[4] The main floating island of the "Sea Palace" (2010). I. Case Background: Nanao Dongshan Bay in Longgang District, Shenzhen, has long been a breeding area for local fishermen, where generations have built fish rafts and dormitories for production and living. Around 2011, the nationally shocking "Sea Palace" in Shenzhen referred to the floating island on Dongshan Bay. Original state of the "Sea Palace" (2009). Original state of the main body of the "Sea Palace". As early as 2003, entrepreneur Guo XX innovated on traditional fish rafts and began constructing a relatively large floating island (later dubbed the "Sea Palace" by the media). Since the floating island was a novelty, no unit was willing to issue a sea area use permit for it at the time. By January 2008, the former Longgang District Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Ocean Bureau) fined the "Sea Palace" 711,000 yuan and ordered it to restore the sea area to its original state within a time limit. However, under the active efforts of the "Sea Palace" side, then Director of the Guangdong Provincial Ocean and Fisheries Bureau, Li Zhujiang, in the spirit of encouraging innovation, instructed the Longgang Brigade to drop the case. Yet, out of respect for the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau, the "Sea Palace" side still chose to pay the fine. Development agreement between the "Sea Palace" side and Nanao. On January 13, 2010, some Shenzhen media published reports on the "illegal" use of sea areas by this floating island, naming it the "Sea Palace," which immediately attracted national attention. Reporters flocked to Dongshan Bay, seemingly intent on demolishing the "Sea Palace." Under the media's narrative of "collusion between officials and businessmen," the "Sea Palace" was dismantled into three large pieces on May 13 and towed away from its original sea area, left floating on Dongshan Bay awaiting rectification. After active rectification by the "Sea Palace" side, on December 26 of the same year, the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau issued a "Breeding Registration Certificate" and a permit for recreational fishing to the rectified "Sea Palace." The "Sea Palace" split into three large pieces, ready for comprehensive rectification by the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau (2010). Rectification plan to convert the "Sea Palace" floating island into a breeding and fishing raft. Approval of the breeding and fishing certificate issued by the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau to the "Sea Palace" side. Breeding certificate issued by the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau to the "Sea Palace" side. The fully rectified "Sea Palace" and the additional breeding rafts around it. Just as the "Sea Palace" side was preparing to open the floating island to the public, renewed media intervention forced the Shenzhen Ocean Bureau and Longgang District to jointly issue a notice on March 2, 2011, declaring the "Sea Palace" an illegal occupation of sea areas and ordering the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau to revoke the "Breeding Registration Certificate" issued to the "Sea Palace" side. On April 8, the Longgang District Ocean Bureau, without following legal procedures, began organizing forces to forcibly demolish the upper structure of the "Sea Palace." Decision letter from the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau revoking the "Sea Palace" breeding certificate. Scene of the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau organizing forces to forcibly demolish the "Sea Palace." The "Sea Palace" under forced demolition. News report by Southern Daily on the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace." As early as March 28, the "Sea Palace" side had already sued the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau for its contradictory and procedurally illegal administrative penalties. On April 20, the Longgang District Court decided to accept the administrative lawsuit filed by the "Sea Palace" side. The former Longgang District Ocean Bureau also stopped demolition work after completely removing the main structure of the floating island's central hall. Subsequently, the plaintiff, the "Sea Palace" side, entrusted lawyer Wang Tengfeng from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to handle the case. Scene of the first hearing of the "Sea Palace" administrative lawsuit on June 21. II. Courtroom Debate: The case was first heard on June 21, 2011, in the 4th trial court of the Longgang District People's Court. During the hearing, lawyer Wang Tengfeng mainly elaborated on the following points in his defense: 1. The plaintiff's breeding (fishing) activities in the designated sea area after obtaining the "Breeding Registration Certificate" were entirely legal. First, the fishery administrative department of the county-level or above people's government is the statutory authority responsible for issuing breeding permits. Once obtained, such permits naturally grant the legal right to use the designated sea (water) area for breeding, with no legal requirement for an additional separate "sea area use certificate" as a precondition. The claim by the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau (i.e., the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau) that "the plaintiff did not legally obtain the right to use the sea area" was purely illegal and unreasonable. Second, for nearly 30 years, the Longgang District fishery department had only issued breeding registration certificates for supervising breeding activities in the sea area, without requiring a sea area use certificate as a precondition. 