Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
Billionaire tally shows shameful wealth gap
By Wan Lixin |
00:00 UTC+8 April 29, 2011
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
SHANGHAI Daily reported on Wednesday that "Chinese mainland is home to 115 billionaires," outnumbering those in Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
That's a real miracle in a country where many rustics have difficulty sending their children to school, and except for our pampered civil servants, many wage earners have not seen wage increases in real terms for the past decade.
And that number of billionaires is vastly understated, for a huge number of our citizens prefer to be extremely modest about their economic circumstances.
By relying on published data only, one may easily conclude, as in the report, that "billionaires on Chinese mainland are more likely to get rich through manufacturing," while those Hong Kong tycoons prefers to make their fortunes in real estate.
Some of our civil servants are much richer than they appear to be. Since they are not legally required to state their income, we can only get a glimpse of the picture from the occasional exposure of disgraced officials.
Last week Xu Zongheng, the former mayor of Shenzhen who once styled himself as "incorruptible," went on trial for taking bribes of more than 33 million yuan (US$6.3 million).
Known as "Metro Mayor," Xu launched the construction of five metro lines, which also lined his own pocket.
Last month, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province upheld a death sentence for former deputy mayor of Suzhou, Jiang Renjie. He is guilty of, among other charges, taking bribes exceeding 100 million yuan, from property developers.
And former deputy mayor of Hangzhou Xu Maiyong is still waiting for a verdict for allegedly taking 160 million yuan in bribes, nearly all from property developers.
Any rich survey that fails to take into account of officials, incorruptible or otherwise, would necessarily misrepresent China's wealth picture. That misrepresentation leads to misconceptions about the origins of the wealth.
Get rich first
It has never been honestly explained why some Chinese officials are so fond of infrastructure development. That affinity clearly sets them apart from their foreign counterparts.
Last year at this time we were at the end of a construction-renovation-face-lift boom of epic proportions, but we were somewhat consoled by the promise of a grace period following that historical event, the World Expo.
One year later, I am wondering if the infrastructure boom I am witnessing from our office windows can in any way be less spectacular than the one last year.
To the west, three scaffolded high rises are soaring to the sky. To the east, two extended traditional neighborhoods have been totally wiped out and dozens of old plane trees uprooted overnight. Even an old road has been abolished.
Some officials are ready to turn anything in sight into a construction site, and ready to destroy anyone who dare to stop them.
In this regard, we are never lacking for examples.
In Zhuzhou, Hunan Province, a home owner set himself on fire last Friday in protest against a forced demolition.
Unlike a pig farmer and his son whose self-immolations last March failed to stop bulldozers, this time the victim's desperate act did temporarily put on hold the forced demolition.
But for how long?
The spate of forced demolitions in recent years led to a state decree banning administrative forced demolitions. But our courts prove to be no less efficient in evicting occupants.
It is strange that officials who are supposed to be representative of the people's interests are driving the people to suicide.
One explanation of this apparent incongruities is that fact that part of our government has evolved into a sort of real estate company, that exists solely for the purpose of maximizing profits.
At the beginning of reform in the early 1980s, letting some people get rich first became part of the reformist policy, in the belief that those who were richer would serve as examples for others to follow.
Get away fast
When this did not happen, economists began to sing the praises of trickle-down economics, in the belief the rich would benefit the poor, ultimately. But with wealthy citizens leaving the country in great numbers, the trickle down is likely to materialize elsewhere.
One of my colleagues once worked right next to an emigration consulting firm helping rich Chinese purchase Canadian residency and citizenship.
These fixers are so sought after that some impatient, official-like clients were ready to pay an exorbitant sum just to get on the fast track to Canada.
By comparison, business people show less haste in executing their exit from the country that helped them strike it rich.
The general prosperity our parents had been promised at the start of the reform turned out to be elusive, and what with soaring home prices and soaring CPI, the relative poverty is more acutely felt.
Under such circumstances, wealth is often more an object of curse than respect. For instance, the wealth accumulated in real estate.
According to Marx in "Das Kapital," "With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent, positive audacity; 100 per cent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged."
If we calculate the return on investment in the property sector, it would easily explain the degree of temptations our officials have been exposed to.
In a recent interview with the China Youth Daily newspaper, Hu Deping recalled that according to his father, late Party Secretary Hu Yaobang, the original motivation of reform was to "store the wealth among the people, and let people get rich."
