Three mysteries which gather the cyanogen amine damages

Three mysteries which gather the cyanogen amine damages
On the 7th, Chinese dairy processing industry association and Chinese company of life insurance respond to " infant and pre-school children's milk power gathers cyanogen amine three times " for the first time Relevant query of the medical compensation fund of the incident. Association coherent to report, have 27 ten thousand persons of infant's parents get the damages already so far according to the intersection of Chinese and milk. But key problems such as the compensation for death,etc., there is no clear account in the milk association. It is reported, gather the cyanogen amine milk power incident and involve about 30 ten thousand children three times.
It is time to audit and get involved
Shu ShengXiang: Only ask a question of Chinese milk association: Wizened data these, why call as " the state secret " ,Still " propose the media and does not need the report " ? --It is that there is too much habitual Lenovo to the shady deal of the fund of public opinions on earth, what is Chinese milk association attempting to conceal all the time? In fact, the public's main query to the compensation fund of malicious milk power is two too: First, the fund is raised; Second, compensate and release.
Say first the damages are raised. As far back as January of 2009, Chinese milk association says the funds have already been all raised in place, a odd one is, just refuse to announce that raises credit to stop specifically in more than two years. CCTV finds, have fund of 7251 ten thousand yuan that can not find invstors at least after gathering information such as the listing enterprise's annual report, poisonous milk power compensate the foundation for, have " Cheat and provide funds " ? Come to see 9 again . The releasing of the lump-sum damages of 1 hundred million yuan, what the public needs to know is not that 27 ten thousand infants have already got, but release the damages in full, how much is sent to leave again how much? Why more than 20,000 people have not taken away compensating?
Chinese milk association announces a piece of general data briefly, just deal with the public opinion at most, but not respect the public right of being in know, certainly can't there is no convincingness to be clean from the card. Can't help growing out a terrible assumption: Is the compensation fund of poisonous milk power only the empty shell fund? It is time to get involved in the investigation in the auditing department!
Appeal for setting up " Permanent aid " System
Wang ChuanTao: Besides opaqueness, not open compensation way, let 27 ten thousand infant's parents' methods to at one time get the damages very worth discussing. According to the policy of those years, should include three respects to compensate for in making a definite diagnosis of the infant: First, bear the acute treatment expenses of infants; Second, offer infants lump-sum damages; Third, set up the medical compensation fund of infants. But the result carried out has been turned into " had already up to the end of 2010 2 7 1 8 6 9 Famous infant's parents have got the lump-sum damages " ,This is a bit sorry unavoidably.
As to " permanent aid " ,Japan has a very good model. In 1953, the poisonous milk power incident forever full of trees happened in Japan, the victim reached 1 3 4 2 6 People, the Japanese dairy products association is still offering the health to victim and treat and consult even to this day, full of trees over the past 35 years to pay the succour money of 410 hundred million Japanese yen totally forever. Comparatively speaking, 27 people Wan accept lump-sum method of compensation seem very careless. May well ask, does not three deer poisonous milk power have sequela? " mend the fold after the sheep have been stolen, it is not late " ,The milk association, and then reach funds to manage the square Chinese life insurance when can arrive from Ministry of Health, who is here " Mend the fold after the sheep have been stolen " (used at the end of a special alternative, or rhetorical question)?
|