On March 7, 2004, the Guangzhou Municipal People's Procuratorate filed a case against Cheng Yizhong for investigation in the name of suspected economic crimes. In March 2009, 65438+ was detained in criminal detention; April 1 arrest. According to the news of Guangzhou People's Procuratorate, when investigating the corruption case of Yu Huafeng, former deputy editor-in-chief of Southern Metropolis Daily, Guangzhou People's Procuratorate found that Cheng Yizhong and others, former deputy editor-in-chief of Southern Metropolis Daily, shared public funds privately. Cheng took 654.38+10,000 yuan as his own, which has been suspected of constituting corruption. Also suspected of other economic crimes.
However, according to the interview of Chen Feng, a former reporter of Southern Metropolis Daily, on the program "Current Affairs" of Hong Kong Radio and Television Department on May 14, 2005, the 654.38+million yuan involved in Cheng Yizhong's corruption accusation is actually a bonus of the newspaper, which is Cheng Yizhong's completely legitimate income in the newspaper.
On August 27th of the same year, Guangzhou Dongshan District Procuratorate decided not to prosecute Cheng Yizhong on the grounds of insufficient evidence and released him. According to the law, this decision can be regarded as an acquittal by the procuratorate, which is equivalent to declaring Cheng Yizhong innocent.
Some people think that this matter may be related to the reports about SARS and Sun Zhigang in 2003. The former report opened the prelude to the prevention and control of SARS in China, while the latter report exposed the shady violation of human rights by the detention and repatriation system, which triggered the reform and introduction of relevant policies in the State Council, China.
Cheng Yizhong: My complaint.
(Speech at general party membership meeting Branch of Southern Metropolis Daily on October 28th, 2004/KLOC-0)
Ladies and gentlemen, party member:
According to the decision of directly under the authority Commission for Discipline Inspection [2004] No.29 on expelling Cheng Yizhong from the Party membership, this is my last time to attend the Southern Metropolis Daily branch meeting, my last time to fulfill the rights, responsibilities and obligations of China producer party member, and my last time to participate in activities as a staff member of Southern Metropolis Daily. I was illegally and abnormally deprived by this "decision" of China's * * * Party membership and the administrative post of Nanfang Daily. I suffered naked and vicious political persecution. China * * * production party will lose a rare good party member, Nanfang Daily newspaper group and China newspaper industry will lose an outstanding talent.
Directly under the authority Commission for Discipline Inspection [2004] No.29' s decision to expel Cheng Yizhong from the Party not only violates the Articles of Association of China * * * Party, the Regulations on Disciplinary Actions of China * * * Party and the newly promulgated Regulations on the Protection of party member's Rights of China * * * Party, but also makes a fuss out of nothing, distorts the facts. This is a incriminating document. Why is there no words? It is a document full of hostility and sinister intentions. On the occasion of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee, this decision of Guangdong Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection runs counter to the policy of political civilization and governing the country according to law under the situation that China's * * * production party emphasizes the need to improve its ruling ability and level.
I strongly urge the relevant departments to cancel the decision to expel Cheng Yizhong from the Party (No.29 [2004] of the Commission for Discipline Inspection of directly under the authority). I will keep complaining until this wrong decision is revoked, the perpetrators are punished and justice is done.
A * * * Guangdong directly under the authority Commission for Discipline Inspection [2004] No.29 "Decision on Giving Cheng Yizhong the Punishment of Expelling from the Party" completely violates the organizational procedures and principles of the Communist Party of China, which is totally untenable in procedure and violates procedural justice.
