Surrounding government procurement, there is never a shortage of news. This time, the issues exposed by the media are: the Public Security Department of Heilongjiang Province's budget for one laptop exceeding 40,000 yuan (approximately $6,000 USD), Suzhou Traffic Police Brigade's intention to purchase iPhone 4 as police communication devices (the procurement has now been suspended), and Liaoning Fushun Municipal Finance Bureau Office's procurement of Apple's iTouch 4 as a USB drive, among others. In short, some institutions' government procurement equipment is showing an increasingly expensive, even luxurious tendency.
In fact, the actions of these government agencies are akin to the BMW luxury car being included in the government procurement list in 2009, which was quite a popular topic at the time. Some government departments ignore budget constraints and public sentiment, behaving as if they don't consider taxpayers' money valuable. There is a popular saying among the public: "Only buy the expensive, not the right one," vividly pointing out the chaos in government procurement behavior.
Government procurement essentially involves the expenditure of public funds, which are accumulated from taxpayers' tax payments. Currently, regulations surrounding tax collection are relatively strict, but the expenditure, management, and supervision of tax funds are still quite weak. According to statistics, the scale of national government procurement in 2009 was 741.32 billion yuan, a considerable amount. The loopholes within this amount are indeed worrying.
The problems in government procurement can be divided into two categories: inappropriate purchases and corruption. The consequences of both types of problems could be severe, but their nature differs, with the latter being far more heinous. Therefore, when paying attention to the chaos in current government procurement behavior, it is necessary to focus on the first type of problem while giving greater importance to corruption in the second category.
The trend toward luxury in government procurement is a typical example of inappropriate purchasing. The procurement behavior of units like the Public Security Department of Heilongjiang Province basically deviates from functional needs, focusing more on fashionability and extravagant consumption. Even if there are no underhanded dealings in such behavior, it clearly does not align with the expectations of the general public or the principles of effective and reasonable use of public funds. Last year, the inclusion of BMW in the government procurement list eventually faded away quietly due to strong public opinion supervision against improper consumption.
Another scenario of inappropriate purchasing in government procurement occurs in areas such as construction projects, where some places consistently favor foreign and expensive options while ignoring domestic equipment. While it is true that in certain fields, some domestic products may lag behind foreign ones in terms of technological advancement, it cannot be denied that in some cases, those in charge of government procurement do not consider cost and do not start from reasonable needs. They not only neglect domestic products but also unreasonably and illegally impose restrictions.
As for the corruption phenomenon in government procurement, people are already familiar with it. Reviewing various past government procurement behaviors, absurd incidents are countless—some reports claim that bulk purchases in government procurement are actually more expensive than retail prices. Some government procurements appear open, fair, and just, but due to the lack of effective supervision, the bottom line is leaked in advance to insiders, and colluding for "bid-rigging" operations are no longer secrets. In many places, a few enterprises have long monopolized government procurement.
It can be observed that sometimes suppliers bribe purchasers, procurement agents, and members of the bid evaluation committee to gain supply privileges or contracts. Other times, government procurement officials use their purchasing power to extort bribes from suppliers or use their administrative power to set obstacles, controlling the entire process of government procurement, forcing suppliers to bribe them.
Overall, some units avoid government procurement, operate execution steps irregularly, have imperfect operating mechanisms, inadequate supervision and punishment, and prominent issues such as low efficiency and high prices in some government procurement cases. Violations of law and discipline, embezzlement, and corruption occur from time to time, causing serious losses and waste of fiscal funds. Such losses and waste have long become a public fund leakage black hole that urgently needs to be fixed.
Clearly, standardizing government procurement behavior involves various aspects, and without careful attention, it is easy to deviate from principles and spirit during actual operations. Standardizing government procurement behavior should focus on improving the efficiency of fiscal fund usage and preventing commercial bribery and other corrupt behaviors from the source. This means that under the constraints of the "Government Procurement Law," greater emphasis should be placed on the transparency of bidding processes in procurement, the role of auditing, and the strength of various supervisory bodies.
An urgent matter at present is to comprehensively deepen the reform of the government procurement system. In terms of government procurement management, it is necessary to further strengthen and achieve legal procurement; adhere to the separation of management and procurement, further improve regulatory and operational mechanisms; strengthen budget constraints, avoid inefficient and low-quality events in government procurement from recurring, and continuously increase the intensity of government information disclosure. At the same time, the "Government Procurement Law" cannot be treated as a mere formality. It is essential to adhere to legal penalties, further严肃法律制度约束.