III. WHAT''S WRONG WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING? AN ASSESSMENT
　　
　　Given the general reality that public hearing as a statutory requirement is very inspirational but not institutional, its practical effectiveness is questionable due to the lack of legal mechanisms to achieve impartiality, fairness, and transparency of a public hearing. By examining provisions regarding hearing procedures provided by current laws and regulations, I believe the following problems are most critical and are crying for solutions.[6]
　　
　　1.　 Procedural requirements of hearing as set forth by central departments and local governments are conflicting with each other. This may cause difficulties in terms of uniform law enforcement, and may raise the question of comparative injustice.
　　2.　 The qualifications of participants are not specifically clarified, thus, from a practical point of view, it leaves too much discretion for agency to determine who can participate and who can not.
　　3.　 The qualifications of presiding official or hearing officials are not clarified. Under the current system, hearing officials are usually officials of relevant agency entrusted with administrative enforcement, and therefore are incompetent in terms of procedural neutrality. An independent body of hearing examiners needs to be created to achieve procedural impartiality and fairness.
　　4.　 The scope governing application of hearing procedures needs to be expanded to cover agency actions that may greatly affect citizen’s liberty. Under the current system, hearing procedure shall not be followed in imposing administrative detaining or decision of education through labor upon individuals. This is inconsistent with many international human rights documents, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
　　5.　 The process of hearing needs to be more open to the public. Arguments and reasons offered in hearing proceedings should be made public except laws clearly put otherwise.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页