热门站点| 世界资料网 | 专利资料网 | 世界资料网论坛
收藏本站| 设为首页| 首页

廉政访谈无疾的启示/杨涛

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-07 20:17:13  浏览:8764   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
廉政访谈无疾的启示

      杨涛


据最新一期的《新闻周刊》报道,一个让官员在电视上亮相、记者既访谈其工作,也披露其个人生活的节目,被认为将加强监督、扩大百姓的知情权,然而在引起热烈反响后,它却戛然而止。这就是湖南省衡山县县电视台播出的一档节目——《一把手廉政访谈》的命运。
    衡山县的《一把手廉政访谈》曾被人认为是作秀,但更多人给予了厚望,然而它是如此之快地无疾而终却是超乎人们的意料。那么,它给我们留下了什么样的启示呢?
    现代民主社会认为,政府的权力是人民所赋予的,官员代表着人民行使权力,而权力是容易腐蚀的,人民选举出政府官员以后,并非一劳永逸,而是要对官员在行使权力时,不断地进行监督。而作为官员,因为其行使了公权力,其行为关系到公共利益,因而对其的道德和言行举止的要求相对普通人来说要更高的多,官员的与公共利益相关的隐私的保护要受到一定的限制,民众有权知晓官员这方面的隐私,以判断官员是否合格,这是民众行使的监督权利,也是民众判断官员是否合格并决定其前途命运的必不可少的知情权。事实上,各国法律对于官员的隐私的保护也是最低程度的保护。概而言之,官员公布与其公共利益相关的隐私,是民众的权利,也是其获得民众支持的前提。
     然而,在衡山县的《一把手廉政访谈》中,我们看到的是,对于官员的廉政访谈是在衡山县纪委发起和组织的,是贯彻衡山县党委书记钟再群“我们就是要让一把手们‘亮家底儿’,把官员们拿出来‘晒一晒’,以免等事后出了问题再去教育和反思。”的监督一把手们的宗旨,本质是一种权力对于权力的监督。尽管,具体事项由衡山县县电视台操作,表征是一种舆论监督,但实际电视台是依权力行事,并非行使民众的监督权。
      权力监督权力不仅必要,而且具有强大的威力,但这一制度也有其先天的不足。官员表面是面对电视台、面对舆论监督,实际上其内心敬畏的还是上级的权力,是对上级的权力负责,讲隐私是要我讲而不是我要讲,民众的知情权还只是权力所施舍的,而不是民众为监督政府选举政府官员所固有的。因而,如果上级只是把廉政访谈当作一时的权宜之计,或上级的上级并不满意于这种做法时,廉政访谈的命运似乎早就注定了是无疾而终。我们注意到,湖南省纪委调研人员对访谈方法的考察后,便发生了当地政府对媒体采访的婉拒和访谈推广活动的悄无声息的事情。学者吴思认为:“当这种行为带来的‘杂音’对官场产生影响时,尤其当这种‘杂音’已经大到引起上层关注时,发起者就会退缩。” 学者张祖桦也说:“当现有的官场行为惯性与这种形式相冲突时,访谈只能是昙花一现。”
   因此,我们更应当看到的是对于官员的隐私的监督与知情,本质是民众的监督权与知情权的体现,只有将其还原了是权利对权力的监督。把它真正当成了是民众固有的权利,舆论才能大胆介入,官员就有出于对自己官场命运的考虑,本着可能本着对民众负责的态度,从要我讲到我要主动讲,以讲出自己与公共利益有关的隐私来求得民众对自己的信任,而不需要权力鞭子的驱赶。权利对权力的监督辅之权力对权力的监督,就能产生更大和更持久的威力,同时,这时即使廉政访谈对官场产生“杂音”,但这里面有着民众的权利参与,上层的权力也不敢轻而易举地将其无疾而终。
    但是,要将官员的隐私的监督与知情现实地转化为民众的权利,将对官员与公共利益有关的隐私的监督实现为权利对权力的监督,却绝非容易之事。在制度层面的建设上,我们要花很大的力气。首先,要让人民代表大会的功能充分发挥起来,让官员不再对上级、对权力负责,而是对人民、对权利负责。其次,要大力推行差额选举和公推公选,让官员之间的竞争充分、激烈起来。再次,要对官员与公共利益有关的隐私的公开纳入对官员选举与考核的范畴当中,如果民众对于官员一些与公共利益有关的隐私产生的合理怀疑,官员有义务公开和作出解释,否则人民有权不选举他或对其提出罢免。

