Fighting the food fight a necessary team effort
Food safety has stirred the nerves of the nation.
From tainted milk to dyed steamed buns, from illegal additives to forged beef, food safety has remained a buzzword after a string of national scandals, igniting heated debate on the inefficiency of supervisory agencies and people's "moral degradation."
After being suspended for one month because of a tainted-meat scandal, China's largest meat processor, Shuanghui, resumed trading Tuesday, and its stocks plunged the 10 percent daily limit twice, causing a loss of at least 8.9 billion yuan by Wednesday.
The furious reaction of the market and consumers has dealt a heavy blow to those who are dishonest or even violate the law in food production.
The austere situation of food safety not only threatens the health of consumers at home but it also tarnishes the image of the nation. For example, the US government decided in February to ban the import of at least 56 types of foods produced in China.
Without well-educated citizens or ethical strength, China "can't be a respectable economy or a power in the real sense," Premier Wen Jiabao warned last week, making him the highest official to have made such blunt remarks toward food scandals. Food safety has been raised to the level of national strategy.
Meanwhile, it might not be an effective prescription by only stressing that food producers, which are profit-oriented in nature, be self-disciplined and stick to moral standards during production.
An investigative report by Xinhua over the weekend also noted that the budget and salary of food-supervisory agencies in many places mainly depend on returned fines and fees collected during their tours of the facilities.
Such a supervisory system has turned out to be so loose that quite a lot of "fish" have escaped from the net. During the investigations of the Sanlu tainted-milk case and Shuanghui scandals, some local officials even racked their brains to shield the enterprises because they are the biggest sources of tax revenue for local governments.
China should learn from the common practice implemented in Western countries and deal a deadly blow to those producers once they are found to produce fake or inferior foods.
Additionally, consumer and consumption agencies are the most vigilant groups when it comes to food safety and personal health, and they should be adopted into the supervisory system.
One effective way to mobilize consumer enthusiasm is to give more media coverage to the disclosure of fake food producers.
Food scandals have become a public enemy that demands public involvement to eradicate the problem.
Enlightenment building for rule of law
The fate of Yao Jiaxin, a young college student who hit and then stabbed an injured victim to death, has caused ardent arguments among the Chinese public about the law and humanitarian issues. To be judged later this week, the case is already wrapped up in things other than the law.
Chinese society is experiencing a "movement of enlightenment" on the rule of law despite it having been advocated for such a long time. The process used to controlled by the government, but thanks to the Internet, judicial justice has seen unprecedented involvement of public opinion.
Just like the instructions from their superiors, the impact of public opinion on judicial justice has had both positive and negative effects. It is necessary to keep that public opinion involved in China's judicial system as it will be helpful over the long haul.
At the same time, public opinion should become more mature to better reflect on every misjudgment. For example, the case of She Xianglin, jailed for 11 years after being wrongly convicted of killing a neighbor, has been controversial.
It has to be admitted that the foundation of Chinese judicial justice is not solid and society can sometimes exert a useful impact on judicial decisions, although by no means always. The court can always reject the interference of public opinion that is sometimes "a little rude."
There must be a long-term process of interaction between the Chinese administration of justice and public opinion. If the interaction is good, the administration of justice will be more honest, more dedicated and fairer. If the interaction is not good enough, public opinion will become arrogant, trying to control everything.
The quality of public opinion is determined by the quality of the court. It is difficult for public opinion itself to keep rational and have self-restraint because part of its rationality is provided by the court. The court should dare to ignore public opinion that is too demanding, tell the truth and make independent judgments. The public might fail to understand at the moment, but it will slowly find the correct boundary between supervision and intervention.
Moreover, public opinion does not represent the people's mind. Even if it does, its accuracy and stability is often less reliable than legal logic. Public opinion cannot be above the law. For example, we should no longer say "Public anger cannot be quelled if he is not sentenced to death."
Anyone can make mistakes, even a judge, but it is important to establish the dignity of the law in China. Therefore, there is now quite enough discussion of Yao's case. Let us wait and see the judgment of the court. After the final decision, people with different views should reflect on why their opinion has "deviated" rather than continue to insist they are right.
0 comments:
Post a Comment