BEIJING, Aug.4 -- For years, ordinary folks' first impression of local government's work style was this: Where school buildings are of highest quality, local government leaders are considered honest and clean. And where government buildings are extravagant, local government leaders are considered corrupt.

    This simple benchmark still holds today as the central government urges local governments time again to stop building extravagant office buildings.

    Besides other criteria accessing the performance of local government leaders, comparing their office buildings and living standards of local residents should be included as an important element.

    The logic is simple: a local government is not supposed to have enough money to squander on luxurious office buildings when local residents are still struggling to make ends meet. People's interest must be placed before that of government officials, which is the fundamental doctrine of the Communist Party of China.

    In contrast, with many extravagant office buildings, the mud-brick bungalows where Lushi County government does its work makes for big news. Many do not want to believe that several generations of county leaders and officials have worked in such shabby offices for more than 50 years.

    This county with the largest territory of all counties in Central China's Henan Province is one of its most poverty-stricken regions. Its 2001 revenue of some 50 million yuan ($5.6 million) was the lowest in the province.

    Indeed, financial restraints make it impossible for the county government to build a new office building or even renovate their shabby offices. But there are examples of poor counties and townships collecting money by levying fees on residents or getting loans from banks to build office buildings, whose degree of extravagance is highly out of proportion with local economic conditions.

    The office of the Yingquan District government in Fuyang, East China's Anhui Province, is a typical example of "luxurious government buildings in poor areas".

    The European style building cost more than one third of the district's annual revenue. A shabby school building is just by its side. Such a striking contrast has added to the humiliation of the local government's governing concept.

    By comparison, the Lushi county government could afford to construct a new office building in recent years since its revenue increased to more than 100 million yuan in 2006. In the county magistrate's own words: "It should be no problem to spend 20 million yuan ($2.6 million) building an office building and improving the working conditions of county government officials."

    Even when the county was in heavy debt back in 2001, some government officials suggested that an office building could be built with money earned by selling the site of its office compound and getting loans from local banks.

    But county government leaders vetoed the idea because they knew that the tight budget must be used in such urgent missions as relocating those poverty-stricken residents from remote mountainous areas, building cement roads to all villages, renovating local hospitals and schools and establishing a medical care cooperative system for local residents.

    It is against the governing principle of local government leaders to build an office building for themselves before getting things done on their long to-do list.

    As a result, the living standard of local residents has improved considerably, with a cement road leading to more than 300 villages and a basic health care system extending to all residents. But local government officials are still working in their shabby compound.

    Such good leaders are indeed worthy of compliments.

    But why should there be such a huge gap between good and bad leaders? This should be a great concern for both the campaign to fight corruption and designing a more reasonable governing system.

    A survey following reports of the frugal working style of this county government shows that 61.3 percent of those surveyed believed that such working style should be commended and 91.2 percent agreed with the concept that revenue from taxes should be first used to make life easier for taxpayers.

    Even without this survey, it should be self-evident that the interest of residents should be prioritized when it comes to the use of government revenue from taxes. It is the duty of a government to use public revenue as reasonably as possible to serve the needs of the public.

    In this sense, Lushi county government has done nothing extraordinary, but only what they are supposed to do.

    What we should never forget is the fact that the county was once known for a scandal involving its former leader who sold official positions for dirty money. Behind the comparison between the former corrupt and current clean leaders is the fact that the morality of a leader makes a difference in how well a government serves its people.

    In another example, a township in suburban Shanghai is quite rich and local government does have money to build a new office building for itself, but it cannot do so because its annual budget must be approved by the local people's congress, which will invite public opinion by convening hearings and delivering questionnaires about how the money should be used.

    Under such a mechanism, public opinion through people's congress can find their expression in the decision making about how local government revenue should be used. In this case, township government leaders cannot decide whether a new office building should be built even if they really want to do so.

    So it is important that those of moral integrity be made leaders of governments at various levels. But it is even more important to have a system that effectively supervises leaders.

    (Source: China Daily)