关于印发《保险机构债券投资信用评级指引（试行）》的通知
中国保险监督管理委员会
关于印发《保险机构债券投资信用评级指引（试行）》的通知
各保险公司，各保险资产管理公司：
为加强债券投资信用风险管理，建立保险机构内部信用评级系统，规范信用评级程序和方法，我会制定了《保险机构债券投资信用评级指引（试行）》（以下简称指引）。现印发给你们，并将有关要求通知如下：
一、各公司应高度重视信用风险管理，按照《指引》有关要求，建立和完善内部信用评级制度。
二、各公司应严格执行信用评级制度，规范操作流程，保监会将对各保险机构信用评级系统的建设和执行情况进行检查。
三、各公司应加强信用风险研究，通过信用评级，进行持续跟踪分析评估，切实防范信用风险。
请认真遵照执行。
附件：保险机构债券投资信用评级指引（试行）
二○○七年一月八日
保险机构债券投资信用评级指引（试行）
第一章 总则
第一条 为加强债券投资信用风险管理,建立保险机构内部信用评级系统（以下简称信用评级系统），规范评级程序和方法，根据有关法律法规，制定本指引。
第二条 保险机构投资各类债券，应当进行内部信用评级（以下简称信用评级）。国债、中央银行票据以及其他经中国保监会认可的债券可免予信用评级。
第三条 信用评级包括发债主体信用评级和债券信用评级。
第四条 保险机构应当根据公司发展战略，设立专门部门或岗位，配备专业管理人员，借鉴外部信用评级机构的制度和程序，建立信用评估模型，健全信用评级系统。
第五条 中国保监会根据保险机构信用评级系统建设和运作情况，实施分类监管。
第二章 制度和流程
第六条 信用评级应当遵循以下原则：
（一）真实一致原则。评级人员应当核实评级数据和资料的真实性，确保基础数据、指标口径、评级方法、评定标准的一致性；
（二）独立客观原则。评级人员应当独立、客观、公正，不受发债主体及其他外部因素的不良影响；
（三）审慎稳健原则。评级人员应当充分考虑宏观经济、特定行业和发债主体经营管理可能存在的波动，全面审慎评估发债主体经营和财务状况、债券风险收益状况以及其他风险。
第一节 管理制度
第七条 保险机构应当建立健全信用评级管理制度，及时报中国保监会备案。信用评级管理制度主要包括：
（一）信用评级议事规则和程序规定；
（二）信用评级方法细则；
（三）信用评级报告准则；
（四）评级人员操作规范；
（五）尽职调查制度；
（六）跟踪评级和复评制度；
（七）防火墙制度等避免利益冲突的制度；
（八）其他制度。
第八条 信用评级部门应当至少由两名以上专业人员组成。信用评级专业人员应当具备金融知识和财务分析能力，主管人员应当具有相关工作经验。
第九条 信用评级部门或岗位应当明确工作职责，避免业务与其他部门交叉。信用评级人员不得同时从事投资交易。
第十条 信用等级评定应当采用国际国内通用的评级定义和符号体系，原则上分为投资级、投机级、违约级三个等级，每一等级分设若干档。
第十一条 信用评级部门或岗位应当规范管理和使用评级信息，逐步完善评级信息数据库，持续积累违约事件、违约率、违约回收率、信用稳定性等信息和数据，并作为经营管理资源长期保存。
第十二条 信用评级部门或岗位应当建立档案管理制度，分类整理相关原始资料、评级材料、信用评级报告等。
第二节 基本流程
第十三条 信用评级基本流程，包括信息收集、调研访谈、初步评定、提交报告、跟踪评级等内容。
第十四条 保险机构应当充分利用媒体信息和其他公开资料，广泛积累各类数据，将其作为信用评级的基础信息。
第十五条 保险机构应当主动与发债主体交流，了解其业务经营、财务计划、管理政策和其他影响信用评级的情况。必要时可根据需要，通过实地考察获取有关信息。
第十六条 信用评级人员应当严格审查所获信息，确保信息真实、准确。信息资料不完整或存在虚假陈述的，保险机构应当不予评级。
第十七条 信用评级人员应当运用科学合理的评级方法，分析研究评级对象，撰写信用评级报告，初步评定信用等级，并按规定程序审定后，形成信用评级结果，作为债券投资和风险管理的重要依据。
第十八条 信用评级报告应当逐级上报，及时提交相关部门使用。风险管理部门应当监督信用评级结果使用情况。
第十九条 保险机构应当及时跟踪债券存续期内评级变化。跟踪评级每年至少二次，应当适当提高信用级别较低的发债主体的跟踪评级频率。
发债主体出现资金链中断问题，需要滚动、重复发行债券，或者发债主体、担保人、担保物状况发生重大变化，保险机构应当及时重新评定发债主体和债券信用等级。
第二十条 保险机构应当加强债券市场研究，分析信用等级与债券价格等关联因素，发现异常情况时，及时向监管机构报告。
第三章 发债主体评级方法
第二十一条 保险机构应当建立科学指标体系，规范评级程序和方法，详尽分析影响发债主体信用评级的风险因素，评定其偿债能力和偿债意愿，确定其信用等级。
第二十二条 偿债能力评估包括个体评估和支持评估。