2. Labeling the luxury fish raft as an "illegal structure" was unreasonable, and the private desire of envy and hatred of the wealthy should not be supported by law. The plaintiff's fish raft was indeed luxurious, but this did not negate its essential nature and function as a fish raft, nor did it lose its breeding and fishing capabilities. Second, the plaintiff's breeding and fishing raft often had guests visiting for sightseeing, which was not illegal, as no law in China prohibits guests from visiting and viewing a fish raft. Finally, no illegal activities such as pornography, gambling, or drug use occurred on the plaintiff's luxury fish raft; only sightseeing gatherings took place. Without a "law" defining its nature, the "Sea Palace" should not be deemed an "illegal structure." 3. Revoking the breeding registration certificate and fishing permit approval constituted "illegal administration," not "self-correction." The Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau first agreed to allow the plaintiff to operate the rectified fish raft for breeding and recreational fishing, issuing the "Breeding Registration Certificate" in December 2010 to permit legal operation. However, three months later, due to negative media reports, it openly violated legal procedures by revoking the plaintiff's legally obtained breeding and fishing certificates and forcibly reclaiming the "Breeding Registration Certificate," seriously violating the provisions of China's "Administrative Licensing Law" and depriving the plaintiff of its rights to defense and statement. This was clearly a new administrative illegal act. Even if intended as "self-correction of the previous certificate issuance error," it could not again violate national statutory procedural regulations and commit new errors. 4. The forced demolition was essentially a new illegal penalty, not a restoration of old penalty measures. Although the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau argued that its forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" was a legal enforcement measure based on the old administrative penalty decision, this clearly contradicted facts and violated legal provisions. In reality, the old administrative penalty had already been executed and concluded by a ruling of the Longgang District People's Court. Therefore, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau had no basis to apply for judicial enforcement of "forced demolition" and acted arbitrarily without legal grounds. (For details on the "Sea Palace Case" representation, please refer to the article "Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's Representation in the 'Sea Palace' Illegal Administrative Dispute Lawsuit" on this website.) Lawyer Wang Tengfeng (right) during the hearing. Subsequently, the lawyer for the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau also countered sharply, and both sides engaged in intense debate over many details of the case, leaving reporters breathless. Ultimately, through unremitting efforts, lawyer Wang Tengfeng successfully found strong legal and rational support for the survival of the "Sea Palace," not only convincing the judge but also the journalists covering the case, gradually turning public opinion in a favorable direction. After the first hearing, lawyer Wang Tengfeng was interviewed by Guangdong TV's "Today's Focus" program. News report by Shenzhen Economic Daily on the "Sea Palace" administrative lawsuit hearing. Two days after the adjournment, both sides organized a second hearing in court on June 24. Before the hearing, lawyer Wang Tengfeng turned passive into active, demanding that the Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau provide administrative compensation of 50 million yuan for the losses caused by the forced demolition. This time, lawyer Wang Tengfeng once again demonstrated his superb courtroom debate skills, organically integrating emotion, reason, and law, creatively leveraging his outstanding talent in litigation art, perfectly defending and even expanding the gains from the first hearing. Lawyer Wang Tengfeng and Mr. Guo XX, owner of the "Sea Palace," during the second hearing on June 24. After the second hearing, lawyer Wang Tengfeng was interviewed by Xinhua News Agency. III. Off-Court Negotiation: Just as the courtroom debate ended, off-court maneuvering began. Considering the unfavorable situation faced by the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau in this lawsuit, the city and district courts specially sent a deputy president of the city's intermediate court to meet with lawyer Wang Tengfeng in late 2011, engaging in in-depth discussions on whether a settlement was possible in the "Sea Palace" case. Although both sides reached a consensus on some issues, lawyer Wang Tengfeng clearly felt that the government side preferred to use a "delay" tactic rather than make concessions. While lawyer Wang Tengfeng understood the court's dilemma in the case, he firmly believed that since the current situation resulted from the former Longgang District Ocean Bureau's repeated