The government took an impressive step forward yesterday when it pledged to establish a system to check violations of laws by officials.

The accountability mechanism will subject both inaction and inappropriate acts by government functionaries to legal scrutiny.

In a lengthy document published in April 2004, the State Council presented an elaborate framework for regulating government workers' conduct in accordance with the letter of the law.

The brand new code of conduct for public office holders had an explicit goal of implanting respect for the law among those in positions of power.

The 2004 document stipulated that government offices and their employees should not draw up policies that compromise citizens' legal rights and interests, or impose on them any obligations without due authorization through proper procedures.

It also urged government officials to opt for approaches that do not penalize citizens while carrying out their duties, when other options are available.

The feedback from local authorities was immediate and positive, like that following most calls from Beijing.

But practically speaking, the public continues to be plagued by some public servants' outrageous disregard for the law.

The government's vow to establish the rule of law and deliver good governance has been discredited by scandals resulting from officials' abuse of power in law enforcement.

Some still cherish the twisted idea that government employees, as representatives of the State, are somehow allowed to operate above and beyond the law.

But the rule of law requires everyone, whether an ordinary citizen or head of State, to act within the limits of the law.

Public servants are subject to higher standards in that framework.

Entrusted with public welfare, they have different degrees of power at their disposal.

To prevent abuse there must be a balance struck between public servants' powers and their responsibilities.

We have heard plenty of such appeals, from top leaders and the general public. But without knowing what an official's specific powers and responsibilities are, how can anybody say with certainty whether an individual or institution is acting appropriately or not?

An embarrassing fact is that numerous government agencies have been operating without a clear idea of the boundaries of their authority.

Worse still, some government offices have discovered diverging definitions of their authority when seeking clarification.

It is unacceptable for law enforcers to break the law, or infringe upon citizens' rights and interests in the name of the law.

Not all harm is done with malicious intent or in contempt of the law. Many regrettable incidents could have been avoided if all of our law enforcers knew the limits of their authority.

The State Council's new initiative is noteworthy in that it has the potential to make positive changes.

The government's call for better definitions of the authority and responsibility of government offices, as well as their work procedures, may provide a much-needed basis for evaluating the performance of government offices and their employees.

(China Daily July 28, 2005)