Let the bullet fly for a while, but you cannot let the bullet fly forever. That does not comply with Newton's law of universal gravitation.
Now that the dust has settled, let’s look back at the Henan red code incident to get a full picture. Try to eliminate irrational factors and examine the "Notice on the Investigation and Accountability of Some Rural Bank Depositors Being Given Red Codes" issued by the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection from a calm and objective perspective.
The core meaning of the notice is one: Feng Xianbin, Zhang Linlin, Chen Chong, Yang Yaohuan, Zhao Yong and other comrades arbitrarily assigned red codes to people who did not meet the conditions for assigning codes . This was a typical act of disorder, and they were all given party and government disciplinary sanctions. .
During this period of time, I have been studying this notice issued by the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, and found 4 strange things behind the punishment of 5 people. Now I will tell you about it, study it with everyone, and improve together. If there are any fallacies, please feel free to enlighten me from the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection.
Weird question 1: Who is the investigator of the random assignment of red codes?
Who is the investigator of this incident that was not mentioned in the report? Is it the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection? Or the Henan Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection?
Which level of agency made the decision on the punishment given to these five people? Is it the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection? Or the Henan Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection?
These are not found in the notification, which is unusual. We opened the official website of the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection and found that similar notices basically state who the investigators are and what level of research determines the punishment.
So after reading this report, I became confused. Who is investigating this matter? Who decided or agreed on the party and government disciplinary sanctions against these five people? have no idea.
The report begins with the words "investigated." Who initiated the investigation?
The notice ends with the sentence: "Decided upon study." Who made the research and decision?
did not write clearly and give the answer. In other reports on the official website of the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, these two elements are basically not missing.
Why did the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection change from its usual practice and become vague? Is there something unspeakable, or is the business just not good?
Some people say that this matter was investigated by the Henan Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection. The reason given is that Zhengzhou is the provincial capital and a sub-provincial city.
is wrong here. It is true that Zhengzhou is the capital of Henan Province, but not all provincial capitals have sub-provincial structures. Zhengzhou is a prefecture-level city with a department-level structure, let alone a city under separate state planning.
Therefore, the executive deputy secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee of the Zhengzhou Municipal Committee and the secretary of the Youth League Municipal Committee should be municipal cadres, and should be division-level cadres. Therefore, according to the cadre management authority, the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection should investigate, not the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection, because it is not qualified.
Moreover, it is generally who investigates and issues the notice. Other disciplinary committees can reprint the notice for warning and education, but the source will usually be indicated. Since it was a notice issued by the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, it can be regarded as this matter was investigated by the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection.
Why don’t you explain it clearly in the notification? It is said that the case was opened for review and investigation by the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, and it was studied and decided by the Standing Committee of the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, or reported to the Zhengzhou Municipal Party Committee for approval.
is so coquettish that it makes people suspect that there is something fishy inside.
Weird question 2: Why didn’t you accept the disciplinary review and supervisory investigation notice?
We checked the official website of the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection and found in the "Review and Investigation" column that many party members and leading cadres were subject to disciplinary review and supervisory investigation notices.
However, Feng Xianbin, Zhang Linlin, Chen Chong, Yang Yaohuan, Zhao Yong and other five people were not found. This means that after the investigation, the notice was directly posted on "Zhengzhou Qingfeng" and the public was not informed when the investigation was carried out.
Of course, not all disciplinary reviews and supervisory investigations must be announced to the public, including who is being investigated, investigation results, and punishment results.
However, the incident of randomly assigning red codes is a bit special. What is special is that although the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection did not announce the investigation of Feng Xianbin, Zhang Linlin, Chen Chong, Yang Yaohuan, Zhao Yong, etc., it did announce the investigation results and punishment results.
This is a bit puzzling. Either you don’t announce it at all, or you announce it all. Why didn’t the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection announce the investigation of these five people when it launched the investigation?
Did you announce a review and investigation of these five people, fearing that it would set off a tsunami of public opinion and interfere with the review and investigation process of the Discipline Inspection Commission? Afraid of affecting objective and rational judgment?
From a common sense point of view, the Discipline Inspection Commission issues a notice before filing a case for review against a certain cadre. On the one hand, it serves as a warning, and on the other hand, it accepts public supervision.
Why didn’t the Zhengzhou Commission for Discipline Inspection announce the case to the public before filing a case against the five people? This will make it easier for the public to supervise, and maybe it can also provide some valuable clues?
Then why were the results announced later? According to regulations, the results must be reported to the cadre's unit or the party organization of the unit where he or she works. This does not mean that the results must be reported to the whole society. There is no such requirement.
Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, what are you worried about? Are your worries justified?
Question 3: Why is emphasizing a typical disorder?
Did Feng Xianbin, Zhang Linlin, Chen Chong, Yang Yaohuan, Zhao Yong and others behave randomly?
of course. But it was not enough, so I added two words in front of "arbitrary behavior": typical. The random assignment of red codes is a typical chaotic behavior. Why is
a typical act of chaos? The bulletin also gave the answer. The
report is just about 500 words long, and it uses the four phrases "serious harm", "seriousness", "serious adverse social impact" and "severely" in succession. This is a qualitative expression and it is very serious.
