During last month's session of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a bill submitted by a member aroused heated discussion among members and the public.

Zhang Yin, president of Hong Kong-listed Nine Dragons Paper Holdings, one of the largest paper-making companies in the world, proposed an amendment to the Labor Contract Law which took effect on January 1 this year.

Zhang suggested that labor-intensive companies should be exempted from signing permanent contracts with employees who have worked for a company for more than 10 years, as required by the new law.

She said the law had raised costs and the risks of businesses.

Those opposing her said CPPCC members should not speak only for their self-interests, but also for the people.

They believed Zhang had raised the proposal as an owner of a labor-intensive company wishing to reduce costs.

Zhang's supporters, however, said her opinion was shared by most business people.

There was also opinions expressed that CPPCC members should not confuse the granting of contracts with the iron-bowl system of the old planned economy.

Now that the debate has somewhat cooled, it is time to take another look at the issue.

First, it is clear that Zhang, as a successful businesswoman and a political advisor, had thoroughly studied the new law before submitting her proposal.

The opinion that Zhang had viewed the contracts as part of the old "iron-bowl" system is wrong.

Several members openly agreed with Zhang's proposal because they had experienced the impact of the new law, and therefore it was not just a case of supporting one of their own.

Some professionals said that CPPCC members should be encouraged to express their opinions. This is true. Such expressions are much more constructive, both to society and to the rule of law, than trying to achieve goals through less transparent means.

As political advisors, Zhang and her counterparts are entitled to call for an amendment to the law. How will the legislature respond to Zhang's proposal? Will it reject it or consider it again when the time is right?

Before there is an answer, we should also review our process of making laws

Stressing transparency and democracy, the lawmakers released the draft of the Labor Contract Law for public discussion in 2006. The public responded with almost 200,000 submissions which were helpful.

Some clauses were revised, and the final version of the law was approved in June last year.

When Zhang and other political advisors proposed an amendment only six months after the law was approved, people cannot help but ask whether they had expressed their opinions during public discussion of the draft.

If the political advisors had done so, but were not listened to, it is obviously necessary for the legislature to state its reasons why their opinions were not entertained.

To further explore the issue, it is also necessary to ask whether the opinions of other interest groups were considered. Are they satisfied with the law? Did they have any way to convey their judgment of the law to the legislators effectively?

If these questions cannot be answered, it is difficult to say whether our lawmaking mechanism is really democratic and transparent.

As the country endeavors to promote democracy, every detail in the political system matters. All parties should be given equal opportunity to voice their opinions while respecting the established rules.

Substantial efforts must be made to improve the current situation to ensure that political advisors like Zhang can speak for her peers and raise proposals that must be answered by the legislators. Other interest groups should also be accorded the same opportunity.

The author is a professor with Zhongnan University of Economics and Law

Editor: Carolyn