To control the air pollution and ensure smooth transportation during the forthcoming Beijing Olympic Games, the host city has taken numerous measures.
One of them that caught my attention was that 30 percent of the cars owned by the central administration, city government, institutions affiliated to government, businesses and factories in Beijing were banned from the road between July 1 and July 19. The figure becomes 70 percent from July 20 to September 20, taking the number of off-road vehicles owned by these institutions to 210,000.
A simple arithmetic tells us that the total numbers of cars owned by governments, businesses and other institutions are at least 300,000 in Beijing. How much do these cars cost for maintenance and daily use?
If the average expenditure on purchasing a car is 250,000 yuan (US$36,765), it takes 75 billion yuan (US$11 billion) for 300,000 cars. If 10 percent of these cars are to be replaced every year, it costs at least 7.5 billion.
When the cars are used, each of them costs at least 40,000 yuan annually for maintenance, insurance, petroleum and other expenses, which brings the total amount to 12 billion yuan. The salary of drivers for these cars is about 900,000 yuan.
Putting all these figures together, the 300,000 cars need an expenditure of around 20 billion yuan (US$3.97 billion) every year.
These are the figures for cars owned by institutions in Beijing.
If we assume that the number of cars owned by local governments, institutions, State-owned enterprises and businesses in each province, municipality and autonomous region is about half of that in Beijing, the total expenses of purchasing these cars are close to 1 trillion yuan and the maintenance costs are at least 40 billion every year.
At least half of these cars belong to governments at all levels and institutions affiliated to or partially paid by the government, which means at least 50 percent of the huge money is on the administrative bills.
As a matter of fact, a question has been lingering on the minds of many since the traffic control measures became effective: if these cars could be banned from the road during the Olympic Games and the officials could switch to public transportation and bicycle or even go to work on foot, could they also do this after the Games?
If the number of cars is reduced to half, the government could be relieved of at least half of the expenditure spent on the cars. Progresses could be made in many areas, like education, medical service, affordable housing, living allowances for disadvantaged groups, if the money is earmarked for these sectors.
As a result, the common people would have much less headaches in their lives thanks to the frugality of government officials.
If the administrative and the institutions can function well during the Games without their cars, it is not wrong to say that these cars are not indispensable to their work. Therefore, the Olympic Games could be a good opportunity to explore the possibility of launching a thorough reform to reduce the car expenses on government bills.
Corruption could take many forms. Accepting bribes is of course a corruption, and taking privilege from one's official power is also corruption.
When the officials enjoy their rides in cars at the State expenses, how many of them are really rushing on emergencies? I am afraid many of the cars are abused for individual uses and most officials actually enjoy the benefits from their power.
As a matter of fact, officials could also take a bus or the subway, ride a bicycle, or walk to work, and such a change in transportation vehicles should not influence their performance or efficiency.
Therefore, it is strongly advisable that we seize the good opportunity offered by the Olympic Games to assess the benefits and losses of reducing government cars. The central government departments should start it before others. By cutting the number of cars they own, they could save quite some money for better use.
When the time is right, the government could also reduce the government expenditures on entertainment, office operations and other aspects. When more fiscal revenue is spent on improving public welfare, the government would substantially improve its image among the public.
The author is a commentator based in Beijing.
(China Daily July 30, 2008)
