Chapter 27 Chapter 25 Aspects of Housing Consumption of Officials

There is no legal obstacle to the implementation of the official housing declaration system, but it is due to the public power of officials, and it is also an indispensable link in the process of fighting corruption and promoting integrity. How big a house should a person live in?For ordinary people who are running around under the laws of the market, it seems that there is no need to answer-if you have more money, you can buy a big house; if you have less money, you can buy a small house or rent a house. But for officials, things are not that simple, because their salaries are related to taxpayers, and the house is no exception.Therefore, there needs to be a clear answer to how big a house officials should live in.

However, the housing situation of officials in our country has not been made public, let alone a sound and complete supervision system for officials' housing.In this context, in recent years, some mid-level and senior officials have seriously exceeded the standard to build houses, used power to seek houses, and even occupied land to build "official villas". On January 13, 2010, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 17th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China closed in Beijing.The communiqué adopted at this meeting clearly stated: "Conscientiously implement and improve the system for party members and leading cadres to report personal matters, and include housing, investment, and the employment of spouses and children in the content of the report."

Many interviewed experts believe that from the perspective of anti-corruption, it is necessary to implement the housing declaration system for officials, but it should not simply report to the higher authorities, but should publicize the housing conditions of officials on the basis of clarifying the housing standards of officials. Accept the supervision of all walks of life, and fundamentally suppress the occurrence of corruption in official housing. In recent years, housing prices have soared all over the country, and most ordinary people can only "look at the house and sigh".But what is interesting is that some senior officials also claim that they "can't afford" housing.

On December 23, 2009, at a civic forum held in the studio hall of Nanjing TV Station, Acting Mayor of Nanjing Ji Jianye said frankly in response to citizens’ questions: “To be honest, it will take more than ten years to get my salary. You can buy a small house, but you can’t afford a big one.” On December 13, 2009, when He Keng, deputy director of the Finance and Economics Committee of the National People's Congress, talked about the problem of high housing prices in a CCTV program, he also claimed that "can't afford" housing. On June 20, 2009, Li Huiwu, deputy director of the Development Research Center of the Guangdong Provincial Government, said at the "Finding the New Engine of China's Economy" "Finance" forum held in Guangzhou: "Many houses in Guangzhou cost more than 20,000 yuan per square meter. The monthly salary of a deputy department-level position is more than 8,000 yuan, but even two months’ salary cannot afford a one-square-meter house.”

Judging from public reports, other than the above three officials who "confessed" that they could not afford housing, there are Zhengzhou Mayor Zhao Jiancai, former Guangzhou CPPCC Chairman Chen Kaizhi, Guangzhou Tianhe District Deputy District Chief Ding Jianhua, etc. , They have all claimed in different public occasions that they "can't afford" a house. "Based on wages and house prices, these officials really cannot afford houses." Professor Li Chengyan from the School of Government of Peking University said in an interview with reporters, "But in reality, the housing experience of most middle and senior officials is obviously different from that of ordinary people. People’s feelings are very different. In the era of high housing prices, it is difficult to see that these officials have the depression of being house slaves, let alone the anxiety brought about by the soaring housing prices.”

And a fact that cannot be ignored is that most of the corrupt officials who were sacked in the past had the following obvious criminal evidence, namely keeping mistresses, accepting bribes, having multiple houses, and even owning villas. Here are some typical cases.Kang Huijun, the former deputy head of Shanghai Pudong New Area, bought 24 houses at low prices because of his power, and 8 of them were sold, with a profit of more than 16 million yuan; Tao Jianguo, the former director of the planning and construction department of Shanghai Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone Management Committee, accepted bribes from developers 29 properties, and rented out 28 of them, known as the "Director of Real Estate Speculators"; after the case of Dai Guosen, the former director of the Management Committee of Wenzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone, the investigators searched out more than ten real estate certificates from his residence ,etc.

