Ye Tan: does Huawei need to apologize?

 Ye Tan: does Huawei need to apologize?

In the last second, the spokesman of the rise of a great power, in the next second, the hot face of Chinese people will be trampled on the ground to rub

How can the power circle powder, also how can the power drop powder

If the false accusation succeeds, do you know how serious the consequences are

All, a former employee who was released because of a reported detention. According to the media, this is roughly the case.

At the end of January 2018, Li Hongyuan, a former employee of Huawei, was dissuaded from his job. Shortly after that, he received a transfer of 300000 yuan from the personal account of the former department secretary. In December 2018, it was taken away by the police; in January 2019, it was arrested and suspected of extortion was reported by Huawei. After being detained for examination for 251 days, the procuratorate held that the facts of the crime are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, and the prosecution conditions are not met.

Huawei responded on the evening of December 2 that it has the right and obligation to report the suspected illegal acts to the judicial authorities based on the facts. We respect the decisions of the judiciary, including the public security organs, the procuratorates and the courts. If Li Hongyuan thinks his rights and interests have been damaged, we support him to use legal weapons to protect his rights and interests, including suing Huawei. This also reflects the spirit of the rule of law that everyone is equal before the law.

Li Hongyuan has become a weak lamb, but this lambs words are not many.

On December 1, Li Hongyuan responded that at present, when people are in Shenzhen, the biggest demand is to hope Huawei to apologize to itself. He also said that from being released to now, Huawei has no news from the beginning to the end. Can you sit down and communicate with me face to face and see me?

The next day, on the evening of December 2, after Huaweis response, Li Hongyuan said in an interview with reporters, lets have a look. Ill listen to the people of the whole country.

The third day, on December 3, Li Hongyuan was interviewed again, I dare not stay in Shenzhen now. I have bought the train ticket for this noon, and I am packing up to go back home. As for the next move, Li Hongyuan has not thought about it well, so he decides to look at the situation first and then make plans.

A person who wants to see the attitude of the people of the whole country, a person who is interviewed every day, basically, cant be the most vulnerable group, the most vulnerable people, cant make a sound at all, and wont listen to everyones attitude with their bags.

Whats the matter? In the face of continuous fermentation of public opinion, personal interpretation is different, from common sense to logic:

First of all, unclear facts and insufficient evidence is the Procuratorates determination of legal facts, which are not necessarily equivalent to objective facts.

Just like the protagonist in some wrong cases, an innocent person is cheated to do something for a liar. He / she has indeed committed a crime in legal fact, while in objective fact, he / she may be the scapegoat. Therefore, there are often irresistible legal events with tears flowing.

Secondly, the Procuratorates decision not to prosecute does not necessarily mean that the informer falsely accuses and frames up the informer.

This is also due to the difference between legal facts and objective facts - in order to protect the public from injustice, the law has quite high threshold and procedural requirements for the determination of legal facts, which may indeed lead to the deviation between legal facts and objective facts, leading to a small number of people being objectively guilty and legally innocent.

Even if the threshold and procedural requirements are set for the determination of legal facts, there are still a certain number of unjust cases in practice - legal facts deserve our respect, although it does not always conform to objective facts.

In other words, there is no way to determine the objective facts, only based on the present evidence to make a conclusion.

We saw an article ten questions about Li case on the Internet, which put forward some possible objective facts that may contradict Lis statement.

Huawei did not directly subsidize Li 2n through its corporate account, or give n + 1 (n is the number of consecutive contract service years)?

Its possible that Li has hidden the truth that the company has directly given n + 1 to the public account according to the standard; according to the labor law, N + 1 is not renewed, but 2n is not allowed. Li told the public to give money through a private account before, and didnt tell the company that it had given n + 1. Li told the truth that it was easy for everyone to misunderstand.

If Li thinks that the company should give him 2n, he can apply for labor arbitration completely, but he does not, but forces the department head to give money, and transfers 300000 through the Secretary account privately, which is strange.

The possible reason is that some directors do have business fraud and want to keep their own position, so they transferred 300000 in private through their subordinates and paid a sealing fee.

Next, its possible that Li forced the supervisor to agree to negotiate 2n with him. He didnt record it, but the two happily talked about 2n payment method. He recorded it. This is probably the basic reason why the evidence is good for Li.

Third, there are loopholes in Huaweis internal management, but nothing can be done.

Huawei has an internal complaint and investigation mechanism.

After the incident came to light, Huawei must have investigated and gone through legal procedures. If Huawei makes up for fraud, it will not call the police for 300000 people.

But what cant be done is that Li has good evidence in his hand. There is a saying that law is not logical, but evidence.

This is Huaweis dilemma. We cant say Li or apologize. We must respect justice. Is this wrong? Theres no mistake, but its contradicted by a culture that sympathizes with the weak, forming an almost one-sided voice.

Finally, we still need to support the national heroes of Chinas manufacturing industry.

Chinas economic development does not fall from the sky, but how many entrepreneurs, core employees and civil servants are working hard every day. I look at how many Chinese are fighting, no future.

The competitiveness of enterprises and the mutual competition of local governments are the two major supports for Chinas economic development, and the enthusiasm can never be suppressed. Otherwise, overtaking on the curve of Chinas economy will become an empty talk.

Do we want a decent pension? You have to work hard.

In 2018, the National Bureau of statistics released data, Chinas population over 60 years old is 249 million, accounting for 17.9% of the total population, and the population over 65 years old is 167 million, accounting for 11.9% of the total population. The population dependency ratio has accelerated growth.

Some experts said that Nie Mingjun said: in the 1990s, about five people raised one person, and by the end of 2018, it had dropped to 2.66 people raised one person. The old people in rural areas dont want so many pensions, but such data tell us that there is no dignity without hard work.

We firmly believe that the law of market economy is the foundation. We support dealing with all kinds of disputes on the basis of law and reducing social costs. Huaweis statement does not exceed this bottom line.

If most people dont know the difference between legal facts and objective facts, they directly equate not to prosecute with false accusation and frame up On the basis of such public opinion, wont Huawei cause a flood of criticism even if it confesses and apologizes as many people wish in its response?

Its not in Chinas interest for Huawei to fall down in a carnival of bitterness and hatred.

Of course, as a great company, legal is just the bottom line. Huawei should not only show its adherence to this bottom line, but also have more introspection, compassion and courage to face the peoples hearts.

Accordingly, a nation with a great hero company should also have the ability to continuously improve the overall cognitive level and perceive the world with a more three-dimensional thinking.

Hope that public opinion can understand that Huawei does not necessarily need to apologize;

Hope that our expectations of heroes and ourselves can be fulfilled one by one.

Source: ye Tan, editor in charge of Finance and Economics: Liu Song, nbj9949