Part Two: Chivalrous Lawyer: Legal Rescue of the "Sea Palace"

[2] 9. Post-Trial Undercover Struggle

[3] The Administrative Procedure Law has been enacted and implemented for over twenty years, but the operation of the administrative litigation system has never achieved ideal results. One of the main reasons is the excessive strength of China's administrative power and the weakness and lack of basic independence of judicial power. Hamilton, a statesman from the founding period of the United States, once made a very incisive statement about judicial independence in "The Federalist Papers": "In the general nature of human beings, control over a person's livelihood equals control over their will. In any system where the financial resources of judicial personnel are placed at the mercy of the legislature, the separation of judicial and legislative powers will never be realized." This statement originally addressed the mutual independence of legislative and judicial powers in the U.S. separation of powers, but it is also very apt for the current issue of mutual independence between judicial and administrative powers in China. Under the current fiscal system, the personnel, finances, and materials of people's courts are directly controlled by local party and government departments, making it difficult for people's courts to exercise administrative litigation jurisdiction over local government departments. People's courts are reluctant to offend the government, so they are unwilling to accept "citizen suing official" cases; even when they do accept them, they rarely directly rule against government departments, preferring mediation or using delaying tactics of prolonged mediation without judgment to force plaintiffs to withdraw their lawsuits; even in the few cases where the defendant is ruled against, it is difficult to enforce the judgment against government departments. This is the root of the "difficulty in filing cases," "difficulty in adjudication," and "difficulty in enforcement" in administrative litigation.

[4] Lawyer Wang Tengfeng did not show the optimism that Guo Moumou did after the two court hearings, precisely because of his clear understanding of the current state of administrative litigation in China. What happened next confirmed Wang Tengfeng's concerns. With the cooperation of Zhang Guangbin, Wang Tengfeng had already completed the collection, organization, and submission of evidence for a 50 million yuan claim, but they waited in vain for a notice of a new court session, and repeated inquiries yielded no clear response from the court. Seeing the sea floating island, with most of its superstructure dismantled, floating desolately on the sea, battered by wind and rain, gradually becoming a desolate ruin, Guo Moumou's heart was also tormented. Meanwhile, the media's enthusiasm for the "Sea Palace" case gradually faded away.

[5] Two months later, instead of a court notice, Guo Moumou received an unusual invitation: Deputy Secretary-General Yu of the Shenzhen Municipal Committee wanted to meet him. It turned out that after joint research by the municipal and district courts, it was believed that the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau was likely to lose the case, and this was reported to the Political and Legal Affairs Committee. Worried about the adverse effects and potential risks of losing the case, the municipal committee specially sent Deputy Secretary-General Yu to handle the matter, asking him to personally discuss a solution with Guo Moumou. As a successful businessman, Guo Moumou was bold and daring in the business world, but he was also well aware that he could not easily offend the powerful Chinese government departments at all levels. Therefore, faced with the government's initial offer of a settlement, after a brief thought, he immediately stated: "As long as the floating island is not dismantled and is given a way to survive, I have no special requests!"

[6] After receiving this response from Guo Moumou, Deputy Secretary-General Yu promptly reported the matter to the relevant leaders. On the other side, lawyer Wang Tengfeng, who had been closely monitoring the litigation process, also received news from Guo Moumou at the first opportunity. Hearing Guo Moumou's "good news," Wang Tengfeng was silent for a long time. After hanging up the phone, he let out a long sigh. Since the government had begun to intervene, how could everything be so easily resolved?

Guo's magnanimity and tolerance did not bring "good returns" from the government department. The defendant, Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau, once again became tough, even attempting to completely destroy the "Sea Palace," which had existed for eight years, and eliminate any possibility of being thrust back into the public spotlight. Sensing the change in attitude, Guo came to realize the profound meaning of Wang Tengfeng's earlier silence. He sought help from lawyer Wang Tengfeng again, and Wang did not decline, instead using his superb strategic skills to help Guo win the final victory in the rights struggle. Such a fight for rights was not unfamiliar to Wang Tengfeng. Over the years, he had handled administrative cases across the country. Despite the varying levels of legal awareness among local governments, he always withstood pressure, relying on his exceptional legal skills, clever responses, and strategic maneuvering to ultimately uphold the fairness and justice of the law.

