Lesser govt role can curb graft

Bian Yi, China Daily, Asia News Network, Beijing

Corruption is like a nasty disease. Everyone is conscious of its existence, but few can prescribe an instant cure.

In recent days, corruption cases involving both government officials and managers of State-controlled banks have ruffled the public's feathers.

Since China began to reform and open to the outside world more than two decades ago, corruption has become almost a catchword in media reports and public gossip. Still, an effective solution has yet to be hammered out, despite the authorities' relentless efforts.

The failure to find the right remedy for corruption has its roots in the inability to ferret out the source of the social scourge.

We used to point our fingers at the moral weakness of corrupt people. The government has spared no efforts to try and give officials high moral values.

As our economic transition continues, we have gradually become disillusioned, seeing that moral improvement is not the ultimate solution to corruption if systematic flaws that provide incentive for wrong-doing cannot be eliminated.

We are now shifting the focus onto closing systematic loopholes, although moral discipline remains on the top of the government agenda. While the authorities continue to issue many regulations calling for moral discipline, more detailed rules strengthening external supervision have been put in place.

For example, there have been allegations that the former Chairman of China Construction Bank received bribes to hand out loans. The new leadership has reportedly acted promptly and taken concrete steps - promoting the role of the boards of directors and supervisors - to strengthen corporate governance.

In a broader sense, corruption not only concerns political governance, but is an issue of choice in our social culture.

When people are in need of something that can be obtained in more convenient ways than by sticking to the rules, many of them tend to circumvent the rules and cut corners. The so-called "relationships," or various social ties rather than formal rules, are heavily depended upon in many situations.

As such a culture evolves, many people become accustomed to corruption. To them, it is morally acceptable so long as it can bring personal gain. As proof of this acceptance, many people feel it is not worth doing that some officials are imprisoned for receiving small sums in bribes.

Such a mentality is more dangerous than corruption itself.

If such a mood spreads, what is sacrificed will not only be economic efficiency but social justice, moral values and public confidence in governance.

To curb the spread of cultural inertia towards corruption, systematic improvement is essential.

Of course, it is just like trying to work out the chicken-and- egg puzzle, arguing if corruption corrupts culture or vice versa. What we are sure about is that a systematic improvement will cultivate a sound culture.

In an era of economic transition, a systematic defect is that the government has had too large a role in the business world.

Excessive power often incurs abuse of power, which inevitably leads to corruption.

What we need to do is to gradually reduce government interference in business transactions.