个体评估主要分析发债主体的外部环境、运营因素、内部风险管理和财务实力。
支持评估主要分析发债主体在宏观经济和股东单位中的地位、股东结构和政府支持程度，评估受评对象需要资金时，获得外部支持的能力。
发债主体法人机构设在其他国家或地区的，应当分析其所在国家或地区的主权风险。
第二十三条 发债主体偿债意愿评估，应当重点考察下列因素：
（一）信用记录，主要考察发债主体历史违约记录；
（二）公司治理，主要考察股东背景和构成，股东大会、董事会、监事会设立和履职情况、管理决策和执行情况、关联交易和履职监督情况、激励和约束机制等；
（三）发债主体人员素质及管理状况，主要考察法人代表素质、员工素质及管理水平等;
（四）其他因素。
第二十四条 保险机构应当考察发债主体的财务管理政策，分析其整体发展目标和资金需求，结合历史记录和业务发展情况，评估其合理性。
第二十五条 保险机构应当根据不同行业特点，建立一般财务状况评估指标体系和特殊财务指标体系。
第二十六条 保险机构应当按照可比原则，按照不同行业财务特征和风险状况，建立并调整相关行业财务评估基准，准确反映发债主体的财务状况。
第二十七条 发债主体为一般工商企业的，应当重点考察其经营风险和财务风险。发债主体为商业银行的，应当重点考察影响其信用的外部环境、运营因素、内部管理风险和财务实力等。（一般工商企业和商业银行主要评估方法参见附录）
第四章 债券信用评级方法
第二十八条 保险机构应当根据发债主体信用状况，结合债券特点和相关合同，考察债务人偿还债务的信用程度，确定其信用等级。
第二十九条 债券和相关合同评估，应当考察发债主体募集资金投向、项目现金流和综合现金流、到期偿付能力、偿付及时性等，重点关注与债券资金流向和收益相关的因素。
第三十条 保险机构确定债券信用等级，应当重点考虑债券清偿顺序。
（一）担保债券：含有抵押、质押、信用保证等增信条件，本金和利息清偿顺序先于普通债券，其信用等级可能高于发债主体信用等级。
（二）普通债券：不含任何增信条件，本金和利息清偿顺序优于次级债券和混合资本，其信用等级一般等同于发债主体信用等级。
（三）次级债券：本金和利息清偿顺序列于公司普通债务之后、优于混合资本和股权资本，其信用等级一般低于发债主体信用等级。
（四）混合资本债券：符合一定条件时，本金和利息可以延期支付，清偿顺序列于次级债券之后，优于股权资本，其信用等级一般低于发债主体信用等级，且低于次级债券信用等级。
第三十一条 第三方机构为发债主体提供全部或部分债务担保的，该债券的信用等级最高可以等同于保证方信用等级。
第三十二条 债券含有抵押、质押、信用保证等增信条件的，应当评估抵押物和质押物的市场价值、流动性、抵押和质押比例，评估担保人的信用状况、承诺条件以及偿付及时性。
第三十三条 保险机构应当根据审慎原则，对增信作用设置一定限制，控制增信债券信用等级上调级别。
第三十四条 保险机构投资企业债券和可转换公司债券，应当根据发债主体信用等级，重点关注特定债券有无担保、担保的法律效力、担保条件、不可撤销性以及担保人财务实力等。
第三十五条 保险机构投资短期融资券，应当根据发债主体信用等级，重点分析其发行期内行业走势，现金流、资产流动性对本期债券的影响，以及发债主体出现危机时，采取融资手段偿付债务的意愿、方式和能力。
（一）发行期内短期融资券走势分析，着重考察行业近期变化、发债主体近期产品结构调整、新项目投产、在建项目建设等因素，分析发债主体新近发生的股权变动、组织构架、管理模式、高管人员、资产并购和出售等变化，对经营的影响等。
（二）现金流分析，着重考察发债主体未来1至2年现金流预测的依据；根据未来两年收入、成本变化及投融资计划，预测未来1至2年的现金流；分析对不利经济环境下，发债主体未来1至2年经济活动现金流的敏感性等。
（三）资产流动性分析，着重考察发债主体资产结构、流动资产机构、资产周转情况以及应收款项、存货等资产的变现能力等。
第五章 信用评级报告
第三十六条 评级人员撰写信用评级报告，应当包括评级分析和评级结论。
第三十七条 评级分析应当简要说明本次评级的评估过程和影响因素。主要包括发债主体基本情况、所处行业、治理结构、业务分析、资本实力、财务状况、风险因素、募集资金投向、偿债保障能力、抗御风险能力、发债主体外部信用增级措施、债券合同条款、第三方潜在支持程度、债券收益率或风险溢价等对信用等级影响。
第三十八条 评级结论应当写明信用级别释义、评级结论的主要依据、发债主体或债券的信用等级等，并简要说明评级对象的风险程度。
第三十九条 信用跟踪评级报告应当与前次评级报告保持连贯，重点说明以下内容：
（一）据以确定发债主体及债券信用等级的有关依据的主要变化情况，以及对评估对象信用状况的影响；
（二）重新确定发债主体和债券的信用等级。
第四十条 信用评级、跟踪评级报告应当注明报告日期。
第六章 附则
