Kaohsiung's third-line and first-line inspectors caused a stir by drunk driving. The chief inspector asked for a demerit, and the deputy director also had to take the blame. Chen Qimai's team was criticized for drunk driving many times! (Photo by Ke Zongwei)
A few days ago, a police officer in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, was questioned about the double standards of official punishment for drunk driving. The reason was that a high-ranking third-tier and one-star police officer named Zhang illegally drank and drove. The city police station gave him a severe punishment, which was significantly lower than the previous year Kaohsiung In another case of drunk driving by a grassroots police officer, the mayor at the time, Chen Qimai, ordered him to be dismissed from office with two serious offenses. The inconsistent punishment standards inevitably attracted criticism.
Coincidentally, the Taiwan military, which is also in the civil service system, also had drunk driving violations among its military personnel at the same time. Two non-commissioned officers of the 2nd Squadron of the Taiwan Navy's 131 Fleet Missile and Speedboat Operations stationed in Tainan left the camp without leave. They were later stopped by the police and their alcohol test values exceeded the legal limit and were brought to justice. This aroused the anger of the Taiwan Navy's top brass. The next day, a people's review meeting was held to make a record. A severe punishment greater than elimination.
And the punishment for ordinary civil servants is even lighter. In August of the previous year, Wang Qichuan, deputy secretary-general of Kaohsiung City, refused to be tested for drunk driving. Afterwards, the city government punished him with two minor demerits and a C grade on his performance appraisal. Chen Qimai remained in office after he came to power, and Wang Qichuan's position as a 12-level official remained unchanged.
Regardless of the level of the three in their agency system, whether there is an improper connection with the intensity of punishment, and the military, police, and civil servants each have their own personnel and punishment mechanisms, and different punishments may be imposed even for the same case. result. But for ordinary people, the three of them are civil servants and receive public salaries and pensions. They should be subject to stricter behavioral standards than ordinary people. Let’s not discuss whether drunk driving is a vicious violation while performing official duties or on vacation. Regarding the issue of seriousness, the military, public servants, and police all also drove under the influence of alcohol. However, it turned out that the police were the most closely related to the drunk driving prevention business. The administrative punishment they received was lighter than that of the military personnel, while the punishments received by ordinary civil servants were, for example, There is also room for discussion as to whether it is reasonable compared with the first two.
In their administrative punishment regulations, the military, public affairs and police all have the most severe punishment requirement of being dismissed from office with two major offenses at one time. However, different punishment intensity is given for the same drunk driving. For example, a senior police officer surnamed Zhang received one major offense. The junior police officers were dismissed with two major offenses, the non-commissioned officers were dismissed with two major offenses (note: the news did not specify the number of offenses, it should be two major offenses), and Deputy Secretary-General Wang was recorded with two minor offenses (refuse to take a drink driving test). Every time news comes out about different punishments for different statuses, not only does society have a bad perception, but the standards are biased or human factors are involved, and there may also be concerns about excessive deprivation of the protection of the people involved's right to work.
It is urgent to establish a three-dimensional punishment among the military, public and police parties that is relatively objective and whose intensity of punishment is more in line with comprehensive considerations such as the motivation for the violation, the extent of the violation of obligations, the harm caused, and the attitude after the crime.
Whether it is based on the direct demerit record and dismissal of grassroots police officers or non-commissioned officers as the standard principle of heavy punishment of "lifting the light to show the seriousness"; or the senior police officer surnamed Zhang only records one demerit and additionally adjusts the non-supervisory position and the deputy surnamed Wang. The Secretary-General's two minor offenses are based on the standard principle of light punishment of "heavy weight to lighten the light". In short, the military, public affairs and police should compare the current punishment regulations with each other, adjust and revise them and formulate a " proportion principle" between the three statuses. " and the "principle of equality" to prevent someone from being deprived of the right to work due to excessive punishment; or inconsistent punishment and treatment that affects social perception. Taiwan's administrative agencies should convene relevant departments to discuss and improve the matter. (The author is a freelance writer) (Source of article: China Times News Network)
