Dr. Zs brain hole Huawei and 251, what are the public concerns

 Dr. Zs brain hole Huawei and 251, what are the public concerns

A statement of non conformity

Huawei issued a statement in response to the panic and public opinion.

Huawei has the right and obligation to report the suspected illegal acts to the judicial authorities based on the facts If Li Hongyuan thinks his rights and interests have been damaged, Huawei supports him to use legal weapons to protect his rights and interests, including suing Huawei.

The statement surprised me. Huawei, such a wolf company, should allow such a low level of public relations?

In the statement, the core of overall interests and the key to expression are Huawei supports him to use legal weapons to safeguard his rights and interests. No one can say that. If it is a macro expression, it can only be said by institutions or spokesmen with systematic representative status. Similar to Royal gift, not everyone can use it. Besides, they also use flat body, seat and so on. As a micro individual enterprise, it is not appropriate to talk with the market, but to use a self positioning opening which is far higher than the market. If the company expresses a micro meaning, it is really to support, provide funds, personnel, information and so on. But Huawei obviously doesnt mean this, and on the contrary, they are on the opposite side of micro support; there are only two possibilities left, one is insincere, or playing with words. If so, it is a public relations taboo to tease the public. The other is let you tell, which is equivalent to threat, not only teasing, but also slapping. No matter which of the above possibilities, public publication with this attitude is no different from senior black.

When a company talks with the market, it doesnt mean how humble it should be, at least not in the tone of coming to the world. The public is not here to listen to your lessons and education, and you have no right to do general law training for the market. The main point of the companys statement is to make it clear. Make a point: say your own thing!!! Its not your companys business, nor your power, whether other people violate the law, whether they have the right to use legal weapons, whether they want to sue anyone, etc. If you think all of these are within your power, you will not only misunderstand your own position, but also the social system.

Why not express it?

What Huawei lacks in its statement is an explanation of its own problems.

This is not to say that Huawei must have problems.

Besides, isnt Huawei just able to explain the truth through statements?

Huaweis rights and obligations are the rights and obligations of every law-abiding individual, and need not be elaborated. Based on facts is the most important annotation of legal rights and obligations. Facts should be the focus. What facts make Huawei think Li is suspected of breaking the law? You mean it.

In this case, Im afraid we need to make it clear that when we first reported the case, we were suspected of leaking secrets. Because there was no evidence, it turned into extortion when we reported the case again two weeks later. What facts make it difficult for the reporter to distinguish Li Mous mistake and decide which crime or report he should use?

Of course, it cant be ruled out. Although it took several months for the case to happen, the department leaders just couldnt tell whether the evidence they had belonged to divulging secrets or extorting. What about the legal department of such a large company?

Whats more, after 251 days of investigation by local public security bureau, procuratorate and other departments, it was found that there was no criminal fact, and apologized to Li and made compensation. At this time, Huawei, the whistleblower, is still using the principle of respecting the results of public prosecution, but it has the right and obligation to report the suspected illegal acts to the judicial authorities based on the facts. Are you convinced of the legal verdict or not? If you are convinced, you should also apologize. Im not convinced. Since Huawei always believes that it has rights and obligations, and reports suspected illegal acts to the judicial authorities based on the facts, it should stick to its faith and continue to express its rights and obligations to the higher level of law enforcement and judicial authorities.

It is said that when the party took out the recorded evidence, the relevant witnesses of the department even changed their statements. Is this the expansion of private power in advance? Is the testimony false or dare not tell the truth in front of public power afterwards?

The face of fact cant be deliberately blurred in such a big and careless tone.

Of course, it is said that Huawei is not willing to explain the situation to the public. Tsundere? Yes, you can. But what statement should I make when I am so proud? Since Huawei has issued a statement to the public, it has the right and obligation to make it clear. In particular, we cant make it clear that we dont know what to say, but we use too lazy to tell you to cover up.

I fully agree that Huawei defends its rights with the law, and I dont think Huawei has to sympathize with its employees who think it has violated laws and regulations. My problem is that in the whole incident, no matter what the truth is, whether Li or his department leaders have problems, we can see the chaos of Huaweis internal management. Because of this confusion, it encroaches on the public resources, and may even use the resources of the public power system excessively or excessively. Should Huawei check and reflect on itself?

Like and worry

In fact, we still want to praise the relevant Shenzhen Public Security Bureau and procuratorate in this case. They are able to handle cases in a practical and realistic way, and they can sincerely admit their mistakes, which should be an important part of social progress.

However, it is said on the Internet that Li is not the only one who was reported to be in custody after Huawei employees left.