第四十一条 保险机构应当参照本指引，制定其他发债主体和债权类投资工具的信用评级制度、程序和方法，并报中国保监会备案。
第四十二条 本指引由中国保监会负责解释，自发布之日起实施。
附录：
一般工商企业和商业银行主要评级方法
一般工商企业主要评级方法
一、一般工商企业个体评估要素，主要包括经营风险和财务风险。
（一）经营风险主要考察宏观环境、行业状况、周边经济环境、管理层素质，受评对象经营情况。宏观环境包括经济环境、产业政策、法律制度等。行业状况包括行业特征、竞争状况、生命周期等。管理层素质包括历史业绩、经营战略、财务政策、经营效率、竞争地位等。
（二）财务风险主要考察财务报告质量、盈利能力、偿债能力、资本结构、财务弹性。财务报告质量包括会计政策、数据真实性、信息披露、注册会计师意见等。
二、一般工商企业基本财务指标，主要包括盈利能力、运营效率、资本结构、现金流状况、流动性、付息水平等。
（一）盈利能力指标主要包括：
1、主营业务利润率 = 主营业务利润/主营业务收入
2、销售净利率 = 净利润/主营业务收入
3、净资产收益率 = 净利润/平均净资产
4、资产收益率 = 净利润/平均总资产，或者资产收益率 =（利润总额+利息支出）/平均总资产
5、资本回报率 = （利润总额+利息支出）/平均总资本。其中，资本 = 少数股东权益+所有者权益+短期借款+一年内到期的长期负债+长期借款+应付债券。
（二）运营效率指标主要包括：
1、总资产周转率 = 主营业务收入/平均总资产
2、固定资产周转率 = 主营业务收入/平均固定资产
3、应收账款周转率 = 主营业务收入/平均应收账款
4、存货周转率 = 主营业务成本/平均存货
（三）资本结构指标主要包括：
1、资产负债率 = 负债总额/总资产
2、总付息债务 /资本。其中：总付息债务=短期付息债务+长期付息债务；短期付息债务=短期借款+一年内到期的长期负债；长期付息债务=长期借款+应付债券。
3、长期付息债务/总付息债务
4、流动资产/资产
5、固定资产/资产
（四）现金流指标主要包括：
1、现金负债总额比 = 经营性现金流量净额/负债总额
2、现金流动负债比 = 经营性现金流量净额/流动负债
3、经营性现金流量净额/总付息债务
4、经营性现金流量净额/短期付息债务
5、经营性现金流量净额/购建固定资产等长期资产所支付的现金
（五）流动性指标主要包括：
1、流动比率 = 流动资产/流动负债
2、速动比率 = （流动资产- 存货等）/流动负债
3、货币资金/短期付息债务
（六）付息能力指标主要包括：
1、息税前利润利息倍数 = （利润总额+利息支出）/利息支出
2、EBITDA利息倍数=（利润总额+利息支出+折旧+摊销）/利息支出
3、现金利息倍数 = 经营性现金流量净额/利息支出
三、工商企业盈利能力评估，应当分析发债主体收入、利润的来源和构成，考察各类资产减值准备计提情况，分析其对未来盈利的影响。
四、盈利能力指标评估，应当剔除非经常性损益项目，确保盈利指标真正体现发债主体核心盈利能力。
五、工商企业资本结构评估，应当分析负债水平与结构，负债结构与资产结构匹配状况，考察存货和应收账款规模以及对发债主体营运资金的影响，分析或有负债情况，综合评价发行人的债务管理能力。
商业银行主要评级方法
一、商业银行个体评估要素，主要包括影响银行信用质量的外部环境、运营因素、内部管理风险和财务实力等。
（一）银行外部环境评估，主要考察经济环境、监管环境和行业环境，掌握银行业和受评银行的利润波动与风险状况。经济环境包括经济周期、产业政策、地区经济状况等。监管环境包括货币政策、利率政策、外汇政策、监管政策等。行业环境包括行业特征、竞争环境等。
（二）银行运营因素评估，主要考察公司治理、管理战略、竞争地位等，评估受评银行内部运营状况及其信用质量。公司治理包括基本结构、决策机制、执行机制、监督机制、激励约束机制等。管理战略包括管理层素质、风险偏好等。
（三）银行管理风险评估，主要考察受评银行信用风险、市场风险、流动性风险、经营决策风险、操作风险等管理能力，评估受评银行安全性等。
（四）银行财务实力评估，主要考察受评银行盈利能力、资产质量、资产流动性及资本充足性等。
二、商业银行基本财务指标，主要包括资产和存贷款规模、盈利能力、流动性、资产质量、资本充足性等。
（一）盈利能力指标主要包括：
1、净资产收益率 = 净利润/平均净资产
2、拨备前资产收益率 = 拨备前净营业利润/平均总资产
3、资产收益率 = 净利润/平均总资产
4、资产费用率 = 营业费用/平均总资产。其中，拨备前净营业利润=营业收入-营业支出-营业费用+投资净收益-营业税金及附加。
（二）流动性指标主要包括：
1、流动比率= 流动资产/流动负债
2、超额准备金率 = （在中国人民银行超额备付金存款+库存现金）/各项存款余额
