March 11th, 2008[ZT]真是怪怪:中美两国人当官的过程竟然完全相反
近日接待一位美国朋友,我们一起聊起了中国的两会和美国的选举;说这两者实际都是官的重新就位,所以它是相同的。然而同样是当官,中美两国的当官过程竟然决然不同;因为美国人是自己要官当,所以他们是自己公开竞选而当成的官。而中国人却是组织上要你当官,所以不到公开宣布是不知道谁会当官的。
是啊!看美国总统选举的热火朝天,美国人都知道是谁想当;因为他们是公民投票,只有公开自己的想法才会有人投你的票。再看我们的人大会议也是热火朝天,但却不知道有谁想当什么官;因为我们是组织任免,不到最后一刻是无法知道的。
我曾在一家美国人的单位任职,发现有一位华人很称职;于是我向高层提议提拔此人。谁知负责人是个美国人,他说‘这个人自己都不想当官,你凭什么提拔他;这不仅违反了他自己的意志,而且也不符合这个岗位的任职要求’。原来美国人首先是你自己想到什么岗位,然后才有人评估你是否胜任。如果你胜任工作,但本人没有意愿;同样也不会有人违背你的意愿而强加于你;这就是美国人的当官过程。
而我们是组织提拔,所以组织直接发文;如果你自己想当官,组织上绝对不会提拔你;因为中国人喜欢‘谦虚谨慎’,越是不想当官的人;组织上就会坚决提拔。如我们武汉市有一家残疾人企业,厂长因为经济问题而被收容审查了;在群龙无首的情况下,大家一致拥护一位能力与人品都不错的人为厂长;当然他本人也愿意带领残疾人创造财富。然而同时上级领导也任命了一位外来的厂长,结果两个厂长在一个单位同时出现了。按照我们的想法,谁能为老百姓带来好处;肯定谁就应该留任。然而那位被群众推举的厂长虽然当时就创造了效益,还是因为‘无法无天’和‘目无法纪’而被强制性罢免和下岗了;而那位被上级领导任命的厂长,虽然不能为企业带来效益;但因为是‘红头文件’任命的,自然坐在办公室里享受他的待遇;这就是我们的当官过程。
正因为如此,中国人的美德是‘谦虚谨慎’;在领导面前愈‘谦虚’的人就能愈得到重用。而那些不把领导放在眼里的人,自然是领导入另册的人。而美国人刚好相反,他们是越不谦虚的人越能当官;如二十世纪八十年代,有位中国研究生到美国某研究所工作;当时因为这里的所长是华人,所以上班的第一天就去拜访一下。而他的实验室主任刚好有份实验计划,就要这位研究生带给所长。当这位所长从这位研究生手中接过实验计划时,问了这位研究生一句‘这个实验计划咋样’;谁知这位刚出校门的学生说‘不咋样’。所长当时就说,‘如果你是实验室主任,你又会如何编制这个实验计划’;这位学生就滔滔不绝的讲了起来。
听了一会儿,这位所长要这位学生当天晚上写出一个书面实验计划第二天交给他。当然第二天这位学生的实验计划交上去了,他也没有当一回事;继续干他自己的事。谁知很快所长就通知他,说他成了实验室主任;而原来的实验室主任成了他的助手,使他好半天都没有明白过来。后来证明这个体系依然和谐,他当实验室主任很称职;而原来的实验室主任当助手也很全心全意,使他们创造了不少的成果。
这使我想起了当初我的一些事,我大学毕业后先是到某部机关工作;由于我很多知识超前而且我又喜欢外露,竟然在会上纠正领导的事被证明是正确的;结果我们的高层领导很不高兴,我就从高层建筑到了基层工作了。而我在基层依然如故,1989年就在全国刊物上发表了‘企业质量效益型的内涵与行为’文章;谁知当时的领导很恼火,说我是‘不务正业’;因为这是领导总结的事,我不应该超越领导而擅自发表。于是强制性地把我调出高层管理机关,到一个基层单位去做具体工作。后来某单位效益不行,要我去当全质办主任;于是原来的全质办主任成了科员,结果不仅不配合工作;反而处处充当破坏,使我的很多竞争性的方案全部被别人先偷走了;因而很多招标或竞争总是失败,这就是我们中国人的当官之道。
原来美国人是自己能够公开要官当的,只有表面要当官的人才能当官;因为他们当官虽然也要批准,但却是公开的竞争行为。所以美国人能按照自己的意愿而当官,但美国人想当官的人却不多;尤其是政客总是极少数人。中国人是不能公开要官的,越想当官就动机不纯;所以组织上就越不考察你。所以中国人是越不想当官,组织上就越要你当官;正因为如此,中国人不知道‘官’的帽子会降落到谁的头顶。然而中国人当官如此神秘,却人人都想当官;于是大家都装扮成‘不想当官’的样子给领导看,骨子里希望‘官’降临自己身上。所以中国人是人人都是政客,个个都想当官;这就是中美两国人当官的不同过程。
March 11th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
标题:【小心你的银行帐户】美国官真TMD不好当啊,转个几千块钱,都有人打小报告!
