Public opinion cheers for a "victory" without a winner - The ultimate Revelation of the "Sea Palace" Case (Serial 14)
Part One: "Tuhao" Guo Moumou and His "Sea Palace"
13. Public opinion hails the 'victory' with no winner
The government department's 'six golden cards'—each one is a death sentence! It seems that the 'Palace on the Sea' cannot escape the fate of forced demolition. But the tenacious vitality of the 'Palace on the Sea'—is it something that can be decided by just the word 'demolish'? Let's hold off on revealing that for now. Readers, please look at 'The Ultimate Revelation of the 'Palace on the Sea' Case—Part Two: The Chivalrous Lawyer Wang Tengfeng Saves the 'Palace on the Sea'', and all will be revealed.
The 'Sea Palace' was forcibly demolished, which is an ending with no winners. However, shallow media that align with public sentiment still cheered this as a 'victory.' On April 9, 2011, 'Jing Bao' reported the news that the 'Sea Palace' was forcibly demolished the day before, accompanied by the editorial 'The Collapse of the 'Sea Palace' Confirms the Rule of Law Stands Tall' (Figures 59, 60, 61). The full text is as follows:
As a typical case with a significant social impact, the 'Sea Palace' has a certain exemplary value. In the struggle between illegal activities and law enforcement, enforcement must be stronger; in the struggle between rule of man and rule of law, the rule of law must prevail. In this multilateral game among capital, law enforcement agencies, and public opinion, the rule of law has become the ultimate winner, public opinion has received a strong response from public management departments, and the value of justice has been highlighted.
"The 'Sea Palace' has been forcibly demolished in accordance with the law starting yesterday, which means the suspense over whether this socially influential illegal offshore structure would remain or be removed has finally come to an end after multiple rounds of negotiations."
After the media reported on the illegal use of sea areas by the 'Sea Palace,' it attracted widespread attention. Relevant departments in Guangdong Province and the Shenzhen municipal government attached great importance to this. The Guangdong Provincial Marine and Fisheries Bureau established an investigation team to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the case. The investigation confirmed that the 'Sea Palace' structures occupied sea areas, did not comply with marine functional zoning, did not meet the conditions for sea use approval, and had not obtained a sea area use certificate. The provincial, municipal, and district-level marine authorities had never issued any approval for its sea use. The facts of the company's illegal occupation of the sea area are clear, and the evidence is conclusive. The Longgang District Marine Bureau of Shenzhen City lawfully applied to the Longgang District People's Court for enforcement.
However, the law enforcement process was not smooth. The 'Sea Palace' tried to break through indirectly, seeking ways to continue existing by obtaining aquaculture registration certificates and other means. This move once made the public worry whether the 'Sea Palace' would, like in the past, try another trick to escape accountability. When Jingbao first reported on the 'Sea Palace,' the owner of the illegal construction had once boldly declared that the likelihood of the 'Sea Palace' being demolished was as probable as the Earth colliding with the Moon. The fact that it is now being forcibly enforced shows that no one can stand above the law.
Under further media supervision, the Shenzhen court lived up to expectations: the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" of Guo Jingli, the legal representative of Haishang Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd., was revoked, and the company was ordered to either tow the offshore structure out of Shenzhen waters or dismantle it themselves to restore the original state of the sea area. Since the company had not complied, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Use of the Sea," the relevant authorities in Longgang District decided to carry out a lawful forced demolition and initiated the enforcement procedure yesterday. The demolition work will be conducted safely and orderly, minimizing secondary disasters such as pollution to the surrounding waters, and progress will be promptly announced to the public, with media and public oversight invited. All of this demonstrates that Shenzhen's functional departments have adhered to the law and procedural handling in dealing with the offshore palace issue, achieving openness and transparency.
Looking back at the twists and turns of this case, which lasted more than seven years from start to finish, it means that the game of struggle also continued for seven years. The 'Sea Palace,' as a typical case with significant social impact, holds certain exemplary value. Between the clash of lawbreaking and law enforcement, law enforcement must be made stronger; between the clash of rule by man and rule of law, the rule of law must prevail. In this multilateral game among capital, law enforcement agencies, and public opinion, the rule of law became the ultimate winner, public opinion received a strong response from public management departments, and the value of justice was affirmed.
The collapse of the 'Palace on the Sea' is the stand of the rule of law; the forcible demolition of the Palace on the Sea is precisely the forcible demolition of an act that challenges the rule of law. As Shenzhen enters a new thirty-year development process, during the 'Twelfth Five-Year Plan' period, there will be even greater emphasis on the quality and standard of development, and the requirements for the rule of law will inevitably be higher. The forced demolition of the 'Palace on the Sea' demonstrates the spirit of the rule of law and conveys to society the city's character of upholding the rule of law, which will undoubtedly further strengthen the citizens' confidence in the rule of law in Shenzhen.
This case also served as a lesson for enterprises on how to operate according to the law. The creator of 'Sea Palace' once took great pride in enjoying his masterpiece, but because of his disregard for regulations, he began construction and operation without obtaining legal permission. Regardless of its magnificence, his 'achievement' was destined to be fleeting and unprotected by law. This case once again illustrates that a market economy must be a rule-of-law economy, and that trust and fairness must be established through the rule of law.
Figure 59: Scanned image of the front page of Jingbao on April 9, 2011.