1, Article 40 of the Articles of Association of China Producers' Party stipulates that "the punishment of party member must be discussed and decided by the Party branch meeting and reported to the Party's grassroots committee for approval; If the issues involved are important or complicated, or if party member is expelled from the Party, it shall be reported to the Party's Commission for Discipline Inspection at or above the county level for approval according to different circumstances. Under special circumstances, party committees and discipline inspection committees at the county and county levels have the right to directly decide to give party member disciplinary action. "
* * * The disciplinary decision made by the Guangdong Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection has not been discussed at the meeting of the Southern Metropolis Daily Branch, nor has it been discussed by the Nanfang Daily Party Committee and the Disciplinary Committee. It should be a "special case". What are the hidden "special circumstances"? According to the eight rights granted to party member by Article 8 of the Constitution of China Producers' Party, party member has the right to "make requests, appeals and accusations to the party's higher-level organizations and even the central authorities, and ask the relevant organizations to give responsible answers". I now ask the Commission for Discipline Inspection of provincial organs to give an answer to this "special situation".
In fact, according to the old leader of Nanfang Daily Newspaper Group, this "decision" has created a record: I am the only non-provincial cadre in the history of Guangdong Party who was directly expelled from the Party by the Provincial Discipline Inspection Commission.
2. Article 41 of the Constitution of China Producers' Party stipulates that "Party organizations should seek truth from facts when making disciplinary decisions on party member. The factual materials and disciplinary decisions on which the disciplinary decision is based must meet with me and listen to my explanations and arguments. " Before and after the Guangdong Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection made the disciplinary decision, the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection did not send anyone to the Southern Metropolis Daily for verification, and the factual materials and disciplinary decisions on which the disciplinary decision was based never met with me, nor did they listen to any explanations and arguments from me.
3. Article 20 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Rights in members of the Communist Party of China (CPC)" just promulgated by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China stipulates that "before making an important resolution or decision, the party organization shall solicit party member's opinions in an appropriate way within a certain range. If most party member have different opinions or major differences, we will suspend making a decision, conduct further investigation and study, exchange views, and submit them to the next meeting for voting. " . No party member in my branch knows about the important decisions related to a person's political life and life future, such as expelling our party membership and proposing to revoke administrative posts. The Party Committee of Nanfang Daily Newspaper Group, my superior party organization, also clearly expressed its opposition.
4. Article 22 of the Regulations on the Protection of the Rights of China * * * Production Party party member stipulates that "the decision on punishment shall specify party member's right to appeal and the organization that accepts the appeal", but it is not specified in the decision document of Guangdong Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection.
5. The last part of the "Decision on Punishment" reads: "After discussion at the ministerial meeting of the Propaganda Department of the Provincial Party Committee, the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection recommended and reported to the Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection for approval, and decided to expel Cheng Yizhong from the party." According to the management authority of party member, my organizational relationship is in the Party branch of Southern Metropolis Daily, not in the Provincial Party Committee Propaganda Department, and the ministerial meeting of the Provincial Party Committee Propaganda Department is not a meeting of the first-level party organization. I have no right to make a disciplinary decision on a grassroots party member.
In addition, I signed the decision at noon on 12122, and the organ that issued the decision on the 27th sent people to Nanfang Daily Newspaper Group to withdraw the decision. People think this is an absurd decision, and they want to take the initiative to correct this mistake, but it turns out that there are several obvious factual date errors and absurd writing errors, which have to be revised and reprinted. What a scandal it is to make such a hasty decision to expel a party member party member, which is related to the political life and future of a party member!
Second, the * * * Decision on Giving Cheng Yizhong the Punishment of Expelling from the Party membership, issued by the Commission for Discipline Inspection of Guangdong Direct Organs [2004] No.29, is totally groundless, distorts the facts, confuses right and wrong, and makes a mountain out of a molehill, which is absolutely untenable.