3、存贷款比例 = 各项贷款余额（不含贴现）/各项存款余额
4、中长期贷款比率 = 中长期贷款余额/中长期存款余额
5、净拆借资金比率=（拆入资金余额-拆出资金余额）/各项存款余额
6、关联方贷款比率=全部关联方贷款余额/（资本-扣除项）
（三）资产质量指标主要包括：
1、不良贷款率 =（次级类贷款+可疑类贷款+损失类贷款）/贷款余额
2、拨备覆盖率 =（一般准备+专项准备+特种准备）/（次级类贷款+可疑类贷款+损失类贷款）
3、最大单一客户贷款比例=最大一家客户贷款余额/（资本-扣除项）
4、最大十家客户贷款比例=最大十家客户贷款余额/（资本-扣除项）
5、非信贷资产损失率=非信贷资产损失额/非信贷资产余额
（四）资本充足性指标主要包括：
1、资本充足率 = （资本-扣除项）/（风险加权资产+12.5倍的市场风险资本）
2、核心资本充足率 = （核心资本-核心资本扣除项）/（风险加权资产+12.5倍的市场风险资本）
3、资本资产比例 = 净资产/总资产
三、商业银行盈利能力评估，应当分析银行成本费用、收入、利润构成及来源，考察银行提取贷款损失准备和非信贷资产损失准备情况，以及对银行盈利状况的影响。
四、商业银行流动性评估，应当分析银行资金来源构成、稳定性和资产负债匹配程度，考察银行在流动性不足时，从外部获取资金的能力以及监管政策。
五、商业银行资产质量评估，应当分析贷款行业、地区分布和集中风险，研究不良贷款规模、不良贷款率变动趋势，考察银行信贷风险管理程序和有效性、非信贷资产风险管理制度和执行情况。
六、银行资本充足性评估，应当分析银行资本构成的稳定性、流动性、市场价值、资产质量以及对资本的影响，考察银行内部和外部增加资本的能力、银行资本管理政策和利润分配政策的稳健性。
Stratic Advice on Intellectual Property Investment in Asia
苏冉
IssueⅠ: Legal framework of protection on software copyright in P.R.C and Singapore
A) P.R.C
In conjunction with China’s astonishing economic growth over the past two decades, especially after the entrance to WTO, China has steadily improved its legal framework on Software Copyright by checking and clearing large-scale regulations both in domestic and international activities.
Frankly speaking, China joined in three vital international treaties relate to copyright: the Berne Convention , TRIPs and Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, China and US signed MOU especially for software in January 1992. All these Conventions are regarded as a milestone to reflect China’s dramatic promotion and strong determination to build a satisfactory environment for foreign software investors.
Similarly to US, P.R.C has chosen to protect software under copyright law rather than trademark, patent, or contract law. One year after Copyright Law Amendment in 2001, Chinese Council corrected its software-specific “Computer Software Protection Rules” , to deal with new problems prevailing in software protection nowadays. Under the Rule, software is defined as two particular types: computer program and their relevant