Figure 60: Scan of the A05 page of Jingbao on April 9, 2011.
Figure 61: Scan of the A02 page of Jingbao on April 9, 2011.
Extended Topic: Capitalists, Entrepreneurs, and Entrepreneurship
The term "capitalist" has faded from the commonly used vocabulary in our modern life, but in the minds of older Chinese people, traces of past ideological education, such as "capitalist," "exploitation," and "surplus value," still remain. This is because Karl Marx, the founder of socialist/communist theory, defined capitalists in his work "Capital" as those who own the means of production, occupy a dominant position in labor relations under the capitalist mode of production, control the entire production process, and live by exploiting the surplus value created by hired workers.
In fact, it is neither comprehensive nor objective for Marx to simply define capitalists as exploiters. According to the findings of modern institutional economics, the reason why the surplus value generated by a company's business activities is enjoyed by the business owner (capitalist), that is, the business owner holds the residual claim on the company, is that the owner ultimately bears the business risks of the entire company. To put it in plain terms, business operations may either make a profit (generate surplus value) or incur losses, and this risk is borne by the business owner (capitalist). Employees, on the other hand, receive fixed wages and do not bear the business risks. Even if the company goes bankrupt and is liquidated, the law requires that workers' wages be paid first; besides that, taxes owed to the state and claims of the company's creditors must also be satisfied before the business owner, who may end up losing everything. Matching returns with risks is a basic principle of modern financial management. Since the business owner assumes the main risk of the enterprise, they should have the right to enjoy the surplus value created by the company (modern finance prefers the concept of 'Economic Value Added').
Because in the past capitalists were always equated with exploiters, for a long time the word 'capitalist' in modern Chinese has had a very negative connotation. However, after the reform and opening up, Chinese people gradually abandoned the meaningless ideological debate of 'capitalist or socialist,' replaced the planned economy with a market economy, encouraged some people to 'get rich first,' and also replaced the term 'capitalist' with 'entrepreneur.' Many people among those who got rich first are 'entrepreneurs,' thus 'entrepreneur' gradually became a term with positive connotation. In the current context, entrepreneurs like Jack Ma, who replaced Li Ka-shing as Asia's richest person after Alibaba went public in the United States, have become national heroes admired by millions. Today, the country vigorously promotes innovation and entrepreneurship, and encouraging entrepreneurship essentially means encouraging people to become entrepreneurs! Entrepreneurs can solve their own employment problems, and once they succeed and become entrepreneurs, they can also solve employment problems for many others, thus creating wealth for themselves as well as for society.
The term 'entrepreneur' is borrowed from French, and its original meaning refers to 'a person who undertakes or organizes ventures with risk.' In modern enterprises, entrepreneurs are generally divided into two types: one is the owner-entrepreneur, who, as the owner, still engages in the operation and management of the business, effectively combining the roles of company shareholder and company executive; the other type is the professional entrepreneur employed by the owner. However, in most cases, 'entrepreneur' only refers to the first type, while the second type is called a professional manager.
Entrepreneurs become entrepreneurs because they possess a certain 'entrepreneurial spirit' (entrepreneurship). The soul of entrepreneurial spirit is innovation. In a fiercely competitive market environment, the greatest hidden danger for a company is the disappearance of the spirit of innovation. But innovation is not only 'the flash of genius'; it is also the result of the entrepreneur's hard work. Innovation can be said to be a typical characteristic of entrepreneurial activity. From product innovation to technological innovation, market innovation, and organizational innovation, innovation is everywhere in the business activities of successful companies. The essence of the spirit of innovation is 'doing different things, rather than doing things that have already been done a little better.' Therefore, entrepreneurs with an innovative spirit are more like passionate artists.
Apart from innovation, modern economists also habitually associate entrepreneurship with risk or uncertainty. Without the courage to take risks and bear responsibilities, it is impossible to become an entrepreneur. Looking at the growth history of well-known modern enterprises, Hewlett-Packard founded in Silicon Valley, USA in 1939, Sony founded in Tokyo, Japan in 1946, Acer founded in Taiwan in 1976, Lenovo and Haier founded in Beijing and Qingdao, China in 1984, and the legendary entrepreneur Jack Ma who led 17 people to establish Alibaba in 1999—although the growth environments, personal backgrounds, and entrepreneurial opportunities of these founders were all different, without exception, they dared to be pioneers and were the first to venture forth under extremely immature conditions and highly uncertain external environments. People often say that entrepreneurs (commonly known as bosses) work for themselves, while hiring workers (employees) work for others. Both are 'workers,' but the fundamental difference is that the former bears all the risks of the business, while the latter only needs to ensure that their own wages are secure.
The story of Guo and the 'Sea Palace' is a story of entrepreneurial innovation and risk-taking! However, the experiences of Guo and the 'Sea Palace' indicate that our society is still far from reaching a level where it can rationally view entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial activities. On the one hand, we superficially call for entrepreneurs, worship entrepreneurs, and envy entrepreneurs; but on the other hand, we do not pay enough attention to how to create a positive and healthy environment and mechanism for entrepreneurs to thrive, and our attitude towards entrepreneurs has not, in fact, gone beyond the realm of our ancient forebear Ye Gong, who professed love for dragons.
(First part serialized, to be continued)
