It has been reported that all 7.23 million candidates taking this year's national exams for college admission signed a "commitment letter" pledging to abide by the rules for the exam as set out by the national education authority.

As a brand-new measure being taken to maintain the fairness and seriousness of this important exam, the "commitment letter" has been applauded by a number of commentators. From their point of view, the signing of the pledge demonstrated that this year's national exams were not only tests of the students' academic performance, but also a test of their credibility. Moreover, due to the importance of the national exam, they also regarded it as an effective way to improve students' awareness of the need for credibility.

In China, a college diploma is very important if a person is to survive and the admission standards to universities and colleges are the college entrance examination scores.

To be sure, I have no intention to challenge the merits of emphasizing the credibility of the exam process. After all, credibility is of vital importance to both individuals and the nation. However, I am just wondering whether such an action as signing the pledge really makes any sense.

My first doubt arises from the "voluntariness" of signing the pledge. The news reports said that all participants in the national exams signed the "commitment letters". Sorry for being so suspicious of human nature - is it true that all the participants were willing to do so? Were there any voices raised in opposition? Could any of the participants refuse to make such a commitment? What if they refused?

I cannot find the answers to these questions in the news reports. As a result, there exist two possibilities. One is that all the participants signed the letter voluntarily. In that case, there would be no worries about any "credibility deficiency" in China because we have 7.23 million young people who have a strong awareness of the need for credibility.

The other is that the signing of the pledge was a form of indirectly enforced good behaviour. If so, the pledge becomes questionable. There's nothing wrong in encouraging students to be honest. Nevertheless, it is meaningless to force them to make the decision. Only decisions that are made out of one's free will are meaningful. Otherwise such "commitment letters" are a mere formality because they cannot change the minds of those who want to cheat.

My second doubt is about the real function of the signed pledges. In the legal sense, signing the letter makes no difference to the participants if they violate the rules of the exams. Whether they have signed the letter or not, the violators should be punished. Furthermore, there is no law or regulation suggesting that violators who signed the pledge should receive a more severe punishment than those who did not sign. In fact, before the promotion of the "commitment letters", all students who cheat in the national exams are not exempt from punishment. After the promotion of the signing of the pledge not to cheat, anyone who violates the exam rules shall have their scores immediately annulled, according to a recent regulation issued by the Ministry of Education.

Last, but not least, even if each participant in the national exams voluntarily made the commitment, there is still something more important missing. Dishonest behaviour in the examination room is not the main corruption problem in the national exams for college admission. Technically speaking, it is not very hard to take counter-measures to stop individuals cheating in the exam room.

There are more harmful fraudulent practices outside the examination room, such as organized group cheating involving parents, teachers and local educational officials. And any corruption in the exams could not be manipulated by the students alone. As a matter of fact, very few high school students are able to bribe officials on their own. In this sense, parents, teachers and the authorities in charge of the national exams at different levels should also have to make a "credibility commitment".

Most importantly, educational departments involved in the national exams should be the first to make the commitment. Without strong proof of the credibility of the government, the credibility of individuals is very unlikely to be improved.

starcomment@yahoo.com