Once, the "three public expenses" had experienced an era of "state secrets", and citizens had no way of knowing the accounts, let alone the details of the accounts. Under the relentless social public opinion, the government gradually disclosed the "three public consumption", and the Ministry of Science and Technology took the lead, which is undoubtedly worthy of praise. However, some departments have only reluctantly "submitted". Under this kind of "half-covered" "submission", we can't help but suspect whether the three public expenditures of relevant departments are disclosed for the sake of disclosure. If the "three public consumption" is disclosed only to ease public opinion pressure, then such disclosure doesn't mean much. The "three publics" represented by the "three public consumption" completely violates the "three publics" represented by "openness, fairness, and justice". In this sense, this "three publics" still has a long way to go to reach the other "three publics".
The two sessions are about to be convened. In the online survey of twenty hot issues of the two sessions on People's Network, the attention and click rate of "three public disclosures" ranked in the top three. Netizens still criticize last year's "three public consumption". It is worth noting that the Central Committee of the Jiusan Society drafted a proposal, suggesting that public-funded feasting, private use of official cars, and public-funded tourism, etc., as "three public wastage" should be included in the scope of regulation under the "Criminal Law". The drafting of this proposal elevates the "three public consumption" from the level of public opinion supervision to the level of legal regulation, which is undoubtedly worthy of praise; however, if you notice the "three public expenses included in performance evaluation" proposed later by the Jiusan Society, then two concepts appear here: one is "three public wastage", and the other is "three public expenses". Then, the question arises, how to distinguish between "three public wastage" and "three public expenses"?
From the founding of New China to now, there have been hundreds of relevant bans issued regarding public-funded feasting. However, hundreds of red-headed documents cannot withstand the mouth and hand of officials who frequently issue documents while indulging in public-funded feasting. Red-headed documents are nothing more than empty words with almost zero binding force. The reason is not due to the complexity of the officialdom like intrigue and betrayal. The formulators, implementers, and supervisors of the red-headed documents are themselves the main forces of "three public consumption". Similarly, those who have the authority to engage in "three public wastage" and use "three public expenses" are all officials of a certain rank. Who dares to thoroughly investigate? Unless China's judiciary is already independent, otherwise, how can an un-independent judiciary act freely? Furthermore, even if our Chinese judiciary becomes independent, what is the standard for conviction? What is the reasonable scale of "three public expenses"? And what is the warning line for "three public wastage"?
Even if reasonable standards for "three public expenses" and "three public wastage" are set, the main force of "three public" consumption itself is the power organ. Under the influence of unwritten rules, making fake accounts is as common as daily meals. How can fake accounts be prevented? These problems cannot even stand on paper, let alone being curbed in implementation. Last year, Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao published an article saying that it is quite difficult to uncover the veil of China's "three public expenses". There are at least two reasons: one is that some officials have deeply entrenched ideas of official-centered thinking and systems; the second is that "three public spending" indeed has many unsavory "tricks" as outsiders have suspected. The second reason also makes "three public wastage" fall into the category of "three public expenses". Moreover, criminalizing "three public wastage" is merely post-event punishment, which can only be terminated after the scandal breaks out. What about officials who are currently engaging in "three public wastage"? The effect of this punitive measure remains limited.
Regarding reforms in the "three public" domain, they essentially belong to self-reform within the privileged class. Such internal reforms inevitably face various pressures and obstructions. However, making "three public wastage" a criminal offense is still worthy of praise. If reform does not occur at the institutional and systemic levels, effective implementation will still be impossible, ultimately leading to failure. The integrity of London's mayor riding a bicycle to work and Canadian officials applying to rent cars when on official trips is not a facade project of imperialism or capitalism but stems from good political systems. Returning power to citizens and realizing true self-governance through the right to vote, electing genuine representatives of their own interests as supervisors and officials, anyone daring to engage in "three public wastage" would be punished by votes and removed from office. Therefore, whether it's the mayor of London or Canadian officials, under such a political system, the government has no choice but to be frugal, and no one dares to engage in "three public wastage".
For G4's "News Daily View" Related thematic articles: Creating shame in buying and selling, violating ethics and morality without mentioning, whether it is the mayor of London...