How to Identify Two-Faced Individuals? An Article from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection Highlights the Case of Wan Qingliang, Who Embodied the Concept of a Double Dealer.

The latest issue of the magazine “China Discipline Inspection and Supervision” published an article titled “How to Identify and Handle the Behavior of Double-dealing and Two-faced Individuals According to the Regulations”: The newly revised “Regulations on Disciplinary Actions of the Communist Party of China” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) stipulates in Article 58 that those who are disloyal and dishonest to the Party, display inconsistency between their words and actions, pay lip service while undermining the Party’s policies, deceive superiors and conceal facts, engage in double-dealing, and create adverse political impacts will be warned or expelled from the Party depending on the severity of the circumstances. This revision changes the phrase “less serious circumstances” in the relevant provisions of the 2018 “Regulations” to “causing adverse political impacts,” further clarifying that the behavior of double-dealing must have political harm. In practice, attention should be paid to understanding and grasping the following aspects.

Accurate understanding of the connotation of the provisions. The Party Constitution stipulates that Party members must be loyal and honest to the Party, maintain consistency between words and actions, and oppose double-dealing and all forms of conspiracy. The issue of double-dealing evaluates the political character of Party members and harms the requirement for loyalty and honesty, essentially representing a form of political opportunism. Recent cases show that double-dealers often publicly advocate for the “Two Upholds” and “Four Consciousnesses,” while privately refusing to implement the Party Central Committee’s policies, or they may publicly declare their responsibilities and commitment while secretly ignoring or failing to report relevant issues. They may also outwardly promote meritocracy while secretly forming cliques and factions, or they may profess integrity while privately amassing wealth. Such double-dealers are highly deceptive and seriously undermine the political image of the Party and government, polluting the political ecology of their localities and units, posing significant harm to the Party and the people’s cause, necessitating their timely identification and removal.

Understanding the essence of behavior from the perspectives of political performance and political harm.
First, it is essential to assess whether the individual is loyal and honest to the Party. If the individual exhibits inconsistency between their words and actions, it should be considered whether they are a double-dealer. For instance, some Party leaders may publicly advocate for meritocracy in personnel selection while privately favoring relatives, violating organizational discipline. Given the stark contrast in their behavior, which severely damages the political ecology of their region or unit and causes adverse political impacts, they should be identified as double-dealers, revealing the essence of their behavior politically. Another example is a leader who frequently speaks of loyalty in meetings while fabricating an image of integrity, but investigations reveal that they have long exploited their position for personal gain, accepting large sums of money and being suspected of bribery. Some argue that since the individual has been identified as suspected of bribery, their behavior of creating a false image of integrity should be evaluated solely based on the bribery allegations, without separate evaluation at the Party disciplinary level. However, we believe that the individual’s inconsistency is prominent, and since the evaluation criteria for disciplinary violations and criminal acts differ, both the suspicion of criminality and the issue of double-dealing should be recognized simultaneously.

Second, attention should be paid to collecting and reviewing evidence that demonstrates the political harm of the behavior. Evidence should be comprehensively gathered, including the individual’s statements, speeches in relevant meetings, meeting minutes, video materials, and witness testimonies, to prove whether they exhibit inconsistency and whether their actions have political harm. We must consider not only their stance and declarations but also how they actually implement and act; we should look at their performance at work as well as their private behavior; we should evaluate not just isolated actions but also consistent behavior; we should inquire about colleagues’ and subordinates’ opinions while also considering public sentiment towards them. Additionally, evidence should be collected regarding the impact on the political ecology of their unit or locality, such as personnel selection practices. Generally, double-dealers exhibit a strong contrast in their behavior, often being very high-profile, sometimes excessively so. For example, a certain leader repeatedly boasted about anti-corruption efforts and claimed in a meeting that he had never bought a house in his decades of work, living in a government-assigned apartment for a rent of 600 yuan per month. In reality, this “apartment” was located in a well-known luxury community, where the market rent exceeded 4,000 yuan, causing public outrage. Another leader was known for using a belt that had split into several pieces, which, when compared to verified serious disciplinary violations, highlighted the stark contrast and political deception of the individual.

Third, caution is required when determining cases where evidence only confirms disciplinary violations or where the evidence shows duality but lacks strong contrast or obvious political harm. For instance, some officials may express strong commitment but act irresponsibly or neglect management in their work, leading to significant losses without reaching the level of disloyalty to the Party or causing adverse political impacts; in such cases, they should not generally be classified as double-dealers but should be dealt with according to the nature of their behavior, considering possible violations of work discipline.

Distinguishing from behaviors such as factionalism and merely stating support for the Party Central Committee’s decisions without implementation. If an individual refuses to implement major policies determined by the Party Central Committee in their jurisdiction or department, acting independently, this is a typical case of factionalism and should be handled according to Article 56, Paragraph 1 of the “Regulations.” If an individual claims to firmly implement the decisions of the Party Central Committee but fails to act, causing adverse political impacts or serious consequences, and given that the contrast in their behavior is not strong, this falls under the category of merely stating support without implementation. For example, a leader in charge of land acquisition and demolition work in their area may express commitment during discussions with superiors but only forwards relevant documents without organizing specific work, leading to significant delays and serious consequences. Since their behavior does not exhibit strong contrast, it should be handled according to Article 56, Paragraph 2 of the “Regulations.” However, if they outwardly express strong support while secretly refusing to implement, exhibiting a pronounced “one set of rules in public and another behind the scenes” characteristic, and causing adverse political impacts, they should be identified as double-dealers according to Article 58 of the “Regulations.”

The reporter from The Paper noted that the leader mentioned in the article living in a luxury community refers to Wan Qingliang, former member of the Standing Committee of the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee and former Secretary of the Guangzhou Municipal Party Committee.

According to previous reports from Xinhua News Agency, Wan Qingliang, before his downfall, was humorously referred to by netizens as “Emperor of 600.” In January 2011, during the Guangdong Provincial Two Sessions, Wan Qingliang, then Mayor of Guangzhou, spoke about high housing prices and happiness, stating, “I have worked for over 20 years and have not bought a house; I currently live in a government dormitory, which is over 130 square meters in Zhujiang Dijing, paying a rent of 600 yuan per month, of course, the government subsidizes part of the rent.”

This statement caused a public uproar, as local media reported that Zhujiang Dijing is a luxury property in the center of Guangzhou, with a price per square meter exceeding 40,000 yuan in 2011, meaning the rent for a 130-square-meter apartment would be over 4,000 yuan per month. Wan Qingliang was thus dubbed “Emperor of 600” by netizens, who mockingly questioned him, “Why not eat meat porridge?” asking why, as a mayor, he was so out of touch with reality.

On September 30, 2016, the Nanning Intermediate People’s Court in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region publicly sentenced Wan Qingliang for bribery, imposing a life sentence, depriving him of political rights for life, and confiscating all personal property; the property obtained through bribery was ordered to be recovered and turned over to the national treasury.