Ma Zhiyuan (http://www.xinhuanet.com): We all know exam-takers have to go through fierce competition before being admitted as a civil servant. Sometimes more than 1,000 people compete for a single job vacancy, and a minor change in the rules can alter the final results and the destiny of the candidates.

The public worries that no specific and unified standards are set to measure the abstract moral character of people. For instance, if one contestant is enthusiastically dedicated to social welfare and always helps the poor and needy, while another works in a village and does his or her best to serve the people, how can we determine which one has better virtue?

For now, it's not realistic to take virtue as a standard to recruit civil servants and the more practical way is to include it in the one-year probation period for new civil servants.

Also, virtue can change with the change of environment. If we only focus on the exam-takers' virtue when recruiting but ignore it after they are admitted to government departments, their virtue may deteriorate or even become corrupt without a strict supervision system.

Li Jiming (http://news.hexun.com): Evidence shows the reason for corruption is the imperfect system, flawed management and slack supervision. So, if the atmosphere in China's government departments is not good, even people of the best virtue will become corrupt eventually. No one is born as a corrupt government official and the problem lies in society. Also, environment plays the key role in regulating people's behavior and cultivating virtue.

Therefore, instead of over-emphasizing the importance of evaluating exam-takers' virtue when recruiting civil servants, we should pay more attention to establishing a better environment and cultivating a better atmosphere to improve civil servants' virtue.

Xiong Bingqi (Nandu Daily): Taking virtue as a standard for civil servants' recruitment is said to be a way to improve moral levels. But, if not well considered, this new regulation could cause serious corruption for recruitment and won't improve the overall quality of civil servants.

If virtue is taken into consideration in the interview, there must be specific standards for evaluating it, and it should be specifically regulated what proportion it should make up in the total score. Otherwise, people won't be able to supervise the whole process to make sure of justice and fairness.

If testing people's virtue is not part of the interview, it raises many problems. First, besides another procedure for testing, except for exams and interviews, how can we make sure this element is fair and just? Second, what proportion should the evaluation of virtue account for in the final decision? If it enables the power of veto, it would probably be used in under-the-table dealing. The State Administration of Civil Service should inform all of the rules of recruitment.

The problem is not in evaluating exam-takers' virtue when recruiting civil servants but in the supervision of their power after they become civil servants. If their power is restrained and is in the spotlight, no civil servants would dare to violate principles. On the contrary, if their power is not properly supervised and restrained, even people of superior virtue may get corrupt.

Deng Qingbo (Guangzhou Daily): It's not proper to evaluate virtue when recruiting civil servants.

The corruption of civil servants lies in flaws of management, such as overstaffing, insufficient supervision and the fact that few staff are dismissed for misbehavior.

Statistics show that since the dismissal system for civil servants was established in 1996, only 19,374 civil servants were fired up to 2003, 0.05 percent of the total number in the country, far less than the dismissal rate in companies, which is 5 percent to 15 percent. Even if civil servants with very serious problems, such as incapacity for work or moral problems, are found, they can't be fired in time. Only when unqualified civil servants can be fired in time will there be improvment. If the atmosphere is improved, governmental departments would be a better place for people to have better motivation and better moral character.