Shu Shaofu: The Evolution of Ancient Supervisory Legislation and Its Modern Implications
General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI): "We must exert efforts to strengthen the standardized, law-based, and formalized construction of discipline inspection and supervision work, and continuously improve our capacity to improve Party conduct, enforce discipline, and combat corruption." To resolutely win This tough, protracted, and total war against corruption, we must continuously advance national anti-corruption legislation and elevate the law-based level of discipline inspection and supervision. At the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CCDI, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that we must "further improve the system of anti-corruption regulations," "continuously advance national anti-corruption legislation, and advance with the times to revise the Supervision Law."
The culture of ancient supervisory legislation has a long history and played an important role in the development of China's ancient supervisory system; its crystallization and essence are an indispensable part of fine traditional Chinese culture. The completeness of the ancient supervisory legislative system provided weapons and standards for both "remonstrance supervision" (proposing criticisms to the throne) and "impeachment supervision" (investigating officials). By examining the past to understand the present, we can effectively absorb the essence of ancient supervisory legislation. This is of great significance for advancing national anti-corruption legislation in the New Era and integrally promoting the mechanism of ensuring that officials do not dare, cannot, and have no desire to be corrupt.
Early Foundations: The Germination of Ancient Supervisory Legislation
From the Pre-Qin period to the Qin Dynasty, supervisory legislation gradually moved from a primitive state toward an early foundational period. The Book of Documents (Shangshu · Canon of Shun [1]) records that Shun "examined achievements every three years; after three examinations, he degraded the undeserving and promoted the intelligent." By assessing the achievements of tribal leaders three times over nine years, he determined their promotion, demotion, reward, or punishment, dismissing unworthy officials and promoting the virtuous. This established the norms for governing and managing officials at that time.
In ancient texts of the Zhou Dynasty such as the Rites of Zhou (Zhouli) and the Marquis of Lu on Punishments (Lüxing), provisions on how to punish officials for embezzlement and perverting the law were already written into the penal codes, marking the initial appearance of supervisory legislation. The "Heavenly Offices" (Tianguan) in the Rites of Zhou refers to the officials who administered state affairs, responsible for both "governing the state" and "governing the officials," utilizing existing regulations such as the "Penal Code" (Xingdian) and the "Eight Methods" (Bafa). The Grand Manager (Taizai) was a subordinate of the Heavenly Offices and the head of official governance; his important duty was to oversee the formulation and promulgation of six codes: administrative, instructional, ceremonial, governmental, penal, and functional. One function of the "Penal Code" was to punish the various officials who broke the law, while simultaneously using the "Eight Methods to Govern the Bureaucracy." These were: "firstly, official subordination, to unify state governance; secondly, official duties, to distinguish state governance; thirdly, official junctions, to coordinate state governance; fourthly, official routines, to supervise state governance; fifthly, official accomplishments, to manage state governance; sixthly, official laws, to rectify state governance; seventhly, official punishments, to correct state governance; eighthly, official accounting, to conclude state governance."
The "Eight Methods" not only clarified precedents such as the subordination relationships between different government offices, routine duties, and the scope of responsibilities for officials, but also stipulated the laws to be followed in the performance of duties, laws for rewards and punishments, and standards for the periodic assessment of official performance. Among these, "official punishments" (guanxing) was a system for punishing law-breaking officials, while "official accounting" (guanji) was a system for assessing official administration; clearly, these regulations already possessed the significance of supervisory law. The "Autumn Offices" (Qiuguan) of the Rites of Zhou were the "penal officials" in charge of criminal law. The Minister of Justice (Dasikou), a subordinate of the Autumn Offices, used five types of punishments to inspect the populace. Among the "Five Punishments," the "official punishment" was the penal law applicable to government offices, intended to promote the worthy and inspect dereliction of duty—that is, it emphasized the "ability of superiors to correct official functions." The Judge (Shishi) was a subordinate of the Autumn Offices whose responsibility was to manage the "prohibitions of the palace, the bureaucracy, the capital, the countryside, and the military"—known as the "Laws of the Five Prohibitions"—and to handle the eight types of precedents used by judicial officers in deciding cases. These eight precedents referred to eight types of occupational crimes: leaking state secrets (bangzhuo), rebellion (bangzei), espionage for foreign powers (bangdie), violating royal decrees (fan bangling), forging royal orders (jiao bangling), stealing national treasures (bangdao), forming cliques for private ends (bangpeng), and slandering the sovereign or distorting facts (bangwu). These precedents were actually established practices for governing officials, providing standards for supervisory officers.
The Marquis of Lu on Punishments is China’s earliest extant document on penal law and has even been called the "first anti-corruption legislation." At that time, supervisory regulations were embedded within official punishments and criminal law. The Marquis of Lu categorized "punishments" into Three Great Classes: the five physical punishments (wuxing), the five fines (wufa), and the five errors (wuguo). It argued that sentencing should be based on the severity of the crime and admonished feudal lords and ministers to use the penal law wisely and ensure their judgments were appropriate. Simultaneously, it stressed the need to oversee the fairness of the five punishments and use them with caution. If the five punishments were verified by evidence, they were applied; if not, the five fines were used; if those were inapplicable, the five errors were considered. Regarding the "five errors," one had to guard against judges practicing favoritism or taking bribes. If a judge suffered from the "Five Flaws of Error"—namely guan (fearing power), fan (settling personal scores), nei (favoring relatives), huo (soliciting bribes), or lai (accepting pleas for influence)—these had to be investigated thoroughly. Once discovered, "the crime is equal," meaning the punishment for the judge was the same as that for the offender. This was, in effect, the supervision of officials. The Marquis of Lu also mentioned that the Judge must use fair punishments to control the bureaucracy while teaching subjects to respect virtue, repeatedly emphasizing that punishment is a supplement to virtue.
