Forced demolitions: an attempt on man and culture

For the host country, the Olympics of 2008 will be an occasion for great pride. This event, however, is already the cause of considerable problems and pain. Cities, starting with the most important, such as Beijing, Shanghi, Xian, have become by now enormous construction sites, with cranes in operation 24 hours a day. In order to build the hotels, skyscrapers, sports centres, residences and villages needed for foreigners, there were no other means but to give out contracts to construction companies for the development of future cities. To achieve results at any cost and in the shortest time possible, thousands of homes and neighbourhoods in the historic centre have been demolished. In the capital alone, more than half of the historic centre has disappeared in the wake of bulldozer violence. International organizations are publically protesting the destruction of so many treasures (houses with internal courtyards, known in Chinese as siheyuan, built as far back as Ming times). Few are complaining about a collateral scourge: that of human beings, who from one day to the next (literally) are expelled from their houses and find themselves with nothing or very little in hand. Very often, they are not even forewarned about demolitions; other times, the compensation is so paltry that people – above all the elderly who have lived in these areas for decades – are left with little desire to continue living.

A social problem that affects the weakest

News in the last months are full of violent protests, countless reports made to the police, gestures of desperation, attempts at suicide. The growing numbers of victims of forced and illegal demolitions have no other recourse: lacking any alternative, guarantee or right, they find themselves from one day to the next stripped of their home and land. Such victims are simply an impediment to the flowering and pressing activities of the real-estate market, therefore they must clear out whether they like it or not. The powerful real-estate companies benefit from various forms of local protectionism on the part of the political class and the police. One after another, they target the buildings to be "eliminated", with an escalation of worsening tactics aimed at forcing the residents to leave their homes: intimidation and threats; interruption of electrical, water and gas supplies; acts of violence by which residents are forcibly removed from their residences; the de facto demolition of homes themselves. Usually, these people who find themselves homeless from one day to another have no guarantee of any compensation and any indemnity that is offered does not compensate for the damage suffered.

The issue of these demolitions is very complex and is related to other serious problems that afflict Chinese society, problems that are born by average people and especially the weakest: the lack of sufficient rights and guarantees for citizens; the lack of safeguarding of private property; state corruption at the highest levels (politics and police).

Liu Zhifeng, deputy minister of Public Works, admitted recently that forced demolitions are the most frequently reported crimes and that in certain parts of China very serious injustices occur. According to Zhu Ying, an expert at the research office of the Zing Fang Ju (the department that collects formal complaints),11,641 reports of illegal demolitions were received in the first 8 months of 2003, twice as many as in 2002; the number of people who have travelled to Beijing from all parts of China to file a report have been 5360, 74% more than in 2002. Zhang Xinbao, director of the Department for the enactment and supervision of law at the Ministry of Land and Resources, stated that in 2003, investigations were carried out in 168,000 cases of illegal land appropriation, twice as many as in 2002. But, despite all these acknowledgments, the government appears to have no power (or desire) to intervene. Again a few weeks ago, the night of January 13, two elderly people set themselves on fire near the wall that circles Zhongnanhai, the area of Beijing near the Imperial Palace, where top government officials reside and where important international guests are received. One of the two died will being taken to hospital. According to their friends, the reason for their desperate gesture was to protest the demolition of their home.

The desperation of people with no rights

The news of recent months is replete with such tragic gestures. In September 2003, a citizen of Beijing set fire to himself because his home had been demolished by force. After his desperate gesture, which cost him severe burns over half his body, approximately 2000 people clashed with policeman resulting in moments of great tension. Again in Beijing, a few weeks later, there were violent clashes between inhabitants of the Chaoyang Qu neighbourhood and more than 200 real-estate workers protected by police. In the university area of Haidian, demolition workers forced their way into a house at night. The inhabitants were forcibly removed and abandoned in a remote area. A street-person found them half naked, tied, blindfolded, and gagged and called the police. Upon their return home, instead of a house, they found only a pile of rubble. In Interior Mongolia, several men sent by the demolition companies broke the leg of a man, Lie Fuwang, who refused to sign a compensation agreement.

The morning of October 1st, national day of the People's Republic of China, an unemployed 49-year-old man of the city of Jingzhou (in Hubei) covered himself with petrol and set himself on fire in Tiananmen Square, next to the Monument of the Heroes of the People. Immediately after, the police arrived and took the man to hospital. Again on October 1st, according to Human Rights in China, in the dark hours of the night, the police in Shanghai forced its way into several Beijing hotels and arrested 85 people from different cities. They had gone to the capital to protest against illegal demolitions. The police of Beijing had assured them that they would not allow the Shanghai police to intervene against them. Such a case of unlawful restraint was possible only with the support of the Beijing police: such action falls under the policy of maintaining social order during the National Day celebrations of October 1st. To prevent any outside contact, the police sequestered mobile phones, beat anyone who questioned the legality of the action and locked everyone in 4 buses manned by well-armed policemen.