Its not surprising. Because Huawei employees are said to be nearly 200000, which is also a Big Mac. Although they are both 985 and 996 every day, its hard to say whether they have their own interests or even some bad guys. If someone commits a crime, it should be punished by law.

However, if such unjust, false and wrong cases occur repeatedly, and the process is so similar, it has to be worrying.

In fact, large companies have a complete legal team, rich funds, not to mention strong resources and backgrounds. Individuals are relatively light.

A few years ago, it was revealed that Huaweis doctors suffering from terminal diseases were swept out of the door and devoted their lives. After getting sick, they became destitute of food and clothing. Recently, some Netease employees were laid off after being ill. A real feather is not as good as a real feather.

At this time, does the relevant administrative arbitration and judicial procedures have corresponding guarantees?

Its not new that big companies have the right to let public power catch people. Hongmao medicine wine for a few people to see the network article, can let the local public security bureau thousands of miles after the murderer, the detention time is also quite long. Any apologies so far?

Far away, todays famous Sun Hongbin, who was jailed by Lenovo because of his youth and frivolity, respectfully paid homage to the old leader after he came out. He made great efforts to succeed in his career without saying anything, and his original accusation was revoked. This is called good news by private people. In the public sector, is it a joke or a tragedy?

We must admit that under the premise of rule of law, the level of rule of law has made great progress. However, there are still some problems in some fields, such as the lack of law enforcement, the low cost of breaking the law and the high cost of abiding by the law. In the process of law enforcement, there is also a greater freedom to control power, and the supervision is still small.

In this situation, will the public power become the hand of some private power to govern those disobedient opposites? It is worthy of vigilance and consideration.

No justice, no justice

Some people say that Li is not a good person. He talks to the company with a recording pen.

I dont know if Li is a good man, but this recording pen saved his life. With a recording pen, the witness changed his confession. With a recording pen, he only squatted for 251 days. With a recording pen, he could hear Huawei say, you can sue me if you have the ability..

There is no recording pen in the world. There are more people who tell lies, so there is a recording pen.

Some people say that Huawei used to look like a bad guy.

Its hard to say whether Huawei is bad. There must be many people who want to destroy Huawei, dig its walls, disclose its trade secrets, and extort money from Huawei. Huawei does not live to this day only by one piece of ice in the jade pot.

There is no Huawei in the world. Only when we rush forward, can we have Huawei.

So whats the problem?

The problem is here.

If Li or other ordinary individuals report Huaweis illegal acts, will law enforcement agencies arrest them so quickly, and then find out that there is no evidence, and then appoint the informant to report other charges again, and then continue to detain them. Then nearly four months later, the parties will see that the prosecutor knows the charges and hands in evidence, and then continue to detain them, and then the witnesses will change their mouth, and then continue to detain them Pledge.

If the answer is no, thats why the public is worried. Whats more, is this unfair and just way good for Huawei? Dont say that the target of public opinion has been Huawei. Will Huawei meet an opponent who can more deploy public power? We cant make up for the unfairness of the strong and weak in the fair system only by the partiality of the strong and weak in the public opinion field.

What is the truth? Sometimes it is not clear to the public. But why do we need the public to find out? To run a country according to law, what we need is a sound construction of the rule of law to give the public a clear answer, rather than all the people are judges.

What is the truth? Sometimes it is not clear to the public. But shouldnt the public know? To run a country according to law, we need to be more open and transparent in law enforcement and judicial procedures. With the wisdom of law, we can eliminate the haze of rumors.

To run a country according to law, the basic idea is fairness and justice. Its hard to say justice without fair treatment.


No one wants to black Huawei. On the contrary, the Chinese love Huawei, support Huawei and hold it. Because of this, we hope Huawei can walk on the right road and become more and more bright. We also hope that the market will develop healthily and more Huawei will be born. Thats why the public is so worried. They want Huawei to reflect and improve its governance.

Enterprises and individuals have the impulse to pursue profits, which is a good thing. When enterprises or individuals encroach on or damage the interests of others or the public for their own interests, the judicial organ should punish them to ensure social equity and protect the public interests.

Let enterprises and individuals self-discipline is advocated, but not fundamental. To regulate the behavior of enterprises and individuals, we must rely on legal norms.

The decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China clearly requires that we should accelerate the formation of a complete system of legal norms, an efficient system of implementing the rule of law, a strict system of supervising the rule of law and a strong system of safeguarding the rule of law.

985 and 996 are the choices of individuals and enterprises. But 251 and 404 should be the problems that the governance system should ponder.

The fairness of the rule of law is the cornerstone of the sound development of society.

(the author Wan Zhe is an economist and a special commentator of surging News)