This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
According to Deutsche Welle, China’s draft Anti-Cross-Border Corruption Law was submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for its first review recently. The law has been in preparation for at least three years and is intended to bring the government’s years-long transnational “anti-corruption” operations within a legal framework. However, legalisation in itself does not amount to legitimisation. The key questions are not whether the state should combat corruption, but rather: Who defines “corruption”? Who supervises law enforcement? Do overseas operations have clearly defined boundaries? And can those pursued obtain independent and impartial judicial remedies?
The available material shows that these operations have previously drawn criticism from international human rights groups, which argue that some may have used “anti-corruption” as a pretext to pursue and suppress dissidents overseas. This criticism cannot simply be dismissed as opposition to fighting corruption. Genuine anti-corruption efforts should target demonstrable violations of the law and follow transparent evidence, due process, and judicial review. If “corruption” becomes a label that administrative authorities can interpret and expand at will, it may cease to be a tool for protecting the public interest and instead become a means of pursuing political objectives, suppressing dissent, and creating fear.
The institutional roots of the problem lie in the lack of effective checks on power. Under a one-party authoritarian system, the legislature, executive, and judiciary lack genuinely independent mutual oversight, while news media also find it difficult to freely investigate and question government actions. Even if the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress reviews the relevant draft law, that cannot automatically prove that the law has sufficient democratic legitimacy, still less can it substitute for independent judicial review of individual cases. Especially when law enforcement crosses national borders, the boundaries of power, individual rights, and international rules require even more transparent safeguards; otherwise, “legalisation” may merely give existing powers a more formal façade.
A truly responsible state should not only combat corruption but also safeguard suspects’ rights to mount a defence, to know the relevant facts, to due process, and to be free from political persecution. Anti-corruption efforts must not become political slogans that stand above the law, still less should they sacrifice individual dignity in exchange for so-called governance efficiency.
To fundamentally prevent anti-corruption efforts from being abused, it is necessary to establish constitutional democracy, free elections, the separation of powers, judicial independence, and freedom of the press; to ensure that law-enforcement agencies are bound by the law; to subject government actions to public oversight; and to ensure that everyone—including those in power and dissidents—enjoys equal basic human rights. What citizens genuinely need is not a powerful state whose reach can be expanded at any time, but a law-governed state whose power must demonstrate its legitimacy and can be held accountable.
News background: The original report on which this commentary is based can be found at Deutsche Welle: DW-WORLD.DE.