1, the so-called problem of dividing up 580,000 yuan of public funds. This problem has been discussed and I don't want to make any more theories. I just want to remind you that if this accusation is established, I will not stand here today and serve my sentence in prison, and I will be "ruined" as they hope. I just want to point out many contradictions and flaws in the Penalty Decision on this issue. For example, the second paragraph of the penalty decision reads: "After legal review, the procuratorial organ believes that Cheng Yizhong is suspected of participating in the private distribution of public funds of 580,000 yuan, and he deserves 6,543,800 yuan. Because the existing evidence does not meet the conditions for prosecution, it shall be handled in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 140 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). If the procuratorate obtains new evidence after not prosecuting, it can still prosecute the facts of the crime. " I don't know where the penalty decision refers to the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). The complete content of the fourth paragraph of Article 140 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) I found is: "If the people's procuratorate still believes that the evidence is insufficient and does not meet the conditions for prosecution, it may make a decision not to prosecute." The decision not to prosecute issued to me by the People's Procuratorate of Dongshan District of Guangzhou on August 27th, 2004 also clearly stated: "Cheng Yizhong, who did not prosecute, was suspected of embezzling public funds of RMB 580,000 in collaboration with others, and the fact that he himself accepted RMB/kloc-0.00 million was insufficient, which did not meet the conditions for prosecution. In accordance with the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 140 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), it was decided that Cheng Yizhong, who was sorry to sue, would not sue. " Words and contents not quoted in the penalty decision. The so-called "no prosecution in case of doubt" and "the procuratorial organ can still prosecute the criminal facts after obtaining new evidence without prosecution" in the penalty decision clearly have the intention of threatening the parties. Round after round, the allegations of corruption could not be made, and the punishment decision was the second best, regardless of July 21. On this issue, the extrajudicial ruling that "Cheng Yizhong's behavior has constituted the mistake of dividing public funds privately". This is complete nonsense.
2. About the so-called reimbursement of travel expenses of 7545 yuan. The penalty decision deliberately ignored a key question: when did I take my family vacation to reimburse expenses, before or after the promulgation of the Southern Metropolis Daily's Measures for Rewarding Cadres' Vacation? This is the root of the problem. From August 7, 2003 to 1 1, the incentive measures for cadres of Southern Metropolis Daily came into effect on August 6, 2003. According to this vacation reward scheme, I can reimburse my family for 8,000 yuan of vacation travel expenses. Do you care! As for the office staff and financial bookkeepers who handle the reimbursement procedures for me, it is a technical mistake, which has nothing to do with me. Just change it. However, the procuratorate should delude itself into thinking that this is corruption, while the punishment decision should make a mountain out of a molehill and say that I "have an unshirkable leadership responsibility." All employees of Southern Metropolis Daily can enjoy the holiday rewards they are enjoying. Why can't their leaders? What is the reason? Where is justice?
3. About the so-called reimbursement of medical expenses, 8303.94 yuan. This is a chilling question, and the "Penalty Decision" is also thrown in a shameful way, which is really chilling! I was so tired at work that I almost put my life on the line. The whole southern newspaper industry is well known. All procedures for my hospitalization, including admission, discharge, expense settlement and account reimbursement, are handled by the staff of Southern Metropolis Daily Office; After leaving the hospital, it was decided by the leaders of the administrative and financial departments of Southern Metropolis Daily and the leaders of the group in charge of Southern Metropolis Daily that the medical expenses of my hospitalization were 8303.94 yuan, which was also reimbursed in the year-end bonus balance of Southern Metropolis Daily according to law. Employees of Southern Metropolis Daily who are unable to enjoy free medical care due to serious illness or are hospitalized due to work-related injuries are also charged from the year-end bonus savings. As long as you look at the expression of this problem in the penalty decision, it is easy to understand that this is not a problem of law, discipline, emotion and reason. The Penalty Decision is too arrogant and explicit to be imposed on others. How can I put it? Wang XX, you are so fucking shameless!
