According to statistics issued by China's anti-graft authorities in 2005, around 4,000 corrupt Chinese officials fled overseas with illegal assets of about $50 billion. Without doubt, luo guan accounted for an absolute majority of these officials.

In action on urgent anti-corruption concerns in China, we should eliminate the root causes of corruption, focus on its prevention and build a comprehensive prevention network. It is without doubt necessary to regard civil servants whose families have emigrated as key objects for supervision.

Totally unnecessary

Meng Cigui (Procuratorial Daily): Banning luo guan from primary leadership posts is essentially an accusation of presumption of guilt. Could we say that all luo guan are corrupt and would escape abroad? The answer is definitely negative. Moreover, if these officials are deprived of the opportunity to be top officials, they could still commit graft as minor officials. It is not difficult to work out that there is no necessary connection between being luo guan and escaping abroad.

Of course, officials' assisting their family members to settle abroad sends a warning signal to anti-graft authorities. Supervisory authorities need to probe where the exorbitant emigration expenses come from and why they want to emigrate. The final solution is in publishing information on officials and intensifying supervision.

Cao Lin (China Youth Daily): There is actually no such term as luo guan in the Chinese legal system and no restrictions on them.

First, although officials are government workers, they enjoy migration rights as ordinary citizens do. Second, the fact officials' spouses and children live abroad has nothing to do with their moral standards. In a time of globalization, living abroad is quite common, and it should not be related to patriotism or treason. Third, not all luo guan are corrupt and not all of their families living abroad are paving a path for officials at home.

When institutional loopholes lead to the corruption of luo guan, it's necessary to think about new ways to close loopholes. But it is going too far to forbid all luo guan to serve as top heads of government departments. This ban will not necessarily prevent the officials' corruption and it shows anti-corruption agencies' lack of effective mechanisms.

There are many channels we can try to prevent the corruption of luo guan. To move abroad requires a lot of money. The government could adopt an official property declaration system and carefully investigate officials' property conditions. We need specific schemes to deal with corrupt officials. Therefore, as far as luo guan are concerned, those who are found corrupt should be punished while those who are clean should retain their positions.

Wang Wei (www.cnr.cn): Shenzhen's restrictions mean to curb corruption, but the core objective is diluted here. Actually, the original intention is not to prevent luo guan from playing leading roles, but to bring them under effective supervision. If these officials have clear access to property and their families emigrate through normal channels and their power is effectively supervised, then luo guan are also good officials. After all, current regulations do not forbid officials' spouses and children to live abroad.

We need to strengthen supervision on officials and make sure that administrative power operates in the open. If we are able to supervise luo guan effectively, we don't need to worry about them so much.