SUN WUKONG A fight against rot at the core
By Wu Zhong, China Editor
HONG KONG - The 18-year jail term given by a Tianjian court to former Shanghai
Communist Party chief Chen Liangyu, convicted for corruption causing huge
losses of state assets and personally taking bribes worth 2.39 million yuan
(US$342,000), has aroused fierce controversy both inside and outside China.
Many residents in Shanghai and netizens across the country and even some legal
experts say the sentence is too light for what Chen was convicted of - he could
have been sentenced to death. They question whether Chen was given the light
sentence because of his high ranking, as corrupt officials of lower rankings
have received heavier punishments.
Some overseas China watchers suspect former president Jiang Zemin, said to be
head of the so-called Shanghai clique, might
have used his remaining political influence to ensure Chen would be given a
relatively lenient sentence. Coincidentally, while Chen was standing trial in
Tianjin municipality, Jiang published an article in an academic journal on
China's energy problem, prompting speculation that the retired leader might
want to deliver a message that he is still politically influential.
Chen, also one of the 20-odd members of the politburo, was sacked in late
September 2006. He had reportedly openly resisted the macro-economic control
policy set by the power center. His disgrace was thus seen as a victory for
President Hu Jintao in a power struggle over the Shanghai clique.
This reminded people of the case of Chen Xitong, former Beijing Communist Party
chief who was also a politburo member. Chen Xitong, who played a key role in
the June 4 Tiananmen crackdown in 1989, was know for his scorn for Jiang, who
was promoted from Shanghai to replace Zhao Ziyang as party general secretary
after the bloody suppression. To consolidate his position, Jiang in 1995 sacked
Chen Xitong, who was later convicted of corruption and jailed for 16 years.
However, compared with Chen Xitong, it can be said that Chen Liangyu is really
a felon. Chen Xitong was convicted of taking bribes (many in the form of gifts)
worth less than half a million yuan. And some of the gifts he accepted were on
behalf of the Beijing municipal government. His more plausible offence was
probably dereliction of duty as a vice Beijing mayor, while other city
officials were involved in a scandal of illegally raising funds of huge sums.
If Chen Xitong's case somehow sounded like a political prosecution, then Chen
Liangyu really deserves to be severely punished for his corrupt deeds, be he a
victim of a power struggle or not.
According to the court verdict, Chen Liangyu personally accepted bribes
totaling 2.39 million yuan. Not only that, he abused his power by having a
piece of land in Shanghai sold to his younger brother at a low price for
speculation purposes. The brother made a staggering profit of 118 million yuan.
Chen also illegally approved the embezzlement of 1 billion yuan from Shanghai's
social security fund for investment or loans to business people in his favor.
In a decision to kick Chen out of the Communist Party in July of last year, the
party's central commission for disciplinary inspection also said Chen lived a
rotten life with many mistresses, some of them being Shanghai government
officials.
To date, dozens of Shanghai officials and businesspeople have been jailed or
arrested for their involvement in Chen's dealings. Among the netted officials
are Wang Weigong, former secretary to Huang Ju, who died of cancer last year as
one of the nine politburo standing committee members and executive vice premier
of the State Council. He has been arrested on charges of taking bribes worth 9
million yuan. Qin Yu, Chen's former secretary, has been jailed for life for
taking 6.8 million yuan in bribes. Zu Junyi, former director of the Shanghai
Municipal Bureau of Social Security, has been jailed for 18 years for taking
bribes worth 1.66 million yuan and embezzlement of social security funds. Qiu
Xihua, former director of the National Bureau of Statistics, has been jailed
for one year for bigamy.
Last week, a Shanghai court sentenced tycoon Zhang Rongkun to 19 years in
prison. Zhang is known to have bribed Chen to "borrow" huge sums from
Shanghai's social security funds. With his special relationship with Chen,
Zhang also enjoyed other privileges in doing business in Shanghai. The court
also ordered the confiscation of 1.3 billion yuan of Zhang's assets.