During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the successively promulgated written laws also contained content related to the supervision of officials, marking the initial formation of supervisory legislation. The Qin Dynasty established a relatively complete legal system, but its supervisory regulations were still in their foundational stage. Ancient Chinese codes often formed a compiled structure where "various laws were mixed together" (zhufa hunhe); thus, most Qin supervisory regulations were interspersed among criminal code articles. Furthermore, because supervisory bodies were then managed by the Chancellor and subordinate to the executive branch, supervisory law was also mixed with administrative regulations.
Statutes (lü) and Ordinances (ling) were the primary forms of Qin supervisory regulations, such as the Qin Statutes or the Emperor’s Ordinances (including zhi and zhao). A glimpse of this can be seen in the large number of written Qin legal articles found in the Bamboo Slips from the Qin Tomb at Shuihudi [2], which have been categorized into ten sections, including Eighteen Types of Qin Statutes, Miscellaneous Excerpts from Qin Statutes, Answers to Questions on Law, and The Way of Being an Official. Compared to the legal articles unearthed, actual Qin law was likely much more extensive, though much has been lost. The slips contain many regulatory articles of a supervisory nature. For example, The Way of Being an Official stipulates the basic principles and codes of conduct for supervisory officers, as well as rules for interrogation and impeachment. Regarding how to handle official violations and crimes, Answers to Questions on Law provides specific regulations. For instance, on the disposal of officials who practice fraud: "If a court official (tingxingshi li) commits perjury [cursing or lying], and the fine is a shield or more, the sentence shall be executed and they shall be dismissed [and never re-employed]." Tingxingshi was a legal form in Qin law referring to judicial precedents. This answer succinctly points out that, according to precedent, once an official practices fraud, if the crime warrants a fine of a shield or more, they are sentenced and must be dismissed from office permanently. Specific legal answers also existed for officials who did not perform their duties or who sought private profit. "If a Sefu [3] does not make official business his priority but makes villainy his priority, what is the sentence? He should be banished (qian). Should the wife of the banished be included? She should not." If a Sefu (a local official in Qin) failed to perform his duties and instead committed misdeeds, he was to be punished by banishment, but his wife would not be sent with him. Another example: if an official used public resources for private gain, they were to be banished. "If officials from the rank of Zu or Shi [4] and above use government horses, clerks, or soldiers for private ends or to obtain money in the market, all shall be banished." Furthermore, for officials who failed to execute imperial mandates, failed to report to their posts, or failed to stop the distribution of grain when required, they were sentenced to nai [5] (compulsory shaving of whiskers and sideburns), or punished according to the law for "violating orders," or charged with theft.
During the Warring States period, Li Kui synthesized the legislative achievements of various states into The Canon of Laws (Fajing), which formed a system of six major contents: Laws on Theft, Laws on Robbery, Laws on Prisoners, Laws on Arrest, Miscellaneous Laws, and General Principles. Among these, the Miscellaneous Laws contained provisions on how to punish corruption and other acts, providing specific written laws for supervisory officials to follow.
Although ancient Chinese supervisory legislation in its foundational period lacked specialized statutes, one can still find many clauses regarding the governance and management of officials within the "merged body of laws" (zhufa heti), especially within the Qin Statutes. Provisions on the "inspection of officials" (chali) became important clauses of the Qin law. These provided precedents and grounds for the supervision of the bureaucracy at the time. Measures for governing officials were, in fact, the essential content of supervisory legislation.
Growth: The Evolution of Ancient Supervisory Legislation
Since the Han Dynasty, local supervisory regulations began to emerge and flourish. The supervisory legislative system continuously improved, gradually forming a systematic and standardized institutional framework that provided legal grounds and guarantees for the comprehensive supervision of administration, legislation, the judiciary, and the military.
The Western Han Dynasty issued the first written local supervisory regulation in ancient Chinese history, the Nine Articles for Supervisory Censors (Jian Yushi Jiu Tiao), also known as the Nine Laws of the Censor: "In the third year of Emperor Hui, the Chancellor petitioned to send Censors to supervise illegalities in the Sili region [6], covering: litigation issues, theft/robbery, minting counterfeit coins, unjust trials, unfair corvée/taxation, lack of integrity among officials, harsh/cruel officials, extravagance and possessing bows of ten dan strength or more, and wearing uniforms beyond one's rank—totaling nine articles." These nine articles provided legal norms for Censors to supervise officials in the three commanderies near the capital, covering areas such as litigation, social order, local finance, and official integrity.
