朱镕基口述：朱镕基马仔宋瑞祥被周永康挤掉了国土资源部长的位置
编者按：转发这段文章是因为通过当事人自己的口述，朱镕基马仔宋瑞祥被周永康挤掉了国土资源部长的位置。后来，朱镕基挑逗江泽民和胡锦涛内斗，导致江泽民折损了周永康这员大将，胡锦涛折损了令计划这员大将。而朱镕基和习近平坐收渔翁之利，习近平巩固权力得以终身连任，朱镕基自己斗败江泽民当上了上海帮的老大，把中国推向了更深的深渊。这是中国从1978年到2024年的46年历史，邓小平与陈云内斗剧情的延申剧情，江泽民和朱镕基内斗，和石油帮老大争夺战。
朱镕基：政府机构改革要决心大、步子稳、工作实
2011-09-14 09:28人民网
摘要：这期省部级干部推进政府机构改革专题研究班，办得很及时，我非常支持。下面，我讲两点意见。
这期省部级干部推进政府机构改革专题研究班，办得很及时，我非常支持。下面，我讲两点意见。
一、政府机构改革势在必行，政企必须分开
我先讲两件事情。第一件事是中央电视台《焦点访谈》节目报道的。某市有个葡萄酒厂生产“三梅酒”，是个名牌，企业被兼并后，商标也应该转让。但市委书记让市财政局把商标买下来，变成政府的商标。企业已被三九集团兼并，牌子就是不给人家，这个市委书记还振振有词。真是管得太宽了！如果我们的省委书记、省长、市长都这么干预经济，中国的经济怎么能搞好？怎么搞社会主义市场经济？企业都在长官意志的指挥下，还有什么竞争？还是吃“大锅饭”嘛！第二件事，最近上海搞“牛奶大战”，发人深省的地方在于企业把牛奶价格降到成本以下出售。这反映了一个机制问题，因为亏损了，工厂可以不负责任，可以挂在银行账上，由银行出钱。这也是行政干预的结果。同志们可以做点调查研究，如果哪一个企业亏得一塌糊涂还在生产，其后台不是市委书记就是市长。吃亏的是国家，账都挂在银行，一旦爆发金融危机，后果不堪设想。所以，再也不能搞政企合一了，再也不能搞行政直接干预了。
那么，政府管什么？政府首先是管市场，要把市场管住、管好。可是，现在政府不是管市场，而是办市场，政府同经济利益直接挂钩，也就没有公平竞争了。其次，政府要管质量。这次把质量技术监督局从国家经贸委划出来直属国务院领导，就是要提高它的地位。虽然没有升级，但国务院决定加强这个部门，准备派几名副部长去加强领导。政府该管的是市场和质量，不是去指挥企业的生产经营，不是去命令银行给企业贷款。这首先是个体制问题，但也说明政府机关人多了。如果人少一点，就没有那么多精力和时间去干预企业了。
转变政府职能的关键是政企分开。这次政府机构改革，为什么要把工业部门撤掉，改成国家经贸委管理的国家局呢？事实已经证明，靠工业部门管企业的方法是管不好的。过去设置八个机械工业部，也难以把机械工业管好。现在情况复杂多了，更难以管理。从机制上看，工业部门从本行业的利益出发，很难对自己管的企业认真进行监管，工作重点往往偏于向中央要钱、要政策。本届政府决定，工业部门没有管企业的任务，改为国家局，划归国家经贸委领导。这些工业局干什么呢？搞规划、搞行业政策、搞项目布点，防止重复建设等。总之，工业局和企业没有直接关系。
那么，今后政府对企业如何监管？就是要建立国有企业稽察特派员制度。实际上就是国务院派出的监事会，但是为了不同《公司法》规定的企业监事会相混淆，称为稽察特派员。由国务院派出，每个稽察特派员配专职助理四人，主要是配备懂审计、会计、金融和监察等方面的人员。这是企业管理机制的一个根本转变。
稽察特派员的任务主要是查账，不干预国有企业经营管理。稽察特派员一年去查两次账，对国有企业的财务状况进行分析、评估，搞清究竟是亏还是盈；同时，对企业主要领导成员的工作业绩进行评价。稽察报告经国家经贸委等部门审核后，向国务院呈报；然后，国务院通过人事部，根据情况决定对国有企业主要领导人的奖惩任免。为什么要这么做呢？我举几个例子。一个是某总公司，不经国家计委和国家外汇管理局批准，借了11亿美元的外债，做生意、搞期货。去年，我们发现它亏了1.5亿美元，赶快采取措施调整了总公司的领导班子。现在查出一共亏了7.7亿美元，简直是胆大包天！还有一个公司，原来说，这个单位好得很，多年都没有发现有什么问题。去年有人揭发，派人一查，亏损68亿元。我们当即决定，马上撤销了这个单位，由中国建设银行接管。这些亏损最后都由国家承担。同志们，如果我们的国有企业不是这样事先不请示、事后不报告，大把大把亏损，国家何至于像今天这样困难？国务院决定向国有大企业和企业集团派稽察特派员是经过深思熟虑的，是实现政企分开的重要举措，是对国有企业管理方式的重大转变，也是符合国际惯例的。不这样做，大多数国有大中型亏损企业三年脱困的目标就成了空话。
稽察特派员到企业查账，一要同国有企业财务会计制度的改革结合，逐步建立符合国际惯例的现代企业财务会计制度，派有稽察特派员的企业要先做起来。二要同审计、工商部门结合，要充分利用审计、工商部门的成果，如有必要也可以请合格的会计公司帮助。派有稽察特派员的国有企业不再搞财务大检查，通常的审计也就可以不做了。稽察特派员只要敢于讲真话，不怕得罪人，就能查出问题。
为什么要人事部管这件事？现在看来，国有企业能不能搞好，关键在于领导班子、在于一把手。有的人无法无天，对他不能没有约束。我们派人去盯住他，把那本账盯住，不行就把他撤下来，让能人上。派稽察特派员是一个新制度，一开始需要稳妥一点。首先要选好人。现在的稽察特派员和专职助理都是严格挑选的，人数先少一点，但他们必须公正廉洁，正己才能正人。有犯罪前科的人不能干，喜欢吃喝玩乐的人也不能干，不能一开始就把名声搞坏。二是要搞好培训。人事部组织国内外专家、学者，在很短的时间内把教材编出来了，这个月就可以开始对他们进行培训。三是要有奖惩和监督。对稽察特派员要加强教育，要有严格的纪律，对工作不得力、玩忽职守的要给予处分。总之，要初战必胜。
地方的国有企业如何管？今后也要采取这个办法。把那些工业厅、局合并起来，不要管企业了。选一些优秀的干部监管企业、监督厂长。对政府机关人员分流工作，我们提出了16字方针，即“带职分流，定向培训，加强企业，优化结构”。为什么要写上“加强企业”？开始，很多同志建议写“加强一线”、“加强基层”，后来还是坚持提“加强企业”，因为企业是根本，企业办不好，一切都是空的。加强企业，就要把最优秀的干部派到那里去。过去常把企业搞得好的企业家，调上来当副部长、当局长，把人都抽空了；现在要倒过来，把优秀人才派到企业里去，政府不要干预他们的生产经营活动，让他们放开手干，但要派稽察特派员盯住他们，能人也不能没有约束。所以，要从社会主义市场经济体制和企业机制上解决这个问题。政府机构改革是形势发展的必然要求和迫切需要，是解决深层矛盾、搞好各项改革和发展的一个关键。机构改革搞好了，各级政府真正做到精简、高效，把干部的积极性都调动起来，管政府该管的事，使该加强的薄弱环节得到加强，指挥系统要灵，工作效率要更高，党的方针、政策得到正确贯彻，其他的事情就好办了。大家对此要有足够的认识，提高自觉性，尽管有困难、有阻力、有风险，也要迎难而上，下工夫抓好。
二、推进政府机构改革决心要大、步子要稳、工作要实
第一，决心要大。我们提出政府机构减员50％不是没有根据。政府不直接管企业了，管理机制、工作方法都要从根本上改变，人就可以减下来。过去由于人浮于事，埋没了人才，干了些不该干的事，这种状况不能再继续下去了。必须转变政府职能，改进工作方法和工作作风，真正做到精简、高效。我这次出国回来后，首先就是赶着批文件，有十天没批了。我发现其中有一个文件是1月7日报到国务院的，这是中国残疾人联合会请示给它扶贫贷款，要财政部贴息。国务院办公厅把这个请示发给各部门去征求意见，到4月8日才有了结果，送给我批。用了三个月时间才拿出解决办法，这引起我很多感想。这不是孤立的一件事，类似的情况很多。本届政府绝对不能这么干下去了。首先，你要贷款，打报告来的单位要主动去联系，到银行去要这个贷款，看银行是什么意见；然后去财政部要贴息，看财政部是什么意见。你就得去跑，讲各种道理说服银行和财政部。他们同意了，再报国务院审批；他们不同意，你把他们的不同意见都写上。否则，国办就将这个文件退回去，说明这个打报告来的单位没有尽到责任。你把所有不同意见都报来了，该协调的都协调了，责任尽到了。国务院再对每个单位的意见进行核对，由主管的副总理作出判断，该不该办，就可以拍板，重大的政策决定最后报总理来批。过去，有事由国务院办公厅秘书局的局长、处长召集有关人员来协调，如果意见不一致，又由国务院副秘书长找有关部长协调。以后再也不能这样办事，国务院办公厅秘书局没有协调这个职能，也没有这个权力。协调是国务院各部门自己的职责，你自己应该找主管部门、左邻右舍去协调。意见不能统一、必须由国务院协调时，你应把自己协调的结果如实报告国务院。这时，国务院领导同志就可以决策了；必要时，国务院副秘书长可受主管副总理的委托协调一下。不下决心转变工作作风，办事效率就不可能提高，人浮于事的现象就不可能改变。因此，这次精简政府机构，我要求国务院办公厅必须起表率作用。
分流的干部怎么办？国务院系统的干部是高素质的干部，应该把他们派到更有用的地方去，发挥他们的才能。现在我们很多部门的领导力量薄弱，需要充实、加强。如商业银行，要把得力的副部长派去当副行长。再如税务总局、国家工商局、国家质量技术监督局都需要加强，特别是这些部门的直属单位要加强。机构不升级，但干部可以高配，正部长可以到另一个部门当副部长，副部长也可以到一个副部级单位当副职，司局级的单位也是这样。我们还准备抽调一批年富力强的司局长，经过培训，到高校去任职，完善高校领导班子的结构；一部分年轻、有文化基础的同志，还可以去学习，取得更高层次的学历或就业资格，以便充实到需要的岗位上去。所以，在机关减人的同时，实际上是加强了整个政府机构、企业和有关单位。现在应该下这个决心了，大气候已经形成，包括机关干部本身都认识到现在这种状况是不行的，没有效率，财政不堪重负。人员放在企业与放在机关是不一样的，不吃“皇粮”了，他得自己找活路，就要想法把企业办好。
第二，步子要稳。这期研究班上，有些同志主张，省级政府的机构改革今年就开始。国务院系统才3万多人，机构改革的难度相对要小些。但地方政府的机构改革就不那么容易了，党政机关干部加在一起有800万人，仅政府公务员就有530万人，减一半就是260多万人，人员分流的难度是相当大的。我建议你们今年先不要动，国家机关先走一步，你们从中总结经验教训。你们要“谋定而后动”，今年先把规划和分流人员的出路都想好，把机构改革方案搞出来，明年再开始。明年年底前把“三定”方案搞好，把减掉的那部分人定下来。这还不能说到位，到位要三年，即到2001年，使所有的人都得到安排。就是说，国家机关到今年年底，地方政府到明年年底，减下来的那部分人都要离开工作岗位，工资照发，经过定向培训，大体上用三年时间，逐步调配到更需要的地方去。
地方政府的干部如何分流？除了加强国有企业外，一个很重要的途径就是加强基层。现在有些基层干部的素质太低，有的人简直无法无天、作威作福。当然，绝大多数基层干部还是好的，问题就出在那少数人身上。因此，要加强基层，要用合格的人去代替那些不合格的人。
不少同志提出，人员分流中要采取措施优化公务员队伍。如何优化？绝不是说合格的留下，不合格的才要走。我认为，要把那些优秀干部放到国有企业去，放到基层去，放到更需要的地方去。留在机关的应该强弱搭配，如果将几个强人放在一起也不一定搞得好。加强国有企业和基层才是我们的主要目的。
第三，工作要实。政府机构改革涉及广大干部的切身利益，思想上不出现波动是不可能的。我们一再强调，对分流的干部不能歧视，绝不能降低国家规定的待遇。原工资照发，这是保持干部队伍稳定的重要措施。同时，要切实加强思想政治工作，工作要做到每个人，要让所有的干部都感受到，组织对他们是负责任的。这次国家机关的调整，对正部级干部的安排，经过了反复研究；对副部级干部的安排，我和中央组织部的同志一起研究过两次，还没有完全定下来。我和很多部长、副部长都谈过话。希望各级地方政府也要按照这个精神，一级一级地把干部安排好，要把他们用在最合适的地方。这是对他们的信任，也是工作需要。要做思想政治工作，要谈话，要把他们的想法摸清楚，全面地考察，把工作做细、做实，这样才是对国家干部负责任的态度。
尽管这次政府机构改革是个中等方案，但步子也相当大。我出访时，外国领导人见到我都说，你们下这么大的决心真是不容易呀！这么大的步子，在北京没有引起什么大的波动，应该说是基本稳定的。只要做到决心大、步子稳、工作实，我想不会出什么大问题。总的看，我们的干部绝大部分确实是好的，是能服从组织决定的。如宋瑞祥同志，原任地质矿产部部长，是正部长级。新组建国土资源部后，对他的安排我们考虑了很久，最后决定派他去与他的工作有联系的环保总局，任党组副书记、常务副局长，保留正部长级。对这个决定他能接受下来是不容易的。最近，他给我写了一封信，表示完全服从组织的分配。我觉得这种顾全大局的精神值得学习！所以我认为，只要把工作做到干部心里，我们的干部是有觉悟、通情达理的。如果处之以官僚主义，工作大而化之，什么思想政治工作都不做，简单化地一宣布，那就要出事。
英文翻译
Zhu Rongji’s dictation: Zhu Rongji, Ma Zai, Song Ruixiang, were squeezed out of the position of Minister of Land and Resources by Zhou Yongkang
Editor’s note: This article is forwarded because, according to the person involved, Zhu Rongji, Ma Zai, and Song Ruixiang were squeezed out of the position of Minister of Land and Resources by Zhou Yongkang. Later, Zhu Rongji provoked an internal fight between Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, which led to Jiang Zemin losing the general Zhou Yongkang and Hu Jintao losing the general Ling Jihua. However, Zhu Rongji and Xi Jinping reaped the benefits. Xi Jinping consolidated his power and was re-elected for life. Zhu Rongji himself defeated Jiang Zemin and became the boss of the Shanghai Gang, pushing China into a deeper abyss. This is the 46-year history of China from 1978 to 2024, an extension of the internal struggle between Deng Xiaoping and Chen Yun, the internal struggle between Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, and the battle for the boss of the oil gang.
Zhu Rongji: The reform of government institutions must be determined, steady and practical.
2011-09-14 09:28 People’s Daily Online
Abstract: This special research class for provincial and ministerial level cadres to promote the reform of government institutions was held in a timely manner and I support it very much. Next, I would like to make two comments.
This special research class for provincial and ministerial-level cadres to promote the reform of government institutions was held in a timely manner, and I support it very much. Next, I would like to make two comments.
- Reform of government institutions is imperative, and government and enterprises must be separated
Let me talk about two things first. The first thing was reported by CCTV’s “Focus Interview” program. There is a winery in a certain city that produces “Sanmei Wine”, which is a famous brand. After the company is merged, the trademark should also be transferred. But the Municipal Party Committee Secretary asked the Municipal Finance Bureau to buy the trademark and turn it into a government trademark. The company has been merged by the Sanjiu Group, but the brand is not given to others, yet the municipal party committee secretary still speaks plausibly. It’s really too lenient! If our provincial party committee secretaries, governors, and mayors interfere in the economy like this, how can China’s economy do well? How to build a socialist market economy? Enterprises are all under the command of the executive’s will, so what competition is there? It’s better to eat “big pot rice”! The second thing is that Shanghai has recently engaged in a “milk war”. What is thought-provoking is that companies have lowered the price of milk to sell below cost. This reflects a mechanism problem. Because the factory is not responsible for losses, it can be listed in the bank account and the bank will pay. This is also the result of administrative intervention. Comrades can do some research and find out that if an enterprise is still producing despite a huge loss, its backstage is either the municipal party committee secretary or the mayor. It is the country that suffers, as all its accounts are tied to banks. Once a financial crisis breaks out, the consequences will be disastrous. Therefore, we can no longer integrate government and enterprise, and we can no longer engage in direct administrative intervention.
So, what does the government control? The government must first manage the market and control the market well. However, now the government does not manage the market, but runs the market. The government is directly linked to economic interests, so there is no fair competition. Secondly, the government must control quality. This time, the Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau was separated from the State Economic and Trade Commission and placed directly under the leadership of the State Council to improve its status. Although there was no upgrade, the State Council decided to strengthen this department and prepared to send several deputy ministers to strengthen leadership. The government should manage the market and quality, not direct the production and operation of enterprises, nor order banks to provide loans to enterprises. This is first of all an institutional issue, but it also shows that there are too many people in government agencies. If there are fewer people, there will not be so much energy and time to intervene in the enterprise.
The key to transforming government functions is the separation of government and enterprises. In this government organizational reform, why should the industrial sector be removed and transformed into a national bureau managed by the State Economic and Trade Commission? Facts have proved that relying on the industrial sector to manage enterprises is not good. In the past, eight ministries of machinery industry were set up, but it was difficult to manage the machinery industry well. Now the situation is much more complex and harder to manage. From a mechanism perspective, it is difficult for industrial departments to seriously supervise the enterprises they manage based on the interests of their own industries. The focus of their work is often on asking the central government for money and policies. The current government has decided that the industrial sector will not have the task of managing enterprises, but will be transformed into a national bureau and placed under the leadership of the State Economic and Trade Commission. What do these industrial bureaus do? Carry out planning, industry policies, project layout, prevent duplication of construction, etc. In short, the Industrial Bureau has no direct relationship with enterprises.
So, how will the government supervise enterprises in the future? That is to establish a system of special inspectors for state-owned enterprise inspections. In fact, it is a board of supervisors dispatched by the State Council, but in order to be confused with the corporate board of supervisors stipulated in the “Company Law”, they are called special inspectors. Dispatched by the State Council, each special inspector is assigned four full-time assistants, mainly personnel who understand auditing, accounting, finance and supervision. This is a fundamental change in the corporate management mechanism.
The task of the special inspection commissioner is mainly to audit accounts and not to interfere in the operation and management of state-owned enterprises. Special inspectors check the accounts twice a year to analyze and evaluate the financial status of state-owned enterprises to find out whether they are in deficit or profitable; at the same time, they evaluate the work performance of the main leaders of the enterprise. After the inspection report is reviewed by the State Economic and Trade Commission and other departments, it is submitted to the State Council; then, the State Council, through the Ministry of Personnel, decides on the rewards and punishments for the main leaders of state-owned enterprises according to the circumstances. Why do you do that? Let me give you a few examples. One is a head office that borrowed US$1.1 billion in foreign debt to do business and engage in futures without approval from the State Planning Commission and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. Last year, we discovered that it had lost $150 million and quickly took measures to adjust the leadership team of the parent company. Now it is found that the total loss is 770 million US dollars, which is simply audacious! There is another company. It turns out that this unit is very good and no problems have been found for many years. Last year someone exposed it and sent people to investigate and found a loss of 6.8 billion yuan. We immediately decided to cancel this unit and let China Construction Bank take over it. These losses are ultimately borne by the state. Comrades, if our state-owned enterprises hadn’t failed to ask for instructions in advance and failed to report afterwards, resulting in huge losses, why would the country be in such difficulty as it is today? The State Council’s decision to dispatch special inspection commissioners to large state-owned enterprises and enterprise groups is a well-thought-out decision. It is an important measure to achieve the separation of government and enterprise. It is a major change in the management methods of state-owned enterprises and is in line with international practice. Without this, the goal of most large and medium-sized state-owned loss-making enterprises to get out of trouble within three years will become empty talk.
When special inspectors go to enterprises to audit accounts, they must first be combined with the reform of the financial accounting system of state-owned enterprises and gradually establish a modern enterprise financial accounting system that conforms to international practices. Enterprises that send special inspectors must start first. Second, it must be combined with the audit and industrial and commercial departments, and the results of the audit and industrial and commercial departments must be fully utilized. If necessary, qualified accounting companies can also be invited to help. State-owned enterprises with special inspectors no longer conduct major financial inspections, and ordinary audits are no longer required. As long as the special inspectors dare to tell the truth and are not afraid of offending others, they can find out the problems.
Why should the HR department take care of this matter? Now it seems that whether state-owned enterprises can do well depends on the leadership team and the top leaders. Some people are lawless and must be restrained. We send people to keep an eye on him and keep an eye on the account. If it doesn’t work, we will remove him and let more capable people come in. Sending special inspection commissioners is a new system, and it needs to be a little more prudent at the beginning. The first thing is to choose good people. The current inspection commissioners and full-time assistants are carefully selected. The number should be smaller at first, but they must be fair and honest, and they must be honest to themselves before they can be honest to others. People with criminal records can’t do it, and people who like to eat, drink and have fun can’t do it either. You can’t ruin your reputation from the beginning. The second is to provide good training. The Ministry of Personnel organized domestic and foreign experts and scholars to compile teaching materials in a very short period of time, and training for them can begin this month. Third, there must be rewards, punishments and supervision. It is necessary to strengthen education and strict discipline for inspection commissioners, and punish those who are incompetent or neglect their duties. In short, you must win the first battle.
How to manage local state-owned enterprises? This approach will also be adopted in the future. Merge those industrial departments and bureaus and leave the companies alone. Select some outstanding cadres to supervise enterprises and supervise factory directors. Regarding the transfer of personnel from government agencies, we have put forward a 16-character policy, namely “separate employees with jobs, provide targeted training, strengthen enterprises, and optimize structures.” Why should we write “strengthening enterprises”? At first, many comrades suggested “strengthening the front line” and “strengthening the grassroots”. Later, they insisted on “strengthening the enterprise” because the enterprise is the foundation. If the enterprise is not run well, everything will be in vain. To strengthen an enterprise, we must send the best cadres there. In the past, entrepreneurs who did well in enterprises were promoted to deputy ministers and government chiefs, which freed up people. Now we need to reverse the situation and send outstanding talents to enterprises. The government should not interfere with their production and operation activities and let them They can do whatever they want, but special inspectors must be sent to keep an eye on them, and even capable people must have restraints. Therefore, this problem must be solved from the perspective of the socialist market economic system and enterprise mechanism. The reform of government institutions is an inevitable requirement and urgent need for the development of the situation. It is a key to solving deep-seated contradictions and carrying out various reforms and development. After the institutional reform is completed, governments at all levels must be truly streamlined and efficient, mobilize the enthusiasm of cadres, take care of the government’s affairs, and strengthen the weak links that should be strengthened. The command system must be agile and work efficiency must be higher. , the party’s principles and policies are correctly implemented, and other things will be easier to handle. Everyone must have sufficient understanding of this, increase their consciousness, and despite difficulties, resistance, and risks, we must face the difficulties and work hard to do a good job.
- To promote the reform of government institutions, we must have strong determination, steady steps, and practical work.
First, be determined. Our proposal to reduce the number of government agencies by 50% is not unfounded. If the government no longer directly controls enterprises, the management mechanism and working methods must be fundamentally changed, and the number of people can be reduced. In the past, due to overstaffing, talents were buried and things should not be done. This situation cannot continue. Government functions must be transformed, work methods and work styles must be improved, and truly streamlined and efficient. After I came back from this trip abroad, the first thing I had to do was rush to get the documents approved, and I didn’t get them approved for ten days. I found that one of the documents was submitted to the State Council on January 7. This is a request from the China Disabled Persons’ Federation to provide it with a poverty alleviation loan and an interest discount from the Ministry of Finance. The General Office of the State Council sent this request for instructions to various departments to solicit opinions. It was not until April 8 that the results were obtained and sent to me for approval. It took three months to come up with a solution, which made me think a lot. This is not an isolated incident, there are many similar situations. This government must not continue doing this. First, if you want a loan, you should take the initiative to contact the unit that made the report, go to the bank to ask for the loan, and see what the bank’s opinion is; then go to the Ministry of Finance to ask for an interest discount, and see what the Ministry of Finance’s opinion is. You have to go out and convince the bank and the Ministry of Finance with various arguments. If they agree, submit it to the State Council for approval; if they disagree, write down their different opinions. Otherwise, the State Council will return the document, indicating that the unit that made the report failed to fulfill its responsibilities. You reported all the different opinions, coordinated everything that should be coordinated, and fulfilled your responsibilities. The State Council then checks the opinions of each unit, and the deputy prime minister in charge makes a judgment on whether it should be done or not. Major policy decisions are finally reported to the prime minister for approval. In the past, the director or division chief of the Secretariat of the General Office of the State Council summoned relevant personnel to coordinate. If there was a disagreement, the deputy secretary-general of the State Council would find the relevant minister to coordinate. We can no longer do things like this in the future. The Secretariat of the General Office of the State Council does not have this coordination function and does not have this power. Coordination is the responsibility of each department of the State Council. You should find the competent departments and neighbors to coordinate. When opinions cannot be unified and coordination must be coordinated by the State Council, you should truthfully report the results of your coordination to the State Council. At this time, the leading comrades of the State Council can make decisions; if necessary, the deputy secretary-general of the State Council can be entrusted by the deputy prime minister to coordinate. Without the determination to change the work style, it is impossible to improve work efficiency, and it is impossible to change the phenomenon of overstaffing. Therefore, I ask the General Office of the State Council to set an example in streamlining government agencies this time.
What to do with the diverted cadres? Cadres in the State Council system are high-quality cadres, and they should be sent to more useful places to give full play to their talents. The leadership of many of our departments is currently weak and needs to be enriched and strengthened. For example, a commercial bank should send an effective deputy director to serve as deputy president. For example, the State Administration of Taxation, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the State Administration of Quality and Technical Supervision all need to be strengthened, especially the units directly under these departments. The organization will not be upgraded, but cadres can be highly matched. A minister can go to another department to serve as a deputy minister, and a deputy minister can also serve as a deputy in a deputy ministerial-level unit. The same is true for departments and bureau-level units. We are also preparing to transfer a group of young and capable department directors to serve in colleges and universities after training to improve the structure of the leadership teams of colleges and universities. Some young and well-educated comrades can also study and obtain higher-level academic qualifications or employment qualifications. In order to enrich themselves into the positions they need. Therefore, while reducing the number of people in government agencies, it actually strengthens the entire government agencies, enterprises and related units. It is time to make this determination. The general climate has taken shape, including the cadres themselves, who have realized that the current situation is not feasible, inefficient, and the finances are overwhelmed. There is a difference between putting people in an enterprise and putting them in an organization. If they no longer eat “emperor’s food”, they have to find a way to survive on their own, and they have to find ways to run the company well.
Second, the steps must be steady. Some comrades in this research class advocated that the institutional reform of provincial governments should begin this year. The State Council system has only over 30,000 people, so organizational reform is relatively less difficult. But the institutional reform of local government is not so easy. There are 8 million party and government cadres combined, and 5.3 million government civil servants alone. If reduced by half, there will be more than 2.6 million people. The difficulty of personnel diversion is quite high. I suggest you stay put this year. The state agencies will take the first step and you can draw lessons from it. You must “make decisions before taking action.” This year, you must first think about planning and diversion of personnel, and come up with an institutional reform plan before starting next year. Before the end of next year, we will complete the “three determinations” plan and determine the number of people who will be reduced. This cannot be said to be in place yet. It will take three years, that is, by 2001, for everyone to have arrangements. That is to say, by the end of this year in state agencies and by the end of next year in local governments, the reduced number of people will leave their jobs. Their salaries will continue to be paid. After targeted training, it will take roughly three years to gradually deploy them to places where they are more needed.
How to divert local government cadres? In addition to strengthening state-owned enterprises, a very important way is to strengthen the grassroots level. Nowadays, the quality of some grassroots cadres is too low, and some are simply lawless and domineering. Of course, the vast majority of grassroots cadres are good, but the problem lies with those few. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the grassroots and replace those who are unqualified with qualified people.
Many comrades have proposed that measures should be taken to optimize the civil service team during personnel diversion. How to optimize? This does not mean that only those who are qualified will stay and those who are unqualified will leave. I believe that those outstanding cadres should be placed in state-owned enterprises, at the grassroots level, and where they are needed more. Those who stay in the agency should be matched with strong and weak ones. If several strong people are put together, it may not work well. Strengthening state-owned enterprises and grassroots is our main purpose.
Third, the work must be practical. The reform of government institutions involves the vital interests of the majority of cadres, and it is impossible not to have ideological fluctuations. We have repeatedly emphasized that there must be no discrimination against transferred cadres, and the treatment prescribed by the state must not be lowered. The original salary will be paid as usual, which is an important measure to maintain the stability of the cadre team. At the same time, we must effectively strengthen ideological and political work, work must be done for everyone, and all cadres must feel that the organization is responsible for them. This time the adjustment of state agencies has gone through repeated studies on the arrangements for ministerial-level cadres; on the arrangements for deputy-ministerial-level cadres, I and the Central Committee
Comrades from Oribe have studied it twice together, but have not yet made a complete decision. I have talked with many ministers and deputy ministers. It is hoped that local governments at all levels will also follow this spirit, arrange cadres level by level, and use them in the most appropriate places. This is a trust in them and a work requirement. To do ideological and political work, you need to talk, you need to understand their thoughts, conduct comprehensive inspections, and do the work carefully and practically. This is the responsible attitude towards the state cadres.
Although this reform of government institutions is a medium-term plan, the steps are quite large. When I visited overseas, foreign leaders said to me that it was not easy for you to make such a big determination! Such a big step has not caused any major fluctuations in Beijing, and it should be said that it is basically stable. As long as we are determined, steady and practical, I don’t think there will be any big problems. Generally speaking, the vast majority of our cadres are indeed good and able to obey organizational decisions. For example, Comrade Song Ruixiang, formerly the Minister of Geology and Mineral Resources, was at the ministerial level. After the newly established Ministry of Land and Resources, we considered his arrangement for a long time, and finally decided to send him to the State Environmental Protection Administration, which is related to his work, as deputy secretary of the Party Leadership Group and executive deputy director, retaining the full ministerial level. It was not easy for him to accept this decision. Recently, he wrote me a letter expressing his complete compliance with the organization’s assignments. I think this spirit of taking the overall situation into consideration is worth learning! Therefore, I believe that as long as the work is carried out in the minds of the cadres, our cadres will be aware and reasonable. If we deal with bureaucracy and simplify the work, do not do any ideological and political work, and simply announce it, something will happen.