Speech/Writing On August 26th, there was a new development regarding the claim of compensation for the elderly in Qidong, Hunan, who had been fermenting for several days: the deceased's family returned 19000 yuan in humanitarian compensation and apologized, and both sides signed a new witness letter.

Previously, an elderly man in his sixties was feeling unwell in the card hall he often visited. The shop owner helped him to the door and dialed 120. Unfortunately, the old man passed away. The family of the deceased believes that the death of the elderly is related to the handling of the shop owner and has requested a compensation of 100000 yuan. The relevant authorities determined that the shop owner was not responsible, and the two parties subsequently reached an agreement under the coordination of relevant departments, with the shop owner paying a humanitarian compensation of 19000 yuan. After the incident was exposed, public opinion focused on questioning: since the shop owner is not responsible, why do they still have to pay this money? Where is fairness and justice in this kind of conciliatory mediation?

At the time of public opinion fermentation, relevant departments have proposed to provide compensation subsidies to shop owners. This is no different from the second "reconciliation", rather than the correction of the wrong practices in the previous mediation: why use another amount of money to subsidize an expenditure that should not have been incurred?

Why did a dispute on the streets and alleys cause such a big public opinion wave? This is because what the public sees from this case is an irresponsible rescuer who almost paid the price for appeasing the situation. Now that the compensation has been refunded, the controversy has come to a temporary end. However, a public event cannot be corrected solely by public opinion, and a person's legitimate rights and interests should not be salvaged by public opinion. If a case can promote institutional improvement, it has achieved its greatest public value. As such, questioning and reflection should continue even after the storm has temporarily subsided.

Harmonious mediation cannot truly settle the matter. For a long time, this mediation method seems to have become a path dependence in some grassroots governance, regarded as a low-cost and effective dispute resolution method; However, in the era of social media, this approach is accelerating its failure. In the past, the impact of a dispute was often limited to a smaller scope; Nowadays, the events can be easily recorded and disseminated, and enter the public eye, and the relevant facts will also be re examined. The so-called settlement, if it breaks through the bottom line of justice, may face a backlash from public opinion.

Some people may ask: why is it not acceptable for the shop owner to voluntarily provide humanitarian compensation in order to quickly "turn the page" and take into account the well-being of the deceased and the feelings of the neighbors?

Of course there's no problem with that. However, is this a genuine voluntary decision made by the shop owner based on neighborly sentiments, or is it a compromise made after the intervention and coordination of public power to quickly resolve the dispute? If an irresponsible person can only exchange payment for the end of the matter, this "voluntariness" is worth questioning.

Of course, what is more worth examining is: why do some grassroots mediators easily slide towards appeasement? The original intention of establishing the mediation system is to flexibly resolve civil conflicts and reduce the burden of litigation. However, in reality, grassroots governance often bears the pressure of resolving conflicts as soon as possible and preventing the situation from escalating. Under such pressure, mediators are prone to slide into the role of mere matchmakers, with the primary goal of facilitating a "settlement agreement". But grassroots mediation should not only seek to settle disputes, but also clarify the basic facts and boundaries of responsibility. Compensation requests that lack basis should be discouraged, and the legitimate rights and interests of those who are not responsible should be supported. Only in this way can we not deviate from the core function of grassroots mediation in resolving disputes.

Every detail of public governance affects the public's understanding of the rule of law and shapes the values of society. Blindly mixing things up will only erode people's trust in the law, weaken their reverence for rules, and foster a safe haven society. When systems and rules fail to support innocence and goodwill in their implementation, people will rationally choose "self-protection". If everyone protects themselves and no one dares to act, society will become increasingly atomized, and each of us will live even more unsafe in indifference and isolation.

At present, our society has shown a tendency to avoid risks. It is difficult for elderly people to rent a house because landlords are afraid that sudden illnesses may affect themselves; Some schools restrict students from leaving the teaching building during breaks because they are afraid of disputes caused by students chasing, fighting, and getting injured; The doctor on the flight heard a call for help, but was hesitant about whether to come forward because he was afraid of being claimed compensation for the failure of rescue efforts; In an off-road race, volunteers guide participants on how to navigate through muddy and steep slopes, and colleagues also remind them: don't say too much, be careful of someone falling and blaming you.

This is definitely not the social landscape we want. Many connections between people are built on some thoughtless kindness: a reminder, taking the initiative to lend a hand, or providing a moment of care to a stranger are often not rational choices, but rather a momentary surge of goodwill. It is these good intentions that give society not just a gathering of strangers, but a warmth of community. Don't let the repeated muddiness extinguish these passionate moments.

(Author's Lament)