【新唐人2014年02月28日訊】日前，中共當局下發信訪新規定，明確規定不受理越級上訪和「涉法涉訴信訪」。分析人士指出，「信訪制度」本身就是對「依法治國」的一種否定，無論是「逐級上訪」或是「越級上訪」，都無法真正解決問題。
據中共官方媒體《新華社》報導，中共中央辦公廳和國務院辦公廳——「兩辦」，最近發出關於解決信訪突出問題的意見，《意見》中聲稱，要積極引導民眾「逐級表達訴求，不支持、不受理越級上訪」。
這則消息引發大陸民眾熱烈的討論，網民「知青記者」在微博說：多年來，大家都感到地方政府膽大妄為，冤者由於對中央懷抱希望才變成訪民，未變成暴民。「兩辦」此舉，勢必讓地方政府更加膽大妄為，勢必讓更多訪民變為暴民。
山東維權律師李向陽：「完善上訪制度的目地就是把矛盾搞成一個緩衝地帶，他並不是解決問題耶。無論是逐級上訪還是越級上訪，都是解決不了問題的。每一個訪民跑到北京去的，都不是越級上訪，他們在縣、省已經上訪多少年了，才到北京去的。」
北京維權人士李學惠：「信訪本身就是對一個依法治國的否定，他還有越級、不越級啊，我們更多的人被這種體制弄的得腦殘了。如果下面都解決的話，他有必要來越級嗎？這種政治本身就是欺騙。」
這個禁止越級上訪的所謂《意見》書，還有另一個重要內容，就是要求各級政府信訪部門不再受理所謂「涉法涉訴」事項。《意見》書聲稱，要嚴格實行訴訟與信訪分離，把「涉法涉訴信訪」納入法治軌道解決，建立所謂「涉法涉訴信訪依法終結制度」。
但是，上海訪民顧國平向《自由亞洲電臺》表示，中國各地司法機關都受制於地方政府，訴訟、復議、仲裁等渠道也不暢通，訪民想要告官，幾乎沒有勝訴的可能。
李向陽：「他把這種(涉法涉訴)上訪事件全部推到司法部門去了，給訪民歸到各系統中去，更便於控制。假若中國的司法公正的話，就不會出現那麼多信訪案件了，就是它司法不公，才導致訴訟案件層出不窮。」
據了解，2011年5月，有不法商人勾結當地警方，企圖侵吞山東臨沂公民楊海龍的公司，而蓄意製造冤案將楊海龍判刑一年半有期徒刑。楊海龍出獄後，李向陽律師代理了他的冤案，卻遭到臨沂市蘭山區警方的瘋狂打壓。蘭山區警方為了阻止證人去法院協助調查，還對證人發佈了逮捕令。去年8月，蘭山區公安局甚至給李向陽扣上「涉嫌虛構事實，擾亂公共秩序」的罪名，將他行政拘留10天。
而北京維權人士李學惠，也因涉入「奧運勞教老人」王秀英起訴財政部有關援助韓國案，去年10月曾被警方帶走。
李學惠：「我們完完全全遵守國家的法律程序的，到最後甚麼結果呢？你總是要求民眾做甚麼，然後你自己做不做得到，即便老太太在這個過程中，涉法又如何，肯定是特別嚴格的。所以呢，即便涉法涉訴的事，他也不會做到（依法終結）。」
四川「六四天網」負責人黃琦接受《自由亞洲電臺》採訪時表示，他已經就《意見》書和很多訪民進行溝通，訪民們幾乎一致認為，中國公、檢、法系統充斥貪污腐敗、行賄、受賄現象，各地冤假錯案不斷，根本不可能把「涉法涉訴信訪」納入法治軌道解決。
黃琦還說，民間普遍認為，《意見》書是中共為了應對「兩會」期間的大規模上訪潮，而推出的舉措。
「中國社會科學院農村所社會問題研究中心」主任於建嶸在微博發帖說：任何強化信訪制度的努力，都在破壞法治，都在禍國殃民。他質問當局﹕不准訪民越級上訪，那為何在北京設國家信訪局？還有領導幹部接訪。
採訪/張天宇 編輯/陳潔 後製/周天
Petition Reform: Don’t Skip Local Government
Petitioners: Cancel The Petitioning System
The recent petitioning reform by the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) demands no bypassing local authorities and no lawsuits
associated petitions.
