Comment by wenyuanyu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wenyuanyu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

To me, the use of exit bans and coercive measures to bring fugitives back to China does not seem unreasonable under specific circumstances. While employing these tactics for political reasons would be problematic, they serve as some of the only tools available to the Chinese government to act against corruption and embezzlement. These measures provide leverage and serve as a deterrent to prevent corrupt officials from fleeing China with substantial illicit gains [0].

This approach is not a secret; it is well-publicized within China and internationally. For example, the BBC reported on China's "Fox Hunt" operation in 2014, although the tone of the reporting has notably changed over time [1][2].

Despite China's extensive global connections, it faces significant legal constraints in its efforts to establish extradition treaties with major countries. Given the current international political climate, the prospects of forming such treaties appear to be minimal. In this context, what other options does China have at its disposal to combat corruption and hold individuals accountable?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30358060 [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-65537553

Transparency would help out a lot. Allowing the press to actually investigate and report on things, and not trying to suppress information that allows corruption to thrive. Also, there are no power branch checks, the judicial branch is at the mercy of the official branch, and the legislative branch is just to rubber-stamp things. Unless you piss off an official more powerful than you, you can basically do whatever you want.

So punishing innocent people is justified?

Innocent in what sense? In China it's not always enough to not break a law to be innocent. You might also have to act in the spirit of the law (as interpreted by the CCP) to be sure to not become the target of the justice system.

This is very different from the western system. But I think most people would agree that sometimes complete "rule of law" can also lead to perverse outcomes where very immoral business behaviours go unpunished.

I think this misses half of the purpose of 'rule of law'. Some laws are to protect interest of citizens in the state and the state itself, sure, and in that sense the importance of 'spirit of the law' could be cultural. But the other aspect of law is minimizing surprise. Efficiency of commerce depends on a certain amount of consistency around laws. The more consistent the interpretation around a body of laws the more efficiently commerce can occur. In this sense relying on 'spirit of law' is wildly unhelpful because in order to understand legal cause and effect you have to read tea leaves, understand the leaders in office, etc. The west is not immune to this problem but we depart from strict written law to our peril.

Minimizing surprise is definitely more efficient. However, preventing bad actors from abusing the system also makes for a more efficient system because it reduces incentives to do zero sum or even negative sum investments (such as causing harm to others to increase your own profit).

I don't think the question was about the interpretation and specifics of the law but about the ethics. Wether an action is not unreasonable is also a question wether the action is should be a valid option.

We are playing a game about people after all.

> In China it's not always enough to not break a law to be innocent. You might also have to act in the spirit of the law (as interpreted by the CCP) to be sure to not become the target of the justice system

So people that are family members and friends of fugitives are not acting in the spirit of the law and deserve to be punished?

> deserve to be punished?

Deserve doesn't factor into it. The world isn't fair.

When we declare war on some country most of us can't even find on the map, some barber in it who gets a Hellfire missile in his shop's window didn't 'deserve' it, but he still receives his share of collective punishment, because the ends justify the means.

The other option that China has at its disposal is to introduce multiparty democracy with the rule of law and guarantees of civil rights. Most other countries would then be happy to extradite suspects to China.

If someone had the means and opportunity to make a clean break with PRC but instead choose to not only stay but work extensively and successfully, at least for a while, with the government—-well that guy seems like part of the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com