documentation. Furthermore, since MOU came into force, computer software is protected as a literary work. Third, according to the conditional nation treatment here, foreigners are required to comply with “connecting factor”, to sum up, either first publication or nationality/residence of the author in China or in any of these countries ,between the work and China or a country who is a member of the WTO, or the Berne Convention. So, despite your software products first being published in US, you can still enjoy the original copyright and the legal protection on in China.
Except from the above rules, other laws also have supportive stipulation on the protection of software copyrights as follows:
(a)The General Principle of Civil Law, the country’s current basic civil law, has authorized the author’s copyright in general;
(b)The Criminal Code has a section of articles referring to piracy offences, with “Dual Punishment Principle” in front of copyright encroachment;
(c)The newly amended Foreign Trade Law (adopted in Feb).
B) Singapore
The general legal framework of software copyright protection in Singapore is almost the same as P.R.C, but with some characteristics of its own. Actually, different from P.R.C based on Civil law background, laws and litigations in Singapore are principally modeled on the English system under Common law system till nowadays. Pursuant to certain legal revolutions, modern copyright legislation contains the same international conventions as P.R.C: the Berne Conventions, Universal Copyright Convention, and TRIPs. But, Singapore signed ASEAN Framework on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the WIPO Copyright Treaty as a member of ASEAN. Turning to its domestic laws, the latest Copyright Act 1999(revised edition) is the principle one, with some other relevant regulations for enforcement. And it also definites software program into literary work under protection. In addition, Singapore owes large resources of case laws so as to make its legal conditions more particular than that in P.R.C.
