Youth Daily)
Needless to say, the Huo Yaoshan case is a typical corruption case in which the police colluded with coal and the government colluded with coal to seize the legitimate rights and interests of the victims. On August 30, 2005, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the Ministry of Supervision, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council and the State Administration of Work Safety jointly issued a notice, demanding that the problem of officials investing in coal mines be resolutely cleaned up and corrected. In order to "give officials a chance", the deadline was set at that time: September 22. Take the initiative to withdraw funds before the deadline, let bygones be bygones. If you don't withdraw your capital after the deadline, you will pay a great price.
The day when Huo Yaoshan took a stake in the coal mine was precisely the time when collusion between government and coal was severely controlled from top to bottom. This shows that Huo Yaoshan himself, instead of being properly "warned", seems to have been "inspired", and he has repeatedly forged government documents to illegally occupy coal mines and illegally transfer them. What is even more surprising is that the local government departments, which should have been in the heat of investigation, not only turned a blind eye to Huo Yaoshan's illegal shareholding in coal mines, but also released his badly forged government documents all the way, and even now they brazenly thought that "we are not responsible". Is this how local government departments "strictly implement" the "ultimatum" of the central government on collusion between government and coal?
Although the Huo Yaoshan case is only a case, it is not difficult to find the hypocrisy of "strictly enforcing the law" and "resolutely investigating" from the performance of local government departments in such a case without suspense. At least, most government officials don't really regard shares in coal mines as a terrible "forbidden place": in private, it seems normal for officials to take shares; In public, no one wants to "offend" colleagues who violate the law and discipline. In other words, the "ultimatum" not only failed to establish "forbidden zone consciousness" among officials, but added a layer of "corruption unconsciousness".
This may be called the counter-effect of "ultimatum". In fact, the ultimatum on the condition of "letting bygones be bygones" itself has the meaning of "bully is always coward"-people will think that since it has always been illegal to buy shares in coal mines, if the government has better investigation methods, why should it set another time limit for officials to "let bygones be bygones"? As a result, in some places, we saw the terrible "no one withdrew" and heard the rebel slogan "I would rather not be an official and not withdraw". Some local governments have postponed the deadline on absurd grounds such as "influenced by geographical environment" and pushed it again and again. The final result is that the "ultimatum" is more and more like a bluff to the public, and corrupt elements have gained more and more incentives from it.
In a sense, almost all corrupt behaviors are getting up day by day in indulgence or suggestion. When the "ultimatum" becomes a signal of indulgence or suggestion, the collusion between government and coal can only become more and more rampant-the Huo Yaoshan case is the best example of the reaction of the "ultimatum". Facts have proved that corrupt officials will never be intimidated by a simple "ultimatum", and punishing collusion between officials and coal requires more active efforts in system and action. I hope there will be no more "ultimatums" because of the Huo Yaoshan case. (