Right?

Thread Content

Deceiving those in authority and hiding the truth from everyone else – Who will supervise the supervisors? Investigations must be based on facts; it is necessary to avoid relying on abstract concepts or hearsay, as well as one-sided arguments that serve only to justify a particular view. The validity, authenticity, consistency, and completeness of evidence are of utmost importance. I urge the authorities to consider the information and evidence I possess, so as to uphold the authority and effectiveness of the law. An open and transparent investigation process, along with the disclosure of evidence and results, and the making of all relevant information available to the public so that public opinion can exert oversight, is the most convincing way to resolve issues – it helps to determine who is lying and breaking the law. Both ability and integrity are important, but integrity comes first – integrity! ! ! Since I began to file complaints against Guo, the former secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission of Tiexi District in Anshan City, three years have passed, and they have resorted to a series of retaliatory measures such as refusing to assign me any work, ordering me to move from my office to a storage room, and removing the door number – to name just a few. Now, with such oversight mechanisms existing at the central, provincial, municipal, and district levels in the case supervision and management office where I worked (and with the number of internal departments within the district Discipline Inspection Commission increasing from 6 to 9, while only I have been removed from my position or transferred), they are removing me from my post under the pretext of organizational restructuring. I believe this constitutes a violation of the Party Constitution, national laws (such as the Civil Servant Law), and Party discipline regulations (including the provisions set forth by the central, provincial, and municipal Discipline Inspection Commissions regarding the protection of those who file anonymous complaints, the procedures for responding to such complaints, and the time limits for handling them) – in other words, it represents a violation of “three types of rules”. I earnestly request that the leadership investigate whether such violations of regulations are isolated incidents or have reached an alarming level of lawlessness. The following key issues are raised for consultation and discussion: 1. Starting from my report against Guo, the former secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission in Tiexi District, Anshan City (which I have been making ever since), and after three years – during which time I was not given any work to do, forced to move to another office with my original one being converted into a storage room, and the door number taken away, among other actions – now, with such mechanisms existing at the central, provincial, municipal, and district levels in the case supervision and management department where I work (and with the number of internal departments within the district Discipline Inspection Commission increasing from 6 to 9, while only I have been removed from my position as head of one of these departments) – is it revenge for my actions that I am removed from my position under the pretext of organizational restructuring? 2. Are the regulations regarding the protection of whistleblowers and those who file complaints, such as the “Regulations on Protecting Whistleblowers and Complainants” and the “Interim Provisions on the Handling of Anonymous Reports by Discipline Inspection and Supervision Agencies in Anshan City”, as well as the rules regarding time limits for handling such reports and requirements for providing responses to them, being implemented? 3. Regarding the issue of assaulting subordinates in the office, since the police investigation did not clarify the facts and there was insufficient evidence, I request that the Discipline Inspection Commission conduct a formal re-investigation (it is suggested to hold a hearing so that everyone can see the truth). Is this in line with the regulations? 4. Is it possible for a subordinate to judge a superior? Is it possible to judge oneself? 5. The Anshan City Discipline Inspection Commission found that during the 5 years in which Guo served as the secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission of Tiexi District, he used official vehicles in violation of regulations. In October 2016, he was given a warning within the Party for violating discipline rules. As the secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission responsible for overseeing and addressing violations by Party members and officials, Guo failed to stop his misconduct and even led by example in breaking rules; is a mere “warning within the Party” sufficient as a response to such serious behavior? (For example, Li, the deputy director of the Rural Affairs Committee of the Liaoning Provincial People’s Congress; Li, the former deputy secretary of the Fuxin Municipal Party Committee; Yang, the deputy head of the Dalian Political Consultative Conference; Tang from the Fuxin Municipal Party Committee; Gao, the director of the Niuzhuang Branch of the City Market Supervision Administration; and Ren, the head of the Urban Construction Department in Tiedong Station Front Sub-district in Anshan – all of them were given severe warnings within the party for using vehicles in violation of regulations, and some were even demoted.) Guo is the secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission; he failed to stop his actions, and the circumstances were much more serious and egregious. ) 6. Since it is determined that Guo Moumou had serious issues related to dishonesty over these 5 years, how should his annual performance ratings for those five years be assessed? How should job levels be handled? How many more years are needed for promotion? Is it also possible to be promoted to the **department head level**? Can Guo get promoted even after being transferred away from the grassroots unit? 7. The funds held in custody are not deposited into a bank account designated for such purposes but rather into personal accounts, and no ledger is kept to track these funds. It’s unclear what the intention is behind not keeping records of when, why, and how much money was held in custody from which individuals or entities, and without any oversight 8. It was found that during Guo’s tenure as the Secretary of the Discipline Inspection Commission in Tiexi District, more than 2.39 million yuan was temporarily seized, over 2.36 million yuan in funds related to disciplinary violations were collected, and more than 28,400 yuan was returned. These figures differ significantly from the actual situation as I know it. I request that the details be verified so that further detailed information can be provided, in order to punish those corrupt elements within the Party, right? 9. I have continuously brought up the issues related to Guo Moumou (including new ones) to departments such as the Discipline Inspection Commission, but no conclusion has been reached yet. With continuous reports made under his real name, and without seeking information from the reporters, obtaining their opinions, or providing any responses (it’s possible that some of these issues have not even been investigated yet), how can he be promoted? Should we seek information from the person who reported the matter under their real name, gather their opinions, and provide them with a response? 10. Is it right to respond to the call and report Guo Moumou for illegal and disciplinary violations under his real name?