民政部


民政部关于进一步加强民政信息工作的通知
民政部


各省、自治区、直辖市民政厅（局），各计划单列市民政局：
近年来，民政信息工作取得了可喜的成绩。各级民政部门十分重视加强信息工作，已在全国初步形成了从上到下、覆盖到县一级的民政政务信息系统。这对于推动民政工作改革与发展起到了积极的作用。但是，民政信息系统还不十分完善，与形势发展的要求还不相适应，与先进部门相
比还有较大的差距，各地民政信息工作的发展也很不平衡。为贯彻第十次全国民政会议精神，进一步落实国务院办公厅关于加强政府系统办公决策服务系统的文件精神，做好新时期的民政信息工作，特就加强和改善民政信息工作的有关问题通知如下：
一、要切实加强对信息工作的领导，用好信息
党和国家领导同志十分重视信息工作。李鹏总理在国务院办公厅1995年春节团拜会上，对办公厅工作提出了三条要求，第一条就是准确、及时地做好信息工作。朱■基副总理指出：“信息是我们正确决策的非常重要的依据，没有信息就不能够作决策。”多吉才让部长在国务院召开
的第十次全国民政会议工作报告中指出：“要运用现代信息手段，进一步健全网络，开拓渠道，加强联络，使民政信息真正做到真实准确、传递迅速，为各级政府和民政部门科学决策服务。”
信息是正确决策的条件和依据，是做好各项民政工作的基本手段之一。信息工作能够大体上反映一个地方民政工作的整体水平。各级民政部门领导要深刻认识信息工作的重要性，加强对信息工作的领导，并充分发挥信息的作用，通过信息了解情况，研究和解决实际问题，发现、总结和
推广先进典型，把信息作为制定各项政策的重要依据。领导同志特别是第一把手要注意批阅和使用信息，用好信息。民政部将从1995年起通过一定方式通报领导同志对信息的批阅情况，各地民政部门也应将领导阅读和指示情况作为衡量信息工作的重要尺度，最大限度地调动信息手段，
用足、用好各类信息。
二、以信息的采集、报送为重点，抓好信息网络建设
信息的采集、报送是政务信息的核心环节。各级民政信息部门要抓住重点，作好信息的采集和报送工作。采集和报送的重点是：掌握和提供本地区民政工作重要动态、主要领导同志的重要活动和意见；收集汇报党和国家及民政部重大决策和政策、措施的贯彻执行情况及有关政策建议；
了解并反映民政对象存在的问题、生活状况及他们的意见和要求；捕捉和交流民政工作改革与发展过程中的新观点、新举措、新经验、新问题；摸清并传送重大灾情和涉及民政业务的突发性、敏感性、倾向性事件及非正常现象。
搞好信息采集、报送需要建立一个覆盖广泛、上下通达、反应灵敏的信息网络，培养一批素质较高的信息员队伍。高度重视“信息源”和“网络化”，是现代政务信息的显著特征。各级民政部门要采取切实措施，建立起上下贯通、内外交错的信息网络，同时要解决好一般和重点的关系
，既要普遍建立联系、尽快消灭信息“死角”，又要在基层重点建立一批布局合理的信息点。
信息报送要重点做好向本级机关领导报送，在此基础上，有选择地做好向本级政府和有关部门以及向上级民政部门的报送。各级民政部门要认真办好信息刊物，做到渠道畅通，简便灵活。综合部门要综合协调本机关各部门的业务信息，在广泛搜集、认真筛选、综合分析的基础上，向本
机关领导主动提供信息服务。机关各部门要切实抓好本部门业务信息，并与储备主管部门保持密切的联系。为了及时掌握基层的情况，各地可适当建立越级报送的信息直报点。信息主管部门对下级报送的重要信息应实行登记和定期通报采用情况的制度。
要坚持信息报送程序和制度。为提高工作效率，向部报送的信息一般只需报给部办公厅综合处2份，业务处信息也可报主管业务司1份，不必普遍分送各司局或部领导本人。
三、以综合分析为重点，提高信息质量
质量是政务信息的生命，调查研究是提高信息质量的基本功，实事求是是信息质量的重要标准。信息的原始材料一定要来自工作实际，来自深入的调查研究，而不能随意编造或任意夸张。要在掌握第一手资料的基础上，整理、提炼、综合、分析各类原始信息材料。要坚持既报喜、又报
忧。要十分注意敏感性、倾向性、趋向性信息的综合分析，克服目前民政信息比较零散、滞后，原始信息材料较多，综合性、分析性、预测性信息较少的弱点，在开通信息渠道的基础上加强综合分析，更好地发挥信息在各级领导决策中的作用。要强化办公、政研部门管理信息的职能，加强
力量，提高信息员素质，这是提高信息质量的必备条件。要培养高效率、快节奏的工作作风，发现信息苗头，及时调查核实和采写，迅速传递，提高信息时效。要把政务信息工作同民政理论和政策研究、民政宣传等项工作紧密结合起来，提高政务信息工作的整体水平。
四、加强以信息工作责任制为重点的制度建设
近年来，许多地方民政部门在建立信息工作目标责任制和其它各项制度建议方面做了许多有益的尝试。要以建立信息工作目标责任制为重点，采取各种方式调动各方面参与信息工作的积极性。民政部从1995年起每两年左右评选一次优秀民政信息和信息报送工作先进单位和个人，各
地也应建立相应的激励机制，以典型引路，带动本地区民政信息工作的发展。要加强信息工作制度建设，对信息工作的领导、机构、职责、报送、审批、传递、反馈、评比、表彰等提出具体要求，并坚持内外有别，严格遵守保密规定，使信息工作逐步向规范化发展。
五、提高信息队伍素质，改进信息处理和传输手段，跟上信息现代化步伐
