Part One: "Tuhao" Guo Moumou and His "Sea Palace"

11. Stuck Between

Seeing the public's anger, fueled by some one-sided reports, growing fiercer, and still haunted by the disastrous crisis management during the first wave of public opinion, Guo still took the initiative to contact the media. Learning from the previous lesson, he issued a statement with a conciliatory tone: "Sea Palace" will open to the public on May 1, 2011, and all proceeds from its operations will be donated to the nation's marine environmental protection and scientific research efforts.

But Guo's voice was too weak, like a drop of water falling into a turbulent sea, leaving no trace of a ripple. On the other hand, facing public outcry and media condemnation, especially the "high attention" from higher-level government departments and leaders (mainly certain leaders of the Shenzhen and Longgang district governments), the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau found itself unable to defend its actions, as if jumping into the Yellow River could not wash it clean. Eventually, it fell into chaos, lost its footing, and in haste forgot the most basic procedural legality of administrative actions, sowing the seeds of administrative legal disputes.

On March 1, 2011, under the "strict orders" of higher-level government leaders, the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau issued three documents to Shenzhen Offshore Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. within a single day: the "Notice on Revoking the 'Reply Regarding Applications for Offshore Aquaculture, Fishing, and Other Certificates'", the "Decision on Revoking the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate'", and the "Notice on Ordering Restoration of the Sea Area to Its Original State". Each document was harsh in wording, ruthless, and merciless. The government department's attempt to quell public anger, demonstrate its innocence, and restore its image through extraordinary measures was evident (Figures 53, 54, 55).

Figure 53: A scanned copy of the "Notice on Revoking the 'Reply Regarding Applications for Offshore Aquaculture, Fishing, and Other Certificates'" issued by the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau to Shenzhen Offshore Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. (The circles and annotations were made by lawyer Wang Tengfeng during his preparation for the "Sea Palace" case).

Figure 54: A copy of the "Decision on Revoking the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate'" issued by the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau to Shenzhen Offshore Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd.

　Figure 55: A copy of the "Notice on Ordering Restoration of the Sea Area to Its Original State" issued by the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau to Shenzhen Offshore Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd.

Extended topic: Public opinion, law-based administration, and judicial independence.

In his *The Social Contract*, French Enlightenment thinker Rousseau first linked the Latin roots for "public" and "opinion" to coin a new term, expressing people's views on social or public affairs—namely, "public opinion" or "public sentiment." 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 mere accumulation of individual interests, lacking political practical significance, because the people are not always correct; they can be corrupted and deceived, so the will of all may result from accumulated biases or manipulation. In contrast, the general will refers to the agreements, covenants, and collective intentions formed when people first freely unite as a community. It is the "universal will" and the "organically united will," always just and always oriented toward the public good. Thus, Rousseau believed that among the public exists a truth—a will (or opinion) that truly benefits the public and enables them to make correct judgments. This will originates from the people yet transcends them.

Rousseau's theory of public opinion appears meticulous and rigorous, but the practical challenge in society is: how do we determine whether surging public opinion represents the correct general will or a biased will of all? After all, both the general will and the will of all are forms of public opinion, and both possess a "coercive force" surpassing that of law. Especially in the modern online environment, the "coercive force" of public opinion has been magnified 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, its immense "coercive force" can drive social progress; if it represents the will of all, compounded by irrational emotions and biases, its destructive power is terrifying. Under the pressure of overwhelming public opinion (so-called "popular will"), government departments may act unlawfully, and people's courts may fail to uphold the bottom line of judicial independence, leading to so-called "trial by public opinion."

The supervision of public opinion is a double-edged sword for both lawful government administration and fair judicial trials! Reassuringly, people have begun to value research on and proper handling of the dialectical relationship between public opinion, lawful administration, and judicial independence. During the compilation of this book, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the *Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Advancing the Rule of Law*. Part Four, titled "Ensuring Fair Justice and Enhancing Judicial Credibility," addresses the supervision of judicial activities by public opinion with the following wording: "Judicial organs should promptly respond to social concerns. Regulate media coverage of cases to prevent public opinion from affecting judicial fairness." A few dry sentences, yet they pinpoint the crux of the issue.

　　(待续)