Editorials

Op-Ed Contributors

Chinese Press

Columnists

LETTERS

More said, the better

(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-07-31 07:54

Professor Lin Zhe of the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China (CPC) reportedly caused a stir the other day at a public forum in Shenzhen.

There was nothing sensational in her speech. She talked about corruption. Which all of us do, all the time. She addressed sensitive topics. Which, again, is the staple of everyday private chats.

Her speech acquired a wider resonance in part because she spoke out what people thought. That kind of candor is not generally expected of someone in her shoes.

Professor Lin discussed the typical scenario in the fall of public officials - a "model" public servant overnight turning out to be an insatiably corrupt one. Invariably, what follows is the disgraced being censured for moral degeneration, as well as betrayal of the Party's and the people's trust. Period.

Professor Li, however, did not stop there. She went further to something many have skirted around. Two important links have been neglected, she pointed out. Why and how was the person appointed, promoted, and became a "model" before being disgraced? Who was supposed to be his supervisor? Liability investigation would not be complete until it extends to the discipline watchdogs, she stated.

Most of us have similar questions each time an otherwise respectable image falls apart. Yet strangely, such questions seldom surface in the public sphere.

We all know corrupt officials are ethically deficient. And, each and every corruption scandal is itself an isolated case that does not represent the "whole picture". Yet it would be self-deceiving to conclude that the problems are all those of the disgraced. That corrupt elements had been touted as fine personal examples just before their true colors were exposed always invites questions and suspicions.

In theory, the CPC has strict procedures for selecting, appointing and evaluating officials. In practice, every finalist for important positions in Party and government offices should have gone through rigorous appraisal. The Party's organizational departments are responsible for all that. Once appointed, every public official is supposed to operate under the supervision of the CPC disciplinary establishments.

The dramatic face-change from favored role models into despicable corrupt elements shows something was wrong in their appointment or performance evaluation. But we cannot know what it is unless we bother to find it out.

Given their extremely detrimental impact on the credibility of the CPC and the authorities, unhealthy practices in the appointment and appraisal of public officials must be dealt with strictly. The corresponding organizational and disciplinary authorities must be held accountable for the scandals under their jurisdiction.

Professor Lin's call for completeness in the investigation of liabilities deserves a much larger audience.

(China Daily 07/31/2009 page8)