The Six Articles of Inquiry (Liutiao Wenshi) was a more mature and systematic local supervisory regulation. To facilitate the better exercise of supervisory functions, Emperor Wu of Han created the Regional Coordinator (Cishi) system, dividing the country into thirteen supervisory regions and dispatching Censors from the central government to local areas to supervise officials. The main content of the Six Articles of Inquiry was: "Article 1: Powerful clans and local magnates whose land and houses exceed regulations, who use strength to oppress the weak or numbers to tyrannize the few. Article 2: Officials of the 2,000-bushel rank [7] who do not obey imperial edicts or follow established systems, who turn their backs on the public for private ends, who disregard the central government to seek profit, or who prey upon and exploit the common people. Article 3: Officials of the 2,000-bushel rank who do not show concern for suspicious cases, who execute people based on whim, who use punishment when angry or rewards when happy, who harass and oppress the people, causing such distress that the mountains crumble and stones split, and rumors and omens spread. Article 4: Officials of the 2,000-bushel rank who are unfair in appointments, favoring their darlings and obscuring the virtuous while promoting the stubborn. Article 5: Sons and brothers of the 2,000-bushel rank who rely on their influence to make requests of those under their supervision. Article 6: Officials of the 2,000-bushel rank who violate public interest to conspire with subordinates, who flatter the powerful, engage in bribery, or undermine government decrees."
The Six Articles of Inquiry clarified that the targets of supervision were powerful local clans and high-ranking officials (2,000-bushel rank) and their relatives. The content included bulk bullying by clans, land/housing excesses, corruption by governors, judicial malpractice, unfair personnel selection, and the interference of officials' relatives in public affairs. These articles not only legislated how to supervise local officials but also strictly regulated the inspectors' own work—inspectors who exceeded the "Six Articles" were themselves punished to prevent the abuse of supervisory power. The Six Articles of Inquiry was inherited by later generations and modeled by local supervisory legislation in the Wei, Jin, Sui, and Tang dynasties. Gu Yanwu [8] even praised it as "an excellent law that remains unchanged for a hundred generations."
During the Three Kingdoms, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties, supervisory regulations were basically based on the Six Articles of Inquiry but included innovations. During the Cao Wei period of the Three Kingdoms, Jia Kui, the Regional Coordinator of Yuzhou, saw that local officials neglected the law and bandits roamed openly while inspectors knew but did not intervene. Believing the world could not return to the "Right Way" under such conditions, he established new practices in Yuzhou that gained significant influence; the Emperor even approved them, announcing to the empire that "Yuzhou shall be the model." Using Yuzhou's law as the recognized standard for the realm referred to the Six Articles for Inspecting Officials (Chali Liutiao) created by Jia Kui. Its specific content was: "Inspect the suffering and grievances of the people; inspect the conduct of officials above the rank of 'black ribbon' [9]; inspect bandits who harm the people and major villains; inspect those who violate the field laws and seasonal prohibitions; inspect those with conduct of filial piety, brotherly love, or integrity, and those with exceptional talents; inspect officials who do not record the receipt of money and grain and allow it to be scattered. Inspections shall not exceed these." Compared to the Six Articles of Inquiry, Jia Kui’s version focused on the local officials' dereliction of duty, lack of discipline, lack of rigor, impropriety, and lack of integrity. However, for various reasons, the authority and efficacy of these articles were not always ideal.
In the Jin Dynasty, local supervisory regulations became more specific and diverse. In addition to Statutes (lü) and Ordinances (ling), there were legal forms such as Codes (ke), Analogies (bi), Standards (ge), and Forms (shi). This period saw a vast number of legal articles covering criminal, civil, supervisory, and administrative matters. In terms of supervisory and officialdom legislation, there were both national laws like the Jin Statutes and various local supervisory regulations, mainly including the Ten Articles on Competence, the Eight Articles for Inspecting Senior Officials, the Five Statutes for Inspecting Commanderies, and the Four Articles for Inspecting 2,000-bushel Officials. The Ten Articles on Competence stated: "If fields are cleared and livelihoods improved, if rites and education are established and prohibitions enforced, this is the competence of the senior official. If the people are destitute and farming is neglected, if villainy and theft arise and litigation is frequent, if subordinates insult superiors and rites are not observed, this is the incompetence of the senior official." As a supervisory regulation of the time, the Ten Articles required inspectors to...
