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

[4] 10. Relentless Pursuit

[5] Although it was not the best outcome originally expected, Guo, who felt deeply wounded by the storm of public opinion, breathed a sigh of relief. His innovative masterpiece finally gained a legal status, and the seven to eight years of effort and substantial financial investment did not entirely go to waste. Unfortunately, good things are often fraught with difficulties. The "Sea Palace" had just begun trial operations and had not yet fully opened when it caught the media's attention again.

On February 22, 2011, the *Crystal Daily* published a report titled "Has the 'Sea Palace' Gained Legal Status?" pointing out that "since the forced dismantling in May last year, the 'Sea Palace' has been split into three parts, with the main section towed closer to the shore, the original racetrack gone, and the other two pieces scattered nearby, tightly secured with cables. The main building remains intact, along with its swimming pool, sculptures, wooden bridge, and plants, its luxury undiminished." Moreover, information from the reporter's on-site experience indicated that after the "Sea Palace" became famous, more and more tourists came out of admiration, and the boat rental prices in Dongshan Bay waters "rose as the tide lifted the boat," increasing from 40 yuan a year ago to 150 yuan (Figure 45).

On February 23, 2011, the *Crystal Daily* published another article, "Longgang Imposes Seven Rules on the 'Sea Palace'," citing the Longgang District Government's "Explanation on the Situation of the Sea Elite Entertainment Company's Marine Structures" released the previous day, detailing the dismantling, rectification, and the full story of how the "Sea Palace" gained legal status (Figure 46).

On February 24, 2011, the Xinhua News Agency's "Xinhua Viewpoint" column broadcast a long feature, "Reasonable Handling or Evading the Core Issue? — Tracking the Outcome of Shenzhen's 'Sea Palace' Disposal," pointing out that the "Sea Palace" was merely split into three parts and placed separately, with an added aquaculture cage of about 100 square meters, and thus strongly questioned the "Sea Palace" obtaining court documents and the "smooth regularization" of this once massive and luxurious illegal structure. The feature also included numerous photos showing the "Sea Palace" still as luxurious 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!

Figure 45: Page A08 of the *Crystal Daily* on February 22, 2011.

Figure 46: Page A13 of the Daily Sunshine, February 23, 2011.

Figure 47: One of the accompanying images for a long-form report on Xinhua Net.

Figure 48: One of the accompanying images for a long-form report on Xinhua Net.

Figure 49: One of the accompanying images for a long-form report on Xinhua Net.

Figure 50: One of the accompanying images for a long-form report on Xinhua Net, showing a copy of the aquaculture registration certificate presented by the "Sea Palace" side.

Figure 51: One of the accompanying images for a long-form report on Xinhua Net, where staff from the "Sea Palace" side show a reporter a copy of the approval document from the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau regarding the renovation plan for the "Sea Palace."

Figure 52: Page A16 of the *Crystal Daily* on February 25, 2011, prominently republished Xinhua News Agency reporters' questioning of the handling of the "Sea Palace" issue.

　　(待续)