Home » Opinion » Chinese Views
Time to reappraise wealth in society that’s lost sight of decency and core values
Print Edition
SOME of China’s super-rich inspire envy and contempt.
On the one hand, whatever they say generates publicity and catchphrases. For example, a real estate tycoon, when asked recently to share the secret of his success, said bluntly that one has to begin by setting a small objective — making, say, 100 million yuan (US$15 million). “Setting a small objective” quickly caught on as a meme.
On the other hand, some of these wealthiest men and women often look over their shoulders, fearful that the public might turn against them. Oftentimes they are in the delicate position of having to justify their rise to opulence and explain the source of their affluence. This is where the term “fair wealth” started to come in.
It traditionally refers to legitimately acquired wealth: money made without stealing, cheating, plundering or other shady practices. But according to a recent study by Fudan University’s School of Management, the term is in need of a broader definition that accommodates “bigger perspectives” necessitated by new economic circumstances.
Based on the Forbes Rich List published in March, the study, entitled “Fair Wealth White Paper,” looks at the performance and management of 94 Chinese firms owned by the 50 richest Chinese individuals named in the list.
After a careful review of how they derived their wealth, half of them made it into the white paper, which comprises a number of condensed lists where only the top three finishers are ranked.
Ding Min, who teaches at the Pennsylvania State University and led the study, explained that the 50 billionaires are gauged on criteria including their conformity with six general precepts and the degree to which they deliver on specific targets. These six precepts are “public-spiritedness,” “treating all stakeholders with respect,” “a strong business ethic,” “commitment to self-development,” “empowering the weak” and “readiness to break the glass ceiling.”
In Ding’s view, these precepts not only overlap, but actually transcend the ideals embodied by sustainable development theories and corporate social responsibility. A quick look at the criteria outlined in the report suggests that most of them are related to staff benefits, corporate upward mobility, environment-friendliness and so on.
Ding said all data used to compile the white paper come from corporate financial reports published in compliance with information disclosure regulations.
Guo Guangchang, chairman of Shanghai-based conglomerate Fosun International Limited, came in second or third on multiple sub-lists. Nonetheless, in the 2015 Forbes China Rich List, he ranked 11th with an estimated personal net worth of US$7.3 billion, way behind second-placed Jack Ma, founder and executive chairman of e-commerce giant Alibaba, who has a net worth estimated at US$21.8 billion.
That Guo somehow tops the lists despite his relatively smaller fortune says a lot about the great departure the Fudan study is from traditional rich lists from the likes of Forbes or Hu Run.
This is confirmed by Ding, who in its FAQ pages says the white paper is meant to recognize those individuals in pursuit of fair wealth; moreover, it is also intended to be inspirational.
The report is a well-intentioned effort, to be sure, but it will perhaps be meaningful only if China’s newly minted rich do genuinely care about the conclusions and their standing.
Being a good employer and committed conservationist perhaps aren’t the qualities we ought to primarily look for in members of the upper crust, since decent acquisition of wealth doesn’t naturally translate into decent values being passed down to, say, their next of kin. For example, the son of the aforementioned real estate mogul has turned himself into a media darling with his numerous online escapades, the latest being a picture he posted on social media of the eight new iPhone 7 handsets he purchased as a gift for his pet dog.
We’ve seen plenty of second-generation rich people flaunting their family wealth, but this is one of the most preposterous cases yet of a pampered son making his father look inept as a teacher of values such as moderation and propriety.
Shouldn’t positive influence on others be included as a yardstick against which we judge our richest citizens? And It would be great if list-makers in the future look at not just the “take” but “give” aspect of the fortune equation.
We don’t expect our billionaires to give away a big chunk of their hard-earned fortunes like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg or Michael Bloomberg did. But revelation of their largesse given to worthy causes — be it philanthropy or scientific exploration — goes a long way toward reaffirming our faith in their worthiness of being lionized.
Lately I have been reading noted writer Gao Yang’s biographical novel “Hu Xueyan,” whose protagonist, a legendary self-made merchant (1823-1885), went from being a humble money changer to building up a commercial empire with interests spanning money-lending, pawn brokering, silk, weaponry and medicine in the late Qing Dynasty (1644-1911).
A plaque bearing Hu’s lifelong motto “against treachery” still hangs in the pharmacy he opened in Hangzhou, capital of Zhejiang Province, in 1874 to help treat the sick and wounded following fighting between Taiping and Qing troops. Indeed, the plaque itself is a testament to the strength of the timeless motto.
When we talk about billionaires, exactly what should we talk about? Is it their astronomical net worth only, or the spiritual legacy they leave behind?
Still, Fudan’s study is a remarkable reminder of the need to reevaluate wealth in a rapidly changing environment, in view of non-pecuniary concerns. However, we should also remember that a truly affluent and mature society is shored up less by a tiny cohort of wealthy individuals than by a broad, burgeoning middle class.
- 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.
