(The 20th ordinary meeting of the Government of the Overseas Territories, held on 4 February 2013, considered the adoption of the Decree No. 247 of 19 February 2013 by the Government of the FIA of 19 February 2013, which was launched effective 1 April 2013)

Chapter I General

Article 1, in order to ensure that the staff of the executive branch perform their duties in accordance with the law, improve administrative effectiveness, build the rule of law government, develop this approach in line with the provisions of the National People's Republic of China's Administrative Monitoring Act, the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China and the provisions of the administrative procedures of the province of San Suu Kyi.

Article 2, this approach applies to accountability and oversight activities for staff members of the executive organs at all levels of the city.

Article 3 of this approach refers to the administrative misperception of responsibility referred to by the executive branch in the course of the implementation of specific administrative acts, resulting in adverse effects or consequences, and to the recognition by law of the responsibility of the responsible person.

Article IV. The Government of the people of the city, the city, the district and the district is responsible for the administrative misperception of the current administrative region.

Governments and their work sectors are administrative erroneous accountability institutions; all levels of inspection agencies are specifically responsible for the implementation of this approach.

Human resources and social security, the Government's rule of law sector should be co-ordinated with administrative responsibility.

Article 5 is responsible for administrative error and should uphold the principles of integrity, impartiality, accountability, education and corrections.

Chapter II Scope of accountability for administrative error

Article 6. In implementing specific administrative acts, the executive organs should be held accountable for administrative misperceptions due to the non-performance of staff, failure to perform their statutory duties, or the inefficiency of work, inefficiencies, inefficiencies or consequences:

(i) Administrative licences, administrative penalties, administrative enforcement, administrative charges, administrative decisions, administrative recognition, administrative payments and administrative inspections;

(ii) Other specific administrative acts provided for in laws, regulations and regulations.

Article 7.

(i) Execution of the administrative acts subject to application and after receiving the application of the relative administrative officer, the functions of the licence, registration, payment, response, public etc.;

(ii) Non-performance of inspection, testing, testing and quarantine responsibilities;

(iii) The failure to carry out the responsibility for the suppression and redress of the found violations;

(iv) After receipt of complaints, reports, complaints, complaints, complaints, prosecutions, prosecution, etc. from citizens, legal persons or other organizations, no duties such as investigation, treatment;

(v) The fulfilment of statutory responsibilities, such as the protection of the rights of the person, property, and the right to education, should not be carried out;

(vi) Failure to carry out decision-making matters of the superior organs;

(vii) Non-compliance with the provisions for the handling of matters by the superior organs;

(viii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 8

(i) The fact that the main facts are found to be incompatible with the evidence;

(ii) The application of error;

(iii) Violations of statutory procedures;

(iv) More than specified time frames;

(v) Administrative methods adopted in the administration, instruments of apparent misappropriation or transcendance and abuse of authority;

(vi) Administrative law enforcement is clearly inappropriate;

(vii) Discribe discrimination against specific persons in the light of the relative treatment of the same situation;

(viii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Chapter III

Article 9. The responsibility for administrative error should be borne by the holder, the reviewor and the author, in accordance with the role and circumstances of the responsible person causing administrative error.

The former is referred to as the specific operative person for administrative acts; the holder, including the head of the body within the executive branch, the head of the branch, and the other heads responsible for the exercise of the mandated functions; the rator, including the executive head responsible for the issuance of administrative decisions, as well as other heads who are mandated or authorized to exercise their authorization.

Article 10, in one of the following cases, resulted in administrative error and should be held separately:

(i) The independent exercise of its mandate;

(ii) Urgently perform administrative acts without a statutory review and approval process;

(iii) Concluding facts, concealing evidence or providing unvery circumstances that result in the wrong decision of the reviewor, the author;

(iv) Reimbursement, approval.

Article 11. A reviewor or an rator has one of the following cases, which has resulted in administrative error and assumes responsibility for:

(i) Changes or failures to accept the correct opinion of the contractor;

(ii) The custodian submits the error of the opinion to be performed, the licensor or the rator should be found to have been uncovered or, subsequently, not corrected.

Article 12. Two or more individuals jointly perform administrative acts, causing administrative error, and the hostr should assume the primary responsibility and the other person should assume secondary responsibility; they cannot distinguish between the primary responsibility and share responsibility.

Article 13, when the contractor performs its official duties, considers that the decision at the superior or the order is wrong, may make recommendations to change the decision or order at the superior level; the parent does not change or require immediate implementation, and the licensor should not be responsible.

Article 14.

Chapter IV

Article 15. The form of administrative error is divided into administrative mismanagement and administrative disposal. Administrative mismanagement and administrative disposal can be used either alone or in combination, but they are not managed by administrative error.

Administrative misconduct should be administratively disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Disposal Regulations.

Article 16 Types of administrative error include:

(i) A written inspection order;

(ii) Apologies;

(iii) To inform criticism;

(iv) Administrative caution;

(v) Removal inspection;

(vi) Removal of jobs;

(vii) Responsibilities to lead positions;

(viii) Other forms of legislation, regulations and regulations.

The types of treatment under the preceding paragraph may be used either alone or in combination.

