Bribery
in China: The reporting of U.S. agencies on cases of
corruption
in China and pressure from Internet users seems
to have embarrassed Beijing into
a renewed crackdown.
The Beijing News,
People's Republic of China
China Must Stop Relying
on U.S. Justice to Halt Bribery
In this surprisingly self-critical
article from China's state-controlled Xinjingbao [Beijing News],
the author castigates the authorities for relying on foreign justice to
identify graft - and for failing to pursue those who have taken bribes from
American companies. Given the appearance of this article in the state-controlled press, one can assume that Beijing has been embarrassed into authorizing a renewed crackdown by disclosures from U.S. government agencies and Chinese Internet users.
The wife of the governor of the Guizhou Province, just before her execution for embezzlement in 1995: While punishment for graft has not been the rule in mainland China, when there is a crackdown, the penalty is often death.
Bribing and taking bribes
have corresponding relationships; so how can one see the briber without the
bribee? In the words of one Internet user, you can't pull out the radishes
without bringing the mud with them. So who exactly is the bribee?
The chief officer at the Ministry
of Public Security's Transportation Management and Science Research Institute
has responded to allegations of bribery with the following: "The magnate
of the adhesive glue industry, Avery
Dennison, admits to bribing the Wuxi Public Security Bureau." The
institute says it assigned staff specifically to conduct a detailed understanding
and investigation to "make sure that no one accepted gifts and that other
related expenses did not occur." The chief officer also extended his
thanks to the media and Internet users for their supervision and support. (People
Daily, Aug. 12).
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Regardless of the truth, even
as the Wuxi Public Security Bureau denied allegations of bribery, they thanked
the media and the "supervision" of Internet users. In terms of its attitude,
this is a hundred times better than hitting people over the head claiming that
they're, "rumor mongering," "libeling," and "not
understanding the truth," etc. However, even this type of self-examination
and conclusion isn't very convincing.
[Editor's Note: In keeping with U.S. law, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department pursue American companies that issue bribes to foreign officials. The agencies then provide information on these cases on their Web sites. Recently, this information has been picked up by Chinese Internet
users who are agitating for the prosecution of those who took the bribes. According to the SEC, Avery Dennison China won two major contracts by hiring former staff of the
Ministry of Public Security's Transportation Management and Science Research
Institute in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province. The SEC Web site reports that the two
contracts were for installing graphics on a total of 15,400 police cars and
worth about $677,500. SEC data show that Avery Dennison China planned to pay
$41,000 in bribes to Wuxi's Transportation Management and Science Research
Institute.]
Now it's the turn of the Disciplinary-Inspection
and Anti-Embezzlement Departments to stand up and speak out. Did the alleged bribery
of the adhesive tape company chief in China occur or not? If it didn't,
we must confront the United States and tell the truth. If it did and it wasn't
the Wuxi Bureau, then an official conclusion must be made to show that the Wuxi
Bureau is innocent. In the meantime, it should be disclosed to the public exactly
who accepted the bribes.
In the past there were a
great many "foreign bribes" and other similar events, such as the
Lucent Scandal. And this despite the fact that in the United States, the
evidence of wrongdoing was quite obvious. In addition, American justice punished the bribers,
but over here we still don't see the connection between the bribers and the bribed,
even though they have a corresponding relationship. How can one see the bribers
and not see those who took the bribes? Using the comments of Netizens, here in
China they pull the radishes out; but they don't have any mud. [i.e.: they find someone who pays a bribe - but don't punish the person who takes it].
As the number of occurrences
of "foreign counter-corruption" or "foreign offence reporting"
increases, the situation of "pulling radishes out without the mud" becomes
increasingly hard to understand. Who is actually being tainted by "foreign
corruption?" The more the answers to this question are avoided, the less
truth is being disclosed to the public. Within the context of this environment,
guesses or "rumors" increasingly spread.
Firstly, in such situations
the related [state-run and government] parties are increasingly passive and
awkward. Secondly, public trust in the fight against corruption is damaged without
the slightest benefit. After the bribers of Chinese officials have time and
again been ferreted out by foreign justice departments, our pursuit of who was
bribed comes to a screeching halt. Once the crisis of confidence in fighting corruption
is triggered, one is doomed to lose more than one wins.
Evading the consequences of
"foreign tip-offs" presumably helps some people and protects the
interests of certain groups, but in the long run it violates the trust of the
people and damages our economic environment and the market system.
In the face of bribery cases like
the "Lucent Technologies Scandal," the "Siemens Scandal," the
"Adhesive Tape Scandal," etc., if we don't have the courage to
safeguard a fair market and if we always look to foreign justice systems for help
exposing and punishing criminals, then it's unlikely that we will ever be able
to stamp out "foreign bribery" in the life of our nation's
market.