Have you found it? There are four words "strict"!
This is not an ordinary act of disorder, but a typical act of disorder. Made public angry!
Since the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection has characterized the random assignment of red codes as a typical act of disorder, then whether it is a typical act of disorder or an atypical act of disorder, it is an act of disorder. Since it is an act of disorder, generally speaking It is said that it is a problem with the construction of work style, and under normal circumstances, it will not be suspected of illegal crimes.
This is the underlying logic behind disciplinary action. So now we can figure out what the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection did.
Because of this, the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection carried out party discipline and government sanctions in accordance with the "Regulations on Disciplinary Punishments of the Communist Party of China" and the "Government Punishment Law for Public Employees". Therefore, there is no such sentence at the end of the notification: related suspected criminal issues will be transferred to the prosecutor. The authorities will review and prosecute in accordance with the law.
only involves the disciplinary level, not the legal level.
Because it was a matter of work style that did not reach the level of suspected illegal crimes, the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection called them "comrades" in the notice, and called "comrades" seven times. There's nothing wrong with that.
We have to admit that the judgment of the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection is correct. This is indeed a typical act of chaos. But beyond that? Are the five of them suspected of abusing their power? Is it suspected of committing a crime? The answer to
cannot be found in the report of the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection.
Question 4: Why didn’t you respond to the tsunami of public opinion in time?
On June 22, 2022, after the "Notice on the Investigation and Accountability of Some Rural Bank Depositors Being Given Red Codes" was released to the public, it attracted widespread discussion in the society. The focus of the discussion was Zhengzhou City's treatment of these five people. To be gentle means to pick it up high and put it down gently, to be punished by drinking three glasses of wine.
The key penalty is not Hengshui Laobaigan, but beer or even fruit wine.
The public opinion on the Internet can be said to be overwhelming. From grassroots to experts, there are voices. Most of the voices think that the punishment is light and believe that these five people not only violated disciplines, but also broke the law. To be more precise, they are suspected of breaking the law. What laws did
allegedly violate? " Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China ", " Data Security Law of the People's Republic of China ", " Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases ", " Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China " and so on. Is this the case with
? You can check it out and make some contribution to the "Eighth Five-Year Plan" to popularize the law.
We see that public opinion is so heated. Could it be that the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, who issued the notice, cannot see it?
can definitely be seen.
The Discipline Inspection Commission is an agency that supervises party members and leading cadres. I think it will also actively adapt to being supervised and supervised by the public.
Then why not take the initiative to respond to the various suspicions in society? Why not stand up and speak out? Why allow some rumors or rumors to have a market? Is there a position?
The Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection operates in accordance with party and government disciplines. It should have the confidence to stand up and respond to hot topics of public opinion and not allow fallacies to spread. No?
Your calmness, extraordinary calmness, makes me feel a little bit cool, even though it is midsummer now.
caused thousands of waves with one stone. Internet public opinion is also a window that reflects public opinion. The Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection has the responsibility to respond in a timely manner.
Are Feng Xianbin and other five people involved in illegal crimes? Can disciplinary and government sanctions be tolerated?
The country has carried out legal popularization activities. Now that the "Eighth Five-Year Plan" has been carried out to popularize the law, society's awareness of the rule of law has awakened, and pure legal illiteracy is rare.
This is an era of the rule of law, an era in which the awareness of the rule of law and the rule of law environment are becoming increasingly perfect. Party and government agencies should take the lead in respecting the authority of the law and must not have a deceptive attitude. Of course, it's not easy to fool.
Although the awareness of the rule of law has been enhanced, the legal knowledge of the public is fragmented and unsystematic after all. Maybe they only know one but not the other.
To untie the bell, one must tie the bell. The "Notice on the Investigation and Accountability of Some Rural Bank Depositors Being Given Red Codes" has made everyone confused. To explain this confusion, the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection must stand up and respond.
As long as it is a standard disciplinary and law enforcement activity, the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection will be tougher and respond confidently so that everyone will no longer be confused, which can also be regarded as giving the masses an understanding and giving the cadres a clean slate.
Finally, let me talk about some feelings.
1. In the face of party discipline and state law, there should be no distinction between internal and external. No matter who you are, whether grassroots, expert, or official, in the face of discipline and law, you should have a bowl of water on the same level, and don't just shine the flashlight on others. , do not look after yourself.
2. Party members and leading cadres, the "key minority", should be stricter, not looser. Strict governance of the party in an all-round way should start from small things, starting from the grassroots level. It should be strict and hard, not loose and soft, otherwise there will be " The suspicion of "dark under the lamp" cannot allow credibility to be lost bit by bit.
3. The handling of an unfair public event may lead to one-sided public opinion and avoidable confrontation. Public emotions may be ignited, leading to more complaints, and the potential risk of tearing society apart, resulting in social costs. too high.
4. I hope the Zhengzhou Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection’s report on the red code issue can stand the test of history and time. But public opinion also exists objectively and is not affected by human will. We must respond according to the laws of public opinion. We must not avoid it, let alone escape it. We must not lose the microphone in our hands or lose our position in public opinion. We must conduct public opinion hedging in a timely manner.
can’t pretend to sleep!
