Overview - In 2016, the Ministry of Water Resources implemented the requirements of the regulations and the notice on promoting government information disclosure, achieving significant results in government information disclosure work [1] Group 1: Administrative Power Disclosure - The Ministry of Water Resources published 22 administrative licensing items, a list of administrative punishment powers, and a directory of administrative approval intermediary service items on its website [1] - An online service section was created to facilitate the public and enterprises in accessing administrative approval items [1] Group 2: Credit Information Disclosure - The Ministry promoted the disclosure of credit information in the water construction market, including quality assessments and licensing information, with a total of 813,056 pieces of information published [3] - A national unified credit evaluation system for water construction market entities was established, along with a red-black list system for integrity [3] Group 3: Major Project Information Disclosure - Monthly reports on the progress of major water-saving and supply projects were published, enhancing transparency in investment plan execution [5] - The Ministry categorized and published information on major water projects under construction [5] Group 4: Bidding Information Disclosure - By the end of 2016, 98.9% of water engineering projects were traded through public resource platforms, with 97.4% of the total transaction amount conducted through these platforms [7] - Electronic bidding trials were fully implemented in several provinces, promoting transparency in the bidding process [7] Group 5: Public Information Disclosure - A total of 5,873 government information items were proactively disclosed on the Ministry's website, including policy regulations and project bidding information [10] - The Ministry published 4 issues of the "Ministry of Water Resources Bulletin," containing 91 regulatory documents and data reports [14] Group 6: Public Engagement and Requests - In 2016, the Ministry received 632 information disclosure requests, a significant increase from previous years, with a majority being timely responded to [19] - The Ministry did not charge fees for information requests in 2016 [21] Group 7: Challenges and Future Work - The Ministry acknowledged challenges in managing the increased volume of information requests and plans to enhance proactive disclosure efforts in 2017 [23] - Future initiatives include improving the online regulatory platform and enhancing the service functions of the Ministry's website [23]

根据《中华人民共和国政府信息公开条例》（以下简称《条例》）的规定，编制本报告。本报告中所列数据信息的统计期限为2021年1月1日至 2021年12月31日。如对本报告有疑问，请与水利部政务公开领导小组办公室联系（地址：北京市西城区白广路二条2号；邮编：100053；电话 010-63202651；传真：010-63202650）。 一、总体情况 2021年，水利部坚持以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指导，认真贯彻落实《条例》和国务院办公厅印发的《2021年政务公开工作要 点》，围绕水利部工作职责，聚焦人民群众关注关切，统筹做好政府信息公开各项工作。 （一）主动公开 通过水利部网站主动公开信息10169条，开设11个专题集中发布权威信息。及时公开水旱灾害防御工作部署和应对措施相关新闻稿件2341篇， 实时动态发布雨情水情旱情信息1251836条。举办7场新闻发布活动，组织7次媒体座谈交流，及时发布权威信息，主动回应社会关切。通过组 织专家解读、制作图解、微视频等多种方式，全方位加强水利重大政策解读。依法做好财政预决算公开。 （二）依申请公开 规范依申请公开工作接收、登记、办理、答复、归档等流程，全面提升依申 ...

Overall Situation - In 2019, the Ministry of Water Resources focused on enhancing the quality and effectiveness of information disclosure, guided by Xi Jinping's thought and the new regulations on government information disclosure [2][3] - The ministry actively published 5,501 pieces of government information, covering various aspects of water administration and reform [2][3] - The ministry organized seven press conferences and launched several policy interpretation reports to promote water policies [2][3] Information Disclosure Efforts - The ministry received 78 applications for government information disclosure, all of which were processed in accordance with regulations [2][3] - The ministry established a comprehensive supervision and reporting platform, enhancing public engagement in water management [2][3] - The ministry's official website received 703 million visits, indicating a strong public interest in water-related information [2][3] Key Achievements - The ministry published 26 normative documents and 33 new standards, promoting transparency in water administration [3][4] - Significant progress was made in major water projects, with regular updates on investment plans and project statuses [3][4] - The ministry actively responded to public concerns, issuing over 10,000 pieces of warning information and addressing 2,145 public inquiries [3][4] Challenges and Future Plans - The ministry identified areas for improvement, including the need for deeper implementation of the new regulations and enhancing the comprehensiveness of disclosed information [9] - Plans for 2020 include strengthening training on the new regulations, improving the information disclosure system, and enhancing policy interpretation and public response mechanisms [9]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the efforts of the Urumqi City Market Supervision Administration in Xinjiang to enhance government information processing capabilities through training and the implementation of a proactive information disclosure approach [1] Group 1: Training and Information Disclosure - The training focused on the theme of government information disclosure, explaining the definition of "government information" and clarifying the boundaries of three types of information: proactive disclosure, disclosure upon request, and non-disclosure [1] - The training aimed to improve the staff's awareness and capability in government information disclosure, using actual case studies to illustrate the requirements and considerations for standardized responses [1] Group 2: Regulatory Measures and Public Safety - The administration is committed to addressing the "key small matters" of the public by leveraging its market supervision functions, conducting comprehensive regulatory enforcement, and administrative supervision [1] - A systematic approach is being adopted to identify safety risks in food, pharmaceuticals, industrial products, and special equipment, with the establishment of problem lists, responsibility lists, and resolution lists to ensure effective rectification of identified issues [1] Group 3: Future Directions - The Market Supervision Administration plans to use the training as an opportunity to embed the principle of "openness as the norm, non-disclosure as the exception" into its regulatory processes, aiming to enhance the standardization and precision of information disclosure [1]

