Recently, a ridiculous incident occurred along the Huangpu River in Shanghai, where a group of people were running along the river wearing uniform T-shirts, but were stopped by security guards on the grounds that they "need to report in advance". The reason for the incident is very simple, several company colleagues are running by the river, and they are all wearing T-shirts printed by the company.
Loading...
A security guard suddenly stepped forward to stop them, citing that their "uniform attire" was an organized activity and needed to be reported in advance. The security guard's logic is incomprehensible: One person can run in this T-shirt, but not a group of people? Even when buying clothes, you must be careful not to "collide" with others? This "rule" is too far-fetched.
The runners were obviously also confused, they were just colleagues in the company, and the T-shirts issued by the company happened to be the same, so how could it become an "illegal assembly"? They asked the security guards, is such a rule reasonable? The runners had some arguments with the security guards, and the security guards took a tough attitude, and the runners had no choice but to leave.
This has sparked a lot of discussion. It is true that the security guards have mishandled the situation, but we also have to understand that they are only the enforcers of the regulations. The real problem, then, is that some of the provisions themselves are problematic with their reasonableness. For example, "uniform dress" is simply equated with "organized", which in some cases is indeed whimsical.
In reality, many people will inadvertently "bump into the shirt", and there is no "organized" intention at all. For example, "reporting in advance" is too broad, and what activities need to be reported and what are the criteria for reporting? This kind of provision leaves too much room for discretion. Obviously, there are loopholes in these provisions, which can easily lead to unnecessary trouble in their implementation.
They are poorly defined and have inconsistent standards, leaving too many grey areas. Rigid and broad regulations not only easily lead to misunderstanding and arbitrariness on the enforcement side, but also increase the risk of violations by the public and affect normal life. It is necessary to establish the concept of "regulations for the people". Any regulation should serve the masses of the people, not put obstacles in their way.
Regulations also need to be progressive and open, and normal life cannot be defined as a "violation". For example, it is indeed difficult to simply equate uniform dress code with "illegal assembly", and it should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and cannot be generalized. The implementation of the regulations also requires clear standards and does not leave much room for discretion.
Enforcement staff need to be trained to understand the true intent of the regulations and prevent undue restrictions on ordinary citizens. In the face of unreasonable regulations, the public should also express their opinions rationally, actively communicate with relevant departments, and jointly promote the progress of the formulation and implementation of regulations. While safeguarding the public interest, it also respects the reasonable needs of ordinary citizens.
The relevant authorities should continue their efforts to make the provisions more reasonable, clear and humane. We will make enforcement more fair and enlightened, take into account public safety and the rights and interests of ordinary people to the greatest extent, and jointly build a reassuring social environment.