似乎也就是把自己的钱转了一二次帐,然后用现金支票支付了二千块的嫖资而已。
Revelations Began in Routine Tax Inquiry
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: March 11, 2008
The rendezvous that established Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s involvement with high-priced prostitutes occurred last month in one of Washington’s grandest hotels, but the criminal investigation that discovered the tryst began last year in a nondescript office building opposite a Dunkin’ Donuts on Long Island, according to law enforcement officials.
There, in the Hauppauge offices of the Internal Revenue Service, investigators conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks found several unusual movements of cash involving the governor of New York, several officials said.
The investigators working out of the three-story office building, which faces Veterans Highway, typically review such reports, the officials said. But this was not typical: transactions by a governor who appeared to be trying to conceal the source, destination or purpose of the movement of thousands of dollars in cash, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The money ended up in the bank accounts of what appeared to be shell companies, corporations that essentially had no real business.
The transactions, officials said, suggested possible financial crimes — maybe bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance. Prostitution, they said, was the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators.
Soon, the I.R.S. agents, from the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division, were working with F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors from Manhattan who specialize in political corruption.
The inquiry, like many such investigations, was a delicate one. Because the focus was a high-ranking government official, prosecutors were required to seek the approval of the United States attorney general to proceed. Once they secured that permission, the investigation moved forward.
At the outset, one official said, it seemed like a bread-and-butter inquiry into political corruption, the kind of case the F.B.I. squad, known internally by the designation C14, frequently pursues.
But before long, the investigators learned that the money was being moved to pay for sex and that the transactions were being manipulated to conceal Mr. Spitzer’s connection to payments for meetings with prostitutes, the official said.
Then, with the assistance of a confidential informant, a young woman who had worked previously as a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club V.I.P., the escort service that Mr. Spitzer was believed to be using, the investigators were able to get a judge to approve wiretaps on the cellphones of some of those suspected of involvement in the escort service.
The wiretaps, along with the records of bank accounts held in the names of the shell companies, revealed a world of prostitutes catering to wealthy men. At the center was the Emperor’s Club, which arranged “dates” with more than 50 beautiful young women in New York, Paris, London, Miami and Washington.
But its finances moved through the shell companies — the QAT Consulting Group, QAT International and Protech Consulting — which held bank accounts into which clients wired their payments, according to court papers in the case.
One of the booking agents, a woman named Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 32, told a client that wiring his payments to QAT Consulting was safe because it would show up “like as a business transaction,” according to an affidavit filed in federal court the case.
But the transactions proved to be anything but safe for Mr. Spitzer, who, aides said on Monday, was weighing possible resignation.
Last week, Ms. Lewis was one of four people charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan with operating the prostitution ring. Also arrested were Mark Brener, 62, who is accused of heading the operation; Cecil Suwal, 23, who is said to have managed it day to day; and Tanya Hollander, 36, who worked part time as a booker.
The affidavit, which was unsealed on Thursday when the four were arrested, details the secretly recorded conversations that officials said captured Mr. Spitzer’s efforts to arrange a Washington meeting with a prostitute on Feb. 13. It also describes the young woman’s report to the booking agent on her encounter with the governor, shortly after it was concluded.
The affidavit does not name the governor, nor does it name any of the other 10 men described as having purchased sex through the operation. Instead, it refers to them by number, with Mr. Spitzer, according to two law enforcement officials, listed as Client 9.
Mr. Spitzer’s cited rendezvous with the prostitute on Feb. 13 occupies five pages of the 47-page affidavit. The document recounts parts of a half-dozen conversations Client 9 had with Ms. Lewis, the booking agent, in the roughly 24 hours leading up to his meeting with the prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel.
They discussed whether his deposit would cover the young woman’s travel expenses, whether his payment had arrived — apparently by mail or overnight courier — and how she would be admitted to the hotel room he had reserved in Washington. At one point, when the booker tells him it will be a woman who went by the name Kristen, Client 9 said, “Great, O.K., wonderful,” according to the affidavit.
During the last conversation, he asked Ms. Lewis to remind him what Kristen looked like.
The conversations, according to the affidavit, were among more than 5,000 telephone calls and text messages that the federal authorities intercepted during the course of the investigation into the prostitution ring, which began last October. Investigators also seized more than 6,000 e-mail messages, bank records, and travel and hotel records, and conducted physical surveillance.
Almost lost in the tumult of the governor’s statement and the possibility of his resignation were the original allegations against the defendants said to have operated the ring.
Two of them, Mr. Brener and Ms. Suwal, are still held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan, and on Monday their lawyers were still focused on their clients’ problems, not Mr. Spitzer’s.
Mr. Brener’s lawyer, Jennifer L. Brown, said her client “is anxious to have his day in court for a full airing of these charges and he’s looking forward to defending himself.”
Daniel S. Parker, a lawyer for Ms. Suwal, recalled that his client had, as all the defendants, entered a plea of not guilty at her arraignment on Thursday. He said Monday that she was entitled to the presumption of innocence.
“What the governor chooses to state or admit to is the governor’s business,” he said.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
标题:美国那破官真的是一钱不值
到了中国,当官的架势,简直就是得道成仙也不过如此
March 12th, 2008 at 5:04 am
标题:Ding! That’s why Chinese officials mostly corrupt,
while few US officials do.