Editorials

Op-Ed Contributors

Chinese Press

Columnists

LETTERS

The onus of proof

(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-08-17 07:45

We were not surprised when US companies Control Components Inc. and Avery Dennison pleaded guilty to paying bribes in China. More often than not, that is the way business is done here.

Nor are we surprised to see the list of alleged bribe takers, be it the Ministry of Public Security's Transportation Management and Science Research Institute, Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corp. (China), Guohua Electric Power (China), China Petroleum Materials and Equipment Corp., PetroChina, Dongfang Electric Corporation (China), or China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Naming names is not the way things are usually done here.

What took many of us aback is that US companies might well be pleading to violations that have never ever occurred on our soil.

On August 4, Avery Dennison, the world's leading label maker, admitted that its China division bribed government officials to obtain large orders. The bribes reportedly included gifts, kickbacks, and sightseeing trips.

Yet the alleged bribe taker, the Ministry of Public Security's research institute, categorically denied involvement. After careful investigation and verification, the allegation of people with the institute accepting gifts and expenses turned out to be "non-existent". Or, so we were told.

The California-based valve manufacturer, Control Components Inc. (CCI), has presented a long list of alleged bribe-takers in China. Only one of the six, China National Offshore Oil Corporation said on Saturday that internal investigation found no staff took a bribe. Since the rest have not responded, we wonder whether it will become yet another case of an overseas business fabricating a charge against its innocent Chinese partners.

Offering bribes in business activities are serious violations in the US. But, not as serious as it is here. Yet accepting them is. So once confirmed, those are serious allegations with legal consequences. Plus, considering the nature of international trade, such violations, once established, may involve betrayal of national interests.

Given the devastating damage to their corporate image, the domestic institutions implicated in the scandals would be well advised to react in their own interest.

Simple denials may not suffice. To back up their claims of innocence, they should be specific and come up with counter-evidence in support of their position.

Meanwhile, if the charge against the research institute, for instance, is untrue, it constitutes libel. Why not consider taking legal action? There is no better way to prove innocence.

Since no word has been heard about the Control Components Inc. revelation, there are mixed expectations about what may or may not be put out by the Chinese firms involved.

We wish they could all stand up to boldly and assuredly announce that they are innocent. Before making such a statement, however, they need to do their homework thoroughly, so that their claim survives deeper scrutiny and questioning.

(China Daily 08/17/2009 page4)