80年代末90年代初工薪一族求财心切的“下海”热潮虽不失幼稚,但单纯,目标明确,意义明晰。引发于2000年先后的新一波官员“下海”潮,却因“官员”这一特殊群体而显得模糊、暧昧,歧义丛生。由于这一“下海”群体的不断扩大,也由于模糊、暧昧、歧义没有得到及时的廓清,“官员下海”现象终于引起社会各方的极大关注。 90年代以来究竟有多少官员下海,至今没有精确的统计,但根据浙江广厦控股有限责任公司提供的一份资料显示,仅在“广厦”的管理团队中,曾任处级以上职务的干部就有46人,可见官员下海之盛。 对于官员下海,学界、领导、民间持有不同的意见。学者杨凤春教授认为:中国社会的精英从总体上看主要集中在党政部门,他们有着十分良好的能力与背景。因此,如果“干部发现了新的市场机会,或是新的商业形式、或是新的知识产权、发明、专利的拥有者,这样的经商是一种增量式的经商,是对社会的贡献。”领导的评价大多是:国家为培养一个干部付出了巨大的代价,现在翅膀硬了,就要飞,是忘本。民间的说法,据《南风窗》记者的调查,不外乎四种:贪财、洗钱、权力兑付、犯了错误。 领导这样说,从爱惜人才的角度看情有可原,但什么是“本”?民为邦本,莫非只有当官才能为人民服务?民间的说法则更多基于一种对官员的情绪化理解,后三种情形自有党纪国法管制,追求财富难道无益于民生? 看来,我们仍然需要更新人才观和财富观。孙中山有言,年轻人要立志做大事,不要立志做大官。做大官当然可以做大事,但做大官绝不等于做大事 毫无疑问,官员下海是一种需要规范的现象。问题在于我们需要杜绝的是官员凭借公权力的不平等竞争,而不是剥夺他们的选择权。 Although the descendants of the wage earners seeking financial assistance in the late 1980s and early 1990s paid no attention to childishness, they were simple, clear in purpose and clear in meaning. The wave of “going to sea” triggered by the new wave of officials successively appearing in 2000 has been vague, ambiguous and ambiguous because of the special group of “officials.” Due to the continuous expansion of this “sea-going” group, due to ambiguity, vagueness and ambiguity, the “grassroots” phenomenon has finally drawn the great attention of all sectors of society. According to a piece of information provided by Zhejiang Guangsha Holdings Co., Ltd., only cadres at or above the grade of “Guangsha” have been employed in the management team of “Guangsha” since the 1990s. However, There are 46 people, we can see the official down the sea Sheng. For officials down to the sea, academics, leaders, civil hold different opinions. According to Professor Yang Fengchun, the elite of Chinese society mainly focuses on the party and government departments as a whole. They have very good abilities and backgrounds. So if “cadres discover new market opportunities, new business forms, or owners of new intellectual property, inventions, patents, such business is an incremental business, a contribution to society ”Most of the leaders’ evaluations are: The state has paid a huge price for cultivating a cadre. Now that the wings are hard, it is about to fly and forget. According to the folk argument, according to a survey conducted by a reporter on the “South Wind Window,” there are no more than four types of crimes: money-laundering, money-laundering, power redemption, mistakes made. The leadership said that from the perspective of cherishing talents, extinction, but what is the “people” for the state, is it possible that only the government officials can serve the people? The civil argument is more based on an emotional Understand, after the three cases of own party discipline and state control, the pursuit of wealth is not beneficial to people’s livelihood? It seems that we still need to update the concept of talent and wealth. Sun Yat-sen has something to say, young people should be determined to do major events, and do not aspire to be big officials. Of course, being a high official can do great things, but doing the highest officials does not mean doing big things. There is no doubt that officials going down to the sea is a phenomenon that needs regulation. The problem is that what we need to put an end to is the inequality in the way officials compete with public power instead of depriving them of their options.