Recently, a public announcement by the Qian County Public Security Bureau in Shaanxi Province has sparked unprecedented controversy. Faced with pressure, they have retracted the notice, drawing criticism from the media.
On November 14th, the Qian County Public Security Bureau issued a notice titled “Announcement on Collecting Clues of Internal Corruption Crimes in Small and Medium-sized Private Enterprises,” which aimed to collect clues of corruption crimes within small and medium-sized private enterprises, causing widespread controversy. At the same time, netizens pointed out that the contact number provided for reporting in the announcement was unreachable.
According to Haibao News, on November 15th, attempts to dial the reporting hotline listed in the announcement indeed resulted in a message stating that the number was unreachable. As of the time of media reporting, the hotline continued to be inaccessible, with a recorded message stating, “The number you dialed does not exist.”
The announcement was also criticized for being “unfriendly to small and medium-sized private enterprises.” Some netizens denounced and questioned whether the public security department’s actions were malicious and scheming towards small and medium-sized private enterprises.
Under mounting pressure, the Qian County Public Security Bureau retracted the notice and suspended the reporting hotline.
An article published by the media outlet “Kankan News” titled “Investigation by Reporters: Why Was the Corruption Reporting Hotline in Qian County, Shaanxi Retracted?” pointed out that there was no need for government departments to intentionally use a non-functional hotline for public reporting. Such actions not only fail to deter the public from reporting but also have extremely negative consequences, casting doubt on the credibility and authority of government departments. It is perplexing that in this incident, when faced with public opinion, the local public security authorities chose to retract the notice. When queried about the reasons, they evaded the question, stating that reporting should be done only if there is evidence, otherwise, the call should be hung up. This raises questions about where the problem truly lies. It might be beneficial for the relevant departments to conduct a detailed investigation into the process of issuing the announcement. Sometimes, a reporting hotline can serve as a litmus test for evaluating the government’s performance.
According to Jiemian News, as of November 17th, contacting the Qian County Public Security Bureau revealed that the notice for collecting clues was still valid, and they would continue accepting information for one to two months. They stated that the collection activity was limited to enterprises within the jurisdiction of Qian County and did not include branches of Qian County enterprises located outside the area. If there were any relevant clues, materials could be sent to the Qian County Public Security Bureau by mail or express delivery, without the need for in-person reporting.
Regarding the background of collecting clues and potential concerns about the impact on the survival of private enterprises, the authorities did not provide a direct explanation.
In light of recent media reports on several cases of “benefit-driven law enforcement,” the public believes that the actions taken by the Qian County Public Security Bureau could have negative repercussions on private enterprises, disrupting the business environment and raising suspicions of profiteering motives.
An article by the blogger Zou, who focuses on professional social and legal commentary, expressed concerns that during the process of handling cases, public security agencies have been indiscriminately freezing accounts and assets of enterprises. Many small and medium-sized enterprises are worried that during investigations into internal corruption cases, there may be violations leading to account freezes, seizures, or even confiscation of company assets, consequences that are far more severe than dealing with the actual corrupt individuals.
The article also points out that many private business owners are puzzled by the specific targeting of “small and medium-sized enterprises” for reporting. Does this imply that state-owned enterprises are free from internal corruption issues? Why the particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises?
Furthermore, from the announcement in Qian County, it appears to adopt a punitive law enforcement approach, which is feared and dreaded by private enterprises.