Analysts comment that the petitioning system represents the
breaking of the rule of law.
Any type of petitioning will not solve the problem.
According to Xinhua News Agency report, the general offices
of the CCP Central Committee and the State Council, released
a set of guidelines stating the authorities will not support or
accept petitions that bypass local officials.
Upon this release, a Chinese netizen “Young Journalist”
responded in the Weibo: “For years, we have been through
many daredevil deeds of the local authorities.
Victims became petitioners, rather than mobs, because they
still kept hope for help by the central government.
Beijing’s guidelines will only enhance the misdeeds of local
governments and turn petitioners into mobs.”
Li Xiangyang, human rights lawyer, Shandong: “A sound
petitioning system will be a buffer zone for conflicts, but still
will not solve the problem. None of the petitions will solve
the problem.
None of the petitioners to Beijing have skipped the local CCP.
They have tried and been through the local offices for years
before they turn to Beijing.”
Li Xuehui, Beijing activist: “Petitioning itself means the rule
of law has gone.
There is no so-called skipping the local authorities.
Many more of us have been fooled by this regime, and been
held back.
If the local authorities are capable of solving the problem,
would people bother to skip them?
These politics are basically deceptive.”
Another major detail of the guidelines is that the CCP will
not accept any petition involving lawsuits.
The guidelines will stick to the division between lawsuits and
complaints.
Any petition involving lawsuits will be diverted into the legal
system and ending its qualification for petitioning.
According to Shanghai petitioner Gu Guoping speaking to
Radio Free Asia, the judiciary system in China is subject to
regulation of the local authorities.
Legal channels and procedures are obscure. It is almost
impossible to win any lawsuit against officials.
Li Xiangyang: “They have diverted petitions relating to law to
the judiciary system.
The petitioners are diverted into various systems, and easier to
control.
If the judiciary system has been functioning, there would not
have been so many grievances and petitioners.
It is exactly because of the miscarriage of justice, that
endless lawsuits have occurred.”
For instance, in May 2011, collusion between police and
businessmen attempting to embezzle assets from a Linyi
citizen Yang Hailong’s company had Yang Hailong illegally
charged and sentenced to a year and a half in prison.
After his release, Yang Hailong commissioned attorney Li
Xiangyang to file a lawsuit.
Attorney Li Xiangyang has since undergone
a series of oppressions.
Local police had intervened in the witness report to the court
by issuing an arrest warrant for the witness.
Last August, attorney Li was charged by local police on
Alleged generating fictitious facts and disturbing public order.
Then he was detained for 10 days.
Beijing activist Li Xuehui was also abducted last October by
police for assisting activist Wang Xiuying to file a prosecution
case against the Ministry of Finance’s aid to North Korea.
Li Xuehui: “We have completely complied with the state
proceedings and what have we got out of it?
They just regulate the people.
An old lady is definitely petitioning over some serious issue.
They won’t solve it even it’s in the court.”
Founder of 64tianwang.com Huang Qi spoke to Radio Free
Asia, about his communication with petitioners over the
petition guidelines.
No one believes the courts will solve the grievances associated
with lawsuits, because of the corruption throughout the entire
judiciary and legal systems in China, as evidenced by the
endless lists of miscarriages of justice.
Huang Qi said that the petition reform guidelines are preparing
to defend against the massive number of petitioners expected
during the upcoming CCP parliament meetings.
Yu Jianrong, rural development researcher at the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences, wrote on his Weibo:
“Any effort to strengthen the petitioning system is to break the
law and to ruin the people and the country.”
He questioned the authorities:”Why bother setting up the
petition bureau in Beijing with officials to handle petitioners
if petition beyond the local authorities is not allowed?”
Interview/Zhangtianyu Edit/Chenjie Post-Production/Zhoutian