通联:江西省赣州市人民检察院 杨涛 华东政法学院法律硕士   邮编:341000   
Email:tao1991@163.net
tao9928@tom.com


下载地址: 点击此处下载

西安市妇幼保健保偿服务管理办法

陕西省西安市人民政府


西安市妇幼保健保偿服务管理办法


西安市人民政府令
第 50 号

《关于修改〈西安市妇幼保健保偿服务管理办法〉的决定》已经市人民政府2004年6月4日第51次常务会议通过,现予公布,自公布之日起施行。

市 长 孙清云

2004年8月15日



(1999年7月2日市人民政府发布 根据市人民政府2004年8月15日《关于修改〈西安市妇幼保健保偿服务管理办法〉的决定》修正)


第一条 为保障妇女儿童健康,提高妇幼保健服务质量,根据《中华人民共和国母婴保健法》和有关法律、法规,结合本市实际,制定本办法。
第二条 本市行政区域内的妇幼保健保偿服务适用本办法。
第三条 本办法所称的妇幼保健保偿服务,是指医疗、保健单位向自愿参加保健保偿服务的孕产妇和0—6岁儿童(以下简称服务对象)提供的保健保偿服务。
第四条 市卫生行政管理部门是本市妇幼保健保偿服务工作的主管部门。区、县卫生行政管理部门具体负责本辖区内的妇幼保健保偿服务工作。
第五条 保健服务包括以下内容:
(一)发放孕产妇保健手册,早孕建卡,定期产前检查、产后访视,母乳喂养及卫生保健咨询指导,产后42天检查等;
(二)建立儿童保健手册,新生儿访视,定期健康检查,儿童眼、耳、口腔保健,育儿保健和营养咨询指导等。
第六条 服务对象参加妇幼保健保偿服务的,应与医疗保健单位签订妇幼保健保偿服务合同。
合同文本由市卫生行政管理部门统一制定。
第七条 服务对象或其法定监护人应当自妇幼保健保偿服务合同签订之日起缴纳保健保偿服务费。
第八条 医疗保健单位收取的保健保偿服务费,应定期上交区、县妇幼保健机构统一管理,专款专用,不得挪作他用。
第九条 医疗保健单位及其工作人员因技术或责任等原因,致使服务对象在保健保偿服务期内出现本办法第十条所列疾病时,医疗保健单位应按规定给予服务对象或其法定监护人一次性补偿。补偿标准由市卫生行政管理部门制定。
第十条 服务对象在保健保偿服务期间发生下列疾病的,由医疗保健单位予以补偿:
(一)孕妇临产或分娩时,出现臀位及横位情况;
(二)孕产妇发生子痫;
(三)42天以内婴儿及产妇患破伤风;
(四)儿童患Ⅲ度维生素D缺乏性佝偻病;
(五)儿童患Ⅲ度营养不良疾病;
(六)儿童患重度营养性缺铁性贫血。
第十一条 服务对象在保健保偿服务期内未按妇幼保健保偿服务合同约定接受保健服务,或不执行医嘱而发生本办法第十条规定的疾病不予补偿。
第十二条 医疗保健单位与服务对象就补偿发生争议时,双方均可向当地母婴保健医学技术鉴定委员会申请鉴定,具体鉴定程序参照卫生部《母婴保健医学技术鉴定管理办法》执行。
第十三条 卫生行政管理部门应加强对保健保偿服务工作的监督和管理,医疗保健单位要建立有关规章制度,不断改善服务条件,提供优质服务。
第十四条 本办法自公布之日起施行。





CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE ——附加英文版

Hong Kong


CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE
 (CHAPTER 71)
 CONTENTS
  
  ion
  I    PRELIMINARY
  hort title
  nterpretation and application
  he "reasonableness" test
  Dealing as consumer"
  arieties of exemption clause
  ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
  II    CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
  dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
  egligence liability
  iability arising in contract
  nreasonable indemnity clauses Liability arising from sale or
supply of
  s
  "Guarantee" of consumer goods
  Seller's liability
  Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass Other provisions
about
  racts
  Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
  Evasion by means of secondary contract
  Arbitration agreements
  III   CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
  International supply contracts
  Choice of law clauses
  Saving for other relevant legislation
  Application
  IV    CONSEQUENTIAL AND OTHER AMENDMENTS
  (Omitted)
  dule 1. Scope of sections 7, 8, 9 and 12
  dule 2. "Guidelines" for application of reasonableness test
  dule 3. (Omitted)
 Whole document
  
