【禁闻】中纪委调查中储粮 蹊跷火烧连营

FacebookPrintFont Size繁体

【新唐人2013年06月04日讯】在中纪委中央第一巡视组,进驻“中国储备粮管理总公司”查贪腐的同时,5月31号,中储粮黑龙江林甸直属粮库发生大火,报导说有78个粮仓近5万吨粮食烧毁,损失近亿元人民币。舆论认为,大火可疑,甚至有民众猜测:粮食贪官纵火毁灭罪证。更有网友爆料:曾经有火烧中纪委调查组的先例。

31号午后,中储粮林甸直属库起火,数十粮堆变火焰山,现场浓烟弥漫。三个多小时后火势才受控,无人伤亡。

据传,建于1961年的粮库,事故发生时储粮14万吨。当地官方解释,34度高温加上大风,造成火烧连营。但有专业人士指称﹕《中央直属储备粮库消防设计》对粮堆大小间离要求严格、还有防火墙作间隔,因此质疑:一两个着火有可能,几十个粮仓全部着火难以想像。

记者拨打中央第一巡视组公开的热线电话,但是无人接听。

北京天则经济研究所副所长冯兴元:“一个政府需要分权制衡。国企内部对于粮食仓储的监管也是存在问题的。所以不排除存在不足量,品质不符合原来规定的要求。这种问题都有可能。所以很有可能涉及到国企内部出现这种犯罪,所以他们通过销毁来转移视线,或者毁灭罪证。”

粮仓大火令网友惊呼历史重演!网友说,火烧粮仓不算什么,火烧调查组才叫厉害。

据大陆《瞭望东方周刊》2011年6月报导,在2000年,汕头迎宾馆发生大火五人丧生,其中两人是正在当地调查的中纪委干部,当时他们已将办完案件封存,准备隔天运走,不料,突发离奇火灾,外界疯传被故意纵火,毁灭证据。

而香港《苹果日报》的报导说,2006年国家粮食托市政策实施后,中储粮各省扩展收储库点,拨款建仓、收购和保管的国家补贴款、收粮差价、层层都是油水,不少粮库报大库存、冒领补贴、套取贷款;也有粮官虚报亏损,偷卖账外粮中饱私囊。

冯兴元表示,中央巡视组既然去调查粮食系统,就要仔细的去查,尤其要把其它粮仓控制起来,一次性的检查,不能允许他们互相调度。

冯兴元:“我觉得不仅仅是针对这一个地方调查,是要把全国的粮食储备系统,全部临时接管一样,进出要特别严厉的记录跟监督,要来个彻底的检查。”

中国劳动关系学院教授王江松表示,中央巡视组这种类似古代的钦差大臣,反腐是反不了的。无数历史经验证明,关门反腐越反越腐。不以民主为基础,不依照法治的原则来反腐,根本就反不了。

中国劳动关系学院教授王江松:“1991-1999年,国家搞了一个特派员制度,给大型国有企业派出特派员,特派员跟现在的中央巡视组职能差不多。就是监督国企的掌门人,防止他们中饱私囊,借改革之名把国有资产化为私有。后来什么交代都没有,很多国企都变成私有化的了,暗箱操作了。中央特派员又有啥用啊?没用的。”

杂交水稻之父袁隆平在2008年曾经指出:国家粮库虚报,有粮库是空的。至今粮食系硕鼠,前仆后继。

据了解,国家审计署5月初公布:中储粮总公司2011年未经审批,开设84亿4千万银行存单;另外,个别直属库存储设施不符合仓储标准、以及在无资格单位储粮等问题。

采访编辑/秦雪 后制/李智远

Grain depot fires during the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection’s investigation of Sinograin’s corruption

While the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection
(CCDI) team just began the first investigation of corruption
in China Grain Reserves Corporation (Sinograin), a fire
ripped through one of its depots in Lindian County, Heilongjiang Province.
Sources said the fire burned 78 barns containing
47,000 tons of grain.
The damage is expected to be as much as 100 million yuan.

The public suspected that the fire was deliberately set
in order to destroy corrupt officials’ evidence.
Netizens revealed that there had been
a previous arson case involving the CCDI.

On the afternoon of May 31, a grain storage center
in Lindian County was set ablaze.
As several tens of barns burned, smoke billowed into the air.

Three hours later, the fire was brought under control,
and no casualties have been reported.

Sources have said that Lindian grain depot
was established in 1961.
140,000 tons of grains were stocked there
when the fire took place.
The local authorities claimed that due to the temperature
having reached 34°C that day, the fire spread.
Experts said that there is a strict fire regulation requirement
for the distance between barns, and firewalls are used.
Experts understand that it is possible for a couple of grain
piles to burn, but feel several dozens of burned barns is rare.

An NTD reporter called the CCDI team hotline
for a comment, but received no response.

Feng Xingyuan, deputy director of Beijing Unirule Institute
of Economics: “A government should have restricted power.
The supervision for grain storage in a company
also has problems, such as an insufficient amount of reserved grain and substandard quality.
These problems likely have occurred.

The state-owned companies are
possibly involved in such crimes.
Thus, the companies diverted attention
by destroying the evidence.”

Regarding the grain depot fire incident,
netizens exclaimed history has repeated itself.
Netizens say that to burn the depot is not a big issue,
but to burn the investigation team is a fierceness.
In June 2011, China’s Oriental Outlook magazine reported
that Shantou Yingbin Hotel had a fire incident in 2000.
Five people were killed, two of whom were CCDI members
that were carrying out a local investigation.
At that time, they just had finished investigating
and were set to leave the next day.
Unexpectedly, a bizarre fire blazed. Rumors circulated
widely that the incident was a tactic to destroy evidence.

Hong Kong’s Apple Daily reported that since 2006
when China’s grain reserve policy was implemented,
Sinograin took over sole management of national grain
and oil reserves, and they expanded on and established many grain storage depots.
During the operation, each level of the entity has personally
gained from state subsidy payment and difference in price.
Many depots falsely claimed more storage than they
actually had and applied for subsidy funds and loans.
Some officials claimed false losses, selling
unregistered grain, then pocketed the profit.

Feng Xingyuan said the CCDI team’s investigation
of Sinograin should be carefully looked into,
all barns should be completely investigated at
the same time and should not be allowed to dispatch inventory between depots.

Feng Xingyuan: “I think the CCDI team should not just
investigate one place, they should inspect all depots in one go.
Take over all management, take strict inventory control,
and do a thorough investigation.”

Wang Jiangsong, a professor at China Institute of
Industrial Relations, said that
the CCDI team is similar to an “imperial envoy” in the
ancient times, they can’t achieve the goal of anti-corruption.
From the history we can tell that the system that’s
allegedly against corruption will grow more corrupt.

Wang Jiangsong: “From 1991 to 1999, the state implemented
a general commissioner system, sending commissioners to state-owned companies.
The commissioners were similar to the CCDI inspection team.

Their job was to supervise the boss of the company
to prevent him from accepting bribes.
In the name of reform, the state-owned assets were turned
into private assets and then could not be accounted for.
In the end, there was no positive outcome.

Many state-owned enterprises
were privatized and operated behind the scenes.
What’s the use of general commissioners?
Useless!”

In 2008, “the Father of Hybrid Rice”, Yuan Longping,
said that the state grain reserves report false data.
Some grain storage bases are empty. Up until now,
grand theft in the grain sector has been countless.

Sources have said that the National Audit Office announced
in May that in 2011, Sinograin deposited about 8.5 billion yuan in the bank without approval.
In addition, in some branches, grain storage depots didn’t
meet regulations, or some have disqualification issues.

相关文章
评论