Official power is granted by the public and the public should therefore be those who do the supervision—this is the basic logic of the operation of public power. Government staff work for the public and they are not sellers or clients. Entrusting the supervisory power to a third party means setting up another supervision system unrelated to the public. This is by no means a good example of working for the people.

The public should be the direct judges of whether government staff conduct has violated laws or regulations or even moral codes. If the current system is not effective enough, the government should try to ascertain the problems and correct them. To deny the public its role and turn to certain investigation companies pushes the public further away from supervision.

Zhang Yuzhe (Yanzhao Evening News): Despite good intentions and also good results from third-party observation, the public security bureau is going in the wrong direction. As the government's power is granted by the people, it is the people who have the right to decide whether government staff are doing well or badly. China's Constitution empowers the public to criticize government and offer suggestions. The rights of supervision belong to the whole of society, not a certain investigation company.

The bureau's operations depend on public taxation. On one hand, it is blocking the public from supervision. On the other, it is using taxpayers' money to hire a company for supervision. Isn't it a waste of public resources?

As for the motive of supervision, public supervision is voluntary action based on a sense of citizenship, while hired observers are doing so driven by economic interests based on business contracts. Besides, a company is unable to obtain complete information and evidence about government staff because of the lack of employees or certain facilities, but public supervision is everywhere at any time.

As for the effect of supervision, an investigation company might be very cautious and even a bit timid when carrying out its work, but the public must be very critical about misconduct of government staff.

Hiring watchdogs may make the public find themselves incapable of supervision although they all hope to do so, which will deeply hurt the public's enthusiasm for supervision. When public supervision, which is supposed to be strict and strong, is weakened, hiring investigators becomes useless.

It's better to find ways to mobilize the public than to seek abnormal channels. The priority is to really give an ear to the public's voice and absorb its suggestions.

Liu Hongbo (Huashang Daily): Hiring third-party observers made supervision a business. Furthermore, it denies the role of public supervision.

Some people support this paid observation, saying that there are no laws forbidding the practice. But it is the freedom given to the public to do what laws do not forbid, not power institutions themselves. Internally, the police force's conduct is scrutinized by the discipline watchdog, and externally there is public supervision from society, so there is no necessity to turn to a so-called investigation company.

Some may argue it's better to have paid supervision than no supervision at all. The question is, will paid supervision bring government satisfactory service?

To supervise governmental institutions is a political and legal right granted by the law to the people. When the public is blocked out, various types of innovative supervision emerge. When supervisory rights are returned to the public and media, supervision is no longer a headache for government.

Yang Tao (www.enorth.com.cn): Although an investigation company can make use of video and other advanced methods to keep an eye on the police, its nature as a business company prevents it from conducting in-depth investigation and makes it impossible to operate for too long—the annual payment of 80,000 yuan can't support it for long. Therefore, what it can do is nothing but observe whether the policemen wear uniform at work, whether they go to fancy hotels, massage centers or whether they drive after drinking or not—these are all trivial things. As to whether the policemen have taken bribes or bent the law for evil purposes or even act as protection umbrellas for criminal activities, the company is incapable of and has no interest in ascertaining these.

In addition, even if we believe that the investigation company is devoted to the job, all of its work is done under instruction of the bureau. In other words, the observation is done within certain designated areas. It's therefore hard to say whether it supervises ordinary policemen's illegal behavior or even the bureau leaders' illegal behavior. In conclusion, as long as the observation is based on contracted trade, people have a lot of reasons to suspect its fairness.

Deng Ziqing (www.dzwww.com): Hiring undercover investigators to supervise police staff before consulting the public might be hated by the people, though it may have some positive effect. Especially, the investigation company only probes what the bureau tells it to. It listens to the bureau and works for the bureau, not for the people, because it is the bureau that pays it, not the people. As a result, the bureau and the investigation company are actually in the same camp, both having something to gain from this collaboration. As to how much the local people benefit from this cooperation, it's hard to say; but one thing is certain, some of the public's rights are neglected, as the public has no say about whether the bureau should pay for staff supervision or how much it should pay.