Respected Presiding Judge and Judges:

[2] Attorney Wang Tengfeng of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, entrusted by Shenzhen Maritime Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd., provides legal aid services out of public spirit. Today, he attends the court trial at the Shenzhen Longgang District People's Court regarding the lawsuit filed by plaintiff Shenzhen Maritime Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. against the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau for illegal administrative actions (illegal demolition) and substantial compensation claims. To better distinguish right from wrong, correct misconceptions, defuse tensions, eliminate conflicts, and provide reference opinions for fair judicial adjudication, after repeated pre-trial investigations and legal research, the following agency opinion is submitted. We hope the court will consider and adopt it. This opinion is divided into three parts and takes approximately 40 minutes. Details are as follows:

　[3] I. Origin of the "Sea Palace" Illegal Administrative Dispute Lawsuit:

[4] Starting in 2003, a young entrepreneur Mr. Guo, a graduate of the Lu Xun Academy of Fine Arts and a former painter turned businessman, harbored the dream of developing exquisite marine structures with an artistic approach to ocean resources. After arduous journeys and painstaking investigations, he arrived at Dongshan Bay, Shenzhen—a coastal city of dreams. Creatively leveraging folk wisdom, he spontaneously used private capital to exploratorily develop idle shallow-sea resources. Through meticulous deliberation, repeated论证, hard work, and innovation, he invested nearly 100 million yuan, starting from a simple beachside wooden cabin over many years. With persistent effort and unwavering dedication, he finally created a dazzling complex of marine structures. Nominally, it is a "sea raft" (due to its structural origin from rafts), formally known internationally as a "floating island," now colloquially called the "Sea Palace" by the media. This popular name derives from its design and grandeur, highlighting Mr. Guo's creative wisdom and hard work in self-developing shallow-sea resources, yielding extraordinary results admired by the public and society. It is said that this luxurious raft (artificial floating island) boasts the world's highest cost-performance ratio for marine structures in terms of materials, design, and investment, integrating aquaculture, fishing, leisure, and sightseeing. Both exquisite and sturdy, it is a Shenzhen and world first. Yet, due to sensationalism by some media, resentment from the envious, ignorance of the masses, and misleading public opinion, management, under the pressure of a manipulated atmosphere, forcibly dismantled it to protect themselves, bringing it to the brink of extinction.

To protect their property rights, original invention, and social wealth, giving it a chance to benefit the country, society, and the public in the future, the plaintiff, after numerous unsuccessful efforts, finally resorted to legal action, hoping for legal protection to give life to the plaintiff's sea raft and floating island! This is the brief origin of the case.

　[5] II. Rights and Wrongs in the "Sea Palace" Illegal Administrative Dispute Lawsuit:

[6] Rights and wrongs are key to this case; legality and illegality are its core. Previously, widespread misunderstandings about this dispute have filled ears and eyes. Today, we must clarify and rectify these errors, reversing mistaken views! Regarding the litigation dispute, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau has shown the following misconceptions and erroneous practices in law enforcement:

1. Making the acquisition of a sea area use certificate a prerequisite for obtaining an aquaculture registration certificate:

2. China's "Sea Area Use Management Law" is the overarching specific specialized law governing the nationwide use of sea areas. Article 7 of this law clearly stipulates that "the fishery administrative department shall, in accordance with the 'Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China', supervise and manage marine fisheries," while Article 2 of China's "Fisheries Law" explicitly states that "any fishery production activities involving the cultivation and捕捞 of aquatic animals and plants in the internal waters, tidal flats, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and all other sea areas under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China must comply with this law." Article 11 provides that "the state shall make unified plans for the utilization of waters, determining waters and tidal flats that can be used for aquaculture... the people's government at the corresponding level shall issue aquaculture certificates, permitting the use of such waters and tidal flats for aquaculture, with specific measures for issuing aquaculture certificates to be prescribed by the State Council." Article 5 of the national "Measures for the Administration of Aquaculture Certificate Issuance" states that "the fishery administrative departments of local people's governments at or above the county level shall be responsible for the issuance and management of aquaculture certificates for waters and tidal flats within their jurisdiction..." Thus, the relevant laws are interlinked and clearly indicate that the fishery administrative department of the local people's government at or above the county level is the statutory authority responsible for issuing aquaculture permits, and once an aquaculture permit is obtained, it naturally confers the legal right to use the designated sea (water) areas for aquaculture, with no legal provision requiring the separate acquisition of a "sea area use certificate" as a prerequisite. Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff's aquaculture (fishing) activities in the designated sea area after obtaining the "aquaculture registration certificate" are entirely lawful. The argument by the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau that the plaintiff did not legally obtain the sea area use right is purely illegal and unreasonable. Moreover, the fact that over the past three decades, the Longgang District fishery department has only issued aquaculture registration certificates for the supervision and management of sea area aquaculture within its jurisdiction, without requiring a sea area use certificate as a prerequisite, is itself the strongest evidence, contradicting and refuting its own sophistry!

