Originally posted by wisefool83:
In view of other forumees commenting about my post on Bao Zheng and
Li Hong Zhang, I have just made a quick trip to the national
library and look up on some books and here are my
conclusions.
In an earlier post, I had said that Bao Zheng was an inefficient
official and I wrote about an incident where his cover was blown.
This is incorrect in so far as the official history goes. I can
find no written evidence to support my statement and I hereby
withdraw the statement and apologise.
However, I mantained my earlier stand with regards to Li Hongzhang
and still believes that if the two figures are compared with each
other (even though I believe this is not a fair
comparison due to various reasons such as political
environment and such), Li Hongzhang who was a much more corrupt
official than Bao, was also a much more able and contributive
official to their people and political masters.
The comparison
On Bao
In the history text pointed out to me by my fellow forumites and
other official recorded history, Bao was an uncorruptable
official who was famous not only for his honesty but also
outstanding performance in his judicial duties. The
official records had been very general when mentioning the
consequence of his works and so while we know that his work had
resulted in positive consequence, the actual impact was unclear.
However, due to the restriction of his posts, I believe that Bao's
contribution had largely been limited to very small region and
locality. His main posts were either regional judicial roles, or
regional logistical role. When posted to the capital, he was
charged with impeachment responsibility, which although has the
power to impeach high ranking officer, had less say on national
policy. His only recorded statement for national policy is a
statement that advises the Emperor to make military preparation
instead of simply making peace with the northern Nomads. Bao was
apparently appointed as diplomats on at least one occasion but
again, the records did not say much on his actual contribution
other than making a smart rebutal statement. At the later stage of
his political career, he was promoted to Xue Shi (the closest
translation would perhaps be professor) of Tian Zhang Ge and later
Long Tu Ge (hence why Bao Zheng is also known as Bao Long Tu). Both
institutes ( Tian Zhang Ge and Long Tu Ge) were however, charged
with the duties of seeing to the Emperor's literature and
educational needs, prestigious but not so powerful positions. His
duties then were academic at best and thus is unlikely to have any
effect on the people's lives directly.
Despite Bao's outstanding political career however, many of his
famous stories such as the beheading of the Emperor's father-in-law
"Pang Tai Shi", are fiticious. Bao was indeed famous for impeaching
against nobelity and even arresting some of the smaller ones when
he was mayor for Kai Feng (a post which he occupied for only a
year, and thus unlikely to have as many stories as were believed in
the people's culture), but none of the names were recorded and
given the political environment then, it was unlikely for Bao to
have made such a move without having his own head chopped by the
Emperor.
On Li
Li Hongzhang on
the other hand, was an extremely corrupt official.
Oral history said that bribes to him were sent by the carts. His
contribution to his country however, involve reunifying China from
a civil war with the Taiping Rebels, modernising China's weaponry,
navy, and largely bringing advanced and modern western ideas into
China when everyone were still looking down on western ideas. His
contributions were much more substantial and tangible compared to
Bao.
The whole idea of the comparison was that corrupt, or more
accurately, greedy officials are not necessary uncontributive. Just
because someone is taking lots of money doesn't mean that he is no
good to the country. Li took tons of money, but his contribution is
more substantial than the uncorruptable Bao. Bao may not have the
Li's chance in that he did not lived in Li's age, but many of Li's
colleagues who sees Bao as a model and has indeed followed his
footstep to some degrees, were not contributing as much as a
fraction of what Li did.
Incidentally, I am currently reading up on another famous corrupt
official, He Shen. Interestingly of the 20 crimes that he was
charged and found guilty of, none of them stated that he was
corrupt. The closest was one that state that "he vie for gains with
the ordinary people". It appears that He Shen's actual historical
person had been inaccurately passed down as a corrupt good for
nothing. In actual history, he was an able finanicial statesmen and
was one of the most successful businessmen of his time. His wealth
were mostly results of successful business venture rather than
bribes. Official records also states that few if any had come
forward to accused He Shen for blackmailing or bribery.
It seems like the popular culture had twisted lots of history
materials based on the ordinary people's likings. Because we like
Bao, we added lots of advantage to him tru operas and novels such
as "Qi Xia Wu Yi". His contribution were grossly exagerated to the
point of demi-god like. On the other hand, to some people whom we
don't like for various reasons, Li for signing humilating treaties
and being defeated or He Shen for being very rich. Incidentally the
Pang Tai Shi mentioned above was believed to been modelled after
Pan Mei, an actual historical figure who was a founding general of
the Song Dynasty. He was an able general and did much for his
country, but because he was believed by most ordinary people to be
a cause for the death of the popular Yang Ye (Grandfather figure of
the Yang Generals), he was passed down in pop culture as a corrupt
(corruption again, seemingly anyone who is not well-liked is
protrayed as corrupt) and abusive royalty.
The point of the whole essay was to point out, as my post in the
original threat dealing with the whole government pay raise issue,
that just because government are getting paid big bucks, doesn't
mean they are corrupted good for nothings. Political realities has
some gap with historical fanasty. China would have survive nicely
without Bao, but Song Dynasty might not have been founded without
Pan Mei and Qing Dynasty might have collapsed much sooner without
He Shen or Li Hongzhang.
Since it is not a fair comparison, why not compare Li with Dr
Sun Yat-sen or Mr George Washington?
Li did what he did to save his own skin. i.e to preserve the golden
goose and get more ill-gotten gains. However in the end his
corruption spread to his subordinates and eventually much of the
administration, thus sowing the seeds for the downfall of the Qing
Dynasty. The huge amount of ill-gotten money that Li and his
cronies siphoned off for their personal use could have been used to
upgrade the industry, the civil/administrative/education systems
and the country's military far more than what Li has done in
history. Perhaps Qing China could have been a super power on par
with USA before WWII if not for Li's corruption?
