How bad is corruption in China ? (Temprarily Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Anyways, trying to bring things a little back on track.

I think "corruption" in China is very different from most other places.

In most of the world, especially the developing world, corrupt officials abuse their powers to extort bribes, in the sense of officials refusing to do their jobs unless you paid them, or police effectively committing highway robbery.

In China, bribes are rarely explicitly elicited by officials, and are instead usually given voluntarily by the public with the expectation that the officials would expedite matters for them, or give their case/child/patient/whatever special attention.

In effect, its more like people paying extra for an unlisted "premium" service option, rather than having to "pay to play" as in other countries.

It is perfectly possible to get through everyday life in China without paying any bribes at all, it just means your cases might get thrown to the bottom of the pile, but it will still be dealt with in due time. Although by the time your case is heard, all the best spoils might have already been taken by those on the "premium" service, so it is a problem.

Things are further complicated by the Chinese culture of generous gift giving and lavish meals.

To the western outside observer, or westerners not used to these customs, it might seem like there is a lot of corruption in China, but the impact of that corruption is going to be a lot less egregious to those affected compared to the overt, "hand over your money" kind of extortion/robbery that passes for corruption in most developing countries.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Anyways, trying to bring things a little back on track.

I think "corruption" in China is very different from most other places.

In most of the world, especially the developing world, corrupt officials abuse their powers to extort bribes, in the sense of officials refusing to do their jobs unless you paid them, or police effectively committing highway robbery.

In China, bribes are rarely explicitly elicited by officials, and are instead usually given voluntarily by the public with the expectation that the officials would expedite matters for them, or give their case/child/patient/whatever special attention.

In effect, its more like people paying extra for an unlisted "premium" service option, rather than having to "pay to play" as in other countries.

It is perfectly possible to get through everyday life in China without paying any bribes at all, it just means your cases might get thrown to the bottom of the pile, but it will still be dealt with in due time. Although by the time your case is heard, all the best spoils might have already been taken by those on the "premium" service, so it is a problem.

Things are further complicated by the Chinese culture of generous gift giving and lavish meals.

To the western outside observer, or westerners not used to these customs, it might seem like there is a lot of corruption in China, but the impact of that corruption is going to be a lot less egregious to those affected compared to the overt, "hand over your money" kind of extortion/robbery that passes for corruption in most developing countries.

Wolf, I think you're downplaying the issue of corruption in China too much here.

Corruption is often not so benign, from local officials working with land development companies to force people out of their homes, to wealthy or well-connected people getting away with, if not outright murder, at least manslaughter. The most infamous case is probably "My Dad is Li Gang".

The most serious effect of corruption, and the one that most concerns the central government, is the massive amounts of money that are being essentially stolen away abroad by corrupt officials and businessmen. Take Lai Changxing for example. He was accused of massive amounts of profit from smuggling, and likely fled China with huge sums of money. In the 10+ years he lived in Vancouver, he went from living in a lavish mansion to delivering newspaper. Where do you think his fortune went? It's a big boon to the Canadian economy, sure, but China is not going to see a single cent of that even with Lai now in a Chinese jail.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
To be fair, the article was probably intentionally written to cater to the biased mentality of certain readers.

I was under the impression that it was a symptom of the kind of journalism habit in China. It was probably written by an over-enthusiastic journalist and given a cursory glance by the editor. During the C919's conception stage, it was labelled a jumbo jet, and even now trains with max speed of less than 200kph are given the 'bullet train' moniker.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
In China, bribes are rarely explicitly elicited by officials, and are instead usually given voluntarily by the public with the expectation that the officials would expedite matters for them, or give their case/child/patient/whatever special attention.

In effect, its more like people paying extra for an unlisted "premium" service option, rather than having to "pay to play" as in other countries.

Wherever the Chinese Jews, that bad habit stows along. In New Zealand, some wealthy Chinese immigrants bribed local officials and all involved were hauled to court. I wonder if it was the reason New Zealand lost the top spot as most corrupt free.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
Passing business deals to relatives or friends is a very common form of corruption.

Inquiry into Fujian Governor Said to Be Linked to Audit of Sinopec

Su Shulin helped relatives get contract to build oil storage facility, people with knowledge of matter say
By staff reporter Huang Kaixi


(Beijing) – Fujian's governor is under investigation due to corruption allegations found during an audit of a state-owned oil conglomerate he used to run, several people who have been briefed about the inquiry say.

The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), the Communist Party's anti-graft agency, said on October 7 it is probing Su Shulin, 53, for serious violations of discipline, a euphemism for corruption.

Su served as general manager and party secretary of China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (Sinopec) from 2007 to 2011, when he became governor of the eastern province of Fujian.

Auditors found that while Su led Sinopec he helped relatives get contracts to build an oil storage facility in the Yangpu Economic Zone in the southern province of Hainan, the source said. The relatives subcontracted the project to Sinopec subsidiaries to make more money.

