By Lu Caiming
Translated by Chen Shuling
Recently, several representives of the National People's Congress appealed that in order to increase the credibility of price hearing, the price shouldn't rise by whatever hearings. They suggested that the cost supervision be made strictly before each hearing. Chinese Version>>
Price hearing is an important way for the government to listen to civilian's opinions and regulate the pricing, and also for the consumers to participate in the decision-making by the government price policy and express and protect their own benefits and rignts. This policy, different from the old way that the pricing departments made the decision by themselves, built up a new relationship of joint participation and mutual restriction among the decision-making department, the applicant and those whose benefits were concerned of, and grant consumers the right to speak on the pricing problem which is related with the public's own benefits. By the procedures of public hearing, the unreasonable pricing and public's objections resulted from unsufficient surveys and the limited demonstration can be avoided, and the openness and the scientization of the government pricing can be strengthened, which showed democracy on price decision. It's a kind of social progress, a reflection of 'asking the public about the policy', and should be supported.
But, as it's a new-born thing, some defects of the system and imperfection of specific operation are exposed in its implementation. It requires improvement. Now, the phenomenon that the rise of price is always passed on whatever hearings, which made the credibility doubted, is criticized the most by the public. It is true that in recent years, the prices of either water, electricity or pipe gas, natural gas, digital television, the prices of public service, non-profit service and natural monopolization goods which are closely related with the public's benefits have always been raised by way of hearings. To such a result, the civilians have made mild criticisms while the government can do nothing about it.
There are two main reasons for this phenomenon. Firstly, consumers are in the weaker position in hearing as they don't have sufficient 'right to speak'. The 'Hearing Method for Government Price Decision' carried out before Dec. 1st last year stipulated that 'the representives for hearings should be of extensiveness and representativeness', but the rate of consumers' representives to hearings' attendance figures wasn't defined, but to be decided by local department. Thus, the ordinary consumer representives in hearings are usually not predominant, being less that 1/3 of all the attendants. They are not in the position to talk with dominant operators equally due to weak influence, less figures and minor speaking. So, the rise of prices was supported in whatever hearings without any question, and 'hearing' became the synonym of price rise.
Secondly, the usual hearings emphasize more on the form than the testimony. It's revealed that the authenticity of the materials offered by the applicants would be doubted by the consumer representives on almost each hearing. Why? Some public service enterprises urged cost increase and deficit or serious loss to find reasons for rising the price on one hand, and on the other hand they provided employees and management personnel with high salary, allowance and bonus. It's a problem concerned with cost supervision on operators, which is so complicated that even the pricing department of the government may fail to tell whether it's true or not. How can ordinary consumers find out any underhanded activities? Then, the hearing is only for hearing but not testimony.
Only by suiting the remedy to the case, can the drug bring about a cure. To solve the problem of rising price on whatever hearings, more consumers' rights to speak in hearings must be granted first. Delightedly, the National Development and Reform Commission has released and put into effect the 'Hearing Method for Government Price Decision', which stipulated that 'the figures of consumer representives shouldn't be less than two-fifths of the attendants in hearings'. It's believed that with the increase of the figures of consumer representives in hearings, consumers will have more rights to speak with more efficiency in hearings. The situation that they are too few to be listened to will be changed. They will be allowed and able to say 'no' to 'price rise on whatever hearings'. In this way the credibility of hearings will be increased.
Furthermore, the cost supervision must be strengthened effectively. Before each hearing, the pricing department of the government must check the cost strictly. Anyone who avoid the importance and dwell the trivial and practise fraud should be investigated and penalized according to the law. Qualified accrediting agencies can be entrusted to build up a long-term cost supervision system and price management data base to avoid relying on the cost materials offered only by the operators and to get true and effective cost information as much as possible. By improving the cost supervision, operators are forced to try hard in reducing the cost instead of juggling with the price rising which profits themselves while increases the consumers' burden.
It should be mentioned that as consumers, we have no objection to the reasonable adjustment of the prices of goods and service such as water, electricity and gas. We hope that the pricing department would really care about people's lives and treat the rise of prices seriously to prevent operators' passing on some unreasonable cost to consumers by efficient hearings.