We desis think we have corruption only on the subcontinent. We never hear about corruption in China. This news item is so funny, I thought Chinese could give us a lesson or two in being corrupt! LOL!
At the beginning of *2007](2007 - Wikipedia), the government of Xinyang implemented a new policy designed to reduce corruption and governmental spending: any governmental official / employee who drinks alcohol on the job would be immediately fired on the spot. Within six months of the implementation of the policy, the governmental spending on business meals had drastically reduced for more than 42 million dollars, which was enough to build up to 50 elementary schools. However, as the governmental officials of Xinyang released the information in the third quarter of 2007, there was much more public outrage than praise because the local general populace was very upset that such huge amount of public funds had been wasted, and as the news was rapidly reported elsewhere, populations in other areas begun to demand their local government to do the same. In *February](February - Wikipedia), *2008](2008 - Wikipedia), an independent audit revealed that the majority income of local resturants during the period of 2005](2005 - Wikipedia) thru 2007](2007 - Wikipedia) come from public funds when governmental official / employee used the money to eat out as reception fee, which is part of the administrative cost. After the reform in *2007](2007 - Wikipedia), all local resturants have experienced a reduction of income by at least 70%. This audit only further enrage the public not only locally, but all over China, when the Chinese general populace demanded to further expand the reform to check the corruption.
Power and corruption have a directly propotional relationship. The more powerful a government, the more corrupt, regardless of the form of government (monarchy, democracy) it formally proclaims.
There are more complaints of corruption in poorer nations because there is less to go around.
There are more complaints in poorer countries becuause there is generally less scrutiny and oversight.
I'm curious, if governments are not supposed to be powerful, what is the alternative, anarchy?
There are more complaints in poorer countries becuause there is generally less scrutiny and oversight.
I'm curious,** if governments are not supposed to be powerful**, what is the alternative, anarchy?
I agree with you, government should be strong (all elements including judiciary) not the "govt personnel" which sometimes become synonymous with "government"
"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." Thomas Jefferson, 1809.
Take consulates (Executive), for example. Everyone know they do whatever the want to.
All Congressional offices have a visa expert who intervene in 221(g)/ administrative review/ petition return cases on behalf of the constituent. You can't tell me that they can't look at an OF-194 or petition revocation memorandum (memo) and immediately tell whether consulate's basis are legal or not. But what do they do? They don't remind the consulate of the laws and regulations. All they do is type up a super polite request for reconsideration, and the rest depends on consulate.
You can take it to Judiciary. You're novice, but Executive knows it and Judiciary knows it that Judiciary cannot order Executive into an injunction like any Tom, Dick and Harry. All Judiciary can do is pay you up to $10,000 under the FTCA if you able to prove your case, and Executive will not even let that roll your way without a good fight. Will Executive simply offer a free and earned visa as a litigation settlement? No way, Jose!