3. Exaggerating the luxury fishing raft as a "sea palace" and falsely accusing it of being an "illegal structure":

4. As is well known, thirty years ago, people went to barbershops for haircuts; today, people go to high-end hair salons, enjoying music, massages, and hair washing services while getting their hair cut. Thirty years ago, people went to bathhouses for bathing; today, people go to spa clubs for bathing, eating, drinking, and entertainment, enjoying a full range of star-level services. Thirty years ago, farmers planted rice by hand; today, farmers can use electronically controlled mechanized farming in modern agricultural estates. No one wishes to return to the primitive society of slash-and-burn cultivation. Why can't the plaintiff's luxury fishing raft be accepted? Although the plaintiff's fishing raft can be used for aquaculture and fishing, and its ancillary conditions are indeed luxurious, allowing full enjoyment of the natural marine scenery, this does not negate its essential nature and function as a fishing raft, nor does it lose its aquaculture and fishing functions! The luxurious and beautiful ancillary living quarters for the raft's caretakers, even if resembling a "palace," objectively cause no harm. It merely reflects social development and progress, which should be encouraged. As for the plaintiff's aquaculture and fishing raft, due to its exquisite and beautiful construction and pleasant scenery, frequent visits by guests for viewing are not illegal, as no national law prohibits guests from visiting and viewing anyone's fishing raft. Moreover, no illegal activities such as pornography, gambling, or drug use occur on the plaintiff's luxury fishing raft; only gatherings for viewing exist. People should not assume that the plaintiff's luxury fishing raft is illegal while others' simple rafts are legal. Such mechanical, narrow-minded, and outdated views contrary to historical development trends are erroneous! Envy and jealousy of the wealthy should not be supported by law and government!

5. Characterizing the revocation of the aquaculture registration certificate and fishing permit approval as self-correction rather than admitting to illegal administrative actions:

6. The facts fully demonstrate that on July 15, 2010, after repeated discussions, multiple coordination efforts, on-site inspections, and careful consideration, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau issued an approval explicitly agreeing that the plaintiff could operate the rectified fishing raft in the designated sea area for aquaculture and recreational fishing according to functional planning. On December 22, 2010, it issued another approval via Document Shen Long Nong Zi [2010] No. 144, agreeing to the plaintiff's aquaculture and recreational fishing activities. On December 25, 2010, it formally issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," permitting the plaintiff to operate legally. However, less than three months later, influenced by human factors, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau blatantly violated legal procedures, hastily issuing a notice and decision on March 1, 2011, arbitrarily and peremptorily revoking the plaintiff's legally obtained approvals for aquaculture and fishing, and illegally reclaiming the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate." This seriously violates Article 7 of China's "Administrative License Law" and Article 8, Item 5, and Article 31 of the "Administrative Penalty Law": any administrative decision must undergo statutory hearing procedures and must grant the affected party (the plaintiff) sufficient rights to defend and state their case in advance. Therefore, the administrative action of the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau on March 1, 2011, is clearly a new illegal administrative act and cannot be justified as "self-correction." Even if subjectively intended as "self-correction," it should still comply with the law and handle matters legally, rather than compounding errors. To "self-correct the previous error in issuing the certificate" while again violating national statutory procedural regulations and committing new errors is unacceptable! Administrative errors must be corrected!

4. Forcibly demolishing and calling it "legally restoring old punitive measures" while refusing to admit "illegally implementing new punitive measures"!

The Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau argued that the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" was a lawful enforcement measure based on the Administrative Penalty Decision No. 1 (2008) of Yue Shen Long Hai. It claimed this was a resumption and continuation of the previous administrative penalty decision. Such absurd reasoning clearly contradicts facts and violates the law. In fact, the defendant, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau, repeatedly admitted in court proceedings that Administrative Penalty Decision No. 1 (2008) of Yue Shen Long Hai had been executed and concluded by the Longgang District People's Court through Administrative Enforcement Ruling No. 78 (2009) of Shen Long Fa Xing Shen Zi, with the plaintiff paying a fine of 490,000 yuan to complete the execution. Despite knowing this fact, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau stubbornly denied the conclusion of enforcement and insisted on falsely claiming that this forced demolition was a resumption and continuation of Administrative Penalty Decision No. 1 (2008). If that were the case, the bureau should have legally applied to the Enforcement Division of the Longgang District People's Court to resume judicial enforcement. However, in reality, the bureau did not apply for such resumption and instead arbitrarily carried out the forced demolition on its own, without any legal basis. If this was a new punitive measure, the bureau failed to grant the affected party (the plaintiff) statutory rights such as the right to defense and statement, as required by China's Administrative Licensing Law and Administrative Penalty Law, making it even more illegal. Regardless of the rationale the defendant, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau, used for this forced demolition decision and action, it is clearly and seriously illegal, completely wrong, and should be corrected and penalized by the people's court in accordance with the law.

Appendix (I): Factual Evidence:

1. Document No. 66 (2007) of Shen Long Nong Zi, titled "Reply on the Application for Developing Offshore Leisure Fishery Projects," issued on June 11, 2007, by the defendant's predecessor, the Shenzhen Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Bureau. This indicates that the plaintiff's establishment of an offshore leisure fishing raft project was approved and actively guided by the defendant.

2. Document No. 25 (2009) of Shen Hai Han, titled "Reply on the Application of Shenzhen Offshore Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. for a Sea Area Use Certificate," issued on June 3, 2009, by the defendant's superior, the Shenzhen Oceanic Bureau. This shows that the defendant accepted and guided the plaintiff in applying for the relevant sea area use certificate.

3. Document No. 30 (2009) of Shen Hai Han, titled "Second Reply on the Issue of the Sea Area Use Certificate for Shenzhen Offshore Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd.," issued on July 3, 2009, by the defendant's superior, the Shenzhen Oceanic Bureau. This indicates that the defendant accepted and guided the plaintiff in applying for the relevant sea area use certificate.

4. On July 15, 2010, the defendant, Shenzhen Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, issued the "Reply on the Application of Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. for the Renovation of Removed Marine Structures." This document indicates that the defendant, after careful study, decided to legally permit the plaintiff to operate marine leisure projects such as aquaculture and fishing in designated sea areas.

5. On December 22, 2010, the defendant, Shenzhen Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, issued Document No. [2010]144, titled "Reply on the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing." This document shows that after careful study and on-site verification, the defendant approved the plaintiff to designate the disassembled floating islands as aquaculture rafts and leisure fishing rafts according to specific plans.

6. On December 25, 2010, the defendant, Shenzhen Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" with raft number D126. This demonstrates that the defendant acted lawfully and fulfilled its legal obligations.

7. On March 1, 2011, the defendant, Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, issued the "Notice on Revoking the Reply on the Application for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing," the "Decision on Revoking the Aquaculture Registration," and the "Notice on Ordering the Restoration of the Sea Area to Its Original State." These documents indicate that the defendant hastily made erroneous administrative decisions contrary to facts and laws, seriously infringing upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

8. On March 14, 2011, the defendant, Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, issued the "Notice on the Deadline for Returning Illegally Occupied Sea Areas and Restoring the Sea Area to Its Original State." This document shows that the defendant hastily made erroneous administrative decisions contrary to facts and laws, seriously infringing upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

9. On March 25, 2011, the defendant, Longgang District Oceanic Bureau, issued the "Notice on Forcibly Restoring the Sea Area to Its Original State." This document indicates that the defendant hastily made erroneous administrative decisions contrary to facts and laws, seriously infringing upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

10. The "Notice on Self-Handling of Demolished Building Components" issued by the defendant, Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, on March 28, 2011. This indicates that the defendant hastily made an erroneous administrative decision that contradicted the facts and violated the law, seriously infringing upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

11. Facts reported by Xinhua News Agency and other media on April 8, 2011, indicate that the defendant has carried out forced demolition. To date, all structures on the surface of the fishing raft platform have been completely removed, leaving only the fishing raft platform itself. Due to constraints in technical capabilities and environmental safety concerns, the defendant is still in the process of evaluating and planning for further forced demolition.

Appendix (II) Legal Basis:

1. Articles 2 and 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, which came into effect on October 1, 1990.

2. Articles 7, 15, 16, and 19 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of the Use of Sea Areas," which came into effect on January 1, 2002,

Provisions such as Articles 25, 31, and 43.