In a trial in November 2007, Zhou Zhengyi (known as Chau Ching Ngai in Hong
Kong), once touted as Shanghai's richest entrepreneur, was jailed for 16 years
for offering bribes. Zhou was arrested in 2003 on charges of financial fraud,
but given a three-year sentence in 2004 because of Chen's protection. In jail,
Zhou was reported to have enjoyed privileges, including using the warden's
office daily to continue running his business operations outside the prison.
Several executives of Shanghai's large state-owned enterprises have also been
given jail terms or death sentences for involvement in embezzling social
security funds.
According to China's criminal code (effective since 1997), the penalty for a
party or government official convicted of taking bribes worth 100,000 yuan or
more ranges from 10 years' imprisonment to death. If the law had been followed
strictly, Chen Liangyu could have received several death penalties.
The verdict said Chen had been given the 18-year term because he showed signs
of repentance while in detention. He confessed to his crimes and remained
cooperative with the police and public prosecutor in their investigations.
But this explanation has apparently failed to convince the public and netizens
are flooding the Internet with criticism of the ruling. Analysts say they may
be inspired by the case of Xu Ting. Under the pressure of public opinion, Xu, a
rural migrant worker in Guangzhou, was convicted of taking advantage of the
malfunction of an ATM machine to steal 170,000 yuan. He was initially given
life imprisonment, but the sentence was reduced to five years in jail. (See
Courts withdraw verdict on ATM bandit, Asia Times Online, April 9,
2008.)
"Now Chinese netizens may want to put pressure on the authorities to consider a
retrial for Chen to give him a heavier punishment," a law researcher in Beijing
said. He said the court's explanation "is dangerous in that it may deliver a
message to officials: you can become as corrupt as you can and you'll be
treated leniently if you confess. Corrupt officials may become ever greedier in
taking bribes because there is practically no difference between 100,000 yuan
or 1 billion yuan [in terms of sentencing]."
But it is unlikely that Chen's verdict will be changed as it has reported that
the Tianjin court sent a team to Beijing to work on the verdict, which means it
was approved by the power center. The reasoning might have been that 18 years
made the sentence heavier than the 16 years given to Chen Xitong.
Also, Xu Ting's initial life sentence was given independently by a Guangzhou
court, which meant it could easily be changed.
From another perspective, however, the 18-year term could prove heavy for the
61-year-old Chen. He had operated among the elite of the elite, as one of the
20-odd men and woman who ruled 1.3 billion people. Now he has not only lost all
his power and privileges, he may also have to spend the rest of his life in
prison.
The whole issue raises another question: How could a person like Chen Liangyu
rise to such a high position? Some reports say he had been linked to corrupt
practices 20 years ago when he was a district head in Shanghai, yet he went all
the way into the politburo. Clearly, the party's supervision and promotion
system failed.
On the positive side, his imprisonment shows the leadership's determination to
combat rampant corruption, right up to the politburo - the power core.
So with Chen's case, it would be more relevant for the public as well as the
party and government to look for more effective ways to curb and prevent
official corruption. This may be more important than keeping Chen in jail for a
few more years, or even executing him.
The view that Jiang used his remaining political influence to save Chen from
heavier punishment sounds speculative. Jiang is known to care very much about
his public image and reputation. With the hard evidence, as shown in court, to
convict Chen, Jiang is unlikely to have been so foolish as to risk ruining his
reputation by throwing his weight behind Chen, be he a former protege or not.
Thus it was probably mere coincidence that Jiang published an article while
Chen was standing trial. The essay, "Reflection on Energy Issues in China", was
published in the Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, his alma mater.
Apparently, Jiang intended to have it published as an academic paper. He may
want to be remembered as an academic as well as a politician (he used to say he
wanted to teach at his alma mater after retirement).
Had he intended to exercise his political influence, it would have been better
for him to have had his article published in the People's Daily, the Communist
Party's flagship newspaper, or Seeking Truth magazine, published by the Central
Party School.
Jiang did not show up for the opening of the annual session of the National
People's Congress on March 5, sparking speculation that his health is
deteriorating. So another reason to publish the article could have been to
deliver the message that the 82-year-old is healthy and can think academically.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
