东莞市塘厦镇出了—位“豪赌镇长”李为民,5年间挪用公款高达8835万元,港币290万元,到港澳豪赌全部输光(见《南方都市报》2006年7月13日)。尽管“豪赌镇长”今已锒铛入狱,然而“豪赌镇长”的出现深深撞击着人们的神经。在廉政风暴一场接一场不断猛刮的情况下,在各种监管措施、制度纷纷出台的新形势下,为何“豪赌镇长”还会冒出?笔者细析“豪赌镇长”暴露之因:假若没有干部交流、离任审计,恐怕其挪用公款的问题还会隐瞒下去。一个问题也发人深思。据悉,李为民任职5年来往返港澳257次,平均每年50多次,先后多次共挪用公款8835万元。为什么到他离任才暴露?“豪赌镇长”的出现,触动着监管机制的软肋。应该说,在不少地方监督机制是行之有效的,监督的作用也是较为明显的。但是,在一些地方,监督的死角盲区仍然不少。许多地方监督制度尽管挂上墙,却是只供看摆不具体操办;监督的声音尽管从未停息,却是只见响雷不见 Tangxia Town, Dongguan City out of a - bit “gambling mayor ” Li Weimin, 5 years misappropriation of public funds up to 88.35 million yuan, 2.9 million yuan, all gamble to Hong Kong and Macau lose light (see “Southern Metropolis Daily” July 13, 2006 day). Although “gambling mayor ” has been jailed, however, “gamble town may ” the appearance of deep impact on people’s nerves. In a clean and honest after another storm continually shaved case, in a variety of regulatory measures, the system has introduced the new situation, why “gambler mayor” will emerge? “Exposed reason: If there is no exchange of cadres, outgoing audit, I am afraid that the misappropriation of public funds will be kept hidden. A question is also thought-provoking. It is reported that Li Weimin served 25 years between Hong Kong and Macao over the past five years, an average of more than 50 times per year, has repeatedly misappropriated a total of 88.35 million yuan of public funds. Why did he leave to be exposed? ”Gamble town mayor " appears, touches on the weakness of the regulatory mechanism. It should be said that in many local monitoring mechanisms are effective, the role of supervision is more obvious. However, in some places, there are still many dead ends in supervision. Although many local supervisory systems are linked to the wall, they are only for the sake of being unscrupulous. Although the voice of the supervisory has never stopped, it only shows the thunderstorm