This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
The people who were above them back then are now once again demanding that they “return what they received.”
I recently came across news related to Evergrande Wealth. According to publicly circulating information, executives and some members of the song-and-dance troupe have been asked to voluntarily return what they previously received. Even troupe leader Bai Shanshan is reportedly on the list.
That makes it difficult to understand:
When they were taking the money back then, why did no one remind them whether it was “income” or “illicit income”?
Now that Evergrande is in trouble, after tracing the chain of responsibility downward, even song-and-dance troupe performers are being asked to return the money?
To put it bluntly—
I’ve seen shameless people before, but I’ve never seen anyone this shameless.
If these payments were themselves lawful wages for work performed, then why should ordinary employees bear the consequences now?
Performers are people who earn a living from their wages. Surely they cannot be expected to do the work, put on the shows, and then hand the money back in the end?
What is even more ironic is that this logic always seems to work the same way:
When things are going well, the people at the top enjoy the rewards;
When trouble strikes, the people at the bottom bear the responsibility;
When a hole appears, they begin demanding the return of “what was received”;
As for those who should truly bear responsibility, no one often asks them anything.
This is probably the most familiar “way of allocating responsibility” under certain systems:
When making money, it’s about connections,
When dividing the profits, it’s about contributions,
When trouble strikes, it’s about discipline,
When pursuing accountability, it’s about “voluntarily returning what was received.”
And ordinary people?
When you’re working, you’re a “comrade”;
When something goes wrong, you’re the “person responsible.”
This is not about holding anyone accountable;
It looks more like searching for the last few people to foot the bill for a banquet that has already ended.
Can ordinary people understand this kind of institutional logic?
The problem probably isn’t that they don’t understand it, but that they understand it all too well.