[2] I once heard from the Master about great courage: Upon self-reflection, if one finds oneself in the wrong, even against a commoner, one should not intimidate. Upon self-reflection, if one finds oneself in the right, even against thousands, one goes forward. — *Mencius, Gongsun Chou I*

　　1. 引子

[3] The emotional response process of a social group is similar to that of an individual. When a person suppresses a negative emotion for too long, they will inevitably, consciously or unconsciously, find an opportunity to vent it. The process of violent venting is often destructive, potentially damaging one's own and others' property, and the person may become completely irrational, ignoring all advice until the venting subsides and they calm down, returning to reason. The forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" was essentially an outlet for the long-suppressed resentment of the wealthy and corrupt within society. At the time, there were some rational voices, but the agitated social group paid them no heed. Only after the demolition was completed, the venting over, and calm restored, did people gradually realize, as CCTV host Bai Yansong said, "In the demolition of the Sea Palace, there were no real winners!"

[4] But by then, it was too late. Years of effort were wasted, and investments of over a hundred million yuan went down the drain. Guo felt not only sorrow but also grievance, because he and his "Sea Palace" had nothing to do with corruption or power-for-money deals. Beyond that, Guo felt anger. The government departments, to protect themselves, disregarded proper administrative procedures, issuing three "death" orders on March 1, 2011, followed by several "death warrants" within the next month, and carrying out the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" on April 8, 2011. Such simple, brutal, and merciless actions were unacceptable to Guo as the administrative counterpart. Guo decided to take legal action to seek justice for himself and the "Sea Palace." On March 24, before the Longgang District Oceanic Administration issued the forced demolition order and ultimately applied for court enforcement, the Sea Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. filed an administrative lawsuit with the Shenzhen Longgang District People's Court.

The media also began publishing reports with rational reflection. Particularly notable was an article on April 12, 2011, in the *Southern Daily* (page AII04, "Shenzhen Observer · Livelihood"), headlined "Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Advisor: The 'Sea Palace' Case May Be Winnable." It reported that Guo Moumou had sued the Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Bureau (Oceanic Bureau) for administrative violations, and extensively cited Wang Tengfeng, director of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, who argued that Guo had a chance of winning.

Wang Tengfeng gave two reasons.

First, the Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau's reason for dismantling the "Sea Palace" was that it had never obtained a sea use permit, constituting illegal sea use. However, in reality, the "Sea Palace" side had never given up efforts to apply for a sea use permit, and its ultimate failure to obtain one was due to the lack of clarity in China's relevant laws. Shenzhen Mayor Xu Qin's statement during an interview at this year's National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, that "the 'Sea Palace' may have some unclear aspects in the application of relevant laws and regulations," also confirms this. According to Wang Tengfeng, the "Sea Palace," a large marine structure combining aquaculture and entertainment, was unprecedented in China and a novelty, so there was no precedent for how to treat and handle the "Sea Palace" issue, and China's existing marine regulations did not provide clear provisions. In other words, the legal status of the "Sea Palace" was neither recognized nor denied by law, making it difficult to determine whether its existence was legal or illegal.

Second, on the evening of March 2, 2011, the Shenzhen Oceanic Administration and Longgang District Government issued a notice stating that they had ordered the Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau to revoke the aquaculture permit it had improperly issued to the "Sea Palace" on March 1, meaning the former negated the latter's previous administrative action. In response, Wang Tengfeng stated that if the negation was correct, meaning the error lay with the Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, then it indeed constituted administrative illegality, and Guo's lawsuit was justified; if the negation was wrong, meaning the error lay with the Shenzhen Oceanic Administration and Longgang District Government, then they should return the aquaculture permit to Guo. And if both levels of government were wrong, it would mean the "Sea Palace" had become a victim of the two governments' mutual maintenance of administrative authority, which would garner public sympathy.

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's rational analysis of the "Sea Palace" as a novel entity and his precise grasp of the illegality of government administrative actions, compared to the hollow preaching of "money and power over law" by most legal professionals echoing media and public opinion in previous interviews, was so incisive and to the point, so unique and clear-cut, and so daring to defy the world! It was precisely this chivalrous sense of justice and responsibility of Wang Tengfeng, who would "go forward even if thousands oppose," that ultimately led to the brilliant collaboration between corporate artist Guo and litigation artist Wang, achieving the glory of the "Sea Palace" case.

Due to reporter Guo Biao's negligence, the title and text of the Southern Daily report mistakenly referred to lawyer Wang Tengfeng's position as "Legal Advisor to the Shenzhen Municipal Government," and combined with the article's clear opposition to government departments, it touched the sensitive nerves of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, which was already under scrutiny due to the "Sea Palace" case. Consequently, the Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office forced the Southern Daily to publish an article titled "Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office Spokesperson Responds to 'Sea Palace' Report: Wang Tengfeng Is Not a Municipal Government Legal Advisor" in the top position of the AII04 "Shenzhen Observation • Comprehensive" section on April 14, correcting the error in the previous report. However, the chosen title and style clearly revealed the government's intention to suppress a lawyer who dared to challenge it, sparking Wang Tengfeng's defamation lawsuit against the Shenzhen Municipal Government Legal Affairs Office and the Southern Daily. The case went through first instance, second instance, and retrial, dragging on for a long time—the stronger the government, the harder the rights defense, the more exciting the game! This is detailed in the third part of this book, so we will set it aside for now.

　　(待续)