The conflict of laws and regulations
On Sunday, a well-known TV program revealed a dispute over the demolition of a house in Shanghai, sparking a heated debate on the implementation of the Real Rights Law. But local vested interests saw to it that the law didn't come in the way of the demolition, says an article in the Beijing News. Excerpts:
The owner of a house in Minhang district of Shanghai was forced to vacate her property despite her refusal to sign the unfair Agreement of Removal and Resettlement. Faced with a forceful eviction team, she picked up a fire-extinguishing cylinder as a last resort to stop them from demolishing her house, only to see it disappear in a cloud of dust some minutes later.
The case reveals the conflict of laws. Government officials reportedly pressed residents to vacate their houses on the basis of the Regulations Governing House Demolition and Resettlement in Urban Areas. But people protested against it by citing the Real Rights Law.
The regulation differs from the law in several aspects. For example, the law specifies that the demolition team has to be from a government organ. But the regulation entitles private developers, too, to have their own demolition squad.
Since a law should always take precedence over administrative regulations, administrative organs don't have the right to evict people or demolish their houses forcibly.
The conflict should not have arisen in the first place because legislators had drafted the necessary adjunct clause to the Real Rights Law. But local benefits prompted the administration to override the law with a government regulation.
Without forcefully implementing the Real Rights Law and amending administrative regulations, people's interests can never be shielded from the abuse of administrative power.
(China Daily 11/25/2009 page9)
