The Communist Party of China's disciplinary watchdog in Chongqing said it is investigating the authenticity of a government expenditure form anonymously posted online.

The form, said to be from an unspecified district government of Chongqing, took many aback with these stunning figures: From 2006 to 2008, almost 61 million yuan were spent on purchase and maintenance of vehicles. Last year's expenditure on receptions alone was nearly 13 million yuan.

It is an open secret that a few officials are inclined to squander public money. But we seldom see evidence on this scale. Should it be true, it would be telling proof of the profligacy of public administration in some parts of China.

There are 40 districts and counties under the jurisdiction of the Chongqing municipality, each having a complete set of Party and government apparatus. That form, should it be true, depicts only the government spending in one of the 40 districts.

We have no idea if all 40 districts and counties in Chongqing have similar spending patterns, and how much the Party establishments at that level cost each year. Nor do we know how much the municipal authorities spend. But people are just petrified by the implications of the figures that have surfaced.

There used to be a popular estimate that every year about 300 billion yuan of public money goes down to the bellies of officials who dine and wine at public expense. Which was quickly denied as groundless. But, official data about the cost of public administration has never been accessible to the general public.

Now, there is an opportunity. The authorities can avail themselves of this chance to dispel suspicion. The public, on the other hand, can see for themselves whether or not their complaints about high administrative costs have any basis.

Technically, the exercise couldn't be easier. The municipal government of Chongqing should have no difficulty finding out whether or not any of its district governments has submitted such a form. This can be verified without any investigation whatsoever from the available records.

It would be a relief if what has surfaced is revealed to be a work of sheer fabrication. Otherwise, an explanation is called for.

The most unsettling aspect of the episode, however, is not that a certain local government spends more than we think is acceptable. Rather, it is the fact that information about government spending remains inaccessible to taxpayers.

Without such access, talk of public oversight is meaningless. That is why the truth needs to be brought out, about the actual expenditure as well as the authenticity of the form that has got many people agitated.

(China Daily July 6, 2009)