land and others
The other day I watched an episode of the CCTV 1 Television Program by the name of “Focus interview and talking” which featured an instance of illicit embezzlement of farm land in southern China’s Guangdong province. What happened is that a county government expropriated thousands of farm land for real estate development in flagrant violation of laws. This raises a much-debated topic in China--------real estate development in the new wave of urbanization. For all being expansive in territory, China is farm-scarce country with a meager quantity of farm land per capita, which is far below world average. To well preserve the farm land, central government has put in place an institutional mechanism to contain exploitation of farm land for industrial purposes.But against the current political backdrop, any apolitical and wise laws and regulations often give way to commercial reality. Lands are more and more seized irregularly. To get a clearer picture of ramifications of this “land rush” in regard to the parties concerned, a retrospect to the peasant proprietorship to the early 1950s is necessary. Ever since the communist party rose to power in the 1950s, it abolished the private economy of feudal landlord by equally distributing land to farmers. In so doing however, it also claimed lands national-owned eulogizing it emblematic of communal ownership which the ideology of communism held sacred. The result is that the farmers are not in a legal position to sell lands that they are cultivating, a preposterous phenomenon indeed judged by any reasonable man.
With the advent of reform and opening up policy in late 1970s, private economy boom to take the place of national economy making the old system of land ownership difficult to hold out. A simple fact is: the construction of new edifices needs land in large quantities. As a result, the state-owned lands which used to be non-transferable are open for selling with the state still retaining a nominal ownership. So lands are taken from farmers by the parochial governments that are inert and venal under the name of public interest. Farmers are scantily compensated for lost value of crops not the quid pro quo for value of the land and thus disenfranchised of their only asset----land-----are languishing for livelihood. In the eye of the laws, this seems to be fair because the state can dispose of the land de jure. However as against the miniscule compensation to farmers, the tax revenues raked in from land selling by the government are mammoth. In some places, taxes collected in land selling take up most part of government fiscal revenues. For real estate developers, possession of scarce land resources means striking a no-risk bonanza. Probed by this, they go out of their way to bribe local officials for lands. Thereby the developers and governments in a way tacitly connive to get the profitable shares of land selling, no regard being given for the land-conservation laws and the interests of peasants.
The patent underlying interests shape the whole picture of real estate development in today’s China and it is no wonder that housing prices soar despite government pledge to bring it down. It is hypocritical for the government to say they will put people first by increasing land supply and building economical houses when at the same time they could get a windfall in land auction. With a civic society still in its rudimentary stage and lack of conduit to express different ideas, it is hard to see the unfair and unjust circumstances will change fundamentally for the better. One thing is certain: it is a sheer utopia to put our trust in paternal government in taking care of our affairs. The responsibility is on us the people to stake out our rights and endowments through democratic checks and balances mechanisms.
[s:103] [s:103] 不知道这是什么？
页:
[1]
