Will local anti-corruption watchdogs do more is the question on many lips after an intensive training session for officials of local disciplinary bodies concluded in Beijing recently.

To be sure, the nine-day exercise sent a strong signal that the Communist Party of China is upping the ante in the counter-corruption endeavor and expects local disciplinary committees to rein in officials indulging in financial impropriety.

Unlike the CPC Central Committee for Discipline Inspection, which has felled quite a few top-ranking local officials on corruption charges, its local counterparts have appeared embarrassingly impotent over the years.

In this context, many have looked up to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in Hong Kong as the ultimate role model for anti-corruption establishments in the mainland. This time round, an ICAC official was invited to brief mainland colleagues about corruption combat initiatives undertaken in Hong Kong.

The move underscored that mainland officials do want to curb corruption. Yet, as the trainees perceptively pointed out, systemic variances can render ICAC experiences invalid in the mainland's context.

Local disciplinary watchdogs are branch offices of the local CPC, acting under the direct orders of the local CPC chief.

Since their salaries and perks are at the chief's disposal, they always have some weighing and balancing to do instead of performing their watchdog role diligently.

Independent disciplinary offices are a must if they are to be effective in the anti-corruption fight. That will entail substantial remodeling of current structures, but so far, there has been no sign of any such overhaul on the cards.