Recently, there have been continuous cases of falsification by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials. In a recent incident, the city of Haicheng in Liaoning Province spent 4.98 million yuan (RMB, Chinese currency) to purchase a ranking as one of the “Top 100 Counties,” sparking attention on social media. Following the exposure of this incident, the top officials in the city were transferred to other cities for new positions.
According to reports from mainland Chinese media outlets such as Jiemian News, Haicheng City in Liaoning Province spent 4.98 million yuan to purchase consulting services from a ranking agency for the “Top 100 Counties.” The city was initially ranked 118th based on objective indicators but was adjusted to 91st in overall rankings.
The CCP Central Commission for Discipline Inspection reported that this incident has exposed deviations in the performance evaluation views of some local governments and departments. Some are willing to spend money to seek recognition in various rankings such as “Top 100 Counties” and “Top 1,000 Towns,” which not only increases financial burdens but also encourages profit-seeking behavior by ranking agencies.
On June 8th, the Secretary of the Liaoning Provincial Party Committee, Xu Kunlin, wrote an article in the Party School journal “Study Times,” stating that the party and government officials involved have been dismissed, with 11 individuals held accountable. Liaoning Province has also issued guidelines prohibiting all regions and departments from participating in ranking lists or using funds to seek higher rankings.
On January 9th, the CCP Central Commission for Discipline Inspection reported that in June 2024, Haicheng City signed a contract worth 4.98 million yuan with a ranking agency for the “Top 100 Counties” to conduct a study on “County Economy and New Quality Production Capacity Comprehensive Services.” The study did not provide valuable development suggestions aligned with the local reality. The city, prioritizing its position in the “Top 100 Counties” ranking, failed to offer differing opinions on the project’s effectiveness to the ranking agency, resulting in a superficial evaluation.
During the 2025 ranking evaluation process, the agency assisted several collaborating counties and cities in achieving positions on the “Top 100 Counties” list by inflating subjective indicator scores. Haicheng City, initially ranked 118th based on objective indicators, was adjusted to 91st in the rankings.
At the time of the incident, the Party Secretary of Haicheng City was concurrently serving as the Deputy Party Secretary of Anshan City in Liaoning Province and later transferred to the position of Deputy Party Secretary of Huludao City in Liaoning Province. The former Mayor, Yang Ye, had already been reassigned as the Deputy Director of the Natural Resources Bureau of Anshan City.
It is worth noting that Haicheng City is a county-level city administered by the prefecture-level city of Anshan, while Huludao City is a prefecture-level city. After being relieved of their roles as Party Secretary and Mayor of Haicheng City, both individuals were transferred to work in prefecture-level cities.
The exposure of the official falsification of “buying rankings” has sparked widespread attention on social media.
People online have expressed views such as, “Dismissing them is not punishment, they should be removed from public office. Those involved in illegal activities should be handed over to the public security organs for processing.” “Not only dismissals, but a thorough investigation is needed to uncover any corruption and violations of laws and regulations. Once discovered, there should be no leniency in handling these cases!” “Using taxpayers’ money for image projects must be held accountable! Can they return the money spent by taxpayers? They must be made to repay it!”
“Corruption in performance reports is draining the economy.” “So those counties that boasted about being top-performing counties economically were actually buying their rankings? Ridiculous!”
Some netizens question, “I wonder what kind of organization this ‘ranking consulting agency’ is!” “If they use ‘purchase consulting services’ as a way to achieve rankings, then not only the payers but also the recipients should be investigated. What department approved this ‘Top 100 Counties’ ranking agency? What is its role once on the list? Which department supervises this agency?”