200 words, 6 articles on current affairs and politics.

Question mark after the judgment of Sanlu case

The Sanlu case exposed the loopholes in the whole milk industry chain-competing for milk sources regardless of cost; The "handshake" between enterprises and "milk tyrants" and poor quality control all reflect the poor supervision of relevant government functional departments in inspection, licensing, exemption from inspection and registration. After the incident, the main officials of the relevant functional departments of the state took the blame and resigned, and a number of local officials were dismissed. This is a fact. However, we must not "protect" specific supervisors because of the resignation of the competent leader, because the punishment will "cover" the supervision link of the accident. It is a cover-up for criminals and a blasphemy against the law to resign without handing it over to judicial organs and replace criminal responsibility investigation with administrative punishment. Dereliction of duty officials have administrative duties and become "shields". It is extremely unfair to enterprise managers, vendors and dairy farmers who have been investigated for criminal responsibility.

I remember that a month ago, Shijiazhuang specially organized a massive signature activity promised by ten thousand people, with the purpose of drawing lessons from Sanlu incident and building a city with the safest food. If "zero officials" has always been a big question mark in the hearts of the public, how can we learn from it?

/kloc-the "old paper" 0/0 years ago was taken out as a "command arrow" again?

At the end of the year, the National Development and Reform Commission promulgated the Standard for the Construction of Office Buildings for Party and Government Organs, which should have been a new standard. After searching on the Internet, it was found that the standard for the construction of office buildings for party and government organs published by the National Development and Reform Commission was actually the standard published by 1999. This can not help but make people feel strange. What is the practical significance of re-publishing the standards of ten years ago?

Ten years later, the office buildings of government departments should be built, and those that should not exceed the standard should also exceed the standard. However, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has been repeating the same old tune, and then published the standards for office building construction of party and government organs. It can neither force all government departments to comply with it, nor forcibly demolish all office buildings that exceed the standard, so it is really unreasonable to come up with a new excuse to "promote thrift" in by going up one flight of stairs.

The National Development and Reform Commission should seriously consider why the provisions of 10 have not been implemented, instead of "reaffirming" the old provisions as new ones.