Compromised judicial system

Another cause of worry – not to say scandal – is the collusion that exists between real-estate companies and the judiciary. Of all the reports brought to the courts so far, none have had a sentence in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, at times the judiciary becomes an instrument for silencing critics.

On October 28, after a trial lasting two months, a Shanghai court condemned to 3 years of jail the lawyer Zhen Enchong, for "having illegally furnished state secrets to bodies outside of China." The accusations were based on two facts. Firstly, Zheng had distributed a "dossier" on forced demolitions in Shanghai to various western organizations that deal with human rights; furthermore, he had given information to foreign media concerning protests of certain employees who, having been fired, had been given a paltry severance payment from their company in Shanghai. Prior to his arrest on June 6, 2003, Zhen Enchong had already dealt with cases of forced expulsions from homes carried out by real-estate and construction companies: in 2001, the Shanghai authorities had even gone so far as to revoke his professional licence. The day of the verdict, the police was deployed to prevent the gathering of crowds and journalists outside the court. Parts of the trial where shown on local television. Zheng's wife was able to attend the hearing, but was not allowed to speak to her husband. International associations for human rights pointed out that the interpretation of "state secrets" – as in this case – is entirely at the discretion of the authorities. In reality, Zheng's verdict was a warning to all those who protest against evictions and forced demolitions, as well as to the lawyers that defend them.

There are very similar occurrences in the countryside also. In these cases, the requisition of lands – often by party secretaries – derives from the frenzy to launch into industrial or real-estate projects at the expense of the community.

At the end of November, the citizen Chen, of the Xiaoxiaoxi village (Jinyun district, province of Zhejiang), travelled to Beijing to lodge a complaint at the Ministry of Land and Resources: from the previous March, more than 260 hectares of farmland had been illegally requisitioned. The land, belonging to 6000 farmers, was confiscated to construct an industrial zone in Xinbi. The man had posted along the streets of the village copies of the directive, issued the week before by the State Council, that cautioned local authorities against the illegal use of land. Chen had posted the copies of the document to help people recognize and demand their rights. In reaction to repeated violations, Chen's father had begun a protest on November 23 that gathered approximately 1000 people in Xiaoxiaoxi and surrounding villages who, from dawn to dusk, watched the industrial area in protest, calling for a halt to construction work. The local authorities mobilized hundreds of policemen to hold back the exasperated crowd. The situation degenerated into violence when police tried to save a local official, Hu Bichu, who was being surrounded and beat by the crowd. In the clashes, many people were injured and some admitted to hospital. The official himself was released with 6 stitched on his lip and a very bruised face.

According to local authorities, two protesters were arrested, while two policemen were sequestered and detained for several hours by villagers. This contributed to increasing the atmosphere of edginess and embarrassment of the police. A local official declared that the requisition of land, for which the owners had received a compensation of 20,000 yuan each (approximately 2500 dollars), had been approved by relevant authorities, but the Department of Land and Resources refused to answer when asked if the requisition was legal or not.

According to the villagers, the local police threatened to arrest all those who, having participated in the Xinbi protest, did not turn themselves in. In the following days, police round-ups began. Friday, November 28, at the first hours of dawn, approximately 30 police agents used sledgehammers to breakdown the door of the home of the man who had begun the protest the Sunday before and beat him and his two sons, who had been surprised in their sleep. All three were removed and detained by the police. The two sons were released after questioning. The father is accused of an attempt on public safety and of having instigated clashes with the police. The family, who were not allowed to visit him, deny the accusations. Also, the son who had gone to Beijing to report the land confiscation is wanted by police on accusations of having organized the popular revolt. He declared that he has no other option but to turn himself in for the sake of his father's security, even if he only "crime" was to have informed people of their rights. Some people involved in the protest have left the village for fear of being arrested. During the same week, villagers of Shuhong and Huzen, again in the district of Jinyun, also rebelled against the situation, causing disorders.

The workings of the police and the local authorities is completely in contrast with what the government declares officially. Precisely in the days of utmost tension in Xiaoxiaoxi, Luo Gan, Head of the Department of Law Enforcement, made a visit to Zhejiang. And on November 26, he stated that the "increase in popular protests concerning public interest needs special attention". He also said that public protest must not be repressed with rough and ready methods, which only further exasperate conflicts, saying that is necessary to explain government policies with patience, in order to gain people's support.