Seeing Wang Tengfeng's persistence for him, Guo was deeply moved and decided to mobilize his network once again, inviting industry experts nationwide to hold a high-level symposium for the "Sea Palace" case. This aimed to provide theoretical support for a favorable verdict, pressure the government, and complement Wang Tengfeng's legal actions. However, despite his efforts to contact influential legal experts, they all declined due to the previous media storm surrounding the "Sea Palace" and concerns about the defendant's background as the Shenzhen municipal government. The symposium thus fell through. Disheartened by this outcome, Guo felt discouraged. After a long silence, Wang Tengfeng said firmly, "I believe the law is just!" His resilience gave Guo the courage to continue the fight, and their hands clasped tightly together. Indeed, participating in administrative litigation and openly opposing the government requires courage and a chivalrous spirit. Many renowned experts, scholars, or lawyers, when faced with direct confrontation in court, often hesitate, waver, or even retreat. This is a normal human reaction, understandable given the deep-rooted influence of "officialdom" in China's social environment, where challenging government authority carries significant risks. As detailed in Part Three of this book, Wang Tengfeng faced severe suppression from the Shenzhen government merely for expressing views unfavorable to the government in the media regarding the "Sea Palace" case, leading to a defamation lawsuit filed by Wang against the Shenzhen Municipal Government's Legal Affairs Office.

Facing the delayed court hearing and verdict, Wang Tengfeng withstood external pressure and, following legal procedures, repeatedly sent letters to the court urging a prompt and fair judgment. Their persistence finally paid off. At the end of 2011, the vice president of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court met with both Guo and Wang Tengfeng, attempting an in-depth "discussion" about the "Sea Palace" case. The vice president, clearly well-prepared, probed multiple times into the plaintiff's weaknesses and deficiencies from the first two trials, but Wang Tengfeng rebutted each point with solid evidence and sharp arguments. After several attempts, the vice president had to give up. At that time, the court could not rule against the government, nor did it dare to hastily rule against the plaintiff, so it resorted to the common tactic in administrative litigation of "delaying," hoping to wait for a change or let the matter fade away.

We title this section "Post-Trial Covert Struggles." Readers may wonder why there are no scenes of rooftop chases or flashing blades, or why they cannot feel Wang Tengfeng's chivalrous spirit and unique skills. Then read a blog post publicly published by Wang Tengfeng on February 6, 2012, in which he directly challenged the then Longgang District Mayor Jiang Jianjun by name over the "Sea Palace" case. Can you not see Wang Tengfeng's heroic spirit and chivalrous sense of justice, daring to "pull the emperor off his horse" to uphold the rule of law and fairness?

This is the original quote from Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress representative Jiang Jianjun, cited in a report on page A8 of the *Crystal Daily* on January 12, 2012, during a discussion by Shenzhen municipal representatives:

"An incident occurred in Longgang: the Sea Palace. When we dealt with it, the problem was very prominent. The other party exerted pressure through certain media. During our meeting, we said that the court should adjudicate according to the law, but it must consider the impact and consequences of the verdict—if such illegal acts can receive legal support, that is a tragedy for the law; if anyone can build illegal sea structures and the court supports it, then we are no longer a people's court, and everyone will build illegal structures at sea in the future. The court is not a place for anyone to play legal tricks or engage in strategic games; it represents social fairness and justice. This must be truly grasped and implemented to ensure the healthy and harmonious development of society."

— Yesterday, Jiang Jianjun, a municipal people's congress representative and the mayor of Longgang District, shared his views on the court's fair handling of the "Sea Palace" case during a group discussion.

Figure 88: Scan of page A8 of the *Crystal News* dated January 12, 2012, with Jiang Jianjun's congressional remarks highlighted in a red rectangle.

Clearly, Jiang Jianjun, the municipal people's congress representative and mayor of Longgang District, like many ordinary Chinese people we mentioned earlier in the "Extended Topic," does not know or understand the basic principle that administrative litigation only reviews the defendant (government departments), not the plaintiff (administrative counterpart)!

This is the original text of lawyer Wang Tengfeng's blog post:

The "Sea Palace" case must not allow local government interference in judicial trials.

— Refuting the fallacy of Jiang Jianjun, the Shenzhen municipal people's congress representative and Longgang District mayor.

According to media reports, at the Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress before the Spring Festival, Longgang District Mayor Jiang Jianjun openly stated during a group discussion on the court's impartial handling of the "Sea Palace" case, "When we discussed it in meetings, we said the court should adjudicate according to the law, but it must consider the impact and consequences after the verdict... The court is not a place for anyone to use legal tactics to play games; it represents social fairness and justice. This must be truly grasped to ensure healthy and harmonious social development." As the plaintiff's attorney in the "Sea Palace" case, a friend reminded me to review the mayor's remarks. At first glance, I was stunned, then amazed. Although the mayor's remarks falsely claim fairness and justice, they are actually permeated with two words: "legal illiteracy," and fundamentally exude hegemony and arrogance!