由于领导机关和决策者越来越多地依靠现代信息手段处理公务、指导工作、做出决策，这就对信息工作者自身的素质和信息处理与传输手段提出了越来越严格的要求。信息主管部门除选派素质较高的同志从事信息工作外，还要在参加会议、阅读文件、学习培训等方面创造一定的方便，
既让他们参与中心工作，尽可能多地熟悉业务，了解面上的工作，领会和掌握领导同志工作意图和部署，又要保证他们有足够的时间和精力处理信息。要加强对信息员的教育与培养，努力提高信息员的工作责任感和政策水平，培养他们实事求是的工作作风和勤奋的工作态度，锻炼他们的理
解、洞察、概括、综合、分析能力，提高文字水平，掌握计算机操作，并可采取短期培训、到上级信息部门短期实习等办法提高信息员业务素质。
要改进信息处理与传输手段，各级民政部门要在办公自动化规划中，将信息传输自动化放在优先位置。省级民政部门要在充分利用现有电话传真设备的基础上，为信息工作配备计算机，尽快首先与民政部实现远程数据传输，力争在三年之内实现以计算机数据传输为主、以传真电话和纸
质信息传递为辅的信息传输系统，并在一定时期内实现民政系统的信息自动检索和处理。民政部拟于近期在部分省区进行远程传输试点。力争到1997年与全国大多数省、自治区、直辖市民政部门实现政务信息的计算机传输；省级民政部门也应尽快在本地建立相应的传输系统。
六、广开渠道，扩大交流，为民政工作改革与发展服务
政务信息系统尽管从某种意义上说是一个相对封闭的系统，但也存在广开渠道的问题。民政部已从1992年下半年起与大多数省份的个别地、县民政部门建立了直接的信息联系，又于1993年8月通过国办远程站与国务院办公厅和国务院各部门建立了新的信息交流渠道。各地民政
部门也应建立类似的联系，争取创造条件，主动与省级政府办公厅和有关部门建立远程工作站一类的信息热线。现代政务信息的一个十分重要的特征，就是它能够被赋予一定的指导性，并实现一定层次、一定条件下的成果共享。各级民政部门要发挥民政信息在体制转轨时期总结和推广探索
经验方面的灵活、轻捷的作用，善于运用信息手段指导工作，经常通报和交流有关信息，鼓励下级部门借鉴其他地方先进经验，并提倡和鼓励办公、政研部门之间多种形式的联络与交流。此外，应积极而慎重地探索政务信息与社会信息结合的有效方式，特别是政务信息与经济信息之间的结
合点，为领导决策提供更加广泛的信息，为民政工作改革与发展服务。



1995年3月30日
Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan

I. Introduction

Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).

When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.

The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.

II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter

As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”

For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:

(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;

(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;

(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;

(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.

As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.

Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,

(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;

(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;

(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;

(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.

The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.

III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements

Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.

a) Internationality requirement

Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.

Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.