Article 17 is one of the following cases in which the responsible administrative error is to be held accountable:

(i) To reject the correctness;

(ii) intentional or gross negligence;

(iii) When administrative error occurs, conceals or does not take effective measures to increase the consequences of damage;

(iv) The circumstances of administrative error or the grave consequences thereof;

(v) Over two years of accountability for administrative error;

(vi) Concluding the misconception of facts, disrupting and impeding the handling of wrongly responsible investigations;

(vii) Counter reprisals against complainants, reporters, investigators and witnesses;

(viii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 18

(i) A lesser circumstance, damage and impact;

(ii) Active remedies to effectively avoid, mitigate or recover losses and eliminate negative impacts;

(iii) actively cooperate with investigations or other performances;

(iv) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 19 is one of the following cases in which the responsible administrative error is committed and should not be held accountable:

(i) The administrative error resulting from the implementation of decisions or orders by the superior administrative organs;

(ii) The circumstances of administrative error are significantly minor;

(iii) The proactive identification and timely redress of the consequences of the harm;

(iv) Because of the error in the identification of conclusions by the statutory technical accreditation sector, the administrative error has been caused;

(v) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 20 imposes State liability on the administrative organs due to administrative error and shall be paid to the responsible administrative error in accordance with the relevant provisions of the National Compensation Act of the People's Republic of China.

The results of the management of administrative misaccountability should be recorded in their own archives.

Persons who have been held accountable for administrative error may not be rated as excellent in the annual appraisal.

The administrative error of accountability should be open within a certain scope.

Chapter V Accountability procedures

Article 23. Administrative conduct consists of one of the following cases, which are dealt with by an administrative error accountability authority:

(i) The judgement that has been entered into force or the administrative review decides to withdraw, change, re-establish specific administrative acts, the duration of the order, and to confirm the violation of specific administrative acts;

(ii) Sectors such as inspection, audit, government rule of law require investigation;

(iii) Complaints, complaints and complaints by citizens, legal persons or other organizations;

(iv) Other matters should be investigated.

Article 24, Civil, legal or other organizations consider that the administrative organs and their staff have administrative misperceptions, complaints and complaints to the inspectorate and are dealt with by the inspectorate, and that the inspector may also transmit administrative error accountability to the prosecution.

The Government's rule of law sector (institutional) found excessive administrative law enforcement in the course of administrative law enforcement oversight and should be investigated. In minor circumstances, the time limit was changed; in serious circumstances, recommendations were made to the supervisory body (institutional) for administrative error.

Article 26 examines, complaints, charges and charges against citizens, legal persons or other organizations, and the organ responsible for administrative error shall decide whether to be admissible within three working days. The transfer of other organs needs to be transferred within three working days.

Received, complaints, charges and complaints should be feedback from the administrative error accountability authority.

Article 27 investigates administrative error and shall be conducted by more than two staff members. Evidence needs to be obtained from the relevant units and personnel, and the units and persons concerned should be synchronized.

The investigators should be heard by the investigating person and the defence.

The investigators should produce a notice.

Article twenty-eighth cases of administrative misaccountability should be taken within one month of the date of receipt or decision of the investigation. The situation is complex, with the approval of the main executive head of the institution responsible for error, which could extend a month.

Article 29 should be dealt with by administrative error, and administrative misponsibilities are responsible for the production of the administrative mismanagement decision by the organs and the transfer of the parties within three working days from the date of the decision, and correspondence to the same level of human resources and the social security sector.

Article 31 of the erroneous administrative decision shall contain the following matters:

(i) The name, unit, place of the responsible administrative error;

(ii) Determination of the facts and evidence of administrative error;

(iii) The form and basis of responsibility;

(iv) Access to and time frame for administrative treatment decisions;

(v) The name, seal and date of the organ that decides.

Article 31 Staff who have been held accountable may apply for review by organs that have taken decisions within ten working days of the date of receipt of the decision; the non-consistency of the review decision may lodge a complaint within ten working days from the date of receipt of the review decision to the superior body that has taken the decision; or may, without review, file a complaint directly within ten working days from the date of receipt of the decision.

Article 32 shall take a written review decision and send the applicant within thirty days of the date of receipt of the review.

The author of the complaint shall, within thirty days of the date of the receipt of the complaint, make a complaint decision and transmit it to the complainant and the former processing body; the case is complex and, with the approval of the principal head of the complaints body, may extend ten working days.

The persons held accountable are not dealt with by the submission of re-entry and complaints.

Article 33 quantifications of the decision taken by the author of the complaint were deemed to have been mistreated and the authorities should be corrected within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint decision.

After review, the complaint found that the decision had been wrong and had caused a reputational damage to the parties, the former dealing body should compensate for the restoration of honour and the elimination of the impact; and economic losses.

Article 34 of the administrative error is not dealt with by an administrative error, which is criticized by the inspector in accordance with his or her authority and accountable for the period of time being rectified; and, in serious circumstances, the administrative disposition of the competent and other responsible personnel is given by law.

Annex VI

Article 33 is held accountable for the administrative error of the statutory authorization of the city, the administrative commissioning organization and other staff with social management and public service functions, taking into account this approach.

Article 36 of this approach is implemented effective 1 April 2013.