  imit the extent to which civil liability for breach of contract, 
or
  negligence or other breach of duty, can be avoided by 
means of
  ract terms and otherwise; and to restrict the 
enforceability of
  tration agreements. [1 December 1990] L. N. 38 of 1990
 PART I PRELIMINARY
  
  hort title
  Ordinance may be cited as the Control of Exemption Clauses
Ordinance.
  nterpretation and application
  In this Ordinance--
  iness" includes a profession and the activities of a public 
body, a
  ic authority, or a board, commission, committee or 
other body
  inted by the Governor or Government;
  ds" has the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap.
26);
  ligence" means the breach--
  of any obligation, arising from the express or implied terms 
of a
  ract, to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill 
in the
  ormance of the contract;
  of any common law duty to take reasonable care or exercise 
reasonable
  l (but not any stricter duty);
  of the common duty of care imposed by the Occupiers 
Liability
  nance (Cap. 314); "notice" includes an announcement, whether or
not in
  hing, and any other communication or pretended communication;
  sonal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of 
physical or
  al condition.
  In the case of both contract and tort, sections 7 to 12 apply 
(except
  e the contrary is stated in section 11 (4)) only to 
business
  ility, that is liability for breach of obligations or duties
arising--
  from things done or omitted to be done by a person in the course
of a
  ness (whether his own business or another's); or
  from the occupation of premises used for business purposes 
of the
  pier, and references to liability are to be read 
accordingly; but
  ility of an occupier of premises for breach of an obligation or 
duty
  rds a person obtaining access to the premises for 
recreational or
  ational purposes, being liability for loss or damage 
suffered by
  on of the dangerous state of the premises, is not a business
liability
  he occupier unless granting that person such access for the 
purposes
  erned falls within the business purposes of the occupier.
  In relation to any breach of duty or obligation, it is 
immaterial
  her the breach was inadvertent or intentional, or whether 
liability
  it arises directly or vicariously.
  1977 c. 50 ss. 1&14 U. K.]
  he "reasonableness" test
  In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness 
for
  purposes of this Ordinance and section 4 of the 
Misrepresentation
  nance (Cap. 284) is satisfied only if the court or 
arbitrator
  rmines that the term was a fair and reasonable one to be 
included
  ng regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably
to have
  , known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the 
contract
  made.
  In determining for the purposes of section 11 or 12 whether a
contract
  satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, the court or 
arbitrator
  l have regard in particular to the matters specified in 
Schedule 2;
  this subsection does not prevent the court or arbitrator from
holding,
  ccordance with any rule of law, that a term which purports to 
exclude
  estrict any relevant liability is not a term of the contract.
  
  In relation to a notice (not being a notice having 
contractual
  ct), the requirement of reasonableness under this 
Ordinance is
  sfied only if the court or arbitrator determines that it would
be fair
  reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to 
all the
  umstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the 
notice)
  d have arisen.
  In determining (under this Ordinance or the 
Misrepresentation
  nance (Cap. 284)) whether a contract term or notice 
satisfies the
  irement of reasonableness, the court or arbitrator shall have 
regard
  articular (but without prejudice to subsection (2) to whether
(and, if
  to what extent) the language in which the term or notice is 
expressed
  language understood by the person as against whom another 
person
  s to rely upon the term or notice.
  Where by reference to a contract term or notice a person 
seeks to
  rict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question
arises
  er this Ordinance or the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap. 
284))
  her the term or notice satisfies the requirement of 
reasonableness,
  court or arbitrator shall have regard in particular (but 
without
  udice to subsection (2) or (4)) to--
  the resources which he could expect to be available to him for 
the
  ose of meeting the liability should it arise; and
  how far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance.
  It is for the person claiming that a contract term or notice
satisfies
  requirement of reasonableness to prove that it does.
  1977 c. 50 s. 11 U. K.]
  Dealing as consumer"
  A party to a contract "deals as consumer" in relation to another
party
  
  he neither makes the contract in the course of a business nor 
holds
  elf out as doing so;
  the other party does make the contract in the course of a 
business;
  
  in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods 
or by
  ion 12, the goods passing under or in pursuance of the contract
are of
  pe ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.
  Notwithstanding subsection (1), on a sale by auction or by
competitive
  er the buyer is not in any circumstances to be regarded as dealing 
as
  umer.
  It is for the person claiming that a party does not deal as 
consumer
  rove that he does not.
  1977 c. 50 s. 12 U. K.]
  
