The "Sea Palace" at a Loss — Ultimate Revelation of the "Sea Palace" Case (Serial 12)
11. Stuck Between
Watching the public anger grow fiercer under the instigation of some one-sided reports, although still haunted by the disastrous failure of crisis management during the first wave of public opinion, Guo still proactively contacted the media and, learning from the last lesson, issued a statement with an appeasing and ingratiating tone: "Sea Palace" would open to the public on May 1, 2011, and at that time, all business revenue would be donated to support the country's marine environmental protection and scientific research endeavors.
But Guo's voice alone was too faint, like a single drop of water falling into a surging ocean, leaving no trace of a ripple. On the other hand, facing public outcry and media condemnation, especially the "heightened attention" from higher-level government departments and leaders (mainly certain leaders at the Shenzhen municipal and Longgang district levels), the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau found itself in an indefensible position, unable to clear its name no matter what, and ultimately fell into complete disarray, losing its footing and, in its haste, forgetting the most basic requirement of procedural legality in administrative actions—thereby sowing the seeds of administrative legal disputes.
On March 1, 2011, under the "strict orders" of superior government leaders, the Ocean Bureau of Longgang District issued three documents to Shenzhen Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. within a single day: the "Notice of Revocation of the 'Reply Regarding the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, and Related Activities'", the "Decision on Revocation of the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate'", and the "Notice Ordering the Restoration of the Sea Area to Its Original State". Every document was harshly worded, dealing a fatal blow without any mercy. The government's intent to quell public outrage, demonstrate its own innocence, and restore its image through extraordinary measures was readily apparent (Figures 53, 54, 55).
Extended topic: Public opinion, law-based administration, and judicial independence.
French Enlightenment thinker Rousseau, in his *The Social Contract*, was the first to combine the two Latin roots for "public" and "opinion" to coin a new term, used to express people's opinions on social or public affairs, namely "public opinion" or "the public will." He fully affirmed the immense power of public opinion, believing it to be even more coercive than law. Rousseau also divided public opinion into the general will and the will of all. The will of all is a simple accumulation of individual interest demands and has no practical political significance, because the people's deliberations are not always correct; the people can also be corrupted and deceived. Therefore, the will of all may be the result of accumulated prejudices or of manipulation by others. The general will, by contrast, refers to the agreement, covenant, and collective intention by which people originally and freely formed themselves into a community. It is the "universal will" and the "organically united will," always just, and always oriented toward the public interest. From this, it can be seen that Rousseau believed that among the public there exists a truth, a will (or public opinion) that is truly beneficial to the public and enables the public to make correct judgments. This will originates from the people, yet stands above the people.
Rousseau's theory on public opinion appears rigorous and meticulous, but the practical challenge in social implementation is: how do we determine whether the surging public opinion represents the correct general will or a biased will of all? It must be noted that whether it is the general will or the will of all, both constitute public opinion, and both possess a "coercive force" that surpasses the law—especially in the modern online environment, where the "coercive force" of public opinion has been amplified exponentially. In recent years, the handling of many public events and legal cases has been greatly influenced by public opinion. If public opinion represents the correct general will, then its immense "coercive force" will drive social progress; if public opinion represents the will of all, compounded by irrational emotions and prejudice, then its destructive power is terrifying. Under the pressure of surging public opinion (the so-called "popular sentiment"), government agencies may engage in unlawful administration, and people's courts may fail to uphold the bottom line of judicial independence, giving rise to the so-called "trial by public opinion."
Public opinion supervision is a double-edged sword for both the government's law-based administration and the courts' impartial adjudication. Reassuringly, people have begun to attach importance to studying and correctly handling the dialectical relationship between public opinion on the one hand and law-based administration and judicial independence on the other. During the compilation of this book, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China adopted the "Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Advancing the Rule of Law," in which the fourth part, titled "Ensuring Impartial Justice and Enhancing Judicial Credibility," used the following wording when discussing the supervision of judicial activities by public opinion: "Judicial organs should promptly respond to social concerns. Regulate media coverage of cases to prevent public opinion from affecting judicial fairness." A few dry words, yet they pinpoint the crux of the issue.
(To be continued)
