By any standards, Wednesday's report by Auditor-General Li Jinhua to the National People's Congress Standing Committee was a shocking revelation of the scope and extent of official misconduct in the use of public money.
Defying the popular belief that corruption is more prevalent at local levels, audit probes uncovered financial malpractice at 41 of the 55 surveyed departments in the central government and its affiliates.
The misused money amounted to 1.4 billion yuan (US$170 million), out of the 2003 budget.
Institutions under the State Forestry Bureau fabricated "anti-desertification projects" to cheat interest-deducted loans. The State Sports General Administration appropriated 131 million yuan (US$15.8 million) government funds earmarked for China Olympics Committee for residential buildings and allowance for its own staff. The State Power Corporation, where poor decision-making had caused 3.28 billion yuan (US$395 million) in direct and potential losses.
Though the sums at the disposal of local officials are considerably smaller, abuse of public money is just as outrageous in the provinces.
Large State-invested infrastructures are ready prey for corrupt officials.
In the construction of new embankment along the Yangtze River, where floods broke dams and embankments and killed thousands in 1998, officials colluded with builders to embezzle government investment. More than half of the projects surveyed are shoddy.
Despite their normal neglect of input in basic education, local officials obviously consider it a source for easy pickings. In the 50 counties inspected, 43 were found to have misappropriated or defaulted funds designated for local schools.
Even life-saving money in disaster-relief programmes could not escape their dirty hands.
While 9 out of 14 of the flood-hit counties in the Huaihe River valley exaggerated their losses to defraud government money, they defaulted and even embezzled subsidies for flood victims.
Li Jinhua's report followed the standard official formula that "the situation is generally good, but some problems deserve attention."
For each and every individual case, harsh punishment would serve as a perfect conclusion. But that should not blind us to the larger conundrum. What our auditor-general revealed was only a very incomplete picture. Broad corruption is brewing the suspicion that where there is public money, there is abuse.
While it is important to correct all the wrongs case by case, it is even more important to learn the motives behind this abuse. Why has it become so rampant?
The answer from our auditor-general was straightforward: the Ministry of Finance was not specific enough about where the money was to go in its budgetary reports, and the process of funds distribution lacked transparency.
In all the cases on Li's list, there were destinations for the money from the State coffer. More specific designations may help. But the effects are highly questionable given local officials' notorious expertise in countermeasures for State policies.
More essential is transparency.
The "economic person" hypothesis, which assumes universal human propensity for personal gains, has taught our leadership to face and cater to the general public's needs and wants.
People might be promoted to positions of power because of higher moral standards, but it is naive and dangerous to believe all in power represent higher moral standards.
Public servants are even more vulnerable to the temptations of personal gain because of the public resource and power at their disposal. For that reason, they should be subject to closer scrutiny.
All the cases of abuse in Li's report shared one thing in common - lack of transparency.
The outcome might be quite different if the public had been appropriately informed of why and how a decision was made, how much and for what purpose public money was to be spent.
The darkness shrouding decision-making breeds corruption in government offices.
Unless we embrace with true sincerity the concept of government in the sunshine, there is no effective safeguard for our hard-earned deposits in the State's safe.
(China Daily June 25, 2004)