  arieties of exemption clause
  To the extent that this Ordinance prevents the 
exclusion  or
  riction of any liability it also prevents--
  making the liability or its enforcement subject to 
restrictive or
  ous conditions;
  excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect 
of the
  ility, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of 
his
  uing any such right or remedy;
  excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure, and (to 
that
  nt) sections 7, 10, 11 and 12 also prevent excluding or 
restricting
  ility by reference to terms and notices which  exclude  or 
restrict
  relevant obligation or duty.
  An agreement in writing to submit present or future 
differences to
  tration is not to be treated under this Ordinance as 
excluding or
  ricting any liability. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 13 U. K.]
  ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
  Legislative Council may by resolution amend Schedules 1 and 2.
 PART II CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
  
  dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
  egligence liability
  A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice
given
  ersons generally or to particular persons exclude or 
restrict his
  ility for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.
  In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so 
exclude or
  rict his liability for negligence except in so far as the 
term or
  ce satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
  Where a contract term or notice purports to exclude or 
restrict
  ility for negligence a person's agreement to or awareness of it
is not
  tself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any
risk.
  1977 c. 50 s. 2 U. K.]
  iability arising in contract
  This section applies as between contracting parties where one of 
them
  s as consumer or on the other's written standard terms of
business.
  As against that party, the other cannot by reference to any 
contract
  --
  When himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any 
liability
  is in respect of the breach; or
  claim to be entitled--
  to render a contractual performance substantially different from 
that
  h was reasonably expected of him; or
  in respect of the whole or any part of his contractual obligation,
to
  er no performance at all,
  pt in so far as (in any of the cases mentioned above 
in this
  ection) the contract term satisfies the requirement of
reasonableness.
  1977 c. 50 s. 3 U. K.]
  nreasonable indemnity clauses
  A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract 
term
  ade to indemnify another person (whether a party to the 
contract or
  in respect of liability that may be incurred by the 
other for
  igence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract 
term
  sfies the requirement of reasonableness.
  This section applies whether the liability in question--
  is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred
by him
  riously;
  is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else. [cf. 1977 
c.
  . 4 U. K.]
  ility arising from sale or supply of goods
  
  "Guarantee" of consumer goods
  In the case of goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private
use or
  umption, where loss or damage--
  arises from the goods proving defective while in consumer use;
and
  results from the negligence of a person concerned in the 
manufacture
  istribution of the goods, liability for the loss or damage 
cannot be
  uded or restricted by reference to any contract term or 
notice
  ained in or operating by reference to a guarantee of the goods.
  For these purposes--
  goods are to be regarded as "in consumer use" when a person is 
using
  , or has them in his possession for use, otherwise than 
exclusively
  the purposes of a business; and
  anything in writing is a guarantee if it contains or 
purports to
  ain some promise or assurance (however worded or 
presented) that
  cts will be made good by complete or partial replacement, 
or by
  ir, monetary compensation or otherwise.
  This section does not apply as between the parties to a contract
under
  n pursuance of which possession or ownership of the goods passed.
  1977 c. 50 s. 5 U. K.]
  Seller's liability
  Liability for breach of the obligations arising from section 14
of the
  of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 26) (seller's implied undertakings 
as to
  e, etc.) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any
contract
  .
  As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of 
the
  gations arising from section 15, 16 or 17 of the Sale of 
Goods
  nance (Cap. 26) (seller's implied undertakings as to 
conformity of
  s with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness
for a
  icular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to 
any
  ract term.
  As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, the 
liability
  ified in subsection (2) can be excluded or restricted by reference 
to
  ntract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the 
requirement
  easonableness.
  The liabilities referred to in this section are not only the 
business
  ilities defined by section 2 (2), but include those arising under 
any
  ract of sale of goods. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 6 U. K.]
  Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass
  Where the possession or ownership of goods passes 
under or in
  uance of a contract not governed by the law of sale of 
goods,
  ection (2) to (4) apply in relation to the effect (if any) that 
the
  t or arbitrator is to give to contract terms excluding or 
restricting
  ility for breach of obligation arising by implication of law from 
the
  re of the contract.
  As against a person dealing as consumer, liability in respect of 
the
  's correspondence with description or sample, or their 
quality or
  ess for any particular purpose, cannot be excluded or 
restricted by
  rence to any such term.
  As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, that
liability
  be excluded or restricted by reference to such a term, but only
in so
  as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
  
