What's wrong with this lawyer?! Chapter 695

Chapter 695: Chapter 220: If it wasn’t for you, how could I possibly get eliminated!

Chapter 695: Chapter 220: If it wasn’t for you, how could I possibly get eliminated!

Ding Yongqiang was really about to break down now.

He could never have dread that the civil service job he had worked so hard to pass would be affected by his dad’s issues!

The key point was that he didn’t even know what was going on with his dad.

How could a seemingly fine village chief suddenly beco a criminal suspect out of nowhere?

Moreover, many people online say that they no longer practice guilt by association.

...

So why are they saying now that his dad’s suspicion affects his political review?

Ding Yongqiang refused to accept it, and the person on the phone didn’t offer much explanation.

These matters can be explained over the phone in so places, but no matter how it’s explained, there will always be written docuntation in the end.

Every inspection has soone responsible who signs off on it, accountability is personal, after all, the work of organizational personnel is extrely important.

After hanging up the phone, Ding Yongqiang’s face was pallid.

It took him a full five years, what with the national exams, provincial exams, and various institution exams.

He had worked hard for five whole years, and had only just managed to pass.

And this wasn’t just any position, it was a police post in the Capital!

Because it was the police position, he even had to undergo physical testing, but who would have thought that a problem would arise at the political review phase, which should have been the least problematic?

Ding Yongqiang couldn’t understand.

He couldn’t fathom why his dad’s issues could affect his political review.

Wasn’t this nearly the sa as the ancient practice of collective punishnt?

Wasn’t it said that the rule of law was making progress?

In fact, many people are not very clear about whether having a direct family mber with a criminal record affects the political review.

It really is quite complex.

The legal provisions include “The Civil Servant Law,” “Regulations for the Inspection of Civil Servant Recruitnt,” and for public security positions, the “Provisions for the Political Inspection Work of Recruiting People’s Policen.”

Specific regulations for the inspection of direct family mbers are clearly stated in both “Regulations for the Inspection of Civil Servant Recruitnt” and “Provisions for Inspecting People’s Policen.”

Simply put, whether direct relatives like parents or spouses having a criminal record or suspicion thereof affects the political review depends on three factors: the position, the cri, and the region.

First, the position.

For instance, central ministries or certain sensitive positions, if you look closely, you will find that their recruitnt notices clearly state that these posts are subject to differential political inspection.

What does differential political inspection an?

In plain terms, it ans they use the political review process to continue to weed out candidates, choosing the best of the best.

In such a scenario, if two people both make it to the review phase, and one has a direct family mber or a significantly influential relative with a record of theft, gambling, prostitution, etc., having been administratively detained, while the other is entirely clean, you tell who would be chosen.

Then there are the judiciary, prosecution, and law enforcent positions that many people often overlook.

Recruitnt for these posts is much stricter than for ordinary positions.

When we say that there is no longer guilt by association, we’re generally talking about ordinary positions.

These mostly just check the individual themselves unless a direct family mber is currently in prison or the cri is particularly unusual.

In general, there should be no issues.

Second, the cri.

This gets interesting because not all cris are equal.

For certain offenses, if your direct family mber or a significant influencer relative is involved, you can be sure you won’t pass the political review.

For example, if your direct family includes individuals involved in violent terrorism, cults, separatism, organized cri, or endangering state security, then you can forget about entering public service; you’re guaranteed not to pass the review—you can be completely at ease about that.

For the judiciary, prosecution, and law enforcent, it’s even more stringent.

The “eight major cris,” which include arson and murder, as well as corruption and bribery involving large amounts, if punished criminally, or any cris with substantial social impact, also won’t make it through.

Third, the region.

The strictness of political reviews varies by location.

In places like the Capital or Shenzhen, the scrutiny is much stricter than elsewhere.

Similarly, regardless of which law we’re talking about, there are always catch-all clauses.

For example, in “Provisions for Inspecting People’s Policen,” Article 9 stipulates that if a family mber of the person being inspected falls under any of the following conditions, the individual shall not be confird as a prospective candidate.

Clause four of that article states: “Other circumstances that might affect the inspected person’s ability to perform their duties legally and impartially after employnt.”

So that is to say, the political review actually depends on the specifics of the case.

If you encounter a dominating unit or a powerful leader who thinks there’s an issue with you, then you won’t pass regardless—you won’t get through, and there are not a few extre examples of this.

This is also why there are all sorts of examples on the internet, like “My relative committed a cri, and I was eliminated in the political review,” or “My dad committed a cri, but I made it through.”

Why are there catch-all clauses?

Because no matter how detailed regulations are, they have to be applied to specific situations.

Take, for example, the suspicion of a cri being investigated—that’s completely different from a re suspicion.

But you can’t straight up say there has to be a conviction; that certainly wouldn’t work.

Why wouldn’t it work?

Let’s take an example.

Qu Wan Ting’s mother was subjected to criminal coercive asures in 2014, but it wasn’t until 2021 that she received a life sentence on first trial, with the second trial upholding the sentence in 2022.

So, between 2014 and 2021, if Qu Wan Ting were to apply for a public service position, could she pass the political review?

Definitely not.

But at that ti, her mother hadn’t been sentenced, right?

Therefore, just like case handling, the work of political inspection requires specific analysis of each situation.

What’s discussed online gives a general direction, but in the actual work, the hiring unit has a great deal of autonomy.