Editorials

Absurd logic for drinking

(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-12-16 07:46

It is weird. A police officer drank himself to death at a banquet after work but his work unit has claimed he died at work, and has applied to the higher authorities to grant him a posthumous honor.

Surprised as readers are after reading the news, the head of the traffic police detachment in Shenzhen said that there was nothing wrong in them doing so as they want the officer to leave behind a glorious legacy and his family to get more money in benefit payment.

The police officer did not die at his post and neither did he die during work hours, his boss admitted, but argued that they did just what most other work units would do - to get more death benefits for employees.

How ridiculous!

But both the family of the dead police officer and the police detachment will benefit.

Absurd logic for drinking

The family will certainly get more money in compensation from the State and the police detachment will spare itself the trouble of negotiating with the family for the amount of money it will have to pay for the death. The more money the family gets, the better it is for both sides since compensation will be paid by the State.

In addition, the posthumous honor will help cover up the humiliation the death of the police officer has brought to the detachment. Making someone a martyr in this case may also help avert a possible investigation from higher authorities into the cause of death. What a nice trick!

The logic is as absurd as an interpretation of regulations about workplace injuries recently amended by the higher people's court in Chongqing municipality, which stipulates that deaths caused by drinking should be treated as workplace accidents if the officials are sent by their bosses to drink for business.

In both cases, those involved in making the decisions have lost the sense of what is right and what is wrong.

In the first one, the police officer attended a banquet arranged by leaders of a local village. Even if it was just a friendly dinner without anything sinister behind it, it is against rules to apply for workplace-death benefits for someone who drank to death after work. If life is really difficult for the officer's family, the detachment may apply for financial aid or find some other proper ways to help. How can it play with rules?

In the second case, a judicial department like the local court should have had enough sense to know that drinking during work hours is forbidden. Even if a person is sent by his or her leader to drink for whatever reason, it should be the leader rather than the State that should pay for such death. And leaders whose decisions have caused such deaths should be punished.

(China Daily 12/16/2009 page8)