Rights Protection Commentary: Take a Dialectical View of the “Prophecy Posts” Surrounding Officials’ Downfalls, and Do Not Let Governance Harm Civilian Oversight

Special Commentator: Bao Pingshan

Where the world is governed or chaotic, there will be public opinion; where politics are honest or corrupt, there will naturally be the people’s voices. As the ancient saying goes: “Listening to all sides brings clarity; trusting only one side brings darkness.” In the internet age, ordinary people’s observations of the political ecosystem and perceptions of the culture of integrity have already become an important supplement to social oversight. Recently, the authoritative Party publication Ban Yue Tan published an article sharply criticizing the phenomenon of self-media accounts “predicting officials’ downfalls,” broadly attributing this kind of public-opinion disorder to “insiders leaking information” from within the system, and characterizing the motives of the vast majority of creators as seeking profits, amassing wealth and trading in illicit businesses.

After the article was published, the direction of public opinion suddenly tightened, regulatory controls in various regions tightened accordingly, and a campaign to build momentum for a crackdown on so-called “anti-corruption prophecy posts” has quietly begun. There is no denying that the Party publication’s intention in speaking out was to rectify the disciplinary environment and safeguard the seriousness of discipline-inspection work; its warning significance is beyond doubt. But defining the issue by treating all cases alike and generalizing from the particular lacks objectivity and tends toward arbitrariness. If this single conclusion is used as the yardstick for governance and a crude, across-the-board crackdown is carried out, it will inevitably harm countless compliant self-media accounts and legitimate civilian observers, stifling the vitality and fairness of online oversight.

Looking across the public opinion surrounding predictions of changes in officials’ status circulating online, there are indeed a small number of disorders that require forceful rectification. The online world is vast and populated by all kinds of people. A very small number of insiders disregard disciplinary red lines, privately leak clues about cases and trade confidential information; a small number of opportunistic accounts establish paid communities and sell so-called “inside information,” profiting improperly from anti-corruption topics. Such conduct damages the Party’s conduct and the political climate, disrupts the rhythm of disciplinary enforcement, and breeds online rumors, reducing serious anti-corruption work to gossip for street-corner curiosity-seekers. Like ants gnawing at a pillar or dust obscuring the sun, it should be dealt with strictly and never tolerated. This is also the positive value of the authoritative article that deserves recognition and implementation.

But with the many forms of public opinion in the world, how can they all be treated alike? Every stream has a source, and every wind has a cause. The vast majority of so-called “downfall predictions” are by no means the result of confidential information being leaked, still less of profiting from illicit businesses. Rather, they arise from ordinary observations of everyday society and deductions based on normal human relationships. They are the most basic form of civilian perception of government affairs and have nothing to do with “insiders leaking information.”

In officialdom, conduct leaves traces and honor and disgrace have signs. Before many officials are placed under investigation and detention by the discipline-inspection authorities, they have already displayed various abnormal signs. Ordinary people can see clearly from the sidelines what those directly involved find difficult to conceal. First, after many problematic officials realize that their problems have been exposed and that the pressure is mounting, they become fearful and unable to sleep at night, entering what is known as a “commuting” state. They frequently leave their posts without explanation, miss major meetings, avoid appearing in public, and display erratic movements and abnormal states. Relatives and friends, as well as workplace colleagues, naturally grow suspicious after observing their conduct and demeanor. Some officials, seeking to protect themselves or find someone to mediate on their behalf, privately disclose their circumstances to people close to them and seek help in resolving their difficulties. The information then quietly circulates within private circles and, through word of mouth, becomes the basis for civilian predictions.

Second, the implementation of disciplinary action leaves traces, and all kinds of events have telltale signs. Once an official is placed under detention for investigation, the sealing of their residence, control of their movements and vehicles, and severing of their whereabouts are visible to neighbors and clear to them. News spreads quickly, and public opinion naturally arises. This is ordinary human behavior and a normal social principle, not the result of internal leaks. Everyone knows that the person has lost contact and that their residence has been sealed; making predictions based on past anti-corruption cases is a reasonable form of public social perception. How can this constitute the crime of trading in confidential information?

