Still more than a week away from the seven-day Labour Day holiday, some tourist attractions in China have already announced their plans to raise admission fees during "Golden Week". The Chinese media have criticized the practice.

Public welfare vs

commercialization

An article by Ma Longsheng in the Oriental Morning Post casts doubt on the commercialization of the nation's tourist attractions.

The author notes that the reasons put forward by the tourist sites for a rise in admission fees are high-sounding: for those on the world heritage list of UNESCO, "enhancing protection" is the common reason; while others say they have resorted to the measure to cover "the rise in management costs due to increased visitor numbers in Golden Week".

But when we probe deeper, we are bound to find that the cited reason for the first category may not be sufficient in face of such questions as how much of the money gathered by price rise will be used for site protection. What's more, the government has allocated money to the protection of these sites, and admission fee increase means repeated contribution from tax-payers.

Attention should also be paid to how management costs rise in parks and whether the increase is reasonable. It is shocking that Yuanmingyuan Park in Beijing, where protection is the most important function of management, should have more than 1,700 staff members. There is no denying that there is more work to be done during Golden Week, but it is doubtful whether this is reason enough for a price rise.

In China, it is not clear whether tourist sites should be operated for the purpose of public welfare or subjected to commercialization. Either pattern has its own rules. Since the government covers the management cost for public welfare tourist sites, their admission fees should not be hiked arbitrarily. For commercialized parks, laws and rules should be in place to strike a balance between managerial activities, environment, security, animal welfare and the interests of tourists.

Standard hearings needed

An article by Wang Yi published in the Qilu Evening News points to a lack of restriction on power held by tourist sites as a reason for the higher admission fees.

It can be imagined that behind the price hikes there is not only the economic benefit for the tourist sites, but also gains for local government. Due to that connection, even faced with strong public criticism, the local government either keeps quiet or encourages - under the counter - the higher admission fees. This explains why the related public hearings have become a mere show.

For those tourist sites which dish out plans for admission fee increases, a basic factor contributing to their boldness is that there is a lack of clear restriction on their power.

When the public hearings that are supposed to restrict the power of the tourist sites have become nothing but a form, whether the price will go up or not depends on the morality and self-restraint of local government and tourist sites. This is very dangerous.

To avoid Golden Week becoming a time when tourists get overcharged, it is crucial to ensure the fairness of public hearings and to allow all kinds of voices in the process.

(For more on Golden Week, see "Seven year itch" on page 7)