"Palace on the Sea" Under Relentless Pursuit Again — The Ultimate Revelation of the "Palace on the Sea" Case (Part 11 of the Series)
[4] 10. Relentless Pursuit
Although it was not the best outcome originally expected, Guo, who felt deeply hurt by the public opinion storm, still breathed a sigh of relief. His innovative masterpiece had finally gained a legal identity, and after seven or eight years of painstaking effort and enormous capital investment, it had not completely gone down the drain. Unfortunately, good things never come easy—just as the "Sea Palace" began trial operations and before it was fully open to the public, it caught the attention of the media once again.
On February 22, 2011, the Crystal Daily published a report titled "The 'Sea Palace' Acquires Legal Status?" stating that "since the forced dismantling in May of last year, the 'Sea Palace' has been split into three parts. The main section was towed closer to the shore, the original racecourse has disappeared, and the other two sections are scattered nearby, firmly secured with cables. The main building remains intact, with its swimming pool, sculptures, wooden bridge, and plants preserved, and its luxurious grandeur undiminished." Moreover, information obtained by reporters through on-site experience indicates that after the "Sea Palace" became famous, more and more tourists came to visit, and the boat rental prices in Dongshan Bay waters also "rose with the tide," increasing from 40 yuan a year ago to 150 yuan (Figure 45).
On February 23, 2011, the Crystal Daily published an article titled "Longgang Imposes Seven Rules on the 'Sea Palace'," citing the Longgang District Government's "Explanation Concerning the Offshore Structures of Sea Elite Entertainment Company" released the previous day, which provided a detailed account of the dismantling, rectification, and the sequence of events leading to the legal status of the "Sea Palace" (Figure 46).
On February 24, 2011, the "Xinhua Viewpoint" column of Xinhua News Agency broadcast a long-form report titled "Proper Disposal or Sidestepping the Issue? — Follow-up on the Disposal of Shenzhen's 'Sea Palace'", pointing out that the "Sea Palace" had merely been split into three sections and placed separately, with the addition of around 100 square meters of aquaculture net cages. The report strongly questioned how the "Sea Palace" had obtained court-issued documentation and how this once grand and luxurious illegal structure had been "smoothly legalized." The report was accompanied by numerous photographs showing that the "Sea Palace" remained as opulent and extravagant as ever (Figures 47-51).
On February 25, 2011, the *Crystal Daily* reprinted Xinhua's questions in detail (Figure 52).
Xinhua Net's questions once again ignited public anger, and the storm of public opinion returned!
(To be continued)
