It is difficult to find an English equivalent for the Chinese word gongche. It can be literally translated as "public vehicle," that includes public buses and other public transport means.

But this term gongche specially refers to those cars purchased with taxpayers' money and used by officials of different ranks for official business  and sometimes for private purposes.

It is not only a practical need for officials to use public cars for official business, but also considered a matter of dignity for senior officials to sit in luxurious vehicles with their chauffeurs, who take care of their masters in a way that seems like they are hired by these officials, although they are actually on the government institutions' payrolls.

In Chinese mythology, some gods were said to use animals, like cranes or leopards, as transportation to carry them wherever they wanted to go. Those special animals as a type of vehicle also acted as a symbol of the gods' supreme positions.

In ancient times, sedans carried by porters functioned as the same kind of symbols for government officials. The higher the official's rank was, the more porters were required to carry his luxurious sedan. There were even strict rules for the exact number of porters to carry sedans for officials of a particular rank. It would be a crime for lower-ranking officials to have more porters toting his sedan than was allowed for his position.

Similar rules apply today when it comes to officials of different ranks and their public cars. The higher an official ranks, the more expensive and luxurious his car is likely to be. But the rule does not necessarily works in all places. Some local government officials, especially leading ones, have bought themselves cars that are much more luxurious than those used by higher-ranking officials.

Back before the 1980s, a strict rule allowed only senior officials above prefecture magistrate level to have cars and chauffeurs covered by public expenses for both their both business and private purposes. Those of lower ranks could use public cars only for public business, but never for private purposes.

The rule was abolished in 1984.

The booming auto industry in the past two decades has not only propelled the purchase of cars by individual citizens but also dramatically increased the number of public cars for official use.

In 2004, the cost of purchasing public cars by governments at various levels amounted to 50 billion yuan (US$6 billion). In the capital city of Beijing, a fourth of the vehicles on the road are running at the expenses of taxpayers' money. In Yibin, a city of 5 million in Southwest China's Sichuan Province, there are as many as 2,400 public cars designated for official use.

Even a low-ranking leading official at the township level may have a public car for his or her use only, and some have even misappropriated funds for the specific purpose to buy luxurious cars.

Modern transport means such as cars make it convenient for officials to fulfil their public missions in a speedy manner. But that does not justify the fact that the annual expenditure on such public cars for official use nationwide is as high as 300 billion yuan (US$37 billion), a figure higher than the country's military budget, which is 283.8 billion yuan ($35 billion) for 2006.

Has all the money spent on public cars been used for public business?

A member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) questioned this in the just-concluded annual CPPCC session. According to his estimation, two-thirds of the public car expenditure has been used by officials or drivers for private purposes.

Following a news report in early 1980s which uncovered some officials using public cars for outings or running their children to school, there has been a debate on whether senior officials should use their cars and drivers for private purposes.

It is undoubtedly wrong for officials to use public cars for their own affairs and it is certainly not right for their drivers to put these vehicles at their own disposal whenever officials are not using them.

But except for some notice requiring public cars to never be used for private purposes, there has not been any particular measure to stop the practice.

In recent years, many low-ranking officials have their own driving licences and therefore the public cars are at their disposal at any time for any occasion. Except for some business trips, they use these cars as their own, but at the expenses of the public.

Pressure has been mounting in the form of heated discussions over changing the mechanism that allows the rampant abuse of public cars. The public consensus seems to be that wasting public funds on public cars must be stopped. And the debate has been refocused on how the mechanism be reformed.

In 1998, the State Restructuring Commission issued a document on the reform of management of public cars for official use at central government departments.

The municipal government of the city of Daqing in Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province took the lead in carrying out such a reform in the same year.

Of 402 public cars used by 59 government departments, only 106 were left for official business use, the rest were publicly auctioned off. Rules have been put in place to strictly control the use of the remaining cars only for official business.

Officials at these departments have been given subsidies for using public transport means.

Some local governments followed suit while many are still waiting to see what happens.

For those government departments whose public car management has been reformed, controversy has been focused on the traffic subsidies for officials.

The amount of money for such subsidies vary according to the official's rank, meaning the higher up the official is in the chain of command, the more money he or she will get for the subsidy.

The subsidy has become a privilege rather than an allowance to compensate for the possible cost of business trips. Officials of higher ranks do not necessarily travel more than their counterparts of lower ranks for official business, but they get much more money for traffic subsidy. So it is unfair for the subsidy to be given on the basis of rank.

Furthermore, the subsidy itself is problematic. Why do they need traffic subsidies, as they are given much more than what it would cost an ordinary citizen to travel the same amount. If officials have an urgent need to go somewhere for official business, they may take taxis and have the expenses reimbursed.

It is not complicated to set up a mechanism for officials to have their expenses for business trips reimbursed.

Given the fact that government departments still have some cars left at their disposal even after the reform, these cars, if efficiently managed, can hopefully meet the needs of some urgent business trips.

If this is true, the suspicion may be verified that the subsidy has become a form of salary rise for government officials.

It will be an uphill battle and take a long time to reform the way the public cars are used by government officials.

The crux lies in the fact that those who are making policies for the reform are themselves beneficiaries of the old system.