论文部分内容阅读
The discipline inspection authorities of a number of provinces such as Guizhou， Sichuan and Guangdong recently canceled their use of the “integrity bank account.” The account was established by local disciplinary watchdogs as a means for officials to deposit money or securities they received as gifts or bribes. Those who deposited illicit assets into the account would be exempted from or receive reduced punish- ment. This practice was designed to protect officials that were often exposed to corruption risks but eager to keep themselves clean.
At least 17 provinces have established such accounts. However， due to loopholes in the system， they were increasingly being used by some corrupt officials as a way to cover up their crimes. Some， for example， submitted only a small fraction of the bribes they had taken， or use the scheme only after they were discovered.
While some say that canceling the integrity account system has blocked a path for officials to correct themselves， others claim that this is the right way forward as the plan has brought about more corruption than it meant to curb.
A useful tool
Yu Haijun （www.zgnt.net）： It should be admitted that integrity accounts have helped provincial governments to mitigate corruption. The account demonstrates the forgiving side of disciplinary measures and a full understanding of the shortcomings in human nature. It is also a supplement to the existing anti-graft system.
In practice， numerous problems have occurred since the system was put into actual operation. The integrity account can’t be very effective in curbing corruption when supportive measures， such as a mechanism for the declaration of officials’ property， have yet to be implemented. Furthermore， the account does not require depositors to register their names or where the money comes from， etc. As a result， some officials have abused the scheme.
However， these deficiencies in the system should not be used as excuses to cancel it. It’s better to improve it， so that it can work as an effective supplement to the current anti-graft mechanism， rather than eradicate it completely.
Zhuang Huayi （news.sina.com.cn）： The integrity account， despite many of its problems， can to some extent help those officials who want to remain clean but are unable to fight back against an environment that breeds corruption. Even if they are forced to take bribes， which violates relevant laws and discipline， as long as they hand them over to the account， they are still seen as honest and upstanding. The move to cancel the integrity account is tortuous to officials who are hesitant as to how to deal with the bribes they have received. Of course， some may be persuaded to reject bribes， but a certain number of them may still choose to bend to corruption.
When the account was originally set up years ago， it was because the relevant authorities realized that the fight against corruption was complicated at the time. The integrity account was used as kind of a cushion and the last defense against corruption. Probably， after years of efforts， some local governments believe they have already fostered an environment conducive to integrity and have thus decided to stop the use of this tool.
Is the anti-corruption campaign really in such an optimistic scenario？ We don’t deny the achievements reached in the past years in the war against corruption， but it’s too early to feel optimistic about the results.
Corrupt officials can be more flexible than you can imagine. Maybe there has been progress in the fight against corruption in some regions， but it is hard to see the larger picture. It is therefore too early to remove the honesty account， which can still be put to good use.
Zero tolerance
Liu Lin （www.21jrr.com）： The use of an integrity account is to some extent a reasonable practice. Local disciplinary watchdogs do so to help officials who have received bribes that are difficult to return. As long as bribes are submitted within a certain period of time， the officials involved in the deals won’t get punished. This account aims to save officials on the brink of violating their integrity.
However， the so-called integrity account can easily be exploited by corrupt officials， who may use it as a way to cover up their dirty deals. Since its establishment， disputes over the mechanism’s use have never stopped. Canceling the account actually fills in loopholes in the anti-corruption system through which officials can escape discipline and legal punishment.
Although some accounts were created by local governments， the practice was not widely adopted around the country. Since the system has been proven to have various flaws and may even fuel corruption， it’s time to cancel the accounts.
Abolishing the account will deprive corrupt officials of excuses， temptation and a way to escape punishment. It’s possible that without the account， officials will have no other choice but to reject bribes altogether， therefore reducing misunderstandings and complaints from the public. We need to take on a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption， rejecting the existence of gray areas. Guo Yuanpeng （opinion.newssc.org）： Some people view the canceling of the integrity account as a loss in the fight against corruption. Without the account， officials that are willing to hand over bribes will have nowhere to go. We have to admit that the account is not totally useless. However， canceling it is not a step back—it means to drive those corruption-prone officials into a corner， so they can only choose to refrain from illicit activities.
In reality， the integrity account system is often abused. Sometimes， for example， since the disciplinary authorities have no way of knowing how much they have accepted， officials divulge only a small portion of a bribe they have received， thus managing to preserve their post and reputation. They are likely to repeat this practice in the future as well. In this respect， the so-called integrity account is not effective at all and may even promote corruption.
In other cases， officials submit bribes because they find that if they do not do so， they’ll be put under investigation by authorities. The account thus offers a way for them to escape punishment. If they aren’t suspected of corruption， they’re unlikely to transfer their illicit income to the integrity account. This is not what the creators of the account system intended when they put forward the scheme.
