By He Qinglian on August 3, 2012.
Recently, Mr. Wu Si shared his views on
the current affairs of China in the form of an interview. “Granting
a conditional amnesty to corrupt officials to push for political
reform”, he said. A wise man who had made insightful historical
observations, Wu went so far as to draw reference to the amnesty
system that was practiced throughout the feudal history of China,
with the hope that a political reform could be initiated if the
dignitaries and officials get pardoned for their corruption crimes.
With this, he hoped the officials would set aside their worries and
steer the country into a new beginning with the people.
Wu's ideas only served to indicate that corruption in China has no cure. Those elite intellectuals who care about the future of their country racked their brains and only managed to come up with this idea.
Wu's ideas only served to indicate that corruption in China has no cure. Those elite intellectuals who care about the future of their country racked their brains and only managed to come up with this idea.
In fact, the proposition that an
amnesty be granted so as to faciliate the implementation of a political reform is just an idea that has been brought to the table time and
again. As far as I know, back in the 1990s there were individuals in
Beijing who proposed that idea and had serious discussion on it.
Their idea was that a time line be drawn, the corruption cases before
that time line would be pardoned, and those after would be severely
punished. In 2000, Steven Cheung (Zhang Wuchang) the renowned
economist put pen to paper and suggested a hierarchical corruption
system that would legalize corruption of the dignitaries and
officials and thus reduce resistance to change and help pave the way
for political reform.
Practices to “pardon corruption”
that were put in place or widely reported are as follows:
In 1997 the Shenzhen Municipal procuratorial organs launched a trial scheme, the “combat-corruption bank account”. If officials deposit bribes into the bank account specified by the government and retain the proof. Should the corruption case come to light in future, those could be used to get immunity from being held criminally responsible. Two months after the account was set up, it was said that only two deposits had been made. The scheme went dead.
In 2010, Shanghai and Chongqing became
of the pilot cities in the nation-wide scheme to collect property
tax. As part of its preliminary preparation for this, the Shanghai
municipal government once requested over 2000 municipal management
cadres to take the initiative and report their assets. Officials were
told that if they made honest report on details of the flat(s) their
family purchased and the concession given to them, they would get leniency
even if they had violated the party discipline and the national law.
Those property and assets reported would not be used as evidence in
future; and those who concealed their assets would be given severe
punishment if discovered. Allegedly, Shanghai Municipal Party
Committee expressed the hope that through this declaration, officials
could “put down their burden and work”. It thus could be seen as
a local testing scheme for pardoning corruption.
In 2004, Wang Minggao presided a
national scheme to prevent and punish corruption. The core components
of that scheme were to set up a public bank account for officials
across the country to deposit the bribes they received at
state-owned commercial banks anonymously themselves or ask their
relatives to do that for them. To make such deposits, the officials
only need to provide the date, the amount of money and its source,
they do not have to disclose any personal particulars.
Two special decisions would be
implemented. One, those who deposit the money they received in
totality within the given period would be exempted from all forms of
punishment, regardless of their ranking, the scale of the issues, or
if the bribery is come to light in future; two, those who refuse to
turn over the graft or do not turn it over in totality within the
given period would be expelled from the party and dismissed from
public office, and they would also be given the maximum punishment if
they violated the criminal law.
There were three supporting measures:
1) based on the real-name deposit scheme, perfect the assets
declaration mechanism for public office holders; 2) raise the
remuneration for public office holders; 3) establish a sound report
system which whistle-blowers can get up to 50% of the illicit money
being chased.
The scheme, with components akin to an amnesty, was initially greeted with praises. It was said that with this scheme put into practice, the anti-corruption work would produce miraculous results. Two months later, these praises died down.
The scheme, with components akin to an amnesty, was initially greeted with praises. It was said that with this scheme put into practice, the anti-corruption work would produce miraculous results. Two months later, these praises died down.
