■ New Express reporter Hua Jingyan
"Local governments, in order to implement local development strategies, have no choice but to carry out forced demolitions; otherwise, all development would be impossible." "In fact, everyone is a beneficiary of the forced demolition policy."
"In a sense, without forced demolitions, there would be no urbanization in China, and without urbanization, there would be no 'brand-new China'. Can we then say that without forced demolitions, there would be no 'New China'?"
Yesterday, Caixin published on its homepage an article by Huichang, an official from Yihuang, Jiangxi, which sparked heated discussions online.
Yihuang Official: "Without Forced Demolition, There Would Be No 'New China'"
In the morning yesterday, Caixin's "Strongly Recommended" section featured a letter from an official of Yihuang, known nationwide due to the self-immolation incident. The headline "[Published as Received] An Official from Yihuang Writes to Our Website: Analysis of the Forced Demolition Self-Immolation Incident" was prominently displayed at the top of the homepage's news section.
"From a certain perspective, without forced demolition, there would be no urbanization in China, and without urbanization, there would be no 'brand-new China'. Can we then say that without forced demolition, there would be no 'New China'?" After quoting a segment of the article's viewpoint, the website editor wrote in the recommendation note: "The Yihuang, Jiangxi forced demolition self-immolation incident has come to an end, but public opinion has not completely subsided. Recently, an official from the Yihuang County government submitted a letter to Caixin analyzing and reviewing the forced demolition self-immolation incident. His article reflects some views of grassroots governments and officials, which are somewhat universal, so it is published in full. Neither the title nor the text has been altered."
This article titled "Analysis of the Yihuang, Jiangxi Forced Demolition Incident" was authored by "Huichang" and spans over 5000 words, mainly divided into five sections: the course of events, media influence, the rising Yihuang, forced demolition - an inevitable choice, and the deeper reasons for the incident.
Once published, this article quickly drew significant attention from netizens. Those who carefully read the article expressed that regardless of whether they agreed with the content, the article was indeed well-written. Soon, the official's submission was forwarded to major websites and forums.
Viewpoint Controversy
Cities Based on Forced Demolition Do Not Belong to the People
The article "Analysis of the Yihuang, Jiangxi Forced Demolition Incident" was recommended and forwarded by many verified (V) users on Sina Weibo (http://t.sina.com.cn), where some viewpoints sparked heated discussions.
Real estate expert Yu Haiwen believed, "What he said is correct! Without forced demolition, there would be no property tax. If one cannot plunder from displaced households, then one must necessarily 'draw water' from the entire population."
Famous IT commentator Xie Wen commented on his microblog: "Without forced demolition, there would be no urbanization in China, and no 'brand-new China'. But the problem lies in the fact that cities and China based on forced demolition do not belong to ordinary people, but rather to the land-acquisition-demolition-real estate interest groups and related officials. If benefiting a few comes at the expense of the majority's interests, such urbanization and 'brand-new China' are better off without."
Journalist Deng Fei of Phoenix Weekly proposed on his Sina Weibo: "We should thank this official from Yihuang. He provides a new perspective on how the government and officials understand demolition. Let us rationally discuss and exchange ideas. Truth becomes clearer through debate, which may help reach a consensus. Please do not harm this official."
On microblogs and comments, while many netizens criticized Huichang's views, they also felt that regardless of agreement or disagreement with Huichang's perspectives, the article was worth reading.
Analysis of the Yihuang, Jiangxi Forced Demolition Self-Immolation Incident
■ Huichang
● Forced demolition is not something local governments desire. A crucial issue here is the cost of development. Urban construction requires extensive demolition. If the government concedes to the demands of those being relocated and significantly raises compensation standards, it would be unbearable for the government. Meanwhile, farmers, whose appetites have been whetted by skyrocketing land and housing prices, dream of becoming overnight millionaires through government requisitioning. In such circumstances, it is almost impossible for the government and the displaced households to reach an agreement on compensation. As a result, higher-level appeals and complaints become routine. Local governments, in order to implement their regional development strategies, inevitably resort to forced demolition, or are left with no other choice. Otherwise, all development would be impossible.
● In fact, those being relocated should also be among the biggest beneficiaries of urbanization. If the government does not develop, would your land and houses be so valuable? Alas, today's society is driven by material desires, and who could ever be satisfied? As the ancients said, "An insatiable heart can make a snake swallow an elephant," zzfhhxy369_Baidu Space!
● When everyone is condemning the forced demolition policy, they seem to overlook a basic fact: everyone is actually a beneficiary of the forced demolition policy. Haven't you noticed? When you live comfortably in spacious homes, when you walk on wide and bright streets, when reporters stay in luxury hotels writing articles criticizing the forced demolition policy, have you ever thought that the land beneath your feet might have been acquired through the government's forced demolition? Therefore, from a certain perspective, without forced demolition, there would be no urbanization in our country, and without urbanization, there would be no 'brand-new China'. Can we then say that without forced demolition, there would be no 'New China'?
● Administering according to law is essential, but mechanically following legal provisions can also lead to dogmatism. Laws are not always effective, and there are many issues involved, such as the problem of so-called "public interests departmentalized, departmental interests legalized"; and the problems of legislators being detached from reality and the populace under the elite governance model, etc. In the past, when discussing rural issues, we often lamented: Fortunately, China's laws have not been fully enforced, otherwise, the countryside would have been ruined! This view, though biased, is not entirely without merit. (Excerpt)
Latest Developments
"Huichang" Opens Real Name Weibo Yesterday
As everyone was hotly discussing the letter from the Yihuang official, "Yihuang Huichang" appeared on Sina Weibo at 5:50 PM yesterday in real-name format with a V verification mark. The real-name badge showed "Yihuang official", but without specific job titles. The reporter confirmed with Sina last night, and Sina confirmed that this person is indeed the Yihuang official "Huichang", but stated that the specific position and name are inconvenient to disclose.
After "Yihuang Huichang" appeared on Weibo, within more than an hour, he updated seven tweets, but the content was mostly excerpts from the letter. As yesterday's "celebrity", the blog quickly attracted the attention of netizens. By 8:40 PM last night, "Yihuang Huichang" already had 1,152 followers. Although many netizens questioned "Yihuang Huichang", he temporarily did not interactively respond to netizens.