(Adopted by the 20th ordinary meeting of the Government of San Suu Kyi on 22 November 2013 by Decree No. 269 of 29 January 2013, on the date of publication)

Article 1, in order to regulate administrative penalties, ensure the proper exercise of administrative penalties, preserve social justice, protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and develop this approach in line with the National People's Republic of China Administrative Punishment Act and relevant laws, regulations and regulations.

Article 2 of this approach refers to the discretionary nature of administrative penalties, which are prescribed by law, regulations, regulations and regulations, and the right to self-determination for administrative penalties, administrative penalties granted and the discretionary penalties granted.

This approach refers to the administrative penalties imposed by the executive body with administrative penalties, as well as to the legal, legislative and regulatory organizations that have the authority to administer the functions of public affairs.

Article 3. The executive organs at all levels within this province shall establish benchmarks for administrative penalties, exercise administrative sanctions discretion, and shall be subject to this approach.

Article IV regulates the discretionary exercise of administrative penalties and should be guided by the principles of legality, impartiality, openness, impunity, and the combination of penalties and education.

Article 5 Governments of more people at the district level should strengthen the organizational leadership of normative administrative sanctions discretion and incorporate administrative penalties into the current Government's administrative appraisal system.

Article 6

The executive organs at all levels are responsible for regulating the implementation of administrative penalties.

Administrative inspections are carried out by all levels of inspection bodies in accordance with the law on the exercise of administrative penalties.

Article 7. The executive organs of the provincial administration shall, within the scope of the types and range of administrative penalties provided for in the laws, regulations and regulations, and in accordance with the economic and social development of the province and the actual work of the system, consider the legal considerations and the discretionary considerations, develop benchmarks for the administrative penalties of this sector, the system as the basis for the exercise of administrative penalties.

The executive organs at the superior level have developed clear benchmarks for administrative penalties, which should be implemented by the executive organs at the lower level; the executive branch's benchmark for administrative penalties is only a principled provision or is clearly developed by the executive branch at the lower level, and the executive authority for administrative penalties should establish a specific administrative penalties benchmark in accordance with the provisions of this approach.

Article 8 quantifications of administrative penalties should include offences, statutory grounds, discretionary weights, applicable conditions and specific standards.

Article 9 establishes a baseline for administrative penalties that shall be in compliance with the following requirements:

(i) Legal, regulatory and regulatory provisions may choose whether administrative penalties are granted and whether specific criteria and applicable conditions for administrative sanctions should be clearly defined;

(ii) Legal, regulatory and regulatory provisions that may choose the type of administrative penalties and should clearly apply specific criteria and applicable conditions for different types of administrative sanctions;

(iii) Legal, regulatory and regulatory provisions that may choose the range of administrative penalties shall determine the criteria and the conditions applicable in accordance with the facts, nature, circumstances, and the degree of social harm;

(iv) The legal, regulatory, regulatory and regulatory provisions may be available and administratively sanctioned separately and should clarify the criteria and conditions for the specificity of a single or administrative sanction;

(v) Other matters should be identified by law.

Article 10 establishes a baseline for administrative penalties and shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures:

(i) Condition of administrative penalties;

(ii) To collate, analyse the typical cases of administrative sanctions and provide the basis for the comprehension and quantification of administrative penalties;

(iii) Concrete, quantify administrative penalties and develop benchmarks for administrative penalties;

(iv) Collective discussions by the executive heads of the executive organs and the publication of implementation to society after registration in accordance with the normative document process.

Article 11. Administrative penalties shall be supplemented, revised and refined in a timely manner, in accordance with the realities of law, regulations, changes in regulations or administrative law enforcement.

The benchmarks for additional, revised and improved administrative penalties should be replicated to society.

Article 12 When administrative penalties are exercised by the executive organs in the exercise of administrative penalties, they should be strictly enforced in accordance with the stated administrative penalties and in accordance with the statutory procedures to guarantee the legitimate rights and interests of the relative administration.

The executive organs of the provincial administration should establish the applicable rules for the exercise of administrative penalties in this sector, in accordance with the basic principles of law, regulations and administrative law enforcement.

The applicable rules should include the basic principles governing the exercise of administrative penalties, the scope of application, the applicable procedures and safeguards.

Article 14.

(i) Individuals under the age of 14 commit offences;

(ii) Psychiatrics who fail to identify or control their acts;

(iii) A minor offence and a prompt remedy, without causing the consequences;

(iv) Other circumstances in which the law, regulations and regulations provide for penalties.

The offence was not found within two years and no administrative punishment was granted. However, the law provides for the exception.

