Can an ‘Honesty Fund’ Guarantee Honesty?

Since July 1, Jiangmen in south China’s Guangdong Province has implemented a new anti-corruption mechanism, whereby the government and civil servants deposit a fixed sum of money in an account every month. Civil servants will be able to withdraw 70 percent from the deposit every five years if they receive a clean assessment. The remainder can be withdrawn on retirement. If they break rules during the time the scheme is working, the fund will be cut by 50 to 100 percent, with the deductions handed to the state treasury. In accordance with the design,the government will pay 20 million yuan($2.94 million) a year in deposits.

Opponents are quite worried about the new system, dubbed an “honesty fund,” and describe it as a “covert pay hike” for civil servants. They say it is pointless to connect money to civil servants’ incorruptibility records and oppose replacing disciplinary sanctions with a rewards system.

On the other hand, supporters of the policy emphasize the fund is a smart one deriving from the argument that high salaries might be a good check against corruption. It’s good for cultivating government of fi cials’ sense of selfrestraint and will encourage them to be clean and honest, they say.

Silly rewards

Cao Lin (Chinese Business View): Civil servants should be incorruptible, otherwise they should be punished severely. If there’s justi fi cation for having a rewards system for honest civil servants, shouldn’t we also establish a similar system to encourage people to observe the law?

The Jiangmen city government reportedly will put 20 million yuan into the fund each year, which means taxpayers not only have to pay for civil servants’ salaries but also have to spend an extra 20 million yuan to purchase their incorruptibility. Here are two problems∶ First, this is a double charge on taxpayers; second, since the government’s deposits into the fund are taxpayers’ money,they should at least be approved by the local people’s congress and taxpayers.

This fund is supposed to reward civil servants for incorruptibility. A civil servant can acquire thousands of yuan from the fund if they manage to receive a clean assessment for five years in a row; but if he or she breaks the rules or abuses power just once, he or she may get tens of thousands of yuan or even multi-millions of yuan in illegal income.Which is more lucrative? The answer speaks for itself. Counting on thousands of yuan from the “honesty fund” to constrain corruption only overestimates its function.

What’s more, in circumstances of incomplete accountability and underdeveloped anti-corruption system, it is still hard to appropriately assess civil servants’ integrity. Take Jiangmen for example. Previous records show few civil servants in the city have been punished on corruption charges.I believe the reason is not the elimination of corruption but a shortage of ways to discover corrupt officials. That’s to say, most local civil servants will get tens of thousands of yuan in five years from the fund and very few will have money deducted. So it means this money being given to them for nothing.If this is not a salary rise in a disguised form,what else is it?

Zhu Sibei (Xinhua Daily Telegraph):Being honest is the basic requirement and lowest-level expectation on civil servants.And now, this small demand still needs taxpayers’ extra money. Is there any justi fication for this?

Legally, a deposit should be from civil servants’ personal pocket since people can only use their own money to ensure their own behavior. Using taxpayers’ money to assure civil servants’ behavior is just going to the opposite extreme of the original purpose, making it hard to maintain its effectiveness.

Another defect of the “honesty fund”policy is it may strengthen an odd circle of self-rewards and wasting taxpayers’ money.

People usually compare Jiangmen’s“honesty fund” with the provident fund scheme in the Singapore civil service, but these two systems have evident differences in terms of preconditions and goals.In Singapore, the portion civil servants contribute is reserved for their living and medical insurance after retirement, while the government’s contribution is prepaid retirement pensions stored in the fund. Since Singaporean civil servants have no extra retirement pensions, this is the security deposit civil servants pay for their incorruptibility.But in China the portion of the government deposit is actually a bonus for civil servants’incorruptibility. One is a security deposit and the other is a bonus. Understanding this difference allows us to know why this policy has become the center of debate.

