It's high time we (prevented) government officials from using public funds to travel overseas for leisure in the garb of business trips, (says) an article in Yangtze Evening Post. Excerpt:
The Guangzhou marine affairs (court) recently rejected accusations that six of its officials went on a sightseeing (tour) overseas, wasting a lot of public money.
According to their statement, the six court officials paid a 12-day visit to three (foreign) countries for "exchanging ideas and inspection". They said the court (approved) the visit, and the expenditure "did not exceed the budget".
The public was (caught) by surprise as the court came out with the statement defending its integrity.
People thought the court might be afraid of touching (upon) the core facts of the visit, such as expenditures and legitimacy. But the court laid out "the facts" before the media, (refuting) all allegations. But, is the court really innocent?
First, the statement is based on the investigation of the (discipline) department of the court and, obviously a subordinate department doesn't have the real power to monitor its leaders. Hence its findings are not (convincing) at all.
Second, (although) the court said that the visit was approved and legitimate, it didn't explain why they spent more time at tourist sports than at meetings. For example, during the 12-day trip, the officials (dropped) by only three courts and met one association of lawyers, which took them just about two full days. How did they (spend) the remaining 10 days?
The court said that each of the officials spent 80,000 yuan during the trip, adding that the (expenditure) didn't exceed the budget. But as far as we know, the market price for the same (tour) is around 20,000 yuan per person. If four times of the market price still doesn't exceed the budget, the court is really rich.
If the Guangzhou (marine) affair court can get away with no punishment for this overseas visit, it (would) set a bad example for other government departments.
The (superior) government department should intervene to debunk the court's statement.
Question)
1. What does the passage talk about ?
2. How do you think of misusing of authority and corruption ?