Although corrupt officials have been uncovered， their crimes have been pardoned due to their voluntary submission of bribes. This is not what we want to see. That’s why Guizhou and other provinces decided to cancel the system and put forward a new regulation outlining that bribes must be rejected outright.
At least 17 provinces have established such accounts. However， due to loopholes in the system， they were increasingly being used by some corrupt officials as a way to cover up their crimes. Some， for example， submitted only a small fraction of the bribes they had taken， or use the scheme only after they were discovered.
While some say that canceling the integrity account system has blocked a path for officials to correct themselves， others claim that this is the right way forward as the plan has brought about more corruption than it meant to curb.
A useful tool
Yu Haijun （www.zgnt.net）： It should be admitted that integrity accounts have helped provincial governments to mitigate corruption. The account demonstrates the forgiving side of disciplinary measures and a full understanding of the shortcomings in human nature. It is also a supplement to the existing anti-graft system.
In practice， numerous problems have occurred since the system was put into actual operation. The integrity account can’t be very effective in curbing corruption when supportive measures， such as a mechanism for the declaration of officials’ property， have yet to be implemented. Furthermore， the account does not require depositors to register their names or where the money comes from， etc. As a result， some officials have abused the scheme.
However， these deficiencies in the system should not be used as excuses to cancel it. It’s better to improve it， so that it can work as an effective supplement to the current anti-graft mechanism， rather than eradicate it completely.
Zhuang Huayi （news.sina.com.cn）： The integrity account， despite many of its problems， can to some extent help those officials who want to remain clean but are unable to fight back against an environment that breeds corruption. Even if they are forced to take bribes， which violates relevant laws and discipline， as long as they hand them over to the account， they are still seen as honest and upstanding. The move to cancel the integrity account is tortuous to officials who are hesitant as to how to deal with the bribes they have received. Of course， some may be persuaded to reject bribes， but a certain number of them may still choose to bend to corruption.
When the account was originally set up years ago， it was because the relevant authorities realized that the fight against corruption was complicated at the time. The integrity account was used as kind of a cushion and the last defense against corruption. Probably， after years of efforts， some local governments believe they have already fostered an environment conducive to integrity and have thus decided to stop the use of this tool.
Is the anti-corruption campaign really in such an optimistic scenario？ We don’t deny the achievements reached in the past years in the war against corruption， but it’s too early to feel optimistic about the results.
Corrupt officials can be more flexible than you can imagine. Maybe there has been progress in the fight against corruption in some regions， but it is hard to see the larger picture. It is therefore too early to remove the honesty account， which can still be put to good use.
Zero tolerance
Liu Lin （www.21jrr.com）： The use of an integrity account is to some extent a reasonable practice. Local disciplinary watchdogs do so to help officials who have received bribes that are difficult to return. As long as bribes are submitted within a certain period of time， the officials involved in the deals won’t get punished. This account aims to save officials on the brink of violating their integrity.
However， the so-called integrity account can easily be exploited by corrupt officials， who may use it as a way to cover up their dirty deals. Since its establishment， disputes over the mechanism’s use have never stopped. Canceling the account actually fills in loopholes in the anti-corruption system through which officials can escape discipline and legal punishment.
Although some accounts were created by local governments， the practice was not widely adopted around the country. Since the system has been proven to have various flaws and may even fuel corruption， it’s time to cancel the accounts.
Abolishing the account will deprive corrupt officials of excuses， temptation and a way to escape punishment. It’s possible that without the account， officials will have no other choice but to reject bribes altogether， therefore reducing misunderstandings and complaints from the public. We need to take on a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption， rejecting the existence of gray areas. Guo Yuanpeng （opinion.newssc.org）： Some people view the canceling of the integrity account as a loss in the fight against corruption. Without the account， officials that are willing to hand over bribes will have nowhere to go. We have to admit that the account is not totally useless. However， canceling it is not a step back—it means to drive those corruption-prone officials into a corner， so they can only choose to refrain from illicit activities.
In reality， the integrity account system is often abused. Sometimes， for example， since the disciplinary authorities have no way of knowing how much they have accepted， officials divulge only a small portion of a bribe they have received， thus managing to preserve their post and reputation. They are likely to repeat this practice in the future as well. In this respect， the so-called integrity account is not effective at all and may even promote corruption.
In other cases， officials submit bribes because they find that if they do not do so， they’ll be put under investigation by authorities. The account thus offers a way for them to escape punishment. If they aren’t suspected of corruption， they’re unlikely to transfer their illicit income to the integrity account. This is not what the creators of the account system intended when they put forward the scheme.
Although corrupt officials have been uncovered， their crimes have been pardoned due to their voluntary submission of bribes. This is not what we want to see. That’s why Guizhou and other provinces decided to cancel the system and put forward a new regulation outlining that bribes must be rejected outright.