According to the interviewed experts, under the current system in our country, except for a few corrupt officials who own houses through abnormal channels, most of the middle and senior officials can also enjoy various preferential policies in terms of housing, so they don’t have to be like ordinary people. , Go to the market to buy high-priced commercial housing. Before the "housing reform" in the late 1990s, Chinese officials were a group with relatively better housing conditions.Although the distribution of welfare housing was stopped later, the "self-built affordable housing" and "fund-raising construction" operated by agencies at all levels under various names have never stopped.

The reporter learned that some local officials use a variety of methods in terms of gray consumption of housing. They have refurbished in various ways—introduced developers to auction land at ultra-low prices, and then let officials "group buy" at low prices after the houses are built; introduce developers to develop, so The completed commercial housing is priced according to the approved price of affordable housing, fund-raising housing, and so on. According to reports, at the beginning of 2007, developers built affordable housing in the capital city of a large coastal province, with the area seriously exceeding the standard, with the smallest being 160 square meters and the largest being 295 square meters.A total of 8 buildings with affordable housing that seriously exceeded the standard were bought by the provincial government.

Some middle and high-level officials also used their personal position influence to purchase price-limited housing and commercial housing from developers at prices significantly lower than the market.Some even require their own units to contribute funds to buy houses for individuals or exchange houses to obtain large-area houses that exceed the standard, and then buy them personally at a low price to make personal profits from it. "There are a lot of special discounts for affordable housing in the use of allocated land for self-built housing by units. Not only are they exempted from paying most taxes and fees, but they can also enjoy exemption from paying land transfer fees. Therefore, the price of this type of housing is far lower than that in the market. commercial housing.” Professor Wang Yukai from the Department of Public Administration of the National School of Administration, who was interviewed, pointed out, “The problem of self-built housing is not very prominent when the price of commercial housing has not risen sharply. But when housing prices soar, like With housing prices in Beijing so high at present, there will be a big contrast between the cost of self-built houses and the market, which will cause public dissatisfaction.”

To this end, Wang Yukai suggested: "It is necessary to re-examine the current housing system for officials and improve it as soon as possible. Avoid conflicts between the public and the government due to lack of systems." According to insiders, with the increase in the phenomenon of working as officials in different places in recent years, some middle and senior officials who work in different places even occupy more public housing by means of secret operations.For example, some officials have already enjoyed preferential policies for housing system reform in their original units.After exchanging in different places, their current employers bought commercial houses for them, and then they bought them at a cheap price for various reasons.When communicating again, the next unit will buy a commercial house for it, and then buy it at a low price as its own.After repeated tossing and turning, after a few years, he occupied many houses.