There is an urgent need to assess if we have deviated from that ideal.
That's a real miracle in a country where many rustics have difficulty sending their children to school, and except for our pampered civil servants, many wage earners have not seen wage increases in real terms for the past decade.
And that number of billionaires is vastly understated, for a huge number of our citizens prefer to be extremely modest about their economic circumstances.
By relying on published data only, one may easily conclude, as in the report, that "billionaires on Chinese mainland are more likely to get rich through manufacturing," while those Hong Kong tycoons prefers to make their fortunes in real estate.
Some of our civil servants are much richer than they appear to be. Since they are not legally required to state their income, we can only get a glimpse of the picture from the occasional exposure of disgraced officials.
Last week Xu Zongheng, the former mayor of Shenzhen who once styled himself as "incorruptible," went on trial for taking bribes of more than 33 million yuan (US$6.3 million).
Known as "Metro Mayor," Xu launched the construction of five metro lines, which also lined his own pocket.
Last month, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province upheld a death sentence for former deputy mayor of Suzhou, Jiang Renjie. He is guilty of, among other charges, taking bribes exceeding 100 million yuan, from property developers.
And former deputy mayor of Hangzhou Xu Maiyong is still waiting for a verdict for allegedly taking 160 million yuan in bribes, nearly all from property developers.
Any rich survey that fails to take into account of officials, incorruptible or otherwise, would necessarily misrepresent China's wealth picture. That misrepresentation leads to misconceptions about the origins of the wealth.
Get rich first
It has never been honestly explained why some Chinese officials are so fond of infrastructure development. That affinity clearly sets them apart from their foreign counterparts.
Last year at this time we were at the end of a construction-renovation-face-lift boom of epic proportions, but we were somewhat consoled by the promise of a grace period following that historical event, the World Expo.
One year later, I am wondering if the infrastructure boom I am witnessing from our office windows can in any way be less spectacular than the one last year.
To the west, three scaffolded high rises are soaring to the sky. To the east, two extended traditional neighborhoods have been totally wiped out and dozens of old plane trees uprooted overnight. Even an old road has been abolished.
Some officials are ready to turn anything in sight into a construction site, and ready to destroy anyone who dare to stop them.
In this regard, we are never lacking for examples.
In Zhuzhou, Hunan Province, a home owner set himself on fire last Friday in protest against a forced demolition.
Unlike a pig farmer and his son whose self-immolations last March failed to stop bulldozers, this time the victim's desperate act did temporarily put on hold the forced demolition.
But for how long?
The spate of forced demolitions in recent years led to a state decree banning administrative forced demolitions. But our courts prove to be no less efficient in evicting occupants.
It is strange that officials who are supposed to be representative of the people's interests are driving the people to suicide.
One explanation of this apparent incongruities is that fact that part of our government has evolved into a sort of real estate company, that exists solely for the purpose of maximizing profits.
At the beginning of reform in the early 1980s, letting some people get rich first became part of the reformist policy, in the belief that those who were richer would serve as examples for others to follow.
Get away fast
When this did not happen, economists began to sing the praises of trickle-down economics, in the belief the rich would benefit the poor, ultimately. But with wealthy citizens leaving the country in great numbers, the trickle down is likely to materialize elsewhere.
One of my colleagues once worked right next to an emigration consulting firm helping rich Chinese purchase Canadian residency and citizenship.
These fixers are so sought after that some impatient, official-like clients were ready to pay an exorbitant sum just to get on the fast track to Canada.
By comparison, business people show less haste in executing their exit from the country that helped them strike it rich.
The general prosperity our parents had been promised at the start of the reform turned out to be elusive, and what with soaring home prices and soaring CPI, the relative poverty is more acutely felt.
Under such circumstances, wealth is often more an object of curse than respect. For instance, the wealth accumulated in real estate.
According to Marx in "Das Kapital," "With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent, positive audacity; 100 per cent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged."
If we calculate the return on investment in the property sector, it would easily explain the degree of temptations our officials have been exposed to.
In a recent interview with the China Youth Daily newspaper, Hu Deping recalled that according to his father, late Party Secretary Hu Yaobang, the original motivation of reform was to "store the wealth among the people, and let people get rich."
There is an urgent need to assess if we have deviated from that ideal.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