Auditors also found Su's wife went on shopping and sightseeing trips to Hong Kong that were paid for by a subsidiary of Sinopec listed in the city, one of the people who has been briefed on the probe said.


Government auditors were ordered to look deeper into Sinopec, one of country's Big Three state-owned oil and gas giants, after CCDI investigators uncovered a wide range of irregularities during a month-long inspection of the company in December.

The government is looking into US$ 10 billion worth of offshore oil investments made by Sinopec in Angola that have yielded little oil or revenue. It is not known whether Su's problems are linked to losses from those deals.

One person who was briefed about the inquiry into Su said Su was questioned by CCDI investigators after authorities announced they were investigating former security tsar Zhou Yangkang over corruption allegations in July 2014.

Zhou is serving a life sentence for taking bribes, abuse of power and leaking state secrets. He spent more than three decades in the oil and gas industry, rising to general manager of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

Zhou became a member of party's powerful Politburo Standing Committee in 2007, overseeing the country's domestic security apparatus.

Several of Zhou's former aides or associates, including Jiang Jiemin, former head of CNPC, have gotten in trouble for graft since President Xi Jinping launched a major anti-corruption drive late in 2012.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
As I said I made a comment based on the article at hand. That is your evidence show me based on my evidence that I have stated anything wrong.
Or just walk away.

No, you made your comment based on conjecture and worst possible motives by feigning lack of formation.

You are basically assuming covert black ops type extraction of a target when that is probably the least likely scenario.

Even when an article is lacking in details it's still always prudent to assume status quo instead of jumping to some hollywoodesque scenarios.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be totally awesome for PLA spec ops to penetrate Malaysian defenses and performed a Skyhook type HVT extraction or extraction via submersibles to a waiting SSN off shore on the malacca straights... HOWEVER I am 99.9% sure those things didn't play out.

What probably happened was Malaysian police probably via Interpol or direct connected with the Chinese authorities told them where this guy lives, works etc and probably push through some quick paperwork to legalized everything and a couple of Chinese cops went to this guys place and picked him up.

Believe it or not, 99% of the time things are just this boring.... And I for one am glad it is.
 

vesicles

Colonel
As I said I made a comment based on the article at hand. That is your evidence show me based on my evidence that I have stated anything wrong.
Or just walk away.

Ok, you keep insisting that you made your argument based on the article at hand. I went through the article several times and didn't see anything about the involvement of the Malaysian govnt. Again, the article did not say whether the Malaysian govnt was involved. So you have no evidence one way or another as to how the Malaysian govnt was involved. Keep in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, based on the article, the involvement of the Malaysian govnt, one way or another, is pure assumption. That is not evidence. In the court of the law, such vague statement favors the defendent, in case you wonder how the law works.

Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The article didn't say it, but it does not mean he Malaysian govnt was not involved.

That is why lawyers always tell their clients not to say anything to the police. What you DONT say cannot be used as evidence!

I know that you have admitted your mistake because another article about the same incident actually mentioned the involvement of the Malaysian govnt. However, you still insist that you made the correct judgement call base on the wording in the first article. I would like to point out that your statement based on the first article was incorrect because of illogical assumptions.
 
Last edited:

SamuraiBlue

Captain
No sir in a court of law the prosecutor and defense makes it's case based on the evidence at hand. In this case the article, the defense is required to either prove the prosecutor is wrong or provide additional evidence so to argue the original basis of prosecutor was misled. In my case my original basis cannot be proven wrong since within the article it clear states the Chinese police apprehended the suspect within Malaysia. As I said since the Chinese police does not have any investigation authorities on foreign soil it only suggests that it was done under illegal means. Without additional information the facts stands and the prosecutor is neither required or allowed to assume anything else without additional proof.
I sure was not persuaded with all the baseless argument without any objective evidence before additional article was presented.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
No sir in a court of law the prosecutor and defense makes it's case based on the evidence at hand. In this case the article, the defense is required to either prove the prosecutor is wrong or provide additional evidence so to argue the original basis of prosecutor was misled. In my case my original basis cannot be proven wrong since within the article it clear states the Chinese police apprehended the suspect within Malaysia. As I said since the Chinese police does not have any investigation authorities on foreign soil it only suggests that it was done under illegal means. Without additional information the facts stands and the prosecutor is neither required or allowed to assume anything without proof.

This is getting patently silly now.

Whenever someone makes an accusation, the burden is on them to prove it, not for the one accused to prove that the accusation is wrong.

A baseless accusation would simply not be allowed to stand in the first place in any civilised court of law.

Only after someone has met the burden of proof to support their accusation would the accused need to defend themselves against it.

You made a totally baseless accusation, and have thus far provided nothing to support it.

Either find some proof or evidence to support your claim, or man up and admit you made a mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top