The governors (taishou) and chancellors (guoxiang) of each commandery were required to conduct an inspection of their subordinate counties once every three years. Following ancient tradition, they chose the spring [10] to disseminate moral instruction and manifest loyalty and righteousness. During these inspections, they were tasked with granting audiences to senior officials, observing local customs, and coordinating ritual law. Simultaneously, they were to show compassion for the people's conditions, investigate civil affairs, visit and offer condolences to the elderly, handle cases of injustice, and scrutinize the successes and failures of administration and penal policy in detail. If the people were seen to be diligent in reclaiming fields, if all industries were flourishing, if ritual education was complete, and if laws were strictly upheld with disciplined enforcement—where orders were followed and prohibitions respected—this demonstrated the competence of the subordinate county’s senior officials. Conversely, if the people lived in hardship, if farming was neglected, if rituals and righteousness did not flourish, and if discipline among superiors and subordinates was lax, it was considered a dereliction of duty. The Eight Articles for the Inspection of Senior Officials (Cha Changli Batiao) stipulated:
"If a senior official is public-spirited and incorruptible in office, puts the public interest before personal concerns, maintains a solemn countenance and upright integrity, and does not feign a reputation; or if he practices greed and filth personally, resorts to flattery and obscenity to seek acceptance, fails to establish public integrity while his private household grows wealthier by the day—both shall be scrutinized with care." The first four of these eight articles concern "probity inspections" (liancha), requiring officials to be public-spirited, incorruptible, free from self-interest, upright, and not seekers of hollow fame. The latter four concern "inferiority inspections" (lvecha), requiring strict investigation of officials whose behavior is foul, who flatter and scheme, who abandon public integrity, and whose private wealth increases daily. The ultimate goal was to "expel the turbid and raise the clear" [11] by promoting the virtuous and impeaching the transgressive. Subsequently, the Five Articles for the Legal Inspection of Commanderies (Wutiao Lvcha Jun) and the Four Articles for the Inspection of Two-Thousand-Picul Senior Officials [12] issued during the Jin Dynasty began to elevate the subjects of oversight to include commandery governors and other high-ranking officials. The former focused on: "First, rectifying oneself; second, diligence toward the hundred surnames; third, caring for orphans and widows; fourth, strengthening the fundamental [agriculture] and suppressing the incidental [commerce]; fifth, removing personal entanglements." The latter required that "if officials of two-thousand-picul rank cannot diligently sympathize with the people’s hidden hardships, but instead lightness harbor private motives, initiate excessive litigation, are often greedy and corrupt, or harass the hundred surnames, the Regional Inspector (cishi) and two-thousand-picul officials shall be ordered to investigate their filth and corruption, recommend those who are public-spirited and pure, and the authorities shall deliberate on their dismissal or promotion." Looking at the achievements of local oversight regulations in the Jin Dynasty, it is evident that both the subjects and the content of oversight became more extensive, specific, and complete.
Although the oversight system collapsed during the Eastern Jin, and oversight legislation saw few further achievements—a trend that continued into the Southern Dynasties—this was not the case in the Northern Dynasties. The Six-Article Edict of the Western Wei and the Nine-Article Decree of the Northern Zhou contributed significantly to the construction of ancient oversight regulations. The Six-Article Edict, formulated in the tenth year of the Datong era of the Western Wei, proposed: cultivating the heart first, emphasizing moral education, maximizing the benefits of the land, promoting the worthy and talented, showing compassion in litigation, and equalizing labor and tax obligations. This integrated Confucian, Daoist, and Legalist thought, advancing heart-cleansing, moral education, and rewards and punishments simultaneously. The Nine-Article Decree combined performance evaluation with official scrutiny, further expanding oversight functions. Soon after Emperor Xuanwu of the Northern Zhou took the throne, he promulgated these nine articles and dispatched grand envoys to inspect various provinces. As the basis for inspecting officials, the specific contents were:
"First, the adjudication of cases and sentencing for crimes must all conform to the text of the statutes; second, those whose maternal relatives are beyond the degree of mourning are permitted to marry; third, punishments by caning or flogging must all be carried out according to the law; fourth, if brigands and thieves within the boundaries of a commandery or county are not captured, it must be reported in the records; fifth, for filial sons, obedient grandsons, righteous husbands, and chaste wives, their gates shall be honored, and those with talent fit for employment should be recommended immediately; sixth, those who were previously employed but have not reached high rank, or those languishing in humble huts whose civil or military talents could be applied, should be sought out and their names reported; seventh, for those of the seventh rank or above from the 'False Qi' [13] who have been ordered for employment, and those of the eighth rank or below as well as those outside the official stream, if they wish to enter officialdom, they are permitted to participate in selection and be appointed at a rank two degrees lower; eighth, provinces shall recommend those of high talent and broad learning as 'Refined Talents' (xiucai), and commanderies shall recommend those clear in the classics and cultivated in conduct as 'Filial and Incorrupt' (xiaolian)—for superior provinces and commanderies, one person per year; for lower provinces and commanderies, one person every three years; ninth, those aged seventy or above shall be granted titles according to the formula, and the widowed, orphaned, or destitute who cannot support themselves shall be provided with granary relief."
The Northern Zhou’s nine articles for inspecting provinces monitored whether criminal judgments and corporal punishments were based on statutes and decrees, whether officials were resolute in capturing bandits, and verified whether officials were dedicated to recommending various talents. The Northern Zhou not only sent grand envoys to inspect provinces but also formulated disciplinary regulations for oversight officials themselves, imposing heavy punishments on inspectors who perverted the law for private gain or engaged in corruption. Strengthening oversight legislation and strictly governing provinces and officials favored the stability of Northern Dynasty rule. The oversight legislation of the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties initiated regulations where "inspection and impeachment" (chajiu) and "recommendation" (jianju) operated in parallel, reflecting a characteristic emphasis on both scrutiny and recommendation, as well as rewards and punishments—an original institutional system of this period.
During the Sui, Tang, and Five Dynasties, Chinese legal culture developed greatly. The Kaihuang Code of the Sui, the Commentary on the Code of the Yonghui Era (Yonghui Lvshu) and the Compendium of Administrative Law of the Six Divisions of the Tang (Tang Liudian) of the Tang, and the Penal System of the Great Zhou (Dazhou Xingtong) of the Five Dynasties were all important codes of feudal society. Due to the loss of the Kaihuang Code and the Dazhou Xingtong, it is difficult to know exactly how much of these codes concerned oversight legislation. However, Tang oversight legislation generally became increasingly rich, consisting of numerous edicts and imperial decrees regarding oversight, as well as many oversight laws and regulations embedded within codes like the Yonghui Lvshu and Tang Liudian. Furthermore, standalone regulations such as the Six Articles of Inspection (Xuncha Liutiao) and the Forty-Eight Articles on Probity and Customs (Fengsu Liancha Sishibatiao) were promulgated and implemented.