mistakes, there was no reason for the plaintiff to suffer in silence. Helplessly, the court shelved the case, delaying the verdict. A turning point came in May 2012. Former Shenzhen Ocean Bureau Director He Yongzhi was transferred to serve as Director of the Dapeng New District Management Committee. To align with the development of Dapeng New District, after careful discussion by city leaders, the strategic positioning of Dapeng New District was adjusted to become a "world-class coastal eco-tourism resort," and the Nanao Dongshan Bay sea area was re-planned as a high-end tourism zone. Under the enlightened leadership and candid approach of the new committee director, with court coordination, the Longgang District Economic Development Promotion Bureau and the "Sea Palace" side reached a settlement in May 2012—shelving disputes, maintaining the status quo, allowing the "Sea Palace" to continue floating on Dongshan Bay, and seeking new development after the negative impact subsided, in line with Dapeng New District's strategic positioning. At the same time, the "Sea Palace" side was required to remain low-key to avoid further media criticism. Thus, the "Sea Palace" side formally withdrew the lawsuit in late May and abandoned the 50 million yuan compensation claim for the partially demolished floating island. With lawyer Wang Tengfeng's vigorous advocacy, the "Sea Palace" administrative lawsuit temporarily concluded. Original withdrawal ruling in the "Sea Palace" case. Today, the main part of the "Sea Palace" floating island still floats on Dongshan Bay. Due to its previous "fame," this once-abandoned floating island has gradually attracted tourists to "visit," becoming a must-see attraction. Fishermen near Dongshan Bay profit from this, building various seafood rafts around the "Sea Palace" floating island, while the catering and tourism industries of nearby villagers have gradually flourished, forming a unique industrial chain on Dongshan Bay. According to local villagers, most tourists visiting Nanao now follow this route: arriving in Nanao in the morning, heading directly to Dongshan Bay Pier, going out to sea to see the "Sea Palace" and take photos, having lunch at nearby fish rafts, and then swimming at nearby Yangmeikeng Beach. Tourists climbing high to view the "Sea Palace" by Dongshan Bay. Overlooking the full view of the "Sea Palace" (2012). IV. Post-Case Reflection: "Although the case ended in a compromise settlement, appearing as a win-win, it was actually a lose-lose situation." Years later, when recalling this nationally renowned administrative lawsuit, lawyer Wang Tengfeng still felt deeply. First, the government side exposed many issues in the case, such as rigid legal interpretation, wavering positions, rough enforcement, and extra-legal interference, leading to continued public anger even after the "palace" was demolished, inviting more criticism and damaging government credibility. However, relevant leaders also showed sufficient foresight and responsibility in handling the case, as the government side accepted differing opinions, did not insist on forced demolition and wrongful judgment to protect its reputation, allowing the "Sea Palace" to survive long-term and gain a chance for future development. Meanwhile, as the owner of the "Sea Palace," Guo XX, though a formidable businessman, faced severe consequences if he underestimated the legal risks. In this case, Guo XX endured immense mental pressure and suffered huge economic losses, with a beautiful fairy-tale island reduced to a desolate one, wealth destroyed, and scenery lost, lamentable. Yet, his flash of inspiration created an artistic masterpiece—the "Sea Palace"—which provided groundbreaking insights for national sea-use models. Finally, we should also recognize the positive significance of this case. On one hand, the emergence and huge impact of the "Sea Palace" promoted legal progress and improvement, facilitating the smooth introduction of the "Shenzhen Interim Measures for the Registration of Marine Structures." On the other hand, lawyer Wang Tengfeng's righteous advocacy made government departments aware of their improper actions in enforcement procedures, allowing the novel "Sea Palace" to survive from a desperate situation and ultimately be preserved. The surviving "Sea Palace" (end of 2012). V. Postscript: According to Shenzhen Evening News, in June 2014, Fu Xinjiang, then Deputy District Mayor of Longgang District and now Vice President of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, in a speech on "Rule of Law Thinking and Law-Based Administration" in Futian District, started from the high-profile "Sea Palace Case" during his tenure as Deputy District Mayor of Longgang, explaining the essence of rule-of-law thinking in simple terms: "Government abides by the law, administers according to law!" At the same time, Fu Xinjiang, based on his own governance experience, advised leaders at all levels in the audience to "constantly remind themselves to solve problems using legal methods." Thus, the "Sea Palace Case" is far more than just an administrative lawsuit; the legal insights it brings to people and its role in promoting the construction of a rule-of-law society in China are immeasurable. A tourist renting a water motorcycle from a nearby villager to closely observe the "Sea Palace." Floating island building designed by foreign engineers.