Third, government affairs disclosed to the public naturally leave clues; personnel developments and attendance at official events are all public information. An official’s unexplained absence from major government activities, prolonged disappearance from public view, and failure to update their publicly available résumé are themselves the most direct signals of abnormality. When self-media accounts sort through and analyze publicly available government information and changes in public activities, compile officials’ résumés, and objectively analyze personnel changes, they are essentially exercising the public’s right to know and conducting routine public-opinion oversight. This is compliant and lawful, supported by reason and evidence.

As for the arbitrary assertion of “mass profiteering and a black industrial chain,” it is even further removed from the realities of the industry and excessively one-sided. A gentleman loves wealth but acquires it properly; ordinary people’s creative work is not inherently driven by greed for profit. At present, the vast majority of ordinary self-media accounts, personal public accounts and short-video accounts have small audiences, and platform advertising revenue is extremely meager. Even if a government-affairs observation post or personnel-development analysis article receives hundreds or thousands of views, the returns are negligible and fundamentally insufficient to support a so-called “black-gold industry.”

More than 90 percent of relevant creators have no paid communities, no private sales, no traffic manipulation and no other motive than relying on publicly available information to organize public-opinion developments and express personal views. They seek only to accumulate credibility for their accounts and establish a distinctive personal voice in public opinion; what they seek is a modest reputation, not substantial profit. The assertion that they “make huge profits by frantically predicting officials’ downfalls” applies only to a very small number of opportunistic accounts and absolutely cannot be imposed on creators across the entire internet. Defining an entire field by individual cases and using the particular to generalize about the whole inevitably leads to governance errors.

In all fairness, predictive public opinion issued in advance does have unavoidable drawbacks that must be confronted and cannot be tolerated. Some unverified advance disclosures can indeed interfere with the pace of discipline-inspection investigations, allowing people involved in cases to hear the news in advance, collude and destroy evidence, thereby increasing the difficulty of disciplinary enforcement. Fragmentary speculation and vague insinuations can easily breed rumors, implicate innocent people, damage the overall image of the public-service ranks, and erode the credibility of official authoritative statements. Every measure has its shortcomings and strengths: the problem lies in omissions, while the benefit lies in oversight. We absolutely do not deny the harm caused by disorder, but governance must avoid an “across-the-board” approach.

The greatest concern in today’s arena of public opinion is that some may deliberately use the momentum of authoritative articles to build support and lay the public-opinion groundwork for a large-scale suppression of “prophecy posts” and “personnel-observation accounts.” This one-sided orientation could easily lead regulators to form stereotypes: every prediction is a leak, every disclosure is profiteering, and every interpretation is sensationalism. The ultimate result would be compliant creators being restricted without cause, normal public-opinion oversight being forcibly silenced, and well-intentioned civilian observations being rejected wholesale.

In governing the country and conducting state affairs, precision is paramount; in governing the internet, prudence is key. As the ancient saying goes: “Governing a great country is like cooking a small fish.” Governance of anti-corruption public opinion should likewise proceed in this manner: it must not be rushed or conducted indiscriminately.

Law enforcement must distinguish black from white, and governance must distinguish clearly between different cases. For violations such as insiders leaking information, paid communities trading in news, malicious rumor-mongering and sensationalism, and the deliberate dissemination of confidential clues, authorities should strike forcefully, rectify matters strictly and show no leniency. But for normal civilian creations that rely on publicly available information for analysis, make deductions based on observable realities, have no profit-making purpose and do not engage in malicious sensationalism, there should be tolerance, respect and protection.

Anti-corruption work is a matter of national importance, and oversight is a right of the people. Disorder should be eliminated, but sound voices should be protected. The one-sided characterization in an authoritative article must not become a blade that harms civilian oversight; strict, across-the-board governance must not block the channels for well-intentioned online suggestions and routine civilian observation.

Only when everyone can speak, public opinion can be put to full use, policies are implemented precisely, governance is conducted by category, the dross is removed and the essence retained, can the online anti-corruption ecosystem become clean and upright, civilian oversight and official discipline-inspection work complement and coexist with one another, and the sound governance condition of “clearing the air and purifying officialdom, with the people’s voices protecting the realm” truly be achieved.