When officials quarrel, it is an interesting scene to watch. It opens a window giving people a rare view of the intricate systems that they usually cannot see outside the tall walls enclosing government offices.
We had an incident of this sort just recently. It started on February 17, at a panel discussion organized by the municipal committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) of Guangzhou, a southern business and transportation hub with a lot of migrant workers.
During the recent snow disaster, Guangzhou suffered some of the worst upsets and difficulties. As heavy snow and freezing rain descended on the usually warm southern provinces, the power grid collapsed, paralyzing the electric-powered rail system.
The immense crowd of anxious and helpless holidaymakers stranded in and outside the Guangzhou railway station as the Chinese New Year approached was one of the dramatic results. And so at the panel discussion, Guo Xiling, vice-chairman of the municipal committee of the CPPCC, angrily blamed the Ministry of Railways for the unexpected suspension of services in the city. He even demanded that "some officials" be removed from their posts with the central government agency.
At that point, many people thought that the Ministry of Railways might just as well ignore it, as government offices have habitually done in the face of criticism from lower levels.
However, thanks in part to the recently introduced system of having government spokespeople speak out on the issues, the Ministry of Railways responded to Guo's "cannon firing" within two days.
Wang Yongping, the ministry's spokesperson, first welcomed Guo's criticism, but then accused him of having a lack of "common sense". In the end, he also derided the criticism by saying it should be categorized as "extremely careless and irresponsible opinions from individual comrades".
Reporters contacted Guo, the Guangzhou official, after those words appeared in the press, but then reported that he had no comments.
The railways ministry should be given credit for being prompt in responding to such criticism. In my opinion, the Chinese railway staff gave quite an extraordinary performance during the unprecedented crisis. Except for a few spots, the system, as coordinated by the headquarters in Beijing, continued to work as well as it could, considering the amount of work and the adjustments that had to be made.
But the spokesperson might have conducted himself with grace during his talk with the media by avoiding suggestions that the critic was lacking common sense. For his idea of "common sense", as an insider working for a government bureaucracy, could be new to people in the street.
So the problem may not be a lack of common sense, but that of a lack of effective communication.
The spokesperson might have just explained how the system worked through the crisis in plain language, without targeting any specific persons or their accusations.
If a municipal-level CPPCC person does not understand how the railway system works, then there must be millions of others who are even more inadequately informed of the basic facts. They may, at times when their railway travel plans have been disrupted by inconvenience, make even stronger complaints, some of which may not be based on what the system insiders consider "common sense".
While the ministry spokesperson deserves praise for having reacted so quickly to a critic, it may still take a long march for him to improve relations with the public and increase general customers' understanding of how the system really works.
(China Daily February 25, 2008)