【新唐人2013年06月04日訊】在中紀委中央第一巡視組，進駐「中國儲備糧管理總公司」查貪腐的同時，5月31號，中儲糧黑龍江林甸直屬糧庫發生大火，報導說有78個糧倉近5萬噸糧食燒燬，損失近億元人民幣。輿論認為，大火可疑，甚至有民眾猜測：糧食貪官縱火毀滅罪證。更有網友爆料：曾經有火燒中紀委調查組的先例。
31號午後，中儲糧林甸直屬庫起火，數十糧堆變火燄山，現場濃煙瀰漫。三個多小時後火勢才受控，無人傷亡。
據傳，建於1961年的糧庫，事故發生時儲糧14萬噸。當地官方解釋，34度高溫加上大風，造成火燒連營。但有專業人士指稱﹕《中央直屬儲備糧庫消防設計》對糧堆大小間離要求嚴格、還有防火牆作間隔，因此質疑：一兩個著火有可能，幾十個糧倉全部著火難以想像。
記者撥打中央第一巡視組公開的熱線電話，但是無人接聽。
北京天則經濟研究所副所長馮興元：「一個政府需要分權制衡。國企內部對於糧食倉儲的監管也是存在問題的。所以不排除存在不足量，品質不符合原來規定的要求。這種問題都有可能。所以很有可能涉及到國企內部出現這種犯罪，所以他們通過銷毀來轉移視線，或者毀滅罪證。」
糧倉大火令網友驚呼歷史重演！網友說，火燒糧倉不算甚麼，火燒調查組才叫厲害。
據大陸《瞭望東方週刊》2011年6月報導，在2000年，汕頭迎賓館發生大火五人喪生，其中兩人是正在當地調查的中紀委幹部，當時他們已將辦完案件封存，準備隔天運走，不料，突發離奇火災，外界瘋傳被故意縱火，毀滅證據。
而香港《蘋果日報》的報導說，2006年國家糧食託市政策實施後，中儲糧各省擴展收儲庫點，撥款建倉、收購和保管的國家補貼款、收糧差價、層層都是油水，不少糧庫報大庫存、冒領補貼、套取貸款；也有糧官虛報虧損，偷賣賬外糧中飽私囊。
馮興元表示，中央巡視組既然去調查糧食系統，就要仔細的去查，尤其要把其它糧倉控制起來，一次性的檢查，不能允許他們互相調度。
馮興元：「我覺得不僅僅是針對這一個地方調查，是要把全國的糧食儲備系統，全部臨時接管一樣，進出要特別嚴厲的記錄跟監督，要來個徹底的檢查。」
中國勞動關係學院教授王江松表示，中央巡視組這種類似古代的欽差大臣，反腐是反不了的。無數歷史經驗證明，關門反腐越反越腐。不以民主為基礎，不依照法治的原則來反腐，根本就反不了。
中國勞動關係學院教授王江松：「1991-1999年，國家搞了一個特派員制度，給大型國有企業派出特派員，特派員跟現在的中央巡視組職能差不多。就是監督國企的掌門人，防止他們中飽私囊，借改革之名把國有資產化為私有。後來甚麼交代都沒有，很多國企都變成私有化的了，暗箱操作了。中央特派員又有啥用啊？沒用的。」
雜交水稻之父袁隆平在2008年曾經指出：國家糧庫虛報，有糧庫是空的。至今糧食繫碩鼠，前仆後繼。
據了解，國家審計署5月初公布：中儲糧總公司2011年未經審批，開設84億4千萬銀行存單；另外，個別直屬庫存儲設施不符合倉儲標準、以及在無資格單位儲糧等問題。
採訪編輯/秦雪 後製/李智遠
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.