The amended Act is first purposed to address issues arising from the use of copyright materials in a digital environment, especially provide legal certainty for the use of copyright in cyberspace. For instance, the extension of concept “reproduction” .Second, the Act plays another role in enhancing performer’s rights, offering two new defenses to allegations of copyright infringement. Therefore, merely surfing the Web doesn’t constitute software copyright infringement, if it’s necessary to browse. Even , Singapore passed the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 to give statutory protection of Network Service Providers. At these points, Singapore seemingly forwards a step further than P.R.C, declining its attention on encouraging the growth of a knowledge-based economy and promoting E-commerce and creative innovations. Last but the most significant point, Singapore and the United State signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) on May 6th 2003, and entered it into force from January 1st 2004. Virtually, this is the first FTA between US and an Asia country .So it’s doubtlessly the greatest advantage for Singapore to attract US investors, apart from other Asian countries. They would encourage the entrepreneurship, investment, job creation and growth in our own technology, science and creative industries as well as set the stage for Singapore’s emergence as a global IP hub.
Issue Ⅱ: Implementation on Software Copyright Law in P.R.C and Singapore
Sufficient and effective enforcement is more useful and practical than recorded documents, with no exception to P.R.C and Singapore.
(ⅰ)Role of Government
A)P.R.C
Learned from Annual Report on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in China during the past 5 years by the head officer Jingchuan Wang in TableⅠ , you can see copyright administration at various levels make remarkable progress in encouraging innovation, promoting industrial development, regulating market order, and even improving the opening-up policy.
As a matter of fact, the People’s Courts, the People’s Prosecution Department, National Copyright Administration Centre and Public Security compose the backbone of the implementation of copyright law in China with civil remedies, criminal sensations and administrative punishments, such as fine. And border enforcement assistance to copyright owners by the Customs and Excise Department is also available.
TableⅠ:
The Administration on Software Copyright In P.R.C
Year Registration Prosecute Cases Resolved Cases Resolved Cases Rate Seized Pirates(M) Top 1 Region of Piracy
1999 1,041 1,616 1,515 93.75% 20.14 Shenzhen
2000 3,300 2,457 1,980 95.30% 32.60 Guangdong
2001 4,620 2,683 2,327 97.52% 61.75 Guangdong
2002 4,860 2,740 2,604 99.02% 67.90 Guangdong
2003 5,020 6,120 5,793 97.64% 73.28 Beijing
Statistics from NCAC (National Copyright Administration Centre
Fortunately, China has begun to regard software as an industry with strategic significance while formulating effective policies in areas including anti-piracy and anti-monopoly. To adapt to the legal framework, China has shifted its attention upon educating software users and strengthening the law. “Government departments are being asked to show a good example in using copyrighted software only and make software budget each year”. For example, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong buy over 3,000 software products every year through public bidding. What’s more, the National Software Government Procurement Regulation will probably act in the near future. Eventually, Chinese government is trying to treat all software companies equal in P.R.C, no matter domestic or foreign countries.
Nevertheless, given China’s vast geography and population, it would be an awesome task for the central government to manage pirating activities throughout the entire country. On the other hand, due to lack of resources, the lack of judicial expertise, the unpredictability of trial outcomes, and large costs, litigation in Chinese courts remains a risky and expensive response to Chinese copyright violations. Another administrative difficulty arises from the increasing decentralization of the Chinese government. Much of China's copyright enforcement takes place at the provincial and local levels; the national government lacks the resources and control to effectively monitor nationwide pirating activity and to impose national enforcement policies.