Apart from the lack of political
correctness and moral foundation, this corruption amnesty scheme
would not work because of the following reasons:
First, China is now a country where morality has collapsed, and the
mutual trust between its people has gone. This lack of mutual trust
manifests itself not only in the relationship between the government
and the people, but also in the relationship between officials and
the government they work for. This lack of trust is the result of the
long-term political movements and the political culture developed
under the governance of the CPC. Throughout the history of the CPC,
from Mao Zedong's “drawing the snake out of its
hole”, encouragement of whistle-blowing (on family and friends),
and to today's total collapse of the moral order that keeps a society
running properly, as manifested by corrupt officials, various
human-made or natural calamities, and a myriad of forms of depravity
like widespread fake goods and pervasive political frauds, the
government lacks political credit; enterprises, individual producers,
manufacturers and businesses lack commercial credit; and individuals
do not have trust in one another.
Chinese officials do not trust the
institution because the government is extremely poor at keeping
promises. In all its political and anti-corruption campaigns, the
Party always says “it would be lenient to those who come clean but
strict to those who resist”, and yet invariably those who confessed
were indicted based on what they had admitted. Therefore, the saying
“confess and get harsh punishment” became popular among
officials. As a result, the plan for officials to declare their
assets has not been put into practice even though it has been
promoted for years. The saying “amnesty” is to the officials a
scheme to “drawing the snake out of its hole”.
Take Shanghai for example, in 2010 there was an attempt to have
municipal cadres declare property they own. Despite the promise that
they would not be investigated, the officials in general did it with
reservation. Reportedly scarcely anyone declared their wealth
truthfully and accurately.
And as for the plan to use that amnesty
to exchange for officials support of political reform, step into the
shoes of officials and look at it, one would realize that is but a
joke. What is it that facilitates the officials to be corrupt and
enjoy all kinds of privileges with their mind at ease? It is the
authoritarian political system that the CPC painstakingly maintains
with heavy spending. Once the institutional protection is gone, what
kind of ending would be waiting for those corrupt officials? To them
what happened to the dictators toppled in the Arab Spring serves as a
warning. Hence, for the officials from the highest levels of the
government to the most rudimentary alike, if they were to choose
between the actual sense of security afforded by the institution and
the promise that they would be pardoned, which one feels safer and
more reliable, they would all have an answer in their hearts.
Family of the officials have demands
like normal human do. The economic power of the officials allows
their family to enjoy higher levels of satisfaction. At present the
survival environment for the Chinese people is very harsh, the social
order is deteriorating, education quality is low, and there is
serious environmental pollution, with limited room for upward
mobility there is excessive competition, alongside a host of other social
conflicts. No one is leading an easy life. In addition, the officials
are fully aware of the perverse actions that the government has been taking and the various forms of social hatred that are accumulating. Hence,
those well-off people and officials with over 10 million assets to
their name know very well that once they have emigrated, all these
issues would go away instantly. It is a series of daunting tasks to
initiate political reform in China, but after they have moved out
of the country their children and descendant can start a new life.
These are the reasons the Chinese
government does not adopt the proposal to declare an amnesty for
corrupt officials in exchange for their support on political reform.
And even if the amnesty is unconditional like the scheme presided by Wang Mingguo, chances are it would end up
as empty talk, not to mention the conditional amnesty that Wu Si
suggested.
Finally, it is crucial to make clear
that if the CPC is stupid enough to publicly declare an amnesty for
corruption, the result would not be a chance to start anew with the
people. Instead, it means a big loss of political legitimacy for the
Party, which would have one less tool to rein in the officials; and
for the people, this means they would completely lose to right to
criticize corruption. Those corrupt officials and their fellows would
very likely say to anyone who criticize corruption that, “you don't
have the means to take graft, so just shut up.”
At present, there are already similar sayings that are targeted people who criticize corruption.
At present, there are already similar sayings that are targeted people who criticize corruption.
A society where jungle rules are
practiced and winners can take all would be more frightening than
today's China I am afraid.
