"20 million grain funds were misappropriated." who smashed the gold-lettered signboard of grain storage?

Recently, a piece of news that "20 million yuan of grain is owed to thousands of farmers in Dingyuan County, Anhui Province" has received widespread attention. While the public is shocked, a series of questions about grain storage in the "national granary" follow: why are the grain funds earmarked as special funds in arrears? Where is the special fund that should have been paid at the same time as the grain is collected?

In the recent days of media reports, the truth seems to have emerged: China Grain Storage has paid off, but the money has not been paid directly to the sellers themselves, but into the accounts of local enterprises, Minsheng rice industry and brokers.

In fact, these "intermediaries" not only assume the responsibility of paying grain to farmers, but also "take care of" the self-collection links that should be borne by China Grain Storage. The problem lies in the "substitute labor"-Minsheng rice industry uses special grain funds to repay loans and cash flow, and the money that should be paid to grain sellers "disappears" inexplicably due to the enterprise's own turnover mistakes.

Although after the exposure of the above-mentioned "hidden rules of the industry", China stored Grain promptly responded that the incident was "due to the failure of the people's livelihood rice industry to pay in time", and that there was no phenomenon of "collecting grain and making white slips", it was not difficult to find that there were at least several controversial points in the operation of China stored Grain.

First of all, the funds for the purchase of grain reserves are guaranteed by the Agricultural Development Bank of China, and the grain collection process should be "self-collection, self-storage and self-management" according to the propaganda caliber of China Agricultural Development Bank. However, the reality is that grain storage has long been convenient, relying on third parties to carry out grain collection and settlement business with grain sellers. According to the owner of a rice factory in Dingyuan, Anhui Province, "medium grain storage is usually only for rice factories or large grain brokers." According to the regulations on Grain purchase (hereinafter referred to as the regulations) issued by China in 1998, "when purchasing grain, state-owned grain collection and storage enterprises shall immediately pay the grain sellers themselves, and shall not be in arrears." in the process of grain purchase, the stored grain obviously failed to achieve the provisions of "pay-as-you-go" and "personal experience".

Secondly, after entrusting rice mills and brokers to carry out the grain collection process, the stored grain seems to be too "at ease", resulting in loopholes in the regulatory blank that are imminent, directly affecting the interests of farmers. Article 7 of the regulations stipulates that the grain purchase funds of state-owned grain collection and storage enterprises shall be deposited exclusively in special accounts, and shall not be opened in multiple accounts or misappropriated in any form. In the "Bai Tiao incident" in Dingyuan County, Anhui Province, the funds paid to the people's livelihood rice industry and brokers were used to "engage in real estate", and the so-called "must not be squeezed or misappropriated in any form" has become empty talk. Extensive supervision has easily damaged the interests of ordinary farmers who "live on grain for a living".

It is worth noting that it is mentioned in many reports that the selection of grain collection brokers is mostly determined by the person in charge of the enterprise, find people they can trust, and let a small number of people control a large amount of grain money. These are precisely friends or relatives of grain enterprises or people with certain relationships, and the potential "industry tricks" and "abuse of power" turn a deaf ear to relevant regulations and process norms.

What is more worrying to the public is that operational loopholes and chaos like this may not be the only one, and the case in which Anhui Dingyuan has been exposed may only tear open the "hidden rules" of grain acquisition in our country. From the policy point of view, grain purchase is not lack of relevant regulations of supervision and punishment, but in the actual implementation process, due to artificial "moments do not follow", take advantage of policy loopholes inevitably make these rules "non-existent".

On another level, central enterprises such as China Grain Storage naturally form a "signboard effect" on ordinary people, and farmers should not expect to encounter the outcome of "recovery of purchase money" when they supply grain to enterprises with "Chinese prefix". The social responsibility that the central enterprises should bear is greatly reduced in front of the trust of the people.

There is an old Chinese saying that food serves the people, which is even more profound for the more than 900 million farmers who make a living by selling grain. No matter what the reason, China Grain Storage should not pass the buck to others in the process of grain purchase involving the vital interests of farmers. Preset risks, strict supervision and enforcement in accordance with the regulations are the missions and responsibilities that the "World Granary" should have undertaken.