Recently, the State Department authority Authority and Authority of organs directly under the CPC Central Committee to issue a circular calling for the central and state organs and departments, and units really good job in energy conservation, public service vehicles, take the lead in the use of economic, energy saving, environment-friendly own-brand car , in principle, with off-road vehicles is prohibited Gongjusiyong. Message 1, an applause.
I was first listening to the radio in the car knows the way to work this news, although not to mention poetry and literature is Manjuan For hi mad, but also in high spirits and a quick photo of the steering wheel a few palm. Excitedly into his office, looking for Newspaper of the first “full version” of the press, the result is quite disappointing. Because the “notice” While many used the “real”, “No”, “strict”, “serious” and other words, we do not see the concrete operational terms.
Such as “in principle, with off-road vehicle”, then the circumstances under which departments can do “other than the principle of treatment?” In the end what can be considered a sport utility vehicle? BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne count? They may have claimed SUV, not the off-road vehicle ah.
Another example, “notice” requirements “of various departments and units take the lead in using its own brand vehicles,” what can be considered as “leading”? There is a target? Not binding on you. Even under the notice themselves, I do not believe that a notice, we will carry forward the style of the size of government officials, ministers, the Secretary, the Director have all opened since have changed Chery, BYD, right?
On “prohibited Gongchesiyong”, “notice” it will looks like some more specific provisions, such as “strict approval and registration of official vehicles to use the system,” “the implementation of major national holidays and official vehicles during the event archive suspended system”, etc. However, as far as I know, the bus should have been “non-private use” of it, but has been, and how many buses there is no private use?
In my opinion, since the bus so many idle is idle, the bus can not not be private. Therefore, the bus does not change the status quo too much, notice more, the wording to be tighter, but also those who repeated the previous “injunctions” only “private” is not eliminated.
If the “notice” be more specific, such as which departments can be equipped with off-road vehicles outside the various departments in the newly purchased buses must own brand vehicles what percentage, etc., then this notification more worthy of our applause. However, this still is not a cure for us.
Bus to rule disease, with no off-road vehicles is whether or manual transmission or automatic transmission in the election was, but that number really to keep the bus down. The reason why we are sick of the bus, but because the bus is too much. Many units, cadre should be equipped with vehicles, there is this necessary? According to “Nosey,” estimates, an average annual maintenance cost of the bus is a private car in 2 to 4 times, not including dependents, including a driver. There are reports that the late 90s of last century, our country reached 3.5 million bus number, about 300 billion yuan of public money are spent each year. The number of vehicles throughout the government procurement each year to more than 20% of the rate of increase, the state finance overwhelmed. Contrast, is as dignified Korean capital of Seoul city bus only a few 4.
Only in my mind, and bus reform called, for many years, and also come and go to the tree a lot of “advanced model”, but the bus is still difficult to sustain the reform so far and wide to promote. I do not want to discuss underlying causes, or left to policy makers to study it. I’m just more pessimistic view, the State Authority and the Authority jointly issued the “notice” does not seem to play what will be the desired effect.