The Sui followed the Han Six Articles of Investigation but made major improvements. The Sui inspection system was headed by the Grand Master of the Sili Terrace (silitaidafu), equipped with two Vice-Governors (biejia) as subordinates to inspect the capital region, responsible for the Eastern Capital and the capital respectively. Regional Inspectors (cishi) were responsible for inspecting areas outside the capital region. Commanderies were inspected by Vice-Governors according to the Six Articles of Inspection, whose main tasks were: "First, to observe whether officials of the [graded] ranks govern with competence. Second, to observe whether officials are greedy or cruel, harming the administration. Third, to observe whether powerful families and cunning scoundrels harm subordinates, or if their land and residences exceed regulations and officials cannot stop them. Fourth, to observe if floods, droughts, or pests are not reported truthfully, resulting in wrongful tax collection, or if exemptions are falsely granted where there is no disaster. Fifth, to observe if brigands within the jurisdiction are not pursued to the end or are concealed and not reported. Sixth, to observe if those of virtuous conduct, filial piety, and extraordinary talent are hidden and not presented." The difference from the Han Six Articles was that the Sui expanded the scope of subjects; all officials with rank were subject to oversight, with a particular focus on local officials, emphasizing whether they had administrative capacity, whether they were greedy or cruel in a way that damaged national governance, and whether they effectively implemented central policies and decrees.
The Tang established ten circuits for inspection, with the Censorate (yushitai) dispatching Investigating Censors (jiancha yushi) and their subordinates to inspect the bureaucracy and the various prefectures and counties. Building on the Sui "Six Inspections," they proposed a new Six Articles of Inspection: "Observe the virtue or vice of officials; observe the dispersal of the population, the concealment or loss of registers, and the inequality of labor and tax; observe neglect of agriculture and sericulture and the depletion of granaries; observe cunning scoundrels and bandits who do not engage in legitimate livelihoods and cause private harm; observe those of virtuous conduct, filial piety, and extraordinary talent who are hiding their light and waiting for employment; observe clever sub-officials and powerful clans who annex land or act violently while the poor and weak suffer injustices and cannot speak for themselves." The Tang Six Articles were more specific, including whether officials were good or evil, the dispersal of the population, the loss of records, the neglect of farming leading to granary depletion, filial conduct, and the actions of "clever sub-officials" and powerful clans. As the administrative code of the Tang, the Tang Liudian contained chapters providing clear legal regulations on the staffing, ranking, and powers of the oversight body, the Censorate. The Tang formed four legal forms: "Codes (lv), Statutes (ling), Regulations (ge), and Ordinances (shi)." Within the statutes and ordinances specifically, there were many contents involving oversight regulations, indicating that Tang oversight legislation was richer, more rigorous in structure, and had woven a relatively tight legal net, marking the further development of ancient Chinese local oversight regulations and legislation.
Prosperity: The Perfection of Ancient Oversight Legislation
During the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, on the one hand, local oversight regulations became more extensive and systematic; on the other hand, the promulgation of oversight regulations at the central level became increasingly frequent, and ancient Chinese oversight regulations tended toward completion.
The systematization of local oversight regulations. To maintain the needs of imperial autocracy, the Song Dynasty changed the four legal forms of the Tang—"Codes, Statutes, Regulations, and Ordinances"—to "Decrees (chi), Statutes, Regulations, and Ordinances," replacing "Codes" with "Imperial Decrees." These were the laws and orders issued or delivered by the Emperor. The codification of decrees thus became the legislative activity of the Song. From the "parallel use of codes and decrees" in the early Song to the later "substitution of codes with decrees," this represented a new development in Song oversight legislation.
Song oversight legislation still prioritized the local level, with a large number of imperial edicts incorporated into the legal system, forming broad and systematic local oversight regulations. The Song issued many legal articles regarding oversight in the form of "Edictal Orders" (zhaoling), such as the Hand-written Imperial Edict on Monitored Officials Probing Public Affairs and Harboring Treachery, the Hand-written Imperial Edict on Rebuking Censorate Officials Regarding Speaking on Affairs, the Administrative Law on Official Systems (Zhizhi Ling), and the Decree on Official Systems (Zhizhi Chi). These precisely defined the status and duties of oversight officials from a legal level and made clear legal regulations on the functions, nature, tasks, procedures, and principles of oversight bodies.
The Song established "Circuits" (lu)—oversight districts distinct from administrative districts. The Bureau of Transport and the Bureau of Judicial Affairs were circuit-level bodies. Transport Commissioners and their deputies, Transport Chancellors, Judicial Commissioners, and Ever-Normal Granary Commissioners all had the power to oversee the officials of the circuit, collectively known as the "Monitoring Intendants" (jiansi). To implement effective oversight of these intendants, a "Section on Official Systems" was specially established within the Administrative Law on Official Systems, formulating various specific punitive articles for the illegal or non-compliant behavior of oversight officials. For instance, if an investigating official conducted private visits or engaged in pleasure trips and banquets, they were sentenced to one year of penal servitude; if monitoring intendants failed to report performance evaluations to one another or failed to report the actual situation, they were sentenced to two years; if they failed to conduct the required general inspections of their subordinates, they received one hundred blows with the heavy staff; if they conducted the inspection but failed to report to superiors in a timely manner, they received eighty blows; and if transport or monitoring officials engaged in trade using the wine supplied along their route, they received one hundred blows.
