On November 2, the Hecheng Branch of the Huaihua Municipal Public Security Bureau of Hunan Province reported that based on clues reported by the public, it rescued 3 infants suspected of being trafficked and arrested 4 suspects.
The whistleblower here is the netizen Shangguan Zhengyi, who told the Cover News reporter that the traffickers, led by Yuan (female), are estimated to have sold or are selling at least 5 children.
The reporter called the main person in charge of the Hecheng Branch, hoping to verify the relevant information, but the other party hung up the phone after hearing the reporter’s questions.
The reaction of this person in charge is a bit strange. The trafficking of infants is a definite fact, and there is already evidence in blue and white.
The reporter hopes to understand the information provided by the whistleblower, whether the main suspects have been arrested, and whether there are other infants being trafficked.
Under normal circumstances, the person in charge could simply give a yes or no answer. If the case is being handled, saying ‘not convenient to disclose for the time being’ would also be fine. Why did they hang up the phone without saying a word?
Investigating and punishing human traffickers who traffic infants is a good thing for combating crime, worthy of publicity, and can deter criminals who are eager to act; and it can also alert platforms that provide trafficking convenience not to be accomplices; and it can also popularize the law, letting people know that even so-called private foster care is illegal.
From many angles, the police should respond to the media and public concerns calmly, rather than being indifferent.
Of course, what is even more shocking is the strange experience Shangguan Zhengyi described on Weibo.
According to his account, after figuring out the clues of infant trafficking, he pretended to be a buyer and went to Huaihua, met with the suspects, and the local police, after receiving his report, arrested two men on the spot and took back an infant.
Because there were still accomplices who had not been caught, Shangguan Zhengyi took the reporting materials to the local police station and simultaneously released the relevant information on the online platform, calling for a thorough investigation.
Subsequently, he was watched by the police station and the branch for 3 hours, and was asked to delete his Weibo, his mobile phone was confiscated, and several people watched him even when he went to the toilet.
Currently, this is Shangguan Zhengyi’s one-sided statement, whether it is true or not, awaits the police’s response and the appearance of more objective evidence.
If his statement is true, the police’s detention of him does not seem like ‘assisting in the investigation’ at all, nor does it seem like a misunderstanding.
If the police suspect that he has violated the law and is ‘fishing for evidence’, requiring him to ‘must make a written record with his real name’, then during the detention, why did no one mention the case suspects or ask him for the reporting materials?
According to Shangguan Zhengyi, during the few hours he was detained at the police station, the section and bureau-level police officers of the Hecheng Public Security Bureau and the Huaihua Municipal Public Security Bureau were all present.
Logically speaking, it is not difficult to figure out whether the whistleblower is a ‘enthusiastic member of the public’, but in the end, they still went through a lot of trouble before letting him go.
Shangguan Zhengyi said that in the end, the local public security ‘chief’ went to the train station to see him off. This is the best proof that the whistleblower has no problem. So, the treatment he received locally was just brushed aside?
Cover News reported that the traffickers had shown Shangguan Zhengyi household registration books, birth certificates, vaccination records, and other materials. This information makes people suspect that there is a criminal chain in infant trafficking.
Shangguan Zhengyi’s account of being detained and having his phone confiscated after reporting the crime has further led netizens to question whether the local police may have been ineffective in investigating the crime and unwilling to dig deeper.
Whether there is a connection between the two is not easy to conclude, but it seems necessary for the Huaihua police to make a special explanation on this matter.
Some people also speculate that because of some kind of assessment, the relevant departments may have to take responsibility for cases of infant trafficking in their jurisdiction, and they don’t want to see public opinion ferment, and Shangguan Zhengyi, as a trafficking-fighting internet celebrity, is bound to stir up unwelcome public attention and amplify the pressure of possible accountability.
So they detained Shangguan Zhengyi first and asked him to delete his Weibo, but he used a third mobile phone to call for help on Weibo. Seeing that things were getting bigger and bigger, they then sent him off, playing a passive tactic of ‘first force, then courtesy’.
If the speculation is true, if the local authorities are really afraid of the public opinion pressure brought by Shangguan Zhengyi’s report of human traffickers, they can now be said to have ‘got their wish’.
Now, netizens hope that the Huaihua Municipal Public Security Bureau will issue an explanation: Did they detain Shangguan Zhengyi for 3 hours? If so, why did they take measures against him?
Many cases in the past have shown that those who are afraid of public opinion often face fierce public opinion; if they repeatedly evade and avoid the important issues, public opinion will only become more heated.
After Shangguan Zhengyi reported the human traffickers in Hecheng District, Huaihua, whether the criminal network has been destroyed is something people are very eager to know.
But the current attitude of the relevant local departments makes people feel that this case seems to make everyone unhappy: the investigators are unhappy, the whistleblowers are unhappy, and the arrested traffickers are certainly unhappy.
It should have been a ‘public report’ case that everyone would be happy about, so why did it come to this?
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.