In addition, the flaws and loopholes here are also extremely obvious. For example, the second paragraph of the penalty decision says: "The fact that Cheng Yizhong is suspected of embezzling medical expenses and travel expenses, the procuratorial organ thinks that the facts are clear and the evidence is conclusive, which can be regarded as corruption. However, due to the minor circumstances of the crime, the procuratorate made a relatively non-prosecution treatment in accordance with the provisions of Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). " The complete content of Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) is: "If the crime is minor, the people's procuratorate may make a decision not to prosecute in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law." There is no so-called "relative non-prosecution" in the punishment decision here, and there is no such thing as "relative non-prosecution" in the "Decision of Non-prosecution" issued to me by the Dongshan District Procuratorate of Guangzhou on August 27, 2004.
On August 27th, when the People's Procuratorate of Dongshan District of Guangzhou made a decision not to prosecute me, I asked them to make the following statement: "I accept the decision of the People's Procuratorate of Dongshan District of Guangzhou not to prosecute me, but I totally and absolutely refuse to accept the so-called minor crime of embezzling my travel expenses and medical expenses totaling 15848 yuan!" As I said, I can understand the good intentions of the procuratorate. Isn't this just to find a step for yourself?
Another example is the second paragraph of the penalty decision, which states that "since Cheng Yizhong's behavior has constituted a crime of corruption, he has been punished by the judicial organs according to legal procedures", which is totally groundless. I have not been prosecuted by the court, nor have I been sentenced by the court. The Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) also clearly stipulates that no one can be convicted without a court verdict. The statement that I was "convicted by the judicial organs according to legal procedures" in the penalty decision is purely disinformation and misleading, which is not only absurd but also despicable.
The penalty decision immediately wrote, "According to Article 291 of the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People's Procuratorate,' If the plaintiff who is sorry needs to be given administrative punishment or administrative punishment, or if his illegal income needs to be confiscated, the people's procuratorate will put forward procuratorial opinions and transfer them to the relevant competent authorities together with the decision not to prosecute', and the Guangzhou Procuratorate proposes to give Cheng Yizhong disciplinary sanctions." Article 291 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People's Procuratorate does not mention "disciplinary action" at all, and the procuratorate has no right to make this suggestion.
To sum up, * * * Guangdong directly under the authority Commission for Discipline Inspection [2004] No.29 "Decision on Discharging Cheng Yizhong from the Party" is completely wrong and must be corrected.
Dear party member, the Party has taught us to stick to the truth, seek truth from facts, pay attention to the organizational principles of democratic centralism, advocate an atmosphere of criticism and self-criticism, and is strengthening inner-party supervision and power checks and balances.
I accuse my punishment decision of being suspected of retaliation, attack and persecution. My illegal detention 160 days has just ended, and my family and I have not recovered from the great injury. In order to take care of the overall situation and the image of the region, my family and I listened to the suggestions of the organization, silently endured grievances and pains, and looked forward to the progress of China and the future, looking forward to the flowing and washing of the river of time. Therefore, we did not take any measures to defend our human rights and interests, nor did we propose to investigate the legal responsibilities and applications of relevant personnel. However, the injustice and persecution against me are still going on. In the case of trying to impose legal sanctions, it is followed by political repression and organizational treatment. Many friends are worried about the safety and interests of me and my family, and are indignant at all kinds of troubles suffered by me and my family; I also encourage them to believe that this is not the Cultural Revolution after all, and that China is now politically civilized.
However, in the face of the disciplinary decision of the Guangdong Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection, I can't help but ask: Party discipline and state law are the great instruments of the country, not the crutches and sticks of any individual. Why do you have to bring down an excellent producer? Why do you have to bring down a good editor of a newspaper? Why do you have to bring down a good man? Why don't people like what people like? During the 10 years of working in Southern Metropolis Daily, I have been conscientious and hardworking. Have lofty ideals, be strict with yourself, and have no selfish distractions; Make Southern Metropolis Daily a model newspaper that truly practices Theory of Three Represents. There is a public opinion about right and wrong. History is written by people, and history is written by time.
On the occasion of farewell, I implore party member and my party organization to give me a realistic evaluation and conclusion, and I implore the relevant departments to give me a fair and social justice.
Thank you!