  Liability in respect of--
  the right to transfer ownership of the goods, or give possession;
or
  the assurance of quiet possession to a person taking 
goods in
  uance of the contract, cannot be excluded or restricted by 
reference
  ny such term except in so far as the term satisfies the requirement
of
  onableness. [cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 7 U. K.]
  r provisions about contracts
  Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
  Where for reliance upon it a contract term has to 
satisfy the
  irement of reasonableness, it may be found to do so and be 
given
  ct accordingly notwithstanding that the contract has been 
terminated
  er by breach or by a party electing to treat it as repudiated.
  Where on a breach the contract is nevertheless affirmed by a 
party
  tled to treat as repudiated, this does not of itself 
exclude the
  irement of reasonableness in relation to any contract term.
  1977 c. 50 s. 9 U. K.]
  Evasion by means of secondary contract
  rson is not bound by any contract term prejudicing or taking 
away
  ts of his which arise under, or in connection with the performance
of,
  her contract, so far as those rights extend to the 
enforcement of
  her's liability which this Ordinance prevents that 
other  from
  uding or restricting.
  1977 c. 50 s. 10 U. K.]
  Arbitration agreements
  As against a person dealing as consumer, an agreement to submit
future
  erences to arbitration cannot be enforced except--
  with his written consent signified after the differences in 
question
  arisen; or
  where he has himself had recourse to arbitration in pursuance of 
the
  ement in respect of any differences.
  Subsection (1) does not affect--
  the enforcement of an international arbitration agreement 
within the
  ing of section 2 (1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341);
  laced 76 of 1990 s. 2)
  the resolution of differences arising under any contract so far
as it
  by virtue of Schedule 1, excluded from the operation of section
7, 8,
  12.
 PART III CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
  
  International supply contracts
  The limits imposed by this Ordinance on the extent to which a 
person
  exclude or restrict liability by reference to a contract term do 
not
  y to liability arising under an international supply contract.
  The terms of an international supply contract are not subject to 
any
  irement of reasonableness under section 8 or 9.
  For the purposes of this section, an international supply 
contract
  s a contract--
  that is either a contract of sale of goods or a contract under 
or in
  uance of which the possession or ownership of goods passes;
  that is made by parties whose places of business (or, if they 
have
  , habitual residences) are in the territories of different 
States or
  in and outside Hong Kong; and
  in the case of which--
  the goods in question are, at the time of the conclusion 
of the
  ract, in the course of carriage, or will be carried, 
from the
  itory of one State to the territory of another, or to or from 
Hong
  from or to a place outside Hong Kong; or
  the acts constituting the offer and acceptance have been done in 
the
  itories of different States or in and outside Hong Kong; or
  ) the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to the
territory
  State other than that within whose territory the acts 
constituting
  offer and acceptance were done; or
  the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done in Hong
Kong
  the contract provides for the goods to be delivered outside Hong
Kong;
  
  the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done outside 
Hong
  and the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to Hong
Kong.
  1977 c. 50 s. 26 U. K.]
  Choice of law clauses
  Where the proper law of a contract is the law of Hong Kong only 
by
  ce of the parties (and apart from that choice would be the law
of some
  r country) sections 7 to 12 do not operate as part of the proper
law.
  This Ordinance has effect notwithstanding any contract 
term which
  ies or purports to apply the law of some other country, where 
(either
  oth)--
  the term appears to the court or arbitrator to have been 
imposed
  ly or mainly for the purpose of enabling the party imposing 
it to
  e the operation of this Ordinance; or
  in the making of the contract one of the parties dealt as 
consumer,
  he was then habitually resident in Hong Kong, and the essential 

不分页显示   总共2页  1 [2]

  下一页


版权声明:所有资料均为作者提供或网友推荐收集整理而来,仅供爱好者学习和研究使用,版权归原作者所有。
如本站内容有侵犯您的合法权益,请和我们取得联系,我们将立即改正或删除。
京ICP备14017250号-1