According to reports, the housing of middle and senior officials in my country is subject to "localized management", basically the central government manages the central government, and local governments manage local governments.However, due to the extremely unbalanced economic development in various regions, the housing standards of officials are still quite different, and there is also a lack of an effective housing supervision system for officials. In response to corruption in officials' housing, the central and local governments have issued some documents to regulate it. On August 16, 1999, the "Implementation Plan for Further Deepening Housing System Reform in Beijing by the Central and State Organs" promulgated by the General Office of the Central Committee stipulated that the building area standard for housing subsidies for cadres is: below the section level, 60 square meters; 70 square meters; deputy director level, 80 square meters; director level, 90 square meters; deputy department (bureau) level, 105 square meters; chief department (bureau) level, 120 square meters. In November 2005, the General Office of the Henan Provincial Party Committee and the General Office of the Provincial Government jointly issued the "Notice on the Housing Issues of Leading Cadres Above the Department" and stipulated that the provincial level is 220 square meters, the sub-provincial level is 190 square meters, and the departmental level is 120 square meters. . Nevertheless, corruption in official housing has been criticized by the public for many years.What's more, some officials wantonly build "official villas" in public areas.For example, in 2007, without the approval of any department, some officials destroyed the national ecological public welfare forest in Lianhuadong Forest Park of Jiangxi Lushan Scenic Area, a world natural and cultural heritage, and built private villas in violation of regulations, which led to the rush to build villas in this scenic spot. In other words, the issue of housing for officials is related to the "grey" area stipulated by certain policies.If there is a red-headed document that stipulates: within a certain period of time, the construction of affordable housing can be organized in a unified manner, and sold to the central and state government employees in Beijing at the construction cost price. In addition, there is another article in the document: “Units that have land for building or rebuild dilapidated residential quarters with property rights may use the existing land of the unit to build their own buildings in the near future, subject to the premise of conforming to the urban planning and with the approval of relevant departments. The housing shall be sold to the employees of the unit at the price not lower than the affordable housing price in the same area." The reporter's investigation found that after the evolution of this policy, the opening became wider and wider, and party and government organizations with conditions in some areas rushed to follow suit. "Official housing corruption has the characteristics of concealment, complexity, and extensiveness, and it is relatively difficult to investigate and deal with it." Li Chengyan believes, "But the main reason is that my country has not implemented an official property disclosure system, and the consumption of official housing is not open and transparent. At the same time, the investigation and punishment of official violations, although relevant regulations at the institutional level, can be used for reference, but the operability is poor, and the punishment lacks deterrence.” A number of interviewed experts believe that corruption in the housing of officials in our country has damaged the image of the party and the government to a certain extent, worsened the relationship between the party and the masses, cadres and the masses, and encouraged the extravagance of officials. It is an indispensable link in the process of fighting corruption and promoting integrity. "On the basis of accurately defining the connotation, nature and form of housing corruption, in addition to implementing a housing registration and reporting system for officials, a housing supervision system for officials should also be established and improved." Li Chengyan believes, "From the successful experience of anti-corruption abroad, Official housing disclosure is a successful model that can be used for reference.” According to reports, in western developed countries, the housing situation of officials is basically the same as that of ordinary people, but corruption in official housing rarely occurs.An important experience is that these countries stipulate that officials’ housing, salaries and other benefits must be disclosed to the public, strictly limit the standard of housing area, establish a sound public supervision mechanism and government supervision mechanism, and strictly investigate all kinds of official housing such as housing for power. Corruption. "It is necessary to establish an official housing corruption prevention system as soon as possible, and formulate housing standards for officials of different levels according to the housing level and economic development status of various places." Exceeding the standard to build houses and using power to seek houses. For the purchase or construction of private houses by officials, a strict application, approval or filing system must be established to dynamically manage the houses of officials.” At the same time, Wang Yukai also suggested that to strengthen the supervision and inspection of officials' housing, we can start from two aspects: one is to use modern information technology and establish a registration and inquiry system for officials' housing through the national ID card network to find out the basic information of officials' housing , to provide guarantees for supervision and inspection; second, for middle and senior officials in some important positions, a unified official residence system can be considered.This is also a common practice in the world.In this way, the corruption of officials in housing can be effectively prevented. A number of interviewed experts also said that with the increasing number of officials who communicate and serve in different places in our country, we can try to implement the official residence system, that is, officials only have the right to use the housing, but not ownership.When an official is transferred to another place, his official residence can continue to be used by the next official. In addition, some interviewed experts also reminded that the prerequisite for the implementation of the official residence system is to clarify the subject qualifications, conditions, construction standards, sources of funds, use rights, ownership relationships, and responsibilities for violations of the official residence system. "Only in this way can officials' housing consumption avoid falling into a new cycle of corruption." "A comprehensive inspection and clean-up of the current housing situation of officials should be carried out to find out the situation and solve it by category." Yin Yungong, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in an interview with reporters, "It is necessary to establish and improve the accountability system for official housing corruption, and clarify the causes of housing corruption. Accountability object, procedure, content, method, and scope of accountability, etc. Officials occupying more housing should be regarded as defrauding public welfare. Because the funds for these public welfare come entirely from taxpayers or fiscal revenue, so the official’s These acts are not fundamentally different from corruption."