The “Global Integrity Award” presented to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew last month by the Kuala Lumpur Society for Transparency and Integrity, the Malaysian chapter of Transparency International, is an affirmation of his achievements in fighting graft when he was Prime Minister. This is not only a special personal honour for him, but also a tribute to the Singapore government and its system.
To succeed in eliminating corruption, an established system and the resolve of political leaders are both necessary. This is why while Singapore has been successful in fighting corruption, many countries and places have failed to do likewise.
It was said that in feudal China, a magistrate of a prefecture could accumulate a fortune of at least 10,000 taels of silver in three years. And I was told in private recently by some Chinese local officials that, for the same period, a county head could now amass more than a million renminbi.
Initially, I thought that they were making the situation worse than it really was, but soon realised that what they said was no exaggeration.
As Beijing steps up its efforts to crack down on corruption, hordes of corrupt officials have been exposed. The mass corruption depicted in anti-graft movie “Choice Between Life And Death”, based on a novel by Zhang Ping, also lends credence to the comment by those officials.
In a recent report, the Beijing Youth Daily said that many had asked Zhang Ping why the fight against graft had been the theme of his writing. His reply was： “I didn't choose to focus on it, but corruption is everywhere.”
The movie was initially banned by officials. But President Jiang Zemin later declared it a must-watch for Communist Party members so that they can learn from it.
It is abundantly clear that President Jiang is deeply aware that there is truth in what Zhang Ping has written. Beijing has to face the problem resolutely, no matter how sensitive it is, or the survival of the party and the nation may be threatened.
President Jiang has been pursuing his goal of “national resurgence”。 He is no doubt determined to shake up the bureaucracy and act against corrupt officials. Otherwise, he would not have ordered the execution of National People's Congress vice-chairman Cheng Kejie and Jiangxi deputy governor Hu Changqing and a thorough probe into the multi-billion-dollar Yuanhua smuggling scandal.
But this is only the beginning of the war against corruption, not the end.
Mr Ren Zhongyi, party veteran and former Guangdong provincial party secretary, was recently quoted by Nanfang Daily as saying that there was a need to find ways to prevent “public servants”, especially those with great authority, from becoming a “public menace”。 He described this as a “big issue”。
It is not known how effective President Jiang's “three talks” （the need to talk about politics, righteousness and studies） have been in exposing corrupt officials. On the other hand, the People's Daily has reported that it is commonplace that corrupt officials continue to get promoted.
This has led Mr Ren to say that while it is necessary to advocate “self-discipline”, it is equally important to tighten supervision over those who do not watch their step.
The question is who should do the monitoring？ The media has, for the last two to three years, been hailed as the watchdog. And some news organisations have tried their best to be the “conscience of the society”。
But this is obviously an unenviable task and the All-China Journalists' Association has lamented that the supervisory role is an extremely difficult one.
The media can only flex its muscles when dealing with small fry or when some top-ranking leaders have decided to act against some lower-level officials. Most of the time, it is just helpless.
A recent China Youth Daily article gives a very good account of how arrogant some less-than-righteous officials can be towards the ordinary people.
A peasant whose wife and daughter had been abducted reported the case to the county officials and asked for the offender to be punished. Instead of being helped, he was beaten up.
He appealed many times to the higher authorities for help, but after 10 years, the culprit had still not been brought to justice. Among the comments made by the county officials on his appeal letters were： “get some aliens to solve the problem” and “take the case to the moon”。
The anger of the writer is clearly shown in the title of the article - “Humour that the people do not need” . But if officials have no fear of the people making them lose their jobs, they can well afford to play games with them.
British philosopher Lord Acton's warning that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” may grate on the ears of some people, but it offers advice on the best way to counter corruption.
