Those claiming anti-corruption is bad for economy do so out of self-interest

IT HAS BEEN suggested by some that the anti-corruption campaign has contributed to the slowing of the Chinese economy, and instead of curbing corruption it is only necessary to keep it within a "reasonable limit" as this will help stimulate the economy. That's nonsense because sustainable prosperity can never be based on corruption, said China Youth Daily on Tuesday:

Is the anti-graft storm a drag on the economy? It has hit luxurious clubs and sales of high-end wines, even luxurious cars, as officials that used to lead luxurious lifestyles funded by public or illicit money, no longer dare to do so, which means a cold winter for these luxurious goods.

That officials are no longer spending extravagantly has darkened the economic data in certain areas, for which reason many claim that anti-graft campaign is curbing growth.

But it should be noted that the prosperity caused by the consumption of corrupt officials is illusive. The GDP growth propelled by corrupt officials is never sustainable because the public hardly benefits from it. If corruption is tolerated, it will only widen the social gaps and discourage people from working hard, which would be fatal to the economy.

Economic growth that relies on the consumption of corrupt officials is a distorted mode of growth. With this distortion remedied, the economy will be healthier. Businesses will no longer need to bribe corrupt officials, which will benefit the whole of society. The vitality of the economy will be fully released and this will boost prosperity in the long run. That's a healthier economic growth mode and that's what China needs.

The speculation that some corruption should be tolerated to boost the economy mainly stems from those who have benefited from the spending of corrupt officials and who want an end to the anti-graft campaign.

The central authorities must remain firm and continue to crack down on corruption. The public must also stay alert, so as not to be misguided by such "experts" who speak for no one but those with vested interests.