Help dishonest individuals rediscover their sense of stability and purpose in life

Inadequate Tabet

Keeping faith brings benefits, breaking faith brings penalties, and repair has a path. It is not contradictory to let those who have broken faith regain their own sense of purpose and stability in life, while at the same time putting dishonest conduct into the “cage” of the system. The new rules not only open a more standardized window for repairing cases of “unintentional failure,” but also set down red lines that cannot be crossed. When credit repair becomes more rule-based, efficient, and convenient, the route for bad-credit parties to proactively correct their conduct and rebuild their credit will also become smoother. And with the strengthening of the systemic and comprehensive development of the social credit system, accelerating the building of a nationwide unified large market, safeguarding a fair and orderly market competition environment, and promoting high-quality development will also enjoy a better business environment.

Credit repair is an important part of the social credit system. The central government has repeatedly made requirements and deployed plans for building a credit repair制度. With the official implementation on April 1 of the《Credit Repair Measures》, a unified, standardized, coordinated-and-shared, and scientifically efficient credit repair制度 will play an important role in effectively safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of credit parties, better helping them rebuild their credit efficiently and conveniently, and serving high-quality economic and social development—therefore drawing widespread public attention.

The essence of a market economy is a credit economy. Integrity is the foundation of the market, and it is also the root on which each market entity establishes itself. The broad circulation and transactions of goods and services rely on credit and reputation. The higher the level of productive forces and the deeper the degree of marketization, the higher the requirements for social credit. Improving the social credit system helps cultivate contract-based spirit among all types of entities, form a conscious awareness of keeping faith and using credit, and build a set of standardized rules and order for a market economy, laying a solid foundation for creating a stable, transparent, and predictable development environment.

Today, the philosophy of “integrity goes everywhere under heaven, while dishonesty makes every step difficult” has become deeply rooted in people’s minds. However, in the process of building a sound social credit system, preventing credit management measures from being generalized and misused is also an urgent issue to be addressed. Previously, some localities introduced local credit scores, tying local credit assessments to basic rights such as citizens’ school enrollment, employment, and social assistance, which may impose improper restrictions on citizens’ lawful rights and interests. In addition, some localities blur the boundaries between credit building and other policy areas, or include routine rewards within the scope of credit-based incentives, or mix up ordinary administrative penalties with discredited punishment and deterrence, leading to unclear standards for credit rewards and penalties.

Further optimizing the credit system requires both sticking to a “hard” bottom line—maintaining a high-pressure penalty posture toward dishonest conduct—and injecting a “warm” core to improve the precision of enforcement and punishment. For market entities that, without subjective malicious intent to evade debt, have lost the ability to repay due to objective changes and can actively cooperate in work related to debt resolution, they should be alleviated through differentiated mechanisms; for special groups such as persons with incapacities, humane exemptions should be granted; for credit offenders that meet the relevant conditions, repair channels should be kept open to support their return to the market. Only by balancing rigor and flexibility can a social credit system be built that both upholds fair order and demonstrates humanistic warmth.

After credit parties proactively improve their own credit standing—by correcting dishonest conduct and fulfilling related obligations—relevant authorities, in accordance with the new rules, shall terminate the publication, stop sharing and use of credit information, and simultaneously, in accordance with the law and the rules, remove discredited punishment measures, providing a standardized and efficient guide for carrying out credit repair.

From a macro perspective, the social credit system is a complete closed-loop system that starts with credit records, proceeds to incentives for keeping faith and penalties for breaking faith, and then returns to the beginning after credit repair. If an effective credit repair mechanism is lacking, the credit standing of all parties is liable to become fixed, leaving situations where, once a party breaks faith, it becomes difficult to move forward again. If the channel for correcting dishonest conduct is not smooth, it may lead to the “give up and go all-in” mentality, which would run counter to the original intention of building a society based on integrity. With an efficient and convenient credit repair mechanism, the social credit system can be propelled to operate in a virtuous cycle.

From a micro perspective, credit repair provides those who have broken faith with an opportunity to reshape their own credit. If there is dishonest conduct, then appropriate penalties for breaking faith will naturally be imposed in accordance with the law and the rules. If there is no credit repair mechanism, credit parties will always carry these dishonest “bad records,” and related conduct activities will also be affected adversely. If credit repair mechanisms are not clearly defined, not standardized, and not efficient and convenient, credit parties may want to repair but cannot find a way to do so; they may also put in a great deal of effort yet still find it hard to achieve the goal, and even all kinds of rent-seeking phenomena may appear in the meantime. After all, punishing dishonest conduct is neither the purpose nor the endpoint. It should not label someone as untrustworthy forever such that they can never take a step forward. Instead, a standardized and efficient credit repair mechanism should be established to support credit parties in improving their credit standing in a timely manner through credit repair, so that they can get back on the right track of honesty and keeping faith and start anew.

Let those who have broken faith regain their true self that allows them to live with stability and purpose, and it is not contradictory to put dishonest conduct into the “cage” of the system. The new rules not only open a more standardized window for repairing “unintentional failures,” but also set red lines that cannot be crossed. For “irreversible” dishonest acts with seriously harmful nature—such as fraud, and illegal fundraising—we will firmly close the door to repair. When credit repair becomes more rule-based, efficient, and convenient, the ways for dishonest parties to proactively correct their conduct and rebuild their own credit will become more straightforward as well. And with the strengthening of the systemic and comprehensive development of the social credit system, accelerating the building of a nationwide unified large market, safeguarding a fair and orderly market competition environment, and promoting high-quality development will also provide a better business environment.

Keeping faith brings benefits, breaking faith brings penalties, and repair has a path. Transforming past practical experience into institutionalized and mechanized arrangements, and then elevating it into regulations, is the direction for further promoting the building of the social credit system. The implementation of the new rules fully reflects this point.