3. Provisions of Articles 2 and 8 of the "Measures for the Administration of Sea Area Use Certificates," promulgated and implemented on June 7, 2002.

4. Provisions of Articles 11 and 38 of the "Regulations of Guangdong Province on Fishery Management," implemented from September 1, 2003.

5. Article 7 of the "Administrative Licensing Law," implemented from July 1, 2004, stipulates that administrative licensing must follow legal procedures.

*6. Articles 3, 4, and 18 of the "Guangdong Province Artificial Reef Management Regulations," which came into effect on November 1, 2004.

*7. Provisions such as Article 26 of the "Guangdong Province Sea Area Use Management Regulations" implemented from March 1, 2007

8. Provisions of Articles 2 and 5 of the "Guangdong Province Recreational Fishery Management Trial Measures" issued and implemented on March 14, 2007

　　定

9. Provisions such as Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, and 14 of the "Longgang District Sea Fishing Raft Management Interim Regulations" implemented from February 11, 2009

10. Article 8, Item 5, and Article 31 of the "Administrative Penalty Law" implemented from August 27, 2009: Administrative decisions must follow legal procedures

11. Articles 2, 11, and 28 of the "Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China" amended on August 27, 2009

*12. Provisions such as Articles 5, 8, and 10 of the "Aquaculture License Issuance Management Measures" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2009

*13. The "Shenzhen Sea Structures Registration Interim Measures" implemented from March 1, 2010, and on March 3, 2011, the Shenzhen Planning and Land Resources Committee published a notice that all relevant rights holders can handle the registration of property rights for sea structures. Provisions such as Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 35.

III. The enlightening significance and aftermath handling of the "Sea Palace" illegal administrative litigation case

The above facts and laws have fully demonstrated that the luxury fishing raft, sea floating island, or so-called "Sea Palace" in this case can and should legally exist. The tragedy it faces today is inseparable from, in addition to the irresponsible misleading by some media and the siege formed by ignorant hatred of the rich among some people, the fragmented, disjointed, mechanical, narrow-minded, and conservative work styles of certain individuals in our relevant government functional departments, especially the defendant as a first-level administrative authority lacking a sense of responsibility, lacking a spirit of accountability, losing the courage to innovate, failing to seriously study and accurately grasp laws and regulations, resulting in administrative inaction and inadequate law enforcement, and being unable to effectively, flexibly, and proactively coordinate and handle complex issues and new things. This self-protective, mechanical, rigid, arbitrary, and even ultra vires administrative style has led to erroneous decisions, resulting in the demolition of the floating island and the destruction of wealth, which is regrettable. In this regard, Mr. Guo, under the pen name "Floating Island Child," wrote an article titled "The Lament of the Sea Palace," which fully recounts the tragedy of the floating island, leaving readers deeply moved. A young entrepreneur full of ideals, using his own intelligence and creative labor, invested his own huge funds to boldly explore and develop marine resources, making uncomplaining and active efforts to develop the marine economy and promote a strong maritime nation. His efforts objectively played a huge positive role in reclaiming land from the sea and advancing our country's coastal defense construction. This good deed has been subjected to blame and suppression in a difficult struggle between reason and misunderstanding, legality and illegality, support and opposition! Some people today may still be constrained by various objective limitations and unable to view it with detachment, but I believe that in the future, people will look back and reflect, regretting today's mistakes. If the sea floating island cannot become a monument standing on the sea, it will surely become a monument in the memory of those with a conscience! Regardless of people's attitudes, the creation of the sea floating island has already become a model for the efficient use of marine resources to develop the marine economy, making a huge positive contribution to strengthening our country's coastal defense construction! It has played a constructive role in the development, utilization, and management of our country's marine waters. We live in this hot land of Shenzhen, full of innovative spirit. While people sing about getting rich through reform and opening up, they should be highly vigilant: on one hand, they enjoy the rich fruits of reform and innovation; on the other hand, they may intentionally or unintentionally become stumbling blocks hindering the continued deepening of reform and exploration of innovation! I hope all relevant parties can think deeply and pay attention! I hope the defendant can be rational, calm, thoughtful, dare to take responsibility, have the courage, act in the interests of the country, society, and the people, regardless of temporary reputation gains or losses, and examine the dispute in this case with a highly responsible spirit, cherish and protect the social wealth of tens of millions to nearly one hundred million yuan, and not let it be destroyed by mechanical work styles, so that our Shenzhen coastal leisure tourism industry can have one more highlight, one more business card, one more industry, and one more new star. Because preserving the "Sea Floating Island" benefits the country, the people, and oneself:

First, preserving the "Sea Floating Island" benefits the country.