Core Points - The issue of delayed toll charges on a highway in Chengdu has sparked public debate due to a lack of transparency regarding the reasons for the extension [2] - The official documents indicate that the toll period should end on June 30, 2024, but the signage at the toll station shows an end date of September 17, 2025 [2] - The public has raised concerns about the absence of a clear explanation for the toll extension, which is seen as a violation of the public's right to information [2][3] Summary by Sections - **Public Reaction**: Citizens, including lawyer Hu Lei, have expressed dissatisfaction with the government's refusal to disclose the reasons for the toll extension, leading to a lawsuit against the Sichuan Provincial Transportation Department [3] - **Legal Framework**: The situation highlights the need for government transparency as outlined in China's "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information," which mandates the proactive release of information that affects public interest [2] - **Accountability and Oversight**: The case emphasizes the importance of public oversight in government actions, reinforcing the concept of "right to know" and the necessity for accountability in administrative decisions [3]

最高人民法院20日召开新闻发布会，发布关于审理政府信息公开行政案件的司法解释。有关负责人介 绍，经人民法院审理认为政府信息依法属于应当公开的范畴，应当直接判决二十个工作日内将政府信息 给付给原告。该解释自今年6月1日起施行。 保障原告依法获取政府信息的权利 极个别当事人多次申请公开相同政府信息 我国政府信息公开申请具有不设门槛、保持最大程度的便利性、开放性的特点。针对司法实践中存在的 极个别当事人滥用政府信息公开申请权和诉权的问题，最高法有关负责人今天在发布会上作出了回应。 发布会上介绍，司法实践中的确存在有的当事人申请信息公开、提起行政诉讼的目的不是为了获取信 息，而是为了引起有关机关对其利益诉求的关注与重视；极个别当事人甚至多次重复申请公开相同、同 类政府信息，继而形成大量明显超出正常权利保护需求的行政复议和诉讼案件。 最高人民法院行政庭庭长耿宝建：此类滥用权利行为，挤占大量的行政资源和司法资源，影响行政机关 与人民法院正常履行职能，又在一定程度上导致程序与制度空转，损害行政机关和人民法院的权威性与 公信力。基于此，我们在《解释》的制定过程中，着眼于人民法院做实定分止争、推动实质性化解矛盾 纠纷的本职本业 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme Court of China has issued an interpretation regarding the legal application of government information disclosure lawsuits, emphasizing that these lawsuits are classified as "payment lawsuits" requiring substantial responses from administrative agencies [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Framework - The interpretation clarifies that government information is categorized as public and must be disclosed within 20 working days following a court ruling [1][2]. - The interpretation aims to address issues where administrative agencies fail to disclose information even after a favorable ruling for the plaintiff, leading to repeated lawsuits [1][2]. Group 2: Burden of Proof - The interpretation specifies that the burden of proof lies with the defendant (administrative agency) when refusing to disclose information based on commercial secrets or personal privacy [3]. - Defendants must provide justification for public interest reasons and demonstrate how non-disclosure could significantly impact public interest [3]. Group 3: Practical Implications - There are concerns regarding the misuse of information requests by citizens, which can waste judicial resources and disrupt administrative processes [3]. - The interpretation aims to streamline the process and reduce frivolous lawsuits by clarifying the responsibilities of both parties involved in information disclosure cases [3].

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has issued an interpretation regarding the handling of administrative cases related to government information disclosure, emphasizing the need to avoid leaking state secrets, commercial secrets, and personal privacy during the judicial process [1][2] - The interpretation outlines that the burden of proof lies with the defendant in cases where the information involves state secrets or could endanger national security, public safety, or social stability, balancing the public's right to know with the protection of sensitive information [1] - The court is required to adopt appropriate trial methods based on the specifics of each case, which may include public or non-public hearings, ensuring that sensitive information remains confidential while still making the results of the trials public [2]