After the 5th plenary session of the 20th Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Chinese Communist Party clearly extended the anti-corruption campaign to the local level, changes in the operational mode within the disciplinary system are taking place. Multiple sources familiar with the matter revealed that the so-called anti-corruption investigations have significantly shifted from merely handling individual cases, expanding into historical reviews, bringing back retired or long-departed officials for reevaluation.
Mr. Chen, who is well-versed in the operation of the CCP’s disciplinary system, told a reporter from Epoch Times that what outsiders see as “anti-corruption sinking” is actually a different kind of clearance logic internally. He stated, “Now it’s not about targeting who is currently in position or suspicious, but rather tracing back a power line 10 or 20 years, conducting a re-audit to check for any oversights.”
In the past year, multiple internal meetings at the provincial level within the CCP have repeatedly emphasized instructions regarding “historical issues” and “long-term accumulation problems”. Mr. Chen disclosed that this clear directive points to reviewing past cases that were previously considered closed due to retirement, indicating that individuals can be called back for further scrutiny at any time if deemed necessary by the higher-ups.
Sources close to the local disciplinary system revealed a significant feature of the current clearance work, deliberately prolonging investigation periods and setting review thresholds in advance. Rather than immediately filing reports, relevant departments first conduct meticulous reviews on internal project approvals, fund flows, and personnel arrangements within a system, then selectively target individuals for “naming and handling”.
A retired individual residing in Hohhot, known as Lao Gao, informed reporters, “Last year, many people were investigated all over the country. The central authorities sent two to three dozen officials to Inner Mongolia for investigations, demanding local cooperation. Some cases have been concluded but not officially announced. Local authorities are finely controlling the review pace to comply, gradually reporting upward internally, which is seen as an achievement. Reporting too quickly or too much can lead to questioning from above.”
Public opinion believes that this approach significantly differs from the past focus on intimidating actions of “capturing typical cases and swift processing”, and now leans towards a round of systemic historical reviews with political screening characteristics. Investigations now concentrate not only on specific misconduct but also on officials’ positions within established power structures, backgrounds, and their underlying network of relationships.
Mr. Xu, who previously worked in the audit system in a coastal city in mainland China, mentioned that the essence of authorities reopening old cases is not about rectification but rather restructuring. He expressed, “Many of these issues didn’t arise in recent years but rather during the time of promotions, who they relied on, and whose side they stood on back then. Now, bringing them back for scrutiny essentially means filtering them again based on political affiliations.”
The official announcements from the CCP Central Commission for Discipline Inspection also confirm this trend. Among the officials recently investigated, some had already left their original positions years ago, or even completed their retirement procedures. Reports commonly use general descriptions like “long-term issues during tenure” and “historical legacy problems”, without specifying exact time frames, which continuously extend the boundaries of responsibility, making it almost impossible to determine an endpoint.
Mr. Xu believes the signal conveyed through this approach is crystal clear. He stated, “In essence, as long as the system requires it, regardless of the time passed, incidents from 10 or 20 years ago can resurface. What matters now is not whether you followed correct procedures or even adherence to laws, but rather your sense of security, obedience, and controllability. Everything else can be dealt with later.”
Previously, authorities in various regions of China simultaneously initiated special inspections and disciplinary investigations. When inspection teams are deployed, they no longer provide mere suggestions for rectification but directly transfer problems, becoming the starting point for further investigations. Some systems were required to supplement data from years ago during inspections. Previous projects, accounts, and personnel files were pulled out for re-verification.
Zhao Nan (pseudonym), who previously worked in a government department in Guangxi, expressed to reporters that this model greatly impacts the psychological state of officials. “In the past, at least there was an expectation that as long as one safely retired, matters were settled. Now, no one dares to think that way. Many privately argue that this is no longer just about anti-corruption but a kind of political review that could be initiated at any time.”
Even after over a decade of continuous anti-corruption efforts within the CCP, official reports repeatedly stress the situation being “severe and complex”. Several interviewees believe that the authorities have not made substantial adjustments to the highly centralized operation of power. Instead, the accountability timeline keeps getting extended, the scope of investigations continues to widen, leading to a gradual establishment of long-term scrutiny arrangements meant to constrain and select officials, maintaining control over the power structure.