（The writer is Zaobao's Beijing Correspondent. Translated by Yap Gee Poh）
領(lǐng)袖品格是肅貪要素
周銳鵬
新加坡內(nèi)閣資政李光耀榮獲“環(huán)球廉潔獎(jiǎng)”,是對(duì)他當(dāng)政期間堅(jiān)決肅貪成就的肯定。這不但是他個(gè)人的殊榮,也是對(duì)新加坡政府與制度的贊賞。
要成功肅貪,必須要有確立的制度和政治領(lǐng)袖的政治決心,缺一不可。新加坡能,很多國(guó)家/地區(qū)卻不能,原因就在這里。
在中國(guó)封建皇朝時(shí)代,有所謂“三年清知府,十萬(wàn)雪花銀”的說(shuō)法。就是說(shuō),當(dāng)三年清廉的小市長(zhǎng),至少能收入十萬(wàn)兩銀子。
現(xiàn)在,地方小官員私底下透露：“三年清知縣,不止百萬(wàn)人民幣”。
初聞此事,覺(jué)得太夸張。等到中共中央反腐力度越來(lái)越大,貪官劣跡一一暴露之后,再看《生死抉擇》揭露的集體腐敗,又頓時(shí)覺(jué)得“清知縣”的故事很平實(shí)。
《北京青年報(bào)》報(bào)道過(guò),很多人問(wèn)《生死抉擇》的原作者張平,為什么筆下選擇的都是反腐題材？張平說(shuō)：“選擇這樣的題材,并不是我在尋找中的選擇,而是生活處處充滿了這樣的題材?！?BR> 《生死抉擇》先被官員禁止上映,后由高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人江澤民下令全黨觀看學(xué)習(xí),這充分說(shuō)明,連江澤民也深切知道,作家所言不虛,再敏感的問(wèn)題也得堅(jiān)決面對(duì)了,否則恐怕真會(huì)“亡黨亡國(guó)”。
江澤民一直在追求“中華民族的偉大復(fù)興”,他對(duì)貪官的痛恨是無(wú)庸置疑的,他整頓吏治的決心也是無(wú)庸置疑的,否則不會(huì)殺成克杰、斃胡長(zhǎng)清、抓“遠(yuǎn)華案”。
但這只是反腐的開(kāi)始,不是功成。
《南方日?qǐng)?bào)》引述過(guò)廣東前省委書(shū)記任仲夷的話：我們大家都要?jiǎng)幽X筋,想辦法,解決好人變壞,特別是防止掌握了權(quán)力的人,由“公仆”變?yōu)椤肮Α钡膯?wèn)題。他形容這是一個(gè)“大課題”。
中共全黨“三講”兩年,究竟是否因此揭發(fā)了貪官不得而知,倒是《人民日?qǐng)?bào)》揭露了官場(chǎng)“邊作案邊被提拔”的現(xiàn)象很普遍。難怪老共產(chǎn)黨員任仲夷要說(shuō)：提倡“自律”是必要的,但“他律”也同樣重要,“必須通過(guò)加強(qiáng)監(jiān)督來(lái)防止那些不知自律的人”。
問(wèn)題是：誰(shuí)監(jiān)督誰(shuí)？
這兩三年來(lái),“輿論監(jiān)督”響徹云宵,中國(guó)的許多媒體令人感動(dòng)地竭盡所能發(fā)揮“社會(huì)良知”,可是,這種媒體的日子并不好過(guò)。中國(guó)記協(xié)主辦的《中華新聞報(bào)》就曾在“輿論監(jiān)督”一欄下打出三個(gè)字：“難！難！難！！”
什么情況之下媒體能把貪官拉下馬？大媒體對(duì)小貪官,或是上上級(jí)要懲治下下級(jí)的時(shí)候。否則,就只能干瞪眼。
《中國(guó)青年報(bào)》有篇專欄小文章充分反映出壞官員對(duì)老百姓可以多傲慢。
有個(gè)農(nóng)民因?yàn)槠夼还召u而找鎮(zhèn)上的公安派出所懲治罪犯,不料反遭毒打。農(nóng)民為此上訪、告狀,歷時(shí)10年,沒(méi)有成果。文章說(shuō),縣里的政法委書(shū)記、法院院長(zhǎng)、公安局長(zhǎng),分別在那個(gè)農(nóng)民的上訪材料上作了“到銀河系找外星人解決”、“到月球找秘書(shū)長(zhǎng)處理”等批示。
文章的標(biāo)題是《別跟百姓玩幽默》。作者的憤慨溢于言表。
烏紗帽如果老百姓摘不下來(lái),官員當(dāng)然敢跟老百姓玩幽默。
英哲伊頓說(shuō),“權(quán)力使人腐化,絕對(duì)的權(quán)力使人絕對(duì)腐化”,這話聽(tīng)來(lái)刺耳,但如果虛心想想,反腐的佳途徑還是得從這句話里找。
To succeed in eliminating corruption, an established system and the resolve of political leaders are both necessary. This is why while Singapore has been successful in fighting corruption, many countries and places have failed to do likewise.
