The information of official buyers in Henan officialdom is not public? Media: how much can you say please say

category:Hot
 The information of official buyers in Henan officialdom is not public? Media: how much can you say please say


The cause of the incident is the verdict on bribery issued by Li Changgen, the former director of Xinyang Public Security Bureau. The verdict, which was suddenly circulated on the Internet in April this year, shows that Li Changgen collected more than 6.3 million yuan, including nearly 30 chief and deputy chief, political commissar and team leader of the local public security system. The purpose of giving money is mostly for promotion. Like many judgments published on the Internet, the names of these bribers are mostly written as Li, Yang, Zhang, etc.

He Guangwei compared one truth: he searched and found that most of so and so were still in office, so he submitted multiple applications for government information publicity to Xinyang Public Security Bureau, asking for the buyers name, processing results and the legal basis for the briber to remain in office.

His application was rejected, and he sued Xinyang Public Security Bureau. In the latters statement of defense, the buyers name and the result of handling are the information reflected in the judgment, which are not produced or obtained by the Bureau in the process of performing administrative functions, and do not belong to government information.

In response to the media, officials from the Publicity Department of Xinyang Municipal Party committee said that some 30 bribers had been given warnings, demoted and other sanctions, some transferred from their real duties to their false ones, and some were given lenient treatment.

In April this year, just before and after Li Changgens judgment was circulated on the Internet, the first revised regulations on the publicity of government information (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) were issued. The highlight of the new law lies in the fact that it has written taking publicity as the norm and non publicity as the exception. As for which one belongs to the exception of non publicity, the regulations explicitly include government information legally determined as state secrets.

However, when the information applied for publicity contains content that should not be disclosed, both the new and the old regulations have actually opened an opening, that is, if it can be handled differently, the administrative organ shall provide the applicant with the information content that can be disclosed.

To be honest, he Guangweis examination questions are not very high. He asked for his name, and the verdict had already published the surname and position of the briber. If he searched the Internet, the answer would be obvious. If we search the full name again, most of the current positions will come out. Compared with the bought positions announced in the judgment, we can almost get the results. He Guangwei also confessed that he could not find the current positions of only four people on the Internet. Is there anything in the regulations that can be treated differently when information can be integrated from public resources?

However, citizens have the ability to find out the general answer and cant replace the government to release information. After all, not all people have skilled retrieval skills, and citizens cant master information in a comprehensive and authoritative way compared with the government. On the other hand, this matter is related to the distribution of public power and political ecology, and has formed a certain degree of concern. It is really necessary for the government to consider whether to respond to public opinion concerns within the allowed scope.

Compared with just deal with it, its easier to get high marks with the attitude of tell you when you deal with it. Power comes from the people and its use should be supervised, which is the most basic political ethics. Dont think that some citizens questioning is redundant. First, the society will inevitably have citizens who are keen on questioning, which is an unavoidable law. Second, if you dont say it, it is inevitable that the outside world will make random guesses, which is not only harmful to the personal growth of cadres, but also increases the cost of social governance. Third, it is a sword to the phenomenon of bribery, and a warning to potential illegal and criminal acts.

Of course, the fundamental purpose of opening names and handling results is not to disgust anyone, nor to punish them, but to protect the right to know for citizens, and then the right to supervise, so that people can ask some real questions based on sufficient facts. For example, is it true that the circumstances of officials receiving leniency treatment are lighter than those of others? Some officials seek promotion by offering bribes, and the amount exceeds the filing standard. Why are they not considered to be suspected of bribery. Citizens have questions. The government can say as much as it can. In such a benign interaction, the society can form a consensus faster, and gradually become healthier and more mature.

In addition, from the perspective of procedural law, the case of Li Changgen is a public trial. The testimony of the briber in this case has been proved and cross examined in court, which can be known to the audience. Based on this, the identities of these 30 people can be disclosed by default.

One proof is that the judgment of the case, which was published on the Internet, actually listed the full name of a briber. He was drowned in so and so, few people noticed him.

The only real name is a businessman who contracted for the office building project of Xinyang Public Security Bureau. In order to get back the project funds smoothly, he gave Li Changgen a pair of Swiss AP couple watches worth more than 270000 yuan. It is true that for some people, his identity and requests are not sharp, which may not be enough to quench his thirst, but we may think in good faith that this is a gratifying start.

But at the same time, we should keep in mind the ancient motto of do not suffer from oligarchy but inequality, and pay special attention to avoid the misunderstanding of officials can be anonymous, non officials can only be real names by individual netizens. This misunderstanding not only does not conform to the facts, but also aggravates the social tear, which is the worst result.

(function() {(window. Slotbydup = window. Slotbydup| []). Push ({ID: 6374560, container: ssp_, size: 300250, display: inlay fix, async: true});))); (source of this paper: responsible editor of China Youth Daily: Du Shuo