Article 15. The parties have one of the following cases and should be punished by law:

(i) Individuals who have reached the age of 14 years who have attained the age of 18 years have committed violations;

(ii) Actively to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of violations;

(iii) Servicing and inducing the commission of an offence by another person;

(iv) Coherence with the administrative sanctions enforcement body to investigate violations;

(v) Laws, regulations and regulations provide for light or other circumstances that reduce sanctions.

Article 16 has one of the following cases and should be punished by law:

(i) Disturbing public order, impeding public safety, violating the rights of the person, property and impeding the management of the society, in serious circumstances, which have not been committed;

(ii) The commission of an offence in the event of a sudden incident such as natural disasters, accidents, public health or social security;

(iii) The administrative punishment enforcement body has continued to commit an offence after a warrant has been made to cease or to be responsible for redressing the offence;

(iv) Obstacles the law of administrative law enforcement officials;

(v) Contrary, concealment and damage to evidence of violations;

(vi) Several offences committed and have been subject to administrative penalties;

(vii) The primary role of common offences;

(viii) Instigation, coercion, inducement of another person to commit an offence;

(ix) Counter retaliation against the reportingers and witnesses;

(x) Other cases where the law, regulations and regulations stipulate penalties.

Article 17 The exercise of administrative penalties by the executive organs shall be in accordance with the legal purposes, exclude interference with non-relevant factors, and the measures and instruments should be necessary and appropriate; the type of punishment and the range of penalties applicable shall be the same as those of fact, nature, circumstances, social hazards.

Article 18 The executive organs can use a variety of ways to achieve administrative purposes, and should adopt a way that does not compromise or compromise the relative rights and interests of the administration and to educate, direct citizens, legal persons and other organizations from the self-respect.

Article 19 The executive organs shall establish and improve procedures such as circumventation, public notification, hearing, duration, justification, etc., in accordance with the provisions of the law, regulations, regulations and regulations, and shall exercise administrative penalties for major or complex cases, and shall be decided by a collective discussion among the executive heads.

Article 20, when administrative penalties are decided by the executive organs, shall be justified by the fact that the penalties are described in the administrative penalties decision, the legal basis, the application of the discretionary baseline and the presentation of the parties, whether the requisition is adopted.

Article 21, in the opinion of the parties that an administrative sanction enforcement authority is in conflict with or does not exercise administrative penalties, may apply under the law for administrative review or administrative proceedings, or to the same inspection body of the administrative sanction enforcement body.

The Government of the people at the district level should establish a monitoring mechanism for the exercise of administrative sanctions discretion in the administration area, including through law enforcement inspections, vouchers, law enforcement review appraisals, etc.

The rule of law sector of the people at the district level should include administrative penalties benchmarks in the dynamic management system and administrative sanctions network operating systems for administrative sanctions matters, using information means to monitor administrative penalties.

Article 23 imposes significant administrative sanctions decisions by the executive organs and should be presented to the Government's rule of law sector.

Article 24 of the administrative penalties enforcement body found that the exercise of administrative penalties was incompatible with or inappropriate and should be made proactive, timely and corrective; administrative penalties were not corrected by the executive branch, which was vested in the Government of the Bench people or by the executive organs of the superior administration, in accordance with the relevant laws, regulations, regulations and regulations.

Article 25. Administrative law enforcement officials, in violation of this approach, abuse of administrative sanctions discretion, are criticized by their units and have recovered their administrative law enforcement documents by administrative law enforcement agencies and removed their law enforcement qualifications, in the event of serious circumstances, by law.

Article 26, in violation of this approach, provides that the executive body has one of the following circumstances, with the same-level Government's rule of law responsible for the change of its period of time; the impreciseness of the delay may be brought to the attention of the Government of the people at this level and may recommend that the executive responsibility of the inspectorate to hold its direct responsible personnel under the law:

(i) No benchmark for administrative penalties;

(ii) No benchmarks for administrative penalties are made available to society;

(iii) Abuse of administrative penalties.

Article 27 establishes local legislation, regulations relating to administrative penalties, as approved by the Department of State, which are regulated by the executive organs of the larger city.

The State implements administrative penalties that are vertically administered by the executive organs, develops benchmarks for administrative penalties, exercise administrative sanctions discretion, and implements this approach.

Article 28 is an organization entrusted with administrative penalties under the law, and its administrative penalties are designed and published by the executive branch.

The executive sanctions enforcement body should provide guidance and oversight on the exercise of administrative penalties by organizations entrusted with administrative sanctions.

The twenty-ninth approach is implemented since the date of publication.

This approach publishes the benchmarks for administrative penalties established by the former executive organs that are incompatible with this approach and should be revised in accordance with this approach; no benchmarks for administrative penalties should be developed and published by 31 December 2013.