It was said that in feudal China, a magistrate of a prefecture could accumulate a fortune of at least 10,000 taels of silver in three years. And I was told in private recently by some Chinese local officials that, for the same period, a county head could now amass more than a million renminbi.
Initially, I thought that they were making the situation worse than it really was, but soon realised that what they said was no exaggeration.
As Beijing steps up its efforts to crack down on corruption, hordes of corrupt officials have been exposed. The mass corruption depicted in anti-graft movie “Choice Between Life And Death”, based on a novel by Zhang Ping, also lends credence to the comment by those officials.
In a recent report, the Beijing Youth Daily said that many had asked Zhang Ping why the fight against graft had been the theme of his writing. His reply was： “I didn't choose to focus on it, but corruption is everywhere.”
The movie was initially banned by officials. But President Jiang Zemin later declared it a must-watch for Communist Party members so that they can learn from it.
It is abundantly clear that President Jiang is deeply aware that there is truth in what Zhang Ping has written. Beijing has to face the problem resolutely, no matter how sensitive it is, or the survival of the party and the nation may be threatened.
President Jiang has been pursuing his goal of “national resurgence”。 He is no doubt determined to shake up the bureaucracy and act against corrupt officials. Otherwise, he would not have ordered the execution of National People's Congress vice-chairman Cheng Kejie and Jiangxi deputy governor Hu Changqing and a thorough probe into the multi-billion-dollar Yuanhua smuggling scandal.
But this is only the beginning of the war against corruption, not the end.
Mr Ren Zhongyi, party veteran and former Guangdong provincial party secretary, was recently quoted by Nanfang Daily as saying that there was a need to find ways to prevent “public servants”, especially those with great authority, from becoming a “public menace”。 He described this as a “big issue”。
It is not known how effective President Jiang's “three talks” （the need to talk about politics, righteousness and studies） have been in exposing corrupt officials. On the other hand, the People's Daily has reported that it is commonplace that corrupt officials continue to get promoted.
This has led Mr Ren to say that while it is necessary to advocate “self-discipline”, it is equally important to tighten supervision over those who do not watch their step.
The question is who should do the monitoring？ The media has, for the last two to three years, been hailed as the watchdog. And some news organisations have tried their best to be the “conscience of the society”。
But this is obviously an unenviable task and the All-China Journalists' Association has lamented that the supervisory role is an extremely difficult one.
The media can only flex its muscles when dealing with small fry or when some top-ranking leaders have decided to act against some lower-level officials. Most of the time, it is just helpless.
A recent China Youth Daily article gives a very good account of how arrogant some less-than-righteous officials can be towards the ordinary people.
A peasant whose wife and daughter had been abducted reported the case to the county officials and asked for the offender to be punished. Instead of being helped, he was beaten up.
He appealed many times to the higher authorities for help, but after 10 years, the culprit had still not been brought to justice. Among the comments made by the county officials on his appeal letters were： “get some aliens to solve the problem” and “take the case to the moon”。
The anger of the writer is clearly shown in the title of the article - “Humour that the people do not need” . But if officials have no fear of the people making them lose their jobs, they can well afford to play games with them.
British philosopher Lord Acton's warning that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” may grate on the ears of some people, but it offers advice on the best way to counter corruption.
