国产热热热精品,亚洲视频久久】日韩,三级婷婷在线久久,99人妻精品视频,精品九热人人肉肉在线,AV东京热一区二区,91po在线视频观看,久久激情宗合,青青草黄色手机视频

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
Opinion
Home / Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

No stone should be left unturned in 'bridge case'

By Zhao Jun | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2023-07-11 11:09
Share
Share - WeChat

In the ongoing bridge case, no stone should be left unturned before reaching a conclusion.

In 2014, Huang Deyi, a resident of Zhenlin village in Baicheng city of Jilin province, and his friends built a floating bridge on the Taoer River, spending more than 130,000 yuan ($17,970). It is reported that the bridge reduced the journey across the river by 70 kilometers.

In October 2018, however, the local water conservancy bureau fined Huang, saying he had built the bridge illegally, and asked him to dismantle it.

And in December 2019, the local people's court found Huang and 17 others guilty of provocation and troublemaking, and handed down different punishment on probation.

On the one hand, it's natural that a number of netizens have sympathized with Huang and his friends while criticizing the local water conservancy bureau for being too harsh on them, especially because the much-needed bridge, although listed in the local development plan, is still to be built, leaving people with no option but to travel long distances to get from one side of the Taoer River to the other. Some villagers have even lost their lives trying to cross the river.

On the other hand, people should wait for the whole truth comes out before jumping to conclusions. The key issue here is whether Huang and his friends can be charged with provocation and troublemaking for building a floating bridge and charging vehicles a fee to use the bridge and cut their long journey short.

According to news reports, the action of Huang and his friends possibly doesn't fall under the category of forceful coercion or extortion. Considering that they charged a fee only from those wishing to use the bridge, the fee cannot be called coercion or extortion even though Huang and his friends were not authorized by the relevant authorities to collect it. This makes the whole truth vital in the case.

Although the floating bridge may not meet the standards set by the authorities, its construction does not necessarily attract the charge of provocation and troublemaking. And the need to make travel convenient has to be adequately addressed first.

Truth will have the final say in the bridge case.

Zhao Jun is a professor of law at the Beijing Normal University Law School. This is an excerpt of his interview with China Daily's Liu Jianna. The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
赣州市| 曲松县| 固镇县| 渑池县| 巴中市| 曲水县| 西昌市| 德钦县| 兴山县| 汝南县| 灵璧县| 灵丘县| 辛集市| 独山县| 洪雅县| 泰安市| 昌黎县| 乌鲁木齐市| 赤峰市| 巍山| 宾川县| 汝阳县| 新巴尔虎左旗| 贡山| 竹山县| 顺义区| 崇左市| 进贤县| 苗栗市| 高唐县| 桃园县| 丽水市| 巴青县| 静安区| 巴塘县| 繁峙县| 进贤县| 佛冈县| 西乌| 牙克石市| 拉孜县|