The result of a recent survey indicates many citizens are concerned about the safety of Auditor-General Li Jinhua, who recently exposed widespread embezzlement of public funds in some government departments.

The survey was conducted by the social research centre of China Youth Daily and the official Xinhua News Agency's web edition.

A total of 76 per cent of the respondents expressed their concerns for Li, thinking "some people might take revenge on him," according to China Youth Daily.

In my opinion, instead of Li's personal safety, most people are actually worrying about the career prospects of the iron-willed auditor.

For the people, Li is a good official who speaks for the general public. But as he disclosed the inside stories and challenged the old rules of officialdom, the beneficiaries of those old rules are likely to wreak vengeance.

Public worries here are for the uncertain future prospects - people are not sure whether a good official that breaks the hidden rules of officialdom can succeed in his career.

Behind the public worry is an obvious feeling of powerlessness. People respect and love good officials who dare to break the dark rules of officialdom, as Li has done.

But people feel unable to protect these officials from revenge. The public can only stand on the sidelines and bear witness to the various fights between justice and evil in officialdom. Worry is all the people can provide for the defenders of justice.

But in today's China, the public should no longer be mere spectators. We should rid the public's sense of powerlessness with institutional construction. We should enable the public to protect those brave breakers of old rules with the guarantee of a rigid system.

There should be a protective mechanism for the people to safeguard good officials. And such a mechanism should enable the public to have institutional rights of appointing and removing officials, as well as the right to evaluate and supervise them.

The first pillar of the old rules of officialdom is the traditional system for officials' appointment and removal. Any system controlled by a few people can easily become a breeding ground for corruption.

If the public can obtain power to affect the appointment and removal of officials, they can then weed out the corrupt ones. Reforming the old system would destroy this pillar.

The second pillar is the performance evaluation system, which is mainly determined by the officials themselves. Officials usually produce so-called "political achievements" to please their superiors while the public has no say over such achievements.

Therefore, officials who are good at producing "political achievements" for their superiors become far more successful than those who only do things for the public.

Only when the public is empowered to evaluate officials' performances and become judges of officials' political merits will the good officials who care for the well-being of the public be distinguished from those who waste public manpower and money for personal benefit. To substitute the self-assessment system with a public evaluation system will pull down the second pillar of the old rules.

The black case work of political and administrative procedures is the third pillar. Officials' promotions and changes in governments are not open to public scrutiny. The vindicators of the old rules of officialdom can always silently crack down on the rule-breakers.

Once the public has the right to supervise the procedures of political and administrative activity, any attempt at revenge on the rule-breakers will be discovered and acted upon in time. A transparent and open public supervisory system will banish the third pillar for the old rules of officialdom.

Only when the public has the institutional power to supervise and evaluate officials can an effective mechanism to protect good officials be categorically established.

Such a mechanism would expose the old rules of officialdom, weaken the revenge ability of their beneficiaries, and ensure the security of good officials' careers.

Then the public would not have to worry for the safety of Li Jinhua and others like him.

(China Daily July 29, 2004)