Qiao Zikun (Beijing Times):Nowadays, Chinese people rush to be civil servants because of stable incomes, good career prospects and, sometimes, the marvelous feeling of wielding power. For people who are corrupt, the more power they have,the more benefits they can get; the less chance they have of getting caught, the more nerve they have for corruption. The key to curb corruption is effective power checking systems to prevent the abuse of power for personal gains. Another key is enhanced supervision of power, which produces a greater chance of catching corrupt civil servants. If the benefits of corruption become less and the chances increase of being caught, there will be less corruption.

Wu Jiang (Chinese Business View):Staying away from corruption should be part of a civil servant’s obligation. When incorruptibility needs praise and extra rewards,corruption becomes the acquiescent option.

Cases of corruption often involve more than tens of millions of yuan in illegal income, which makes the function of an“honesty fund” quite ignorable. Besides, the fund is rendered null for civil servants only if they are caught. As long as the corruption is concealed, corrupt civil servants can still receive their “bonus” without any cost.

An “honesty fund” may even strengthen civil servants’ concept of money being the most powerful motivation of all, which runs counter to the original intention of its establishment.

Incentives

Zhou Hucheng (Dongfang Daily): If a civil servant stays honest and clean, he or she can get extra pay; but if he or she gets caught in corruption, not only is the bonus gone, but also the money he or she has contributed will be con fi scated. This entails rewards and punishment as two functions of the “honesty fund” in Jiangmen. From this standpoint, the fund is not a simple rise in salary for civil servants. Instead, it is an effective measure to encourage them to be self-disciplined.

No policy is perfect. We shouldn’t count on the fund to exert an influence on corruption when corruptible interest groups still exist. In the current circumstances, any policy that makes any slight change is worth trying.

As is known to all, not all corrupt offi cials are ultimately caught. Some of them can avoid supervision and stay safe. If a corrupt of ficial is not caught before retirement,he or she can enjoy the bene fi ts of corruption and, at the same time, withdraw deposits from the “honesty fund” in full. This discomforting phenomenon is highly possible. But it is not a reason for strangling this policy in its cradle. The key is more rigorous supervision of power. As a result, before civil servants commit corruption, they will think carefully∶What consequence will this action bring?

We sincerely hope the creation of the“honesty fund” will be followed by more measures, ensuring an anti-corruption law and the regulation on of fi cials’ property declaration are approved as soon as possible. In this way, an anti-corruption policy will stop wandering on the verges of reality.

Pan Hongqi (Huaxi Business Daily):The concept of the “honesty fund” in Jiangmen accords with the argument high salaries might be a good check against corruption. The “high salaries” mentioned here are not exorbitant payments but those of greater than average levels.

Experience from countries with advanced legal systems shows there are usually two ways of putting this theory into practice.One is paying “high salaries” in full to civil servants every month; the other is deducting certain amounts of money from their salaries each month as an incorruptibility deposit,which will add up to “a huge amount” after a lifetime’s work. Only if they receive a clean assessment will the civil servants be able to withdraw this money when they retire. When comparing the two courses of action, we can see the latter is more helpful in cultivating a civil servant’s sense of self-discipline and is a more scientific arrangement. Because of this, people shouldn’t judge this fund too harshly.

Some people misunderstand the role of high salaries as a check against corruption.They think, as long as people are greedy, no matter how much a salary is, it will not eliminate corruption. Though high salaries do not necessarily bring about incorruptibility, they are a stimulus for it.

Liang Feng (Jiangmen Daily):Recently, whether to implement the policy of using high salaries to check against corruption and whether this will assure incorruptibility have been the center of discussion.The “honesty fund” in Jiangmen is obviously a proactive attempt in this regard.

The fund re fl ects the concept of tackling and preventing corruption by economic means. Compared with previous “moral education” campaigns, the new system is intended to stimulate interest among civil servants by dispensing or deducting from their incorruptibility deposits according to a clean or corrupt performance. It has great significance for promoting the construction of clean and honest governance in China. ■

Dear Readers,

“Forum” is a column that provides a space for varying perspectives on contemporary Chinese society. We invite you to submit personal viewpoints on past and current topics (in either English or Chinese).

E-mail us at byao@cipg.org.cn

Please provide your name and address along with your comments.