In December 2012, the central leadership of the Communist Party of China adopted the “Eight-Point Decision” to address chronic bureaucratic issues. Spelled out in just over 600 words, the decision established a set of rules for Party leaders to improve their conduct. After more than a decade of practice, the decision has been hailed as a game changer in China’s governance.

Yet some Western media coverage of the decision still carries a strong ideological bias. Their claims boil down to three main points: “overly restrictive” — arguing it hinders official and business affairs; a “political tool” — speculating it ignores personal rights; and a “cultural difference” — dismissing it as fitting solely in Chinese culture.

Such critiques totally miss the fundamental logic and public good behind the rules. Let’s take a moment to set the record straight.

First, curbing malpractice paves the way for effective governance. Where’s the “overly restrictive”?

Why is it essential for the whole Party to implement the decision? The answer is to combat the “four forms of decadence”; namely, formalism, bureaucracy, hedonism, and extravagance. Why target these? Because they are the ills the people detest and complain about the most.

When introduced in 2012, the decision was definitive from the start — hard rules with real teeth. Over a decade later, it has reshaped the social atmosphere:

For-show inspections and documents full of empty rhetoric have given way to fact-finding missions that go straight to the front lines. Bureaucratic runarounds have been replaced by streamlined efficiency, like the “one-stop services”. The old obsession with lavish banquets and exclusive clubs has shifted to the simple, conscious habit of “going home for dinner”. And public funds misused for sightseeing trips are now channeled back to where they belong — practical uses that benefit people’s livelihoods.

Implementing the decision isn’t about chopping down the tree; rather, it’s about precisely trimming the “sick branches and bad leaves” so nutrition flows to the branches that bear fruit for the people. It doesn’t restrict people’s initiative, but reins in meddling hands, wasteful travel, and reckless spending.

Second, returning to the “public servant” principle wins people’s trust. How is it a “political tool”?

The CPC is rooted in the Chinese people. The core of the decision is about returning officials to their role as public servants. This shift is evident across the country.

In Fuyang, Zhejiang province, officials practice direct engagement with people and solve problems at people’s doorsteps. In Shanghai, cumbersome procedures for starting businesses or taxes are now handled online. In Beijing, Henan, Jiangsu, and many other places, dedicated service windows for hard-to-solve issues have been set up.

The people are the best judges. A 2024 National Bureau of Statistics survey showed 94.9 percent public satisfaction with the decision’s implementation, a clear vote of confidence.

In stark contrast, some countries have long distorted “people first” into “capital first” through money politics. Politicians shuttle between banquets of the wealthy, yet turn a deaf ear to the sighs of the homeless; they fiercely battle for the interests of arms dealers, yet turn a blind eye to ordinary citizens tormented by gun violence. This is the true picture of public power being used as a tool.

Third, checking power abuse is a global challenge. What “cultural difference”?

Some try to box the decision into a “Chinese peculiarity”. This speaks less to limited understanding and more to sheer arrogance.

One question: Don’t people in every country want a clean, efficient, and fair government?

The United Kingdom’s Code of Conduct bans members of Parliament from paid lobbying. Isn’t that regulating public power?

Canada’s Conflict of Interest Act requires officials to report and publicly declare gifts. Isn’t that constraining their behavior?

Singapore’s Prevention of Corruption Act is famous for strict penalties — with a former minister having been jailed for accepting expensive gifts. Isn’t that pursuing good governance?

Rules preventing power abuse, improving efficiency, and ensuring justice are common practice in modern state governance worldwide. The decision embodies this universal spirit. Dismissing this shared pursuit of modern governance as a “cultural difference” — is it ignorance or “pride and prejudice”? You decide.

In short, the decision has brought China inspections that are truly hands-on, meetings that get to the point, strict scrutiny of public spending, and closer ties between officials and the people. It has cleansed the broader environment for national development and improved the small, everyday joys of people’s life.

So, to those out-of-focus Western media outlets: Got it now?

The author is a Hong Kong-based political commentator.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.