OPINION> Commentary
Stop forcible demolitions
(China Daily)
Updated: 2008-06-24 07:43

Wuhan set a good example in stopping forcible demolition of houses , says an article in Beijing News. The following is an excerpt:

Last week, a court in Wuhan of Hubei province held a hearing on forcible demolition of an old house and two persons in charge of the demolition were cited for suspected vandalism of personal assets. The two suspects demolished an old house before they signed the resettlement agreement with the owner. It is reportedly to be the first legal case involving forcible demolition in the resettlement sector in Wuhan.

In recent years, with the accelerated pace of urban construction and renovation, there have appeared more disputes caused by forcible demolition of old houses. As the two defendants said in the court, in many cases, the workers in charge of demolishing old houses also know their acts are against the law, but they continue to adopt strong-arm measures because they hope to force owners to "sign" resettlement agreements.

As the prosecutor said at the court, these two forcible house destroyers violated terms in the Constitution of our country and the Property Law that both stipulate legally owned personal assets should not be violated. According to the Criminal Law, the two are likely to face a sentence of three years in prison.

We notice that the revised Criminal Law was put into force as early as 1997 while forcible demolitions of old houses have repeatedly taken place in Wuhan. The hearing last week was the first time for Wuhan to probe into a case of this type. In the whole country, the issues revolving around forcible demolitions are quite common, but few are finally brought to court.

The major reason behind this is that many previous issues of this type were settled by compensations. Forcible destroyers usually demolish old houses under the pretext of "protecting public interest", which makes the authorities hesitant in punishing the violators. At the same time the victims too dare not stand up for their due rights for fear of the violators' powers.

In fact, we have to know what the "protection of public interest" really means. Only when law-enforcers really take the needs of the masses into account and protect their rights, including the right of living in their own houses can they say they are "protecting public interest".

Therefore, laws must be made to clarify issues involving demolitions and renovations of houses. Only by doing this can we stop forcible demolition of houses.

By holding a hearing on the case, Wuhan set a good example for the whole country in protecting the rights of those to be resettled and in curbing the use of force. We hope that in a civilized society, a hearing on forcible demolition of houses no longer becomes news.

(China Daily 06/24/2008 page8)