For government offices, whatever they do, they should first make sure they are toeing the line in terms of judicial procedures.

The NCA, in a rush against the Ministry of Culture to levy a compulsory copyright fee on karaoke venues, ran into intense opposition after announcing a universal 12-yuan-per-day-per-room charge.

In spite of the NCA's conspicuous retreat amid vows of boycott, first saying the standard is not compulsory, and then it will not be one-standard-fits-all, there is no sign it can escape without being burnt.

The most subversive challenge is from a group of lawyers in Guangdong Province. They are questioning the legal ground of the NCA's move.

Collecting royalties from commercial use is a right of all copyright holders.

But in what capacity is the NCA itself stepping in? How should copyrights be priced and the fee collected?

The NCA has responded assuredly, saying it has full legal ground to go ahead.

But the reply does not seem to have convinced anyone. While industry players react increasingly aggressively, the NCA is backing out of the limelight.

Suspicions are rife about the motives behind the NCA's and the Ministry of Culture's race for the karaoke copyright fees. The NCA has found itself trapped only because it was one step ahead in writing out a price tag.

We have little doubt about the NCA's ability to manoeuvre a way out. But it would be a pity if the national copyright watchdog moves on without reflecting on what had caused its frustration.

Karaoke venue operators are right in questioning the way the decision was made.

Citizens are increasingly aware of and, therefore, sensitive to their rights and the legal implications of government conduct. Government institutions can easily become victims of their own mishaps in carrying out official duties.

The State Council Legislative Affairs Office (LAO), the all-important government agency that tables all the government's law-making proposals, itself is entangled in a dispute over legitimacy.

Responding to public complaints about the government's own violation of the country's Highway Law, whose amendment in 1999 outlawed the road maintenance fee and installed a fuel tax instead, the LAO said earlier there is no legal problem about continuing to collect the road maintenance fee before the proposed fuel tax is levied.

Its most determined critic, again a lawyer by profession, argues the office is not in a position to make a legally binding interpretation.

Even the latest rise in regular postal service fees is undergoing a legitimacy check.

Fastidious whistle-blowers may be a headache for government offices. They may be considered a drag on law enforcement.

But such vigilance is not only necessary for the protection of civil rights, but also actually an essential check on the exercise of public powers.

There is no harm if our public servants know they are being watched by a vigilant public.

A legitimacy check is a must these days if they want to avoid the embarrassment of being challenged and ending up retracting poorly conceived orders.

(For more biz stories, please visit Industry Updates)