As early as 2001, our government clearly stated in the "National Marine Economic Development Plan Outline" that the state should vigorously advocate and encourage private capital to invest and develop coastal areas and develop characteristic tourism. Guangdong Province has been designated by the State Council as a national marine comprehensive development pilot zone, and Shenzhen also formulated the "Shenzhen Opinions on Accelerating the Development of the Marine Industry and Building a Strong Marine City" in 2008. Obviously, the "Sea Floating Island," a typical creative use of private wisdom and private capital to innovate and develop the marine economy, aligns with the industrial policy direction and marine economic development direction of national and regional governments. It can increase tax revenue for the national and local governments while not harming the territorial sea and air defense security of the area; on the contrary, the "Sea Floating Island" initiative is not only beneficial to the economy but also to national coastal defense, with significant positive value.

Second, preserving the "Sea Floating Island" benefits the surrounding social public.

The "Sea Floating Island," a coastal aquaculture, fishing, and leisure complex built on floating structures in adjacent seas, can beautify the coast, create distinctive coastal tourist attractions, and become a new growth point for the collective income of local fishing villages and individual fishermen, increasing revenue, driving new economic development in the surrounding coastal areas and even leading the entire Shenzhen coastal fishing and tourism industries, benefiting people's livelihoods. Since it is located in a coastal bay, after solving the problem of sewage discharge, it does not hinder other normal uses of the sea area or the marine ecological environment, nor does it affect the production and life of coastal fishing villagers. On the contrary, it can be fully developed into a comprehensive leisure fishery cultural and creative industrial park integrating fish farming, fishing, fish viewing, leisure, entertainment, seafood tasting, and seafood shopping, for comprehensive operation and series economic development, serving as a wonderful tourist attraction for Shenzhen citizens, benefiting society and the people!

Third, preserving the "Sea Floating Island" benefits the enterprise's own development.

The establishment of the "Floating Island on the Sea" is a bold breakthrough innovation and a beneficial attempt by private enterprise capital to seek new industrial directions and develop emerging industries. If the "Floating Island on the Sea" can continue to develop and mature, it will inevitably become a new industry (sector). In that case, private enterprise capital will not only find new ways to survive and develop but also create greater returns, promoting the continuous growth and expansion of private enterprises and private capital, adding new paths to national prosperity and the enrichment of the people!

In the 2010 Shenzhen Commercial Daily New Year editorial, the sixth piece titled "Let Dreams Become the Urban Character of Shenzhen" stated: "After taking office, Wang Rong, member of the Standing Committee of the Provincial Party Committee and acting mayor, immediately felt the unique character of Shenzhen. When introducing Shenzhen to others, he particularly likes to use this emotional word: dreams. When meeting with Alibaba's Ma Yun, he said: 'Shenzhen grew from nothing to something, from small to large, gathering so many talented people with dreams to work hard and start businesses here, precisely because it has an excellent environment for innovation and entrepreneurship. This is Shenzhen's greatest charm. Shenzhen is indeed a good place, and it will not disappoint entrepreneurs with dreams!' Clearly, what keeps this hot land of Shenzhen always vibrant is not the tangible policies and systems, but the intangible dreams. There is a term called the American Dream, meaning that people firmly believe they can achieve a better life through unremitting efforts in the United States. And Shenzhen is undoubtedly a place where people realize the Chinese Dream. It has always been the best city for talented people with ideals, drive, and a dislike for the constraints of old systems to realize their dreams. Shenzhen has an indescribable environment for innovation and entrepreneurship. The Shenzhen Special Economic Zone is 30 years old this year. Thirty years old is no longer a young age. However, as long as we make dreams the urban character of Shenzhen, our city will never grow old."

In summary, the agent hopes that the rhetoric in the editorial will not just remain on paper but will penetrate people's hearts and be implemented in every aspect of specific work. We should not examine and treat the "Floating Island on the Sea" in this case with a one-sided, narrow, outdated, mechanical, or short-sighted perspective, but rather with a flexible, forward-looking, and developmental view. To truly maintain social harmony, fairness, justice, progress, and development, effectively protect social wealth from unnecessary losses, efficiently utilize marine resources to develop the marine economy, enrich the people, and strengthen the country, a fair judgment should be made in this case, so that this hot land of Shenzhen will not leave regrets! Not lose people's hearts! No more criticism! Thank you!

　Agent: Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer

June 21 (24), 2011