Op-Ed Contributors

Forcible demolition vs. harmony

By Wang Cailiang (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-06-16 07:37

The onus to stop developers in their ugly design rests upon local governments and the judiciary

Demolitions have become a common phenomenon as urbanization intensifies across the world. But this phenomenon is different in China, where forced demolitions are becoming more like public power violating basic civil rights. Such acts have been widely criticized by the public and the media, though.

In his report to the National People's Congress (NPC) on Aug 24, 2007, the then minister of construction said the Urban Housing Demolition Management Regulation was contrary to the newly passed Property Rights Law and, hence, should be repealed. Four days later, the NPC Standing Committee accepted that the then existing demolition regulations were contrary to law and even the Constitution. That in a way marked the beginning of the post-demolition era in China.

Related readings:  Urban dwellers' dreams of rural life demolished  Farmer defends his turf with rockets  Villager builds cannon against demolition  Demolition to start for Maglev line, despite fears

In the three years since the Property Rights Law was promulgated, four distinct characteristics have emerged.

First, the debate on whether forcible demolitions violate the law and the Constitution has reached a conclusion. Today, all conscientious people agree that forced demolition is contrary to law, for it abuses public power and violates civil rights, and is thus against the principles of building a harmonious society.

Second, forced demolition has not stopped. In fact, just the opposite has happened: more forcible demolitions have been seen across the country. Economic development is only an excuse for such acts. Local officials are prompted to order or help forcible demolitions because they get them money.

Third, some local governments have actually taken active part in demolitions. The media have reported the enthusiasm with which some local officials have led demolitions.

And last but not least, the end of forcible demolition is still not within sight, and society's conscience is being challenged by too many tragedies, including deaths.

True, many high-rises have come up in the past few years. But they have been built at the cost of growing discontent among people. If the authorities want to see the political ideal of a harmonious society fructify then they have to stop forcible demolitions immediately.

Ending forcible demolitions should not be a tough task if the authorities want to protect people's interests with firmness and find the correct balance between government power and civil rights.

The most important step in this regard would be to eliminate the negative aspects of the 1991 and 2001 regulations on demolitions. But no new regulation has been drafted even two and half years after the NPC authorized the State Council, the country's Cabinet, to do so. This reflects the difficulty of striking the right balance among different interests.