Here is the excerpt from an article in New York Times:
Many questions remain unanswered in the case, legal experts say. Among them: if China has evidence that Rio Tinto engaged in bribery, why has it yet to bring any charges against the company itself? It is also not clear why the police or prosecutors have yet to take legal action against Chinese individuals or companies that allegedly received bribes in exchange for providing inside information. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/bu...?_r=1&ref=asia)
It seems to me that the highlighted question is grammatically wrong. I think it's correct to say "why does it yet have to bring any charges against the company itself".
In the West, if the government has evidence, they bring charges.
Perhaps in China, if the government has no evidence, they bring charges; but if they do have evidence, they don't bother.
That would explain a reading of the original that says: "If China has evidence, why do they have to bring charges?" - which is basically what your suggested correction means.
(Apologies if I've made any incorrect assumptions. It's only a tentative explanation of your confusion).
Thank you very much, bhaisahab and Raymott.
I'm still confused.
Does the original sentence mean "if China has evidence that Rio Tinto engaged in bribery, why does it have to bring any charges against the four employees instead of the company itself?"