The law of mutual oversight among monitoring intendants further reflected the characteristics of Song oversight regulations. The Provisions of the Qingyuan Era: Section on Official Systems proposed: "When any official body lacks an investigating official and there are illegalities or unfair matters, the Transport or Monitoring Intendants shall investigate and report. Transport and Monitoring Intendants shall observe one another. Subordinate officials of the pacification, transport, and monitoring bureaus shall also be subject to mutual investigation and reporting by their respective bureaus." Legal provisions for mutual oversight among oversight officials realized the "oversight of the overseers," providing a measure of legal protection for the maintenance and strengthening of imperial power.
The increasing completion of oversight regulations. The Liao, Jin, Western Xia, and Yuan were autocratic dynasties established by ethnic minorities who entered the Central Plains. Legislatively, they followed the principle of "conforming to Han laws," essentially using the Tang and Song codes as blueprints to formulate their own, such as the Liao’s Revised Regulations of the Xianyong Era, the Jin’s System of the Huangtong Era and Meanings of the Taihe Code, and the Western Xia’s Revised New Code of the Tiansheng Era. The Yuan Dynasty made a historical breakthrough in oversight legislation; its regulations became more complete, with local regulations becoming more detailed and comprehensive, and the central Censorate having its own "Framework of the Terrace" (Taigang), which provided clear legal regulations for the functions, powers, and discipline of the central oversight body.
The Yuan compiled systematic and comprehensive codes using legal forms such as edicts, regulations (tiaoge), and precedents (duanli). The New Regulations of the Zhiyuan Era was the first written code of the Yuan, covering public regulations, prison inspections, governance of the people, and labor service, involving ten aspects including legislation, administration, civil affairs, and economics. Although thin in content, it laid the foundation for subsequent revisions. During the reign of Emperor Renzong, existing regulations and precedents regarding discipline were categorized into the Great Outline of Discipline and Morals (Fengxian Honggang). This was another important code after the New Regulations of the Zhiyuan Era, focusing directly on official governance and discipline. The Comprehensive Code of the Great Yuan (Dayuan Tongzhi) was compiled based on this, consisting of four parts: "Edicts, Regulations, Precedents, and Categories." This was a legal encyclopedia summarizing over sixty years of legal cases since the time of Khubilai Khan, encompassing administrative, civil, oversight, and criminal regulations. If the first three codes were compiled under high-level imperial instructions, the Institutes of the Yuan (Yuan Dianzhang) was compiled by local governments and officials themselves, collecting various legal forms and institutions from over fifty years into a monumental work. "The Institutes of the Yuan and the New Regulations of the Zhiyuan Era both contain oversight law. Particularly the oversight regulations in the Institutes of the Yuan not only distinguish clearly between central and local applications but also differentiate between substantive law and procedural law."
The Regulations for the Establishment of the Censorate (Sheli Xiantai Geli) issued in the Yuan was a highly influential standalone oversight law, acting as the general principles of Yuan oversight law and a model for oversight legislation at the time. This specifically regulated the operation of the central Censorate’s powers, divided into the "Framework" (Xian’gang) and "Articles" (Tiaoli). The Framework clearly stipulated the scope of authority and status of the Censorate, while the Articles listed twenty items for investigation and additional items for impeachment, totaling thirty-six articles. Thus, it was also known as the "36 Articles of the Terrace Framework," all of which were regulations for correcting the errors of the bureaucracy and punishing the illegal acts of officials. At the central level, there were also regulations like the Oversight of Officials for Probing Affairs. Concurrently, referring to the central model, local regulations such as the Regulations for Branch Censorate Probing were promulgated. The Institutes of the Yuan categorized these under a "Terrace Framework" section, further divided into the Internal Terrace (central) and the Branch Terrace (local), each recording a series of oversight regulations. Through this, the Yuan formed an oversight legal network and system combining central and local, internal and branch, making Yuan oversight legislation increasingly detailed and complete.
The completeness of supervisory laws and regulations. By the Ming and Qing dynasties, ancient Chinese supervisory legislation had entered the stage of maturity within the feudal legal system. The Xian’gang Tiaoli (Regulations of the Constitutional Outline) of the Ming and the Qinding Taigui (Imperially Sanctioned Regulations for the Censorate) of the Qing pushed the construction of specialized supervisory laws and regulations in the feudal era to their zenith.