B) Singapore
Switching to Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is its senior administration department, and it leads Singapore to the success in copyright infrastructure. Singapore has announced a number of meaningful standards through requirements for tough penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including, in civil cases, procedures for seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit products, and a requirement to provide for statutory and actual damages to remedy such practices. There has been a rule in Singapore that government could only allowed to use copyrighted software since 1996. In order to obtain efficiency, Singapore maintain civil remedies and criminal penalties for circumvention of technology protection measures, and it also has in place implementation allowing for border seizures of infringing articles by customs officials. For example, the copyright infringement is punished with a maximum fine of S$100,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. So, in comparison to P.R.C, the least time for imprisonment is shorter .But due to the judge’s free power under common law system, the court is increasingly harsh in their sentencing in respect of infringement of copyright. In other words, criminal obligation will become heavier with more limitation in Singapore.
In the contrast with Chinese administrative punishments, Singapore has a large scope of interlocutory remedies to fill in the blank area between civil remedies and criminal sensations, and they are three main types:
(a) the interlocutory injunction---It is an injunction obtained before the trail often with the main objective of maintaining the Stats quo between the parties pending the outcome of the trail. The interlocutory injunction may be in a mandatory or prohibitory form.
(b) the Anton Piller Order---It’s developed from Anton Piller KG v.Mfg Processes Ltd as a safeguard system of evidence for avoiding the defendant to destroy and hide the evidence of copyright infringement, if the plaintiff shows an extremely strong prima facie that his right are being interfered with, or the damage, potential or actual are very serious to the plaintiff, or even there must be clear evidence to proof the defendants faults.
(c) the Norwich Pharmacal Order.---The further expansion of Anton Piller Order to raise over the privilege against self-incrimination from Rank Film Distributors Ltd v. Video Information Centre Virtually . However, case law in Singapore has now established that where the privilege against self-incrimination exists, an undertaking from the plaintiff/ applicant not to use the information obtained in criminal proceedings is not an adequate safeguard for the defendant’s privilege against self-crimination. Singapore courts have also held that they don’t have the power to order that the information be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Relying on common law foundation, people in Singapore prefer to a lawsuit rather than mediation while more mediation in P.R.C, once in the face of a dispute. Consequently, it would like to be more time and energy consuming somehow, for it costs at least one year of a civil procedure in the High Court of Singapore.
Last but not least, along with legsilation changes, Singapore Administration departments are also mounting a public campaign targeting both consumers and businesses to increase their awareness on the benefits and other implications of the new laws. There’s broad-based public awareness initiatives like the HIP Alliance’s year-long anti-piracy campaign? “The Real thing is the Right thing”, and brain Wave, Singapore’s first reality television show on IP.
(ⅱ)Role of Anti- Piracy Organizations
Both P.R.C and Singapore joined in Business Software Alliance (BSA) ,and WIPO several years ago and established domestic anti-piracy alliances at their own respective locality. The alliances played an active part in combating piracy and protecting the interests of right holders. They always declare laws, promulgate routine reports of current protection on TV, newspapers, and Website and show different points between pirate and authorized products. In the contrast with P.R.C, Singapore has other special disputes resolution organs under its common law system, including the small claims tribunals, E-commerce disputes centre. What’s more, Singapore collaborates with other ASAEN countries to harmonize IP rights with international and regional organizations such as the Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), the European Union, the French National Office of Industrial Property, and IP Australia.
(ⅲ)Introduction of Judgments in Precedent Cases
A) P.R.C
In a landmark verdict on April 16, 1996 against Beijing JuRen Computer, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court delivered judgment in favor of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) upholding the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and ordering the defendant to (a) publicly apologize to the plaintiff; (b) pay over RMB600,000 (US$70,000) in damages, including court costs and accounting costs; (c) pay additional fines directly to the court. The court also ordered the defendant to undertake not to infringe intellectual property rights in the future, and the law enforcement officials to confiscate all computers and software seized during the raid on the defendant's premises. In another case, the same court rendered a judgment against Beijing Giant Computer Co. for software copyright infringement. These were the first cases decided in favor of a US plaintiff in a Chinese court.