Do you have this feeling? Now, the reports after the exposure of public opinion issues are often deliberately vague. Some say it’s inconvenient to disclose, some just say it’s been handled, and some throw out an answer that almost no one believes and no one accepts, and then start playing dead…
Anyway, they just refuse to speak, what can you do?
The meaning of the response to the report was originally to solve the problem, but what happened? Instead, it became a model for the next problem: Wow, it’s okay to do this, why don’t we copy it?
A female employee of the Health Management Department of a hospital in Hunan reported that the dean’s son was taking a salary for nothing, involving a million-dollar bonus. Previously, the hospital’s Discipline Inspection Commission had already replied to her, saying: The dean’s son, Zhu, was just “accidentally taking money repeatedly.” A total of 4 payments were made, 20,000 yuan, and he has already returned it.
See, “taking money repeatedly” – these four words are the most worthy of careful consideration in this news.
As for “accidentally”, hahaha, I really can’t help it, Zhu was “accidentally taking money”, then is the premise that someone was also “accidentally paying money”?
Give me some too?
The reporting employee naturally does not agree. She said that she works in the “Health Management Department” of the hospital, and Zhu, after graduating from the hospital 6 years ago, was also assigned to the Health Management Department, “but in fact, he has never worked in that department”, earning more than 20,000 yuan per month, and over a million in five or six years.
She does not agree with the answer given by the Discipline Inspection Commission, so she brought the matter to the media.
On April 28, a media reporter called the dean, who denied it, “There is no situation of taking a salary for nothing.”
Another staff member said that after the media report, the Discipline Inspection Commission has once again intervened in the investigation of Ms. Chen’s latest report.
However, what people care about is not simply “whether the problem has been investigated”, but “where the investigation has gone”.
What’s even more interesting is that the media found that this was not Ms. Chen’s first report of problems in the hospital. More than a year ago, she also reported online that the “director of the Health Management Department, Ye” held 30 million yuan in funds and transferred more than 8 million yuan to her daughter, and transferred more than 6 million yuan to others.
And it was indeed a problem when investigated. The income statement of the department in 2023 showed a total of about 130 million yuan, but the “detailed list” only wrote 59.64 million yuan, with a difference of about 70 million yuan. Where did the money go?
In addition, Ye also got her nephew, who was studying sports and hadn’t graduated, to “work” in the department… Last year, Ye was suspended for investigation. However, the hospital’s Discipline Inspection Commission has not yet released a follow-up report related to Ye.
It’s like this again. Judging from what has already happened, Ye most likely does have a problem. But what’s the problem?
The answer is: I don’t know.
You see, isn’t it vague and messy? Compare it, and it’s very clear.
The whistleblower said: You have been taking a salary for nothing for a long time, over a million.
The investigation said: Received 20,000 yuan repeatedly, and has been returned.
But what was the process in between? They didn’t mention it. In fact, I have already mentioned it briefly. It’s not that simple to receive money repeatedly, and this will inevitably be accompanied by a series of consequences where the accounts don’t match. If this Zhu is not the dean’s son, can he receive money repeatedly?
Moreover, what exactly is this “taking money repeatedly”? The problem is obviously “narrowed down”. This is a typical way of dissolving the problem, explaining a structural problem as a technical error.
Cutting big problems into small ones is the most decent way to deal with them.
Of course, there is a premise, that is, the audience below is a fool. Or, they don’t care at all whether the audience below believes it or not.
Isn’t the current situation like this?
There is an investigation, and there is a conclusion. The problem is that the whistleblower doesn’t agree, and as for the masses… I don’t have the final say, let’s look at the comments section below this news video.
There’s no way, this is reality. The father of the person being reported is the head of the unit. When there is a connection between power and the investigation target, “self-investigation” itself will lose its persuasiveness. The response also has to be deliberately vague and weakened.
I am also very willing to believe, the problem is, “how to believe”?
The last point also, again, deepens this contradiction: multiple anomalies in the same department. Financial anomalies, tens of millions, a huge amount; personnel anomalies, a nephew who studies sports and hasn’t graduated is also brought in? And income structure anomalies… This once again deepens people’s doubts, and has even become a reason for some people to suddenly understand.
Each thing, viewed separately, has an explanation. Put them together, but it’s hard to explain. So, the dean denies, the Discipline Inspection Commission has investigated, the conclusion has been reached… What’s the use?
A simple thought, compared to paying attention to the problems again and again, I think that some of our ways, content, and attitudes of reporting and responding may need to be paid more attention to. Otherwise, in many cases, if even the whistleblower doesn’t agree, and even the masses don’t believe it – then what can a conclusion of investigation without any persuasiveness bring?
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.