（The writer is Zaobao's Beijing Correspondent. Translated by Yap Gee Poh）
領(lǐng)袖品格是肅貪要素
周銳鵬
新加坡內(nèi)閣資政李光耀榮獲“環(huán)球廉潔獎(jiǎng)”,是對(duì)他當(dāng)政期間堅(jiān)決肅貪成就的肯定。這不但是他個(gè)人的殊榮,也是對(duì)新加坡政府與制度的贊賞。
要成功肅貪,必須要有確立的制度和政治領(lǐng)袖的政治決心,缺一不可。新加坡能,很多國(guó)家/地區(qū)卻不能,原因就在這里。
在中國(guó)封建皇朝時(shí)代,有所謂“三年清知府,十萬(wàn)雪花銀”的說(shuō)法。就是說(shuō),當(dāng)三年清廉的小市長(zhǎng),至少能收入十萬(wàn)兩銀子。
現(xiàn)在,地方小官員私底下透露：“三年清知縣,不止百萬(wàn)人民幣”。
初聞此事,覺(jué)得太夸張。等到中共中央反腐力度越來(lái)越大,貪官劣跡一一暴露之后,再看《生死抉擇》揭露的集體腐敗,又頓時(shí)覺(jué)得“清知縣”的故事很平實(shí)。
《北京青年報(bào)》報(bào)道過(guò),很多人問(wèn)《生死抉擇》的原作者張平,為什么筆下選擇的都是反腐題材？張平說(shuō)：“選擇這樣的題材,并不是我在尋找中的選擇,而是生活處處充滿了這樣的題材?！?BR> 《生死抉擇》先被官員禁止上映,后由高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人江澤民下令全黨觀看學(xué)習(xí),這充分說(shuō)明,連江澤民也深切知道,作家所言不虛,再敏感的問(wèn)題也得堅(jiān)決面對(duì)了,否則恐怕真會(huì)“亡黨亡國(guó)”。
江澤民一直在追求“中華民族的偉大復(fù)興”,他對(duì)貪官的痛恨是無(wú)庸置疑的,他整頓吏治的決心也是無(wú)庸置疑的,否則不會(huì)殺成克杰、斃胡長(zhǎng)清、抓“遠(yuǎn)華案”。
但這只是反腐的開(kāi)始,不是功成。
《南方日?qǐng)?bào)》引述過(guò)廣東前省委書(shū)記任仲夷的話：我們大家都要?jiǎng)幽X筋,想辦法,解決好人變壞,特別是防止掌握了權(quán)力的人,由“公仆”變?yōu)椤肮Α钡膯?wèn)題。他形容這是一個(gè)“大課題”。
中共全黨“三講”兩年,究竟是否因此揭發(fā)了貪官不得而知,倒是《人民日?qǐng)?bào)》揭露了官場(chǎng)“邊作案邊被提拔”的現(xiàn)象很普遍。難怪老共產(chǎn)黨員任仲夷要說(shuō)：提倡“自律”是必要的,但“他律”也同樣重要,“必須通過(guò)加強(qiáng)監(jiān)督來(lái)防止那些不知自律的人”。
問(wèn)題是：誰(shuí)監(jiān)督誰(shuí)？
這兩三年來(lái),“輿論監(jiān)督”響徹云宵,中國(guó)的許多媒體令人感動(dòng)地竭盡所能發(fā)揮“社會(huì)良知”,可是,這種媒體的日子并不好過(guò)。中國(guó)記協(xié)主辦的《中華新聞報(bào)》就曾在“輿論監(jiān)督”一欄下打出三個(gè)字：“難！難！難！！”
什么情況之下媒體能把貪官拉下馬？大媒體對(duì)小貪官,或是上上級(jí)要懲治下下級(jí)的時(shí)候。否則,就只能干瞪眼。
《中國(guó)青年報(bào)》有篇專欄小文章充分反映出壞官員對(duì)老百姓可以多傲慢。
有個(gè)農(nóng)民因?yàn)槠夼还召u而找鎮(zhèn)上的公安派出所懲治罪犯,不料反遭毒打。農(nóng)民為此上訪、告狀,歷時(shí)10年,沒(méi)有成果。文章說(shuō),縣里的政法委書(shū)記、法院院長(zhǎng)、公安局長(zhǎng),分別在那個(gè)農(nóng)民的上訪材料上作了“到銀河系找外星人解決”、“到月球找秘書(shū)長(zhǎng)處理”等批示。
文章的標(biāo)題是《別跟百姓玩幽默》。作者的憤慨溢于言表。
烏紗帽如果老百姓摘不下來(lái),官員當(dāng)然敢跟老百姓玩幽默。
英哲伊頓說(shuō),“權(quán)力使人腐化,絕對(duì)的權(quán)力使人絕對(duì)腐化”,這話聽(tīng)來(lái)刺耳,但如果虛心想想,反腐的佳途徑還是得從這句話里找。