In an energy-saving initiative, Guangdong Province is calling for local governments to cut official car use by one day every week.

The call does not meet with much public enthusiasm, because this move is by no means novel - many Chinese have experimented with similar schemes.

These schemes flirt with green concepts that are in fashion, without risking antagonizing major interest groups.

The move does little to focus our attention on the fact that a poor developing country, where many are struggling to feed themselves or send their children to school, can afford to chauffeur around its civil servants in plush sedans.

For many urban citizens, the daily commute to work is an ordeal. The fatal bus fire in Chengdu that left 27 dead and 74 injured at first surprised me that so many people can be crammed into so limited a space, until I realized that overcrowded bus is a familiar rush hour sight in most cities.

But unless there is a fatal accident involving mass casualties, our chauffeured city mayors need not trouble their peace of mind with such unpleasant facts.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson criticized the recent tube strike in London as a "ludicrous and unnecessary disruption" for Londoners. We do not doubt his sincerity because he himself had to walk to the office as a result of the strike.

Huge cost

It is reported that China has about four million official cars, representing a cost of 300 billion yuan (US$44 billion) annually.

It is calculated that the Guangdong scheme could result in a daily reduction of 20 percent of its official car fleet, which means that our officials could cope with the reduction without compromising their ability to carry out official functions.

Then why not simply adopt a much simpler strategy of reducing official cars by 20 percent? That is eminently more doable than the announced scheme.

If promoted nationally, that would save 60 billion yuan.

If we carry this argument further, since our servants can cope with their official duties without official cars one day in a week, we have reason to expect them to be equally competent during the rest of the week. Anyway, most pregnant woman, teenagers and octogenarians regularly use buses and metro.

Unfortunately, this kind of argument is clearly not in sync with the workings of official minds.

China Radio International reported last week that BMW had found its way to the list of suppliers to official car procurement.

Status symbol

In China the BMW is a symbol of wealth particularly favored by the new rich. The official reason for this addition is, obviously, to stimulate consumption of cars to overcome the financial crisis.

In other words, our economic health is partly linked up with the number of BMW wheels on the road. It does not mention that our health is linked with the number of cars too.

Any sensible citizens not encumbered with self-interest should be cognizant of myriad other priorities. Why not save the money to add more buses?

As stimulus is now an enshrined word, like GDP, that is not open to dispute, we had better not challenge the stimulus part - but even that does not fully justify the recent listing of BMWs as conveyances suitable for officials.

If BMW has unique advantage in leveraging auto consumption, it does not follow the cars purchased at public expense should be used to carry our servants.

They can be used equally well to carry elderly citizens, school children or the handicapped. It does not seem so outrageous because it is no more secret that the so-called official cars are actually used more by officials in their private capacity, or by the chauffeurs themselves.

(Shanghai Daily?June 17, 2009)