The Ming Dynasty served as a transitional period in supervisory legislation, achieving significant accomplishments. The Hongwu Emperor (Ming Taizu) not only led the compilation of the Great Ming Code (Da Ming Lü) and the Great Announcements (Da Gao), but also personally formulated specific legislation targeting supervisory organs. During his reign, he enacted the Responsibility Regulations (Zeren Tiaoli) to strengthen supervision over all local officials; the General Regulations of the Constitutional Outline (Xian’gang Zongli), which provided overarching provisions for the duties of the Censorate (Duchayuan), its thirteen circuits, and local Surveillance Admiralties (Anchasideng), aiming to rectify the administration and enforce strict discipline; and the Regulations for Correcting and Impeaching Official Malfeasance [14] (Jiuhe Guanxie Guiding), which provided specific norms for supervisory officials to fulfill their grave responsibility of upholding court discipline by impeaching the treacherous and wicked, those with perverse motives, and officials who took bribes or bent the law, as well as providing for mutual denunciation and impeachment among supervisory officials themselves. In addition, general and specific regulations were formulated for the Six Sections of Scrutiny (Liuke Gishizhong) and the Office of Transmission (Tongzheng Shisi), such as the General Regulations and Cases of the Six Sections of Scrutiny and the Statutes of the Office of Transmission, alongside supervisory regulations like the Matters for Circuit Inspection and the Six Inspections for Provincial Governors. Subsequent generations added to these regulations, culminating in the Xian’gang Tiaoli, which integrated existing legal provisions and was included in the Ming legal compendium Collected Statutes of the Ming (Da Ming Huidian). As the original text of the Xian’gang Tiaoli has been lost, we can only understand the regulations concerning the Censorate, the Office of Transmission, and the Six Sections of Scrutiny through specific chapters in the Collected Statutes of the Ming.
The records in the Collected Statutes of the Ming regarding the Censorate’s institutional regulations are vast in scope, containing "codes within codes." The various legal provisions are divided into fifteen parts, specifically including: ten articles of the general constitutional outline; the establishment of Governors and Governors-General; the jurisdictional division of the various circuits; ten articles on correcting and impeaching official malfeasance; five articles on the reassessment of officials; procedures for filling urgent vacancies; twenty items for requesting appointments; matters for circuit inspection; six articles on checking and brushing documents; thirty-nine articles on circuit evaluations; the adjudication of criminal punishments; investigations into public affairs, with a supplement on the redress of grievances [15]; the review of prisoners and sentencing; eighteen articles on supervising rituals and correcting protocol; twenty-one general rules for Governors and Regional Inspectors; and twenty-eight specific cases for the Nanjing Censorate. The regulations for the Office of Transmission recorded in the Collected Statutes of the Ming are divided into two main parts: statutes and case precedents. The statutes, also known as general regulations, consist of five articles and eleven clauses defining the scope of authority for the Office of Transmission. The case precedents list six specific operational rules, plus six cases for the Nanjing Office of Transmission and twenty-six regulations for Central Drafters, all appended to the regulations of the Office of Transmission. The regulations for the Six Sections of Scrutiny are also divided into general regulations (thirty-six articles) and specific cases for each section. The Ming Dynasty possessed legislation at the central level, continuously improving local legislation, and specific departmental supervisory regulations and implementation details, such as the detailed rules for Censors on circuit and specific disciplinary regulations for the conduct of supervisory officials (e.g., Clauses for Observance by Supervisory Officials and the Nine Clauses of Supervisory Discipline). These achievements in Ming supervisory legislation both inherited and developed the traditions of the Han, Tang, Song, and Yuan dynasties, while providing a historical reference for Qing Dynasty supervisory legislation.
Supervisory law in the Qing Dynasty was the culmination of supervisory laws from previous dynasties. Following the Ming's Xian’gang Tiaoli, the Qing created the Qinding Taigui, the most complete supervisory code in Chinese feudal society. Its structure is divided into eight categories: first, the Injunctions (Xundian), primarily comprising the Qing emperors’ “imperial compositions, edicts, and decrees” regarding supervision to “manifest the observance of the law”; second, the Constitutional Outline (Xiang’ang), including six items: the ranking of officials (defining the organizational structure and evolution of the Censorate), memorials to the throne (collecting imperial decrees from various reigns regarding Censors' submissions), rituals, performance evaluations, joint trials, and defense/litigation; third, regulations for the Six Sections; fourth, the authority of the various circuits; fifth, ten supervisory regulations and cases for the Censors of the Five Cities; sixth, audits [16]; seventh, circuit inspections; and eighth, general rules. The Qinding Taigui contained explicit regulations on the powers and responsibilities of supervisory organs, the targets of supervision, supervisory tasks, the discipline of supervisory officials, as well as their selection, promotion, and etiquette, forming a supervisory law with the nature of a "general principle." The Administrative Regulations of the Censorate (Duchayuan Zeli) functioned similarly to "specific provisions" of supervisory law, serving as the implementation details for the Qinding Taigui; it further divided the eight categories of the Qinding Taigui into over forty sub-categories to make the regulations more operational. These two codes complemented each other, providing a systematic reflection of the entire Qing supervisory system.
Historical Lessons from Ancient Supervisory Legislation
Reflecting on ancient Chinese supervisory legislation means engaging in a better dialogue with history to excavate the essence and historical wisdom therein, thereby facilitating the high-quality development of anti-corruption national legislation and supervisory legislation in the New Era. Ancient Chinese supervisory legislation was continuously perfected, manifesting in various legal forms such as ling (orders/commands), lü (codes), shi (formulae), ge (regulations), and chi (edicts). This legislation was both embedded within integrated codes and existed as independent supervisory regulations. The evolution from rudimentary beginnings to a complete system provides rich insights and historical lessons for supervisory legislation in the New Era.