Let's briefly analyze Mayor Jiang Jianjun's rhetoric to see it clearly:

First, Mayor Jiang said, "When we discussed it in meetings, we said..." Right from the start, the mayor openly revealed the inside story of using power to interfere with the law and suppress it! How the court impartially handles the "Sea Palace" case is entirely the independent judicial power of the Longgang District People's Court. How can the chief executive of the district government discuss and decide the rights and wrongs of the "Sea Palace" case above the court?! This is not only absurd and laughable, but also openly admits that the authorities intend to bully the people with power, showing a lawless arrogance that treats the law as a plaything!

Second, Mayor Jiang said, "The court should adjudicate according to the law, but it must consider the impact and consequences after the verdict." This statement not only contradicts itself but, more importantly, fundamentally denies the sacred duty of the court to adjudicate according to the law. Since the court should adjudicate according to the law, why is there a "but must consider the impact and consequences after the verdict" to coerce and restrict the court's lawful adjudication?! If the court adjudicates according to the law, its lawful verdict is supreme and should never be swayed by anyone's likes or dislikes. Regardless of the impact and consequences of the verdict, as long as it is a correct conclusion of lawful justice, it should be fearless! Thus, it is clear that the core of Mayor Jiang's remarks is not to support the court's lawful adjudication, but to demand that the court fully consider the face and feelings of the mayor and others—unwilling to bear the consequences and impact of a possible defeat due to illegal administration! This faintly reveals a despair and resentment at not being able to accept a losing verdict!

As a professional legal worker, I believe that the fairness and justice of the rule of law are fundamentally reflected in judicial fairness and justice, and first and foremost in the fairness and justice of legal procedures. This is the universally recognized "kingly principle." As an administrative lawsuit of "people suing officials," the "Sea Palace" case is adjudicated by the people's court through standard judicial procedures. Regardless of whether the outcome is satisfactory, any party can only protect their rights through legal procedures and should never resort to illegal means, including officials using their strong position and official channels to illegally interfere with the court's justice. As a district mayor, Jiang Jianjun should abide by the law, not use power to interfere with it, make high-profile statements, exert illegal pressure, and affect the normal judicial work of the district's people's court. As a people's congress representative, Jiang Jianjun should know and abide by the law, not display legal illiteracy, and make erroneous remarks at the people's congress that show ignorance of the law, use power to suppress it, and attempt to influence the normal judicial work of the district's people's court!

Third, Mayor Jiang said, "The court is not a place for anyone to use legal tactics to play games; it represents social fairness and justice. This must be truly grasped to ensure healthy and harmonious social development." This directive-like statement from Mayor Jiang reveals ignorance and disrespect for the law. The court is indeed a legal venue for legal workers to use the law (including legal tactics) to engage in games, as clearly defined in numerous written documents from the Constitution down to procedural laws of various departments. The court is absolutely not a place for legal illiterates to use crude force to play games, nor should it become a place for certain privileged individuals to use power to interfere with the law and bully the people! It must be a venue for upholding fairness and justice through legal games of right and wrong!

Based on the above analysis, it is not difficult to see the real internal reasons why the "Sea Palace" case has been delayed for so long after trial. From this, it can also be seen that the defendant's administrative illegal errors in the "Sea Palace" case are inescapable under the law! For this reason, people are fortunate to hear the district chief's unlawful outcry.

As a legal worker with decades of experience, I deeply believe that in a rule-of-law society and a civil society, no one, whether an official or a citizen, has the right to be above the law: whether using power to suppress the law or using money to bully the law, everyone must strictly abide by the law, and all right and wrong must be determined through fair and independent judicial trials according to legal procedures. We can carefully and diligently use legal knowledge and skills to discern right from wrong, but we must never casually manipulate the law with power and money! Using the law with precision and dedication is a sign of professionalism, while vulgar and humanized manipulation of the law is a desecration of the rule of law!

I sincerely urge District Chief Jiang and others to calm down, lower their pride, return to the path of the rule of law, and await a fair judicial trial: If the "Sea Palace" case is indeed a case of administrative illegal conduct by the government leading to a loss in court, they should show magnanimity, reflect on themselves, have the courage to take responsibility, promptly correct and improve the standardized behavior of various government departments, strive to avoid future violations of the law, and reduce mistakes. Only then can they live up to the identity of local government officials of the people's government; only then can they meet the qualifications of a people's congress representative. I hope that in the future, government officials and people's congress representatives will have fewer legal illiterates and more law-abiding individuals. Only in this way can we truly and efficiently ensure the healthy and harmonious development of society!

　　(待续)