When things get nastier than what public opinion can swallow, officials implicated in scandals are replaced, or simply given the boot.
Then, all looks well: the public officials remiss in their duties get what they deserve; their bosses look good for displaying zero tolerance to negligence; and our easy-to-appease public believes justice is done.
Yet no sooner have the scandals faded from the limelight than the "guilty" officials find their way back, one after another.
In contrast to the dismissals, which create a splash, the comebacks are usually quiet. Thus, an official sent out is brought back, sometimes some of them even in higher positions, and, of course, no reasons are given. Isn't it odd?
Till date, the standard reply tailored to ward off inquiries by those who suspect mischief is: the reappointments are perfectly in accordance with rules.
And, that's precisely what the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (GAQSIQ) said, in April, when the media discovered that Bao Junkai, a deputy chief of its department of food quality supervision, had become chief of its branch in Anhui province.
Bao was responsible for last fall's notorious milk scandals, and received a serious demerit for dereliction of duty.
The GAQSIQ argued that Bao's appointment (a de facto promotion) in Anhui was not wrong procedure wise because the decision was made before the scandal broke. Now, Bao is back in Beijing. From a GAQSIQ announcement dated May 1, we know he is now a deputy chief of the national quality watchdog's department of science and technologies.
Understandably, people are confused at what is going on.
It would not be fair to put all the blame on Bao alone for either the milk scandal or his return in a higher position.
In the first place, he is only one of the disgraced officials whose career path has followed such a curious pattern. Besides, we have never been told to what extent he was liable, for dereliction of duty, in his previous job.
The public, however, are marveling at the apparently unusual favor he enjoys. Maybe Bao is so capable and important that the GAQSIQ simply cannot do without him.
What is truly disturbing is the absence of proper rules and procedure to regulate reappointment of officials who faced disciplinary action.
When questions were raised on the previous occasion over Bao's new position, the GAQSIQ cited "relevant rules and procedures." Those are ambiguous terms, which neither convince nor clarify. Perhaps, it is time for the GAQSIQ to clarify once again and in more specific terms.
Though officials like Bao are not elected and the public has little say in their appointment, they are paid with the taxpayers' money. Therefore, the public expects to be reassured its legitimate concerns are adequately addressed.
(China Daily?May 8, 2009)