、创新。

 

如今在国家层面对境外非政府组织怎么去认知,特别是怎么在新的安全观里去认知,会不会更多元开放?不仅涉及到本法的问题,还涉及到社会发展阶段,中国从改革开放到目前怎么去定位、去承接发展,其实也是改革开放中的难题。 现场提问 Q1:刚才您讲了近年来从公安部管理认知方面,从登记注册更多的转向日常管理上的法规跟进。作为NGO,能做一些什么呢?

 

贾西津:现在是从登记作为唯一的关注点变成兼顾。登记仍是重要的事,不是唯一的,后面的问题会更多显现。后续的问题有很大一部分是流程上的问题,这个流程还没有办法构成顺畅的衔接。在这个时候各地会有自己的创新和突破。

 

我觉得特别有意义的是,如果我们能够把每一个好的做法都能够收集、汇集出来,然后呈现给所有执法部门,特别是公安部。能够把每一个好的点都普及化,这可以惠及到很多地区了。

 

现在可能各地有自己零散的做法。其一,并没有很明显的合法性,因为法律在很多的地方没规定,这时你的做法就属于是地方的解释或属于地方创新。合法性是不是能够明确?其二,这样的做法能不能被普世化。甚至说税票。我接触过一个案例,他都能开免税票据,这个时候是不是所有的组织意味着免税票据是可开的?如果说包括你的账户能不能在国内接受人民币?有的能,有的不能。如果能把所有好的做法汇集,并呈现,只要是在法律许可范围之内的,那么能把更倾向于便于实施的做法肯定下来,这其实很有意义。

 

我也愿意去做这些事情,如果大家有好的做法,也慢慢收集。我们可以来交流,甚至可以就某个问题再去专门摸个底,看各地都有哪些做法。其它涉及到更进一步试法的问题会难度较大,毕竟司法解释权不在实施法律过程中,但有一些法律没有禁止,去默许或者去探索还是有空间的。

 

Q2:从立法层面监管机关会不会模糊试法或者界定?

 

贾西津:他们是在做此努力,但目前并没有统一出台一个试法、一个界定、一个定义。但确实在很多执行部门是在做这个探索的。比如搜集各国NGO的界定,试图从里面梳理出来,如果我们在中国去界定境外非政府组织如何借鉴?每一个国家能不能给立出一个相应规范来?但这种列举工作量比较大,而且没有成熟到上升为一个国策。如果出台统一的部门去试法比较容易引起争议和质疑,所以可能正式出台还是较有顾虑,但是我觉得内部经验分享是有可能的。

 

Q3:之前听说各部委之间有一个跨部委的工作小组,因为这个要试法可能涉及到公安、财税主管单位。不知道现在这个工作还是不是在做?您有没有了解大概时间线?什么时候有管理细则或内部实施条例出台呢?

 

贾西津:协调机制肯定是有的,不仅在全国,各个省都有。法律是有明确规定的,所以在法律实施最初阶段,这些机制就已经建立起来了。至于作用力度,有的省会活跃一些,有些省会弱一些。这是施行效率的问题,但机制肯定在。

 

统一试法不仅涉及到协调小组的工作,法律的解释如果不是由全国人大立法部门去做统一的试法,可能从公安部的角度讲,也只能是经验总结。

 

大环境没有非常成熟、明确的时候,一个法律细则的出台,我觉得这个时间是很难去定的。因为相关工作在做,如果说有一些比较合适的政治氛围和环境,那这样的试法是有可能出现。中间不仅仅是技术问题,有很多的技术问题背后反应的是共识问题,如果在关键点上没有共识,这东西很难出来。

 

我刚才提到“观念为先”,而观念背后又是整体环境或中国转型阶段的环境,这是很重要的因素。在此之下,具体的时点很难预期,不像立法规划中,像部门试法,如果没有非常好的合法性给自己职权的把握,也很难出台。出台之后会有各方质疑。目前没有说什么时候会出,所以不需要去等这个。我觉得现在还是以操作层次、流程层次的对接会更可行一些。

Translated by Jennifer Germann, Peta Heinrich and Alice Mingay

No related content found.

Share: