Maintenance of a good social order depends on observation of rules and norms by all members of society. Violations should be punished. But maintaining order should focus on preventing offenses rather than on punishing them.

The Traffic Regulation Bureau of Wuhan, capital of central China's Hubei Province, announced over the weekend that the administration would "no longer take the number of traffic violations a policeman handles as a criterion to gauge his performance of duty".

A leading official in the bureau said that in the past a traffic policeman on duty had been required to handle at least 15 traffic violations each day. "The regulation actually set a quota of violations a policeman had to handle. This distracted him from directing traffic," the official said.

The official's remark represents the first time that any traffic authorities in China have overtly admitted the existence of such quotas.

It has long been suspected that law enforcement authorities set quotas for policemen. Some even suspect that the fines end up in officers' bonuses.

Critics have said that such incentives prompted policemen to catch traffic violators from hidden positions. Some even set traps to tempt motorists to violate rules, critics alleged.

Honestly, I don't believe that our public security authorities would encourage officers to tap new sources of income by creating opportunities for imposing fines. My question is about the transparency of the enforcement of traffic laws.

Since there are so many rumors about the fines' destination, why don't the authorities explain to the public or to the annual sessions of the People's Congress how the money has been used? Even if part of the fines are used to pay the officers, it is understandable since their work load is unusually heavy given China's traffic conditions. But there must be an explanation to the public.

In fact, what the public most resents is the unfairness and ambiguity in the course of carrying out the law. Though one cannot claim that unfair treatment is commonplace, it is not rare. For instance, police never punish those drivers who force their way into a queue of vehicles before the crossroads. Instead, someone who accidentally takes the wrong lane because of ambiguous signs is usually caught by an officer who has appeared from God-knows-where. 

Unintentional offenses should be treated leniently. Traffic regulations should try to prevent these offenses rather than punish them.

For instance, roadside parking is a highly risky business. On many streets, there are no "No parking" signs and vehicles are often seen parked there.

But if one day you park your car there then leave, you are likely to find a ticket on your windscreen when you come back. If you argue with the police, you will be told: "You should know this is a no- parking area because there are not any parking lines drawn on the ground." I am not inventing the scenario. I was fined twice this way.

I remember my experience in Australia and the United States. Most streets are clearly marked with signs of no parking or limited parking. Where there are no such signs, you can park your vehicle freely. Here in our cities, the rule is that if there are not any parking lines on the ground, it can be a no- parking place. The fact, however, is that there are so many unmarked roadsides and in many cases parking is not penalized. Who knows when the penalty will come?

The Wuhan traffic official said that the new method of appraising policemen's performance would focus on the traffic flow and safety in the area the officer is in charge of. This is good news. I also hope traffic regulations will be less ambiguous.

(China Daily January 31, 2007)