As a lawyer, I know that laws are generally enacted by the National People's Congress or the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. However, for every law to be formulated, someone must first propose or propose; In addition, each draft law goes through a process of soliciting comments after it is drafted before it is finalized.
According to common sense, many laws are generally enacted by relevant interest groups, and after the draft is released, relevant interest groups are solicited for amendments or suggestions.
Similarly, as a person who has been in the system, I am also well aware that many organs and units have both civil servants and career personnel, especially among cadres at the district and county levels and at the township and town levels, and this phenomenon is relatively common, and the number of personnel in many units and even in public institutions is far greater than that of civil servants. In the education system, it is more common to have a career. However, it is undeniable that most of the leaders in power are civil servants, and even if they are promoted to leaders, most of them become civil servants (called "transfer" or "elective"). Obviously, then, civil servants occupy an advantageous position and have a greater right to speak.
Obviously, civil servants are more capable or active than those with career status to promote the enactment of laws that affect the interests of their own groups. Therefore, the Civil Servants Law, which was formulated by the civil servants themselves, stipulates: "Civil servants who have worked for 30 years or more may retire early; Civil servants who are less than five years away from the retirement age prescribed by the state and have worked for 20 years or more may also retire early. "The personnel of the career editor do not even enjoy the right to refer to the execution.
In fact, the work of career editors is no less than that of civil servants. The author's experience is that when there is a shortage of manpower at the grassroots level, career editors are often assigned to work as civil servants. For example, it is not uncommon for a person with career status to be appointed as the head of an office of a bureau or the head of another unit. Originally, the office director was generally a civil servant, but when the unit lacked a competent civil servant who was the director of the office, a person with a career status might be appointed as the head of the bureau office instead of the office director. The crux of the matter is that in reality, there is basically no obvious difference in the nature and difficulty of the work performed by civil servants and career editors in many grass-roots units. Even, there is no shortage of civil servants who are vegetarian in the corpse position, and it often happens that the people in the career editor are tired and tired.
Therefore, if the rule of law is fair, why can't we break through the common routine of "whoever legislates, who benefits"?! In addition, in addition to those who have a career status, why should employees of other groups such as various companies and private units not be ignored?!
As a lawyer, I look at things from the perspective of a lawyer. Ladies and gentlemen, you can also express your opinions from different angles!