High-rises in place of traditional homes

If the government continues to ignore the rights of common people, it seems to be equally negligent of and disinterested in historic sites. Above all Beijing, with the restructuring plans for the 2008 Olympics, is undergoing great transformation. The traditional and characteristic hutong – very narrow streets of small housing with courtyards, brick walls and shingled roofs – are little by little disappearing to make room for shining skyscrapers equipped with apartments, offices and shopping centres. According to some estimates, there were approximately 3600 hutong in Beijing in the 1980s, of which today only 2000 remain. After the protests of various intellectuals and artists, the authorities had given assurances to preserve 658 traditional homes, dating from 100 to 400 years, but of these more than 50 have already been demolished. An ancient Taoist temple of almost 700 years was recently demolished in favour of the construction of a financial district. Work for the Beijing Olympics have costed China 22 billion dollars. Many officials, including those responsible for the conservation of cultural goods, write off the loss of a inestimable cultural heritage with great cynicism, affirming that traditional homes are old, ramshackle and lack plumbing, and so residents are happy to leave them. Instead, the inhabitants are conscious of the treasure they are forced to abandon and are already shuddering at the idea of living in an anonymous apartment in a high-rise, without that atmosphere of sharing that gives a sense of family. The comforts so highly touted by officials have secondary importance for the people of Beijing. Even elementary-school children complain. In a letter to the mayor of Beijing, they wrote: "Our hutong and our homes with courtyard (siheyuan) are unique in the world; the high-rises that we are building are very common...If a city does not have its own culture and its own history, what makes it different from any other city?".

Private property: as sacred as public?

Due to the increase in public protest, violence and abuse, authorities have stated on various occasions their intention to take more severe action against real-estate operators and demolition companies, but also those who protest in a drastic or violent manner. The Ministry of Public Works enacted a new national regulation that will come into force on March 1st and provides increased guarantees to people who have lost their home, ensuring them compensation and new living arrangements. The regulation prohibits the demolition of homes without the owner's prior agreement and adequate compensation. Demolition orders can be issued only by the authorities or the courts; real-estate workers are obliged to inform residents of the demolition 15 days in advance. Demolitions must be suspended if residents have been removed illegally or forcibly for their home. Companies are not allowed to cut utilities before the transfer of residents. Those who do not follow regulations risk fines, dismissal, loss of licences, and penal sanctions. Xie Jiajin, general director of the state Construction Department, has said that special inspection teams have been mobilized, tasked with dealing with cases of forced demolition, especially in large cities like Nanking and Shanghai, where – at least officially – demolitions have been suspended or the quantity of land designated to construction has been reduced. To increase transparency, the government is seeking to resolve controversies by introducing a system of public hearings. When the majority of residents refuse to accept new arrangements offered by real-estate agents, it is the residents themselves who have "good social credibility" for becoming referees and establishing a compensation. It remains to be seen if all these rules will be enforced and how to settle conflicts and violence already suffered by inhabitants.

Recently, the Party proposed an amendment to the Constitution (approved in 1982 and reviewed in 1988, 1993, 1999) to improve the safeguarding of private property, guaranteeing its inviolability. Amendments concern in particular articles 11 and 13, respectively ownership of production means and consumption means. Article 11 had already been modified in 1999, with an amendment that defined private enterprises as "an important part of the socialist economy." The new amendment provides safeguarding for individual and private industry, provided that it is legally acquired, and introduces the concept of "fair indemnity" in case of expropriation. Article 13 provides the right to possess "work earnings, savings, homes and other private property". The proposed amendment foresees state protection of private property, provided that it is "legally acquired." The National People's Assembly will meet to discuss the matter in March.

It will be known shortly whether the government's new directives will contribute to curbing the savage plundering of peoples' life and the country's traditions, even if it is difficult to believe that a problem of such vast dimensions can be resolved without cutting its roots. And such roots are the emphasis that the Constitution (n. 12) places on public and socialist property, defined as "sacred" and "inviolable". Up until now, the same does not exist for private property. As long as private property is not as "sacred" and "inviolable" as public, there will always be "priests of the public" - local authorities, party secretaries, etc. – who can wreak havoc on property that is not covered by any "religious" aura. Serious shortcomings on the legal level as well as the economic boom (blessed and envied by the west) permit China to do damage to individuals, robbed not only of their home, but also of their life and their own history.

• china
• forced demolitions