Continuously improving supervisory legislation to ensure that supervisory work is based on law, and to enhance its standardized, authoritative, and legitimate nature. As early as the Pre-Qin period, the system evolved from custom to customary law and gradually into statutory law, though supervisory legislation had not yet emerged as an independent branch. During the Qin and Han dynasties, supervisory laws and regulations developed alongside the strengthening of centralized autocratic systems. In the Sui, Tang, and Five Dynasties, ancient Chinese legal culture reached its peak, with many supervisory regulations found within the "Code, Command, Regulation, and Formula" [17] (lü, ling, ge, shi) framework of the Tang. In the Song, supervisory regulations appeared in the forms of "Edict, Command, Regulation, and Formula," with an expanded scope. A historical breakthrough occurred in the Yuan Dynasty with the implementation of the Regulations for the Establishment of the Censorate (Sheli Xiantai Geli) as a specialized supervisory law. Ming and Qing legislation became systematically complete, with the Qing’s Qinding Taigui being the final and most comprehensive supervisory code of China’s feudal society. Ancient Chinese supervisory legislation provided legal norms for the establishment and exercise of power by supervisory organs and for the duties and powers of supervisory officials, enhancing the conformity and legality of supervisory work.
In the New Era, faced with new situations and challenges in the anti-corruption struggle, we must likewise reflect on how to continuously advance national anti-corruption legislation, improve the scientific and refined level of supervisory legislation, and methodically promote the standardization and legalization of anti-corruption work. As a foundational law, the Supervision Law holds a cornerstone position in anti-corruption legislation. It must advance with the times, particularly regarding the prevention and control of "new" and "hidden" forms of corruption, through timely legislative amendments to ensure "laws to follow." We must tighten the legal system to clear the source, coordinating the "formulation," "revision," and "abolition" of laws, and promptly cleaning up or revising regulations that are unsuited to governing new and hidden corruption. It is necessary to systematically respond to new difficulties and needs arising in supervisory practice by formulating new regulations, while also refining supporting laws to make the existing Supervision Law more specific and operational, thereby strengthening and detailing its implementation.
Perfecting the system of supervisory regulations to standardize supervisory behavior and safeguard social fairness and justice. From rudimentary beginnings to systematic realization, from simplicity to complexity, and from being embedded within criminal and administrative law to becoming independent regulations and complete codes, ancient Chinese supervisory legislation was a unique and vital part of the legal system. As it became more systematic, ancient China formed a supervisory legal network covering both central and local levels—where the central Censorate and branch Censorates [18] complemented each other—making legislation more meticulous and sound. This allowed for effective oversight of supervisory targets while also regulating the supervisors themselves.
In the New Era, advancing national anti-corruption legislation requires achieving "legal exhaustiveness" [19] and systematic integration to create a synergy within the legislative system. In other words, while improving the Supervision Law, we must also promptly perfect legislation regarding anti-corruption organization and conduct, and address legislative shortcomings in anti-corruption procedures, supervision, and remedies, promoting the deepening of the supervisory system reform through a more complete legal framework. With the implementation of relevant laws and regulations, the relationship between supervision and the judiciary or auditing has changed, necessitating legal amendments to ensure the "connection and integration of laws" (fafa xianjie). On one hand, the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China should be amended to grant the National Commission of Supervision equivalent legislative authority and legal effect, allowing it to propose bills and requests for legal interpretation to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. On the other hand, the Criminal Procedure Law and the Audit Law should be amended to align with the Supervision Law. We must promote the connection and procedural integration between supervisory processes and criminal proceedings. Legislation must emphasize the consistency and tight connection between the Criminal Procedure Law [20] and the Supervision Law, while establishing mechanisms for the transfer of leads, case filing, and referral for prosecution [21] among audit, judicial, and other organs. In adjudicating cases, the Supervision Law, Civil Servant Law, Law on Administrative Punishments for Public Officials, Criminal Procedure Law, and Criminal Law should serve as the basis for integrating discipline and law enforcement, facilitating the seamless connection between supervision and criminal justice, the judiciary, and the procuratorate.
Strengthening the construction of supervisory culture. Ancient supervisory culture has deep accumulations, including political ethics such as "clean hands" (liangxiu qingfeng), the sense of justice in being "upright and unyielding," and the anti-corruption view of "driving out the muddy and bringing in the clear" (jizhuo yangqing), alongside the culture of remonstrance and diverse supervisory legislative traditions.
In the New Era, supervisory culture should be an important part of Socialist culture with Chinese characteristics and a powerful ideological weapon for deepening the reform of the national supervisory system and the anti-corruption struggle. We should further promote excellent traditional Chinese culture and strengthen supervisory culture construction and rule-of-law education to build a long-term mechanism where "officials do not dare, cannot, and do not want to be corrupt" (the "Three Non-corruptions"). This will encourage public officials to develop a moral conscience for the prudent and impartial use of power, maintain a healthy psyche, and understand what can and cannot be done, ensuring they "know awe, maintain trepidation, and keep to the bottom line" from within. We should uphold the principle of "not forgetting the origin, absorbing the external, and facing the future" [22] to promote the creative transformation and innovative development of the essence of ancient supervisory culture—especially its legislative culture. This means deeply planting a supervisory culture for the New Era with Chinese characteristics: one that takes the people-centered approach as its value orientation, the strengthening of power constraints as its oversight orientation, and the courage to offer honest advice and the pursuit of loyalty, integrity, and responsibility as its duty orientation. This culture should integrate values, norms of conduct, legal thinking, legal principles, and the spirit of the rule of law, thereby better promoting the fortification of ideological defenses, the maintenance of the bottom line of integrity, and the demarcation of legal "red lines," creating a political ecosystem that respects integrity and rejects corruption, ensuring power operates within the track of the rule of law.