|
"Property rights" is still an unfamiliar term to many Chinese who used to live in a rigid planned economic system and have little private wealth.
The difficulty in accumulating wealth is undoubtedly a bar to overall prosperity. Meanwhile, the absence of legislation to protect private property has the potential to undermine social stability.
In this sense, the proposal of the Communist Party's latest central committee plenary session, which ended earlier this month, to strengthen the law's protection of all kinds of property rights, including that of private property, is a timely move that will have far-reaching implications for the nation's development.
The Chinese Constitution already provides for the protection of the income and property of citizens.
However, one can sense a trace of partiality for public, or State property, which the constitution upholds as "sacred and inviolable."
In separate laws and regulations, measures for protecting State property and punishing violators of such rules are often stricter than those for private property.
A property law system, which governs the acquisition, protection and transfer of wealth, is essential for further economic development and social progress.
While such a legal system is still in the embryonic stage, confrontations and disputes have kept arising as some government activities, particularly relocation programmes initiated by local authorities in many places, have become a prominent source of infringement on citizens' property.
Paralleling the country's spectacular economic growth in recent years, many cities have taken bold steps to remove old dilapidated houses in downtown areas to make way for modern road networks and skylines.
In most cases, local authorities have provided citizens involved in these programmes with new houses and proper compensation.
However, reports about unfair compensation deals and even coercive and forceful dismantling of private houses still occur at times, largely a result of the absence of specific legal stipulations, even though the Constitution stipulates that citizens' houses are inviolable.
The safety of private property is out of the question, if even citizens' dwellings are subject to unwarranted violations.
A key step to improving the status quo is to add in statutes on clear-cut principles guiding relocation activities.
For example, the law should require local governments to open up information channels about relocation and development to households involved in the affected areas.
The civil law principles of mutual consent and fair compensation should be applied as the guidelines of relocation.
By no means should private property be requisitioned forcibly, unless a court injunction supporting it is obtained.
In particular, when economic construction programmes run at odds with private interests, the government should address the problem with economic instead of administrative measures.
The government's mandate to dispose of private property forcibly derives from sovereignty of the State. Such power can only be used for national security or public interests, not for economic affairs.
China's urban land administration law already stipulates that the government can take over the land-use rights of citizens only when public interests require so.
However, there is a big loophole as the law does not specify what "public interests" exactly mean.
As a result, some local authorities have bulldozed their relocation schemes by taking advantage of that loophole.
Some local government agencies have ordered citizens to relocate for the development of commercial estates and luxury housing -- even including projects directly invested by local governments, which are often trumpeted to be for the "public good."
The law should fix a clear scope of these so-called "public interests," to prevent government agencies from abusing power at the expense of private rights.
Although public interests may justify the sacrifice of private property, it is not always unconditional.
A sound compensation mechanism and fair procedures will be the testament to the law's care for people's property rights.
The author is a law professor with Peking University.
(China Daily October 24, 2003)
|
