The "sheep-disguising" style of poverty alleviation should have ended long ago

There was a place where, in order to let higher authorities see its poverty alleviation achievements during inspection, some primary school students were sent to drape white plastic bags used for holding chemical fertilizer over themselves and lie on the hillside where the leaders would pass by. From a distance, the leaders saw the hillside full of "Pretty Sheep" and greatly praised it.

To "manufacture" a miniature landscape of poverty alleviation achievements, some primary school students were sent to drape white plastic bags used for holding chemical fertilizer over themselves and lie on the hillside where the leaders would pass by, welcoming the leaders' inspection, with the hillside full of "Pretty Sheep," making the leaders feel pleased and lavish praise on it. Such exaggerated attention to appearances did not come out of nowhere. This is not only because some poverty alleviation cadres "act well," but also because the leaders "watch the performance well as audience members."

Having primary school students "disguise as sheep" in poverty alleviation fraud was only to obtain the leaders' "good reviews." It is common to see rows of buildings on both sides of the road, green trees and red flowers, flocks of chickens and ducks, and fish leaping in ponds. These obvious miniature landscapes of "people's wealth" seem to do nothing more than make the leaders feel "Pretty Sheep" while the masses feel stifled.

Leaders' love of grand achievements lets these "poverty alleviation miniature landscapes" be grafted onto something else. Some leaders simply like "looking at flowers." As long as they see "change," they slap their foreheads in delight, believe that poverty alleviation has produced real results, loudly praise it at large and small meetings, and even recommend it to higher-level departments. Leading cadres are all delighted.

Poverty alleviation assessments involve listening to reports at meetings and looking at statistical tables indoors. Field inspections are mostly like viewing flowers while riding a horse: first shake hands, then wave goodbye, less than two minutes in total, leading to "poverty alleviation miniature landscapes" and "building up big households." This "roadside flower-style poverty alleviation" looks good but is useless, covers up the truth, blocks out real poverty, and not only creates a poverty alleviation bubble, but also makes life hard for the people, hurts public sentiment, and loses public opinion. Ordinary people call poverty alleviation miniature landscapes "sightseeing beds" and poverty alleviation assessments "sightseeing buses."

With cadres faking poverty alleviation by having students disguise as sheep, what sounds can leaders hear during inspection? Can they see what "scenery" lies at the end of the road and beyond the mountain? This requires leaders to get out of the car, "with mud all over their trouser legs," and conduct field assessments, rather than sitting in a "tourist sightseeing bus" and doing a "been here" visit. Leaders assessing poverty alleviation work should have "clairvoyance" and "clairaudience," go deep into the front lines of poverty, learn more about public sentiment, listen more to the voices of the people, abandon "miniature landscape thinking," assess truthfully, supervise strictly, do more "dismounting to look at flowers," and go down to stay at local posts. No matter how well cadres sing the opera of fake poverty alleviation, flaws will still be heard.

The battle against poverty is a protracted war. What is needed is precise irrigation, not sprinkling water on flowers and passing by in a flash. Poverty alleviation work is not a vanity project. Only by keeping one's feet on the ground, carrying forward the spirit of water dripping through stone, and working persistently over time can cadres truly alleviate poverty and the masses truly escape poverty. Only in this way can the whole country be filled with joy.