The office had novels and potted plants, so why did that become a work-style problem?

By Shu Shengxiang

A notice titled "Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection Conducts Surprise Inspection of the Education Bureau's Office Space" went viral on WeChat Moments, sparking heated discussion. The Jin City Education Bureau and two schools in Hunan were subjected to a surprise inspection of the placement of items in their offices. Among the "problems" discovered, aside from things like "two packs of cigarettes in a drawer" and "a large amount of snacks," the most frequently cited issue was actually "books unrelated to work were found." And "more than two potted plants" was likewise cited multiple times.

Such a thorough, ransacking-style surprise inspection is in fact close to a surprise search. Whether it is an official's office or a teacher's office, it is ultimately not a purely public place; conducting a search requires following relevant procedures. Otherwise, with casual surprise inspections at any time, personal privacy would be completely stripped away.

What is baffling is this: what exactly is wrong with keeping a few books in an office, and how did that become a work-style problem? Doesn't the state advocate reading for all? Would it only be considered good if officials' offices had not a single book, or if they never read at all? "More than two potted plants" also had to be reported - under what kind of regulation was that?

At present, Jin City authorities have confirmed the authenticity of the notice and candidly acknowledged that during this inspection there were problems of "inaccurate application of standards, improper inspection methods, and inadequate work procedures." The Jin City Municipal Party Committee has instructed the Jin City Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection to draw inferences from this case and earnestly learn its lessons.

To fully implement the requirements for discipline and work-style development, it is very necessary for local supervisory departments to take active action. However, they must also pay attention to methods and approaches, and must not let form overshadow substance or conduct inspections merely for the sake of inspecting.

Officials and teachers are, after all, not three-year-old children, and they also need sufficient respect and a relatively tolerant private space. Resorting at every turn to surprise searches in the name of surprise inspections makes people feel as if they are being watched like criminals at all times, leaving everyone anxious and only adding a tense atmosphere that is not conducive to normal work.

Because of "snacks" and "books unrelated to work," and because of "more than two potted plants," it was concluded that the people involved were not working hard and must have done things they should not have done during work hours - this is roughly the logic behind that notice. But this logic itself is suspect in that it impugns people's motives. This time, placing "books unrelated to work" became a problem requiring rectification; then next time, would having not even a single book also become a problem that must be criticized in a notice?

This surprise inspection notice caused enormous controversy online, which shows the arbitrariness of the notice and ultimately damages the credibility of the local Commission for Discipline Inspection. This incident also reminds us that work-style development must be strict, but it must not go off-key or astray. The Jin City Municipal Party Committee's timely clarification is also a correction worth affirming.

Shu Shengxiang (media professional)

Editor: Meng Ran Intern: Yang Linxin Proofreader: Wang Xin