HONG KONG
- Since it took office in March 2003, the reformist
administration of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen
Jiabao has encountered the age-old challenge that has
always confronted leaders of conviction and vision:
inefficient enforcement of the law - and disdain for the
rule of law.
Some China observers attribute the
problem to two major causes: first, officialdom itself
has only a feeble notion of the rule of law, what it
means and that no one should be above it; second, fierce
resistance emanates from powerful in-groups, common in
both central and local governments and dedicated to
protecting their vested interests in power and financial
gain.
It has been more than a month since June
23, when China's National Audit Office released its
comprehensive 2003 audit report, unearthing malfeasance
and inefficiencies across the board in the governmental
establishment. As yet, few problem departments have made
any positive responses to the report. None has issued an
open statement of apology or acknowledgement of
responsibility nor has any promised to rectify its work
in the future.
Observers said that some
significant problem areas were linked to the supporters
of former president Jiang Zemin, currently chairman of
the Chinese Communist Party's powerful Central Military
Commission. Many of his supporters, known as the
Shanghai Clique, oppose some of the economic and
political reforms that would curb their wealth and
influence.
In one instance, the audit report
found that since 1999 the General Administration of
Sport (GAS) has misused and rechanneled a total of 131
million yuan (US$15.8 million) of the ad hoc fund of the
Chinese Olympic Committee, of which 109 million yuan was
spent on housing staff members and 22 million on
granting allowances to staff members or loans to
subordinate departments for investment. In reply to the
allegation, GAS on July 6 told the People's Daily, an
official Chinese mouthpiece, that the audit report was
true, but suggested that the allowances not be canceled
until after the 2008 Olympics to be held in Beijing.
It is possible that GAS officials do not see the
necessity of accounting for the misuse of funds that in
fact served the welfare of its staff members and
professional athletes; it is possible they do not
consider it corruption. The case shows, however, that
they have no regard for the law.
NDRC flouts
reforms In another case, the National Development
and Reform Commission (NDRC) budgeted 30.45 billion yuan
for domestic infrastructure investment in 2003, pursuant
to the audit report. In the first place, NDRC issued a
grant of 22.83 billion yuan of the budget to local
infrastructure investments, illegally leaving 7.61
billion yuan in reserve, the audit report said. Of the
grant, only 17.34 billion yuan or 57% of the annual
budget were utilized to finance projects. Still, some
investment projects had to be altered in the process.
It should be made clear that not all
appropriations are related to graft or misuse of funds.
But NDRC has not rendered an accounting. Perhaps, it
shares the same logic with GAS: no corruption, no need
to accept responsibility or to be accountable.
There are many accusations against local
officials who denied procedural justice to the people
and consequently got implicated in breaches of duty or
corruption-related crimes. As Asia Times Online's
Chinese-language website previously reported, the
authorities in western China's Yunnan province,
responsible for disaster relief after the Dayao
earthquake last August, were accused in the audit report
of "embezzling the appropriation for disaster relief".
In addition, these officials torn down local people's
homes without due legal process and subcontracted the
reconstruction work to constructors working
hand-in-glove with the powerful, well-off figures. A
large sum of relief appropriation was retained by the
local government and has not yet been released to bona
fide disaster victims.
In Jixi city in
northeastern China's Heilongjiang province, the
government failed to make due payment of tens of
millions of yuan to contractors, who in turn, stalled
payments to migrant workers for years. In early 2004,
the case received attention from Premier Wen Jiabao who
ordered officials to promptly address the problem.
Nonetheless, local officials later defied the order and
submitted a fabricated report to higher authorities,
sources said.
The biggest issue now is that
corrupt officials throughout the country have formed
many interests groups. They obstinately collaborate to
resist any challenge, justified or not, to their vested
interests.
This is the toughest test facing the
pro-reform Hu-Wen administration, determined to further
the ongoing economic and political reform and address
injustices against the people. Local officials, who in
theory should always dance to the tune of the central
government, often flout the orders from Beijing for the
sake of personal gains - usually illegal.
Malady of balking
bureaucrats According to China experts, the
malady has been ingrained in China's long civilized
history. For the past two millenniums, dynasties and
regimes have succeeded one another, while efforts to
pursue reforms were usually nullified by interest groups
in the establishment.
One of the important
reasons lies in China's long history of the bureaucratic
government. It is generally believed that the
bureaucratic system was established by China's first
emperor Qingshihuang between 221 and 210 BC, some 2,200
years ago. Then, the emperor designated officials, sent
them out across the entire empire and ruled as the
representative from the central government. Yet, such an
advanced system installed prematurely can have many
negative effects in China, and this can explain some
bureaucratic problems facing the country today.
The emperor in a feudal society was the
paramount leader of the country with everyone at his
command. Still, most emperors found enormous opposition
whenever they carried out reforms against the
bureaucracy. Zhao Xu, the sixth emperor in the Song
Dynasty (960-1279), introduced the Xining Reform, led by
a hard-line reformist Wang Anshi in 1069, who soon found
himself isolated and the reform strongly opposed by his
colleagues. Only eight years later, the reform was
aborted and everything that changed was restored to the
old system. Several hundred years later came the famous
short-lived Wuxu Reform in 1898 (Qing Dynasty,
1644-1911), which only lasted 103 days due to stiff
resistance from obstinate mandarins, who felt their
vested interests were threatened.
Political
pundits suggest that the essence of Chinese bureaucracy
has largely remained unchanged, even though some 2,400
years have passed since its inception. The country lacks
a democratic system or independent press that can serve
as tools to supervise the bureaucracy and promote
improvements in the work of bureaucrats.
In
developed Western countries with various checks on
officials in place, elements in the bureaucratic system
will usually endeavor to maximize the common interests
shared by them and the masses. For instance, if the
country achieves economic lift-off, the people can enjoy
a better life and the government collects more taxes.
Consequently, officials will often see their wages
lifted. On the contrary, there are few shared interests
between the ruling and the ruled in China now. The only
check on officials' behavior is their conscience, which
often is deficient.
It is obvious now that
various interest groups are taking shape among the
officials, creating major obstacles to reform and social
stability. Beijing should introduce checks and balances
on the bureaucracy and force those in power to find
their shared and common interests with those they rule -
or China's stability and sustained economic growth
cannot be achieved.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times
Online, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
