Anti-graft success entails complete legal norms

There must be better coordination among government agencies and regulations to keep corruption in check

In general, China's anti-corruption campaign has successively shifted from a mass movement and a leadership-directed practice that largely rested with power, to an institutionalized movement.

But the "big tigers", or major power abusers such as Zhou Yongkang, the country's former security chief; Xu Caihou, former vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission; and Ling Jihua, former minister of the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, have grown, despite the nation's anti-corruption efforts, in power and mechanism.

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2012, Chinese top leader Xi Jinping has reiterated the significance of "rule of law" in the country's anti-graft efforts. And the Fourth Plenum of the 18th CPC Central Committee set up the goal of "governance according to the law".

To better fight against corruption according to the law, governance according to the law should be the guideline in the nation's massive anti-corruption campaign.

To fight against corruption according to the law has two meanings: First, laws should be primarily implemented to fight corruption. In other words, any lawbreaking graft will be unexceptionally punished according to law, and all punishments shall be equally based on certain standards. Second, to prevent latent corruption from taking shape, China legislates to restrict and regulate the use of public power.

The ongoing anti-graft movement in the country is even more powerful and widespread compared to that before the 18th Party Congress. So far, over 60 government officials at provincial and ministerial level or above have been placed under investigation, which shows anyone who is involved in corruption will be equally investigated and punished according to the law.

It is thus fair to say that anti-corruption efforts according to the law shall be the fundamental and comprehensive way to fight against corruption, in contrast to all previous forms of anti-graft measures based on the "rule of man". Indeed, the fight against corruption is unlikely to succeed without complete legal norms.

That means, such norms should elaborate not only the punishments for corruption, but also specific regulations and restrictions on the exercise of public power. Party discipline, the administrative regulations and the laws should better coordinate to keep corruption in check.

For the moment, the anti-graft regulation systems may have loopholes that might be easily exploited by corrupt officials dreaming of getting away with their misconduct, and improved coordination is needed to deal a heavy blow against corruption.

To be specific, the Party's discipline needs to stress the importance of the ethics and obligations of its members, especially public servants, need to abide by. In addition, the legislation needs to lower the bar in defining what constitutes a crime of corruption, and include cases which currently are only contradictory to the Party discipline in the anti-corruption campaign.

Admittedly, the revised Chinese Criminal Procedural Law has made notable breakthroughs in stipulating the special investigative measures. Yet, it has actually achieved little in solving a slew of key problems, for example, the lack of general standards for defining crimes of corruption, and cross-border extradition and assets recovery.

Moreover, judicial operation calls for a mechanism under which the People's Procuratorate, the People's Court, and the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection cooperate to ensure checks and balances.

China's anti-corruption efforts today, in accordance with CPC discipline and the Chinese criminal justice, will unavoidably require both the Party's discipline inspection organs and the country's judicial organs to function effectively. In certain cases, the former should be strict in intra-party regulations, while the latter should uphold fairness and justice.

The author is the director of the China Anti-Corruption Judicial Research Center in Beijing. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.