The problem of virtual ownership of rural collective assets cannot be ignored

An important reason for the frequent occurrence of "village official corruption" incidents is the virtual ownership of rural collective assets. In the current context of comprehensively advancing the rule of law, promoting the reform of the share rights and powers of rural collective assets will help curb "village official corruption" and strengthen the collective economy, which is both relevant to the present and beneficial for the long term

Recently, procuratorial organs in various places have successively announced a batch of "village official corruption" cases, ranging from "million-level village officials," "tens-of-millions-level village officials," and even "hundreds-of-millions-level village officials," with different regions, all kinds of methods, and amounts large and small, but a common feature is that they all used the power in their hands to seek private gain under the guise of public interest, turn public property into private property, and embezzle the public property belonging to all members of the village collective.

There are many reasons for the frequent occurrence of "village official corruption" incidents. In addition to weak internal oversight and the absence of external supervision, another important reason is the virtual ownership of rural collective assets. Because the property rights of collective assets are virtual, these assets appear to belong to the village collective, but in reality no villager owns them. Whether collective assets can be used and how they can be used, the villagers have no right to speak, let alone the right to supervise. Those who truly have a say are just a few "village officials," or even one or two "village officials." Rural collective ownership has in some places in fact become ownership by "village officials." If "village officials" have a weak collective consciousness and legal awareness, corruption is very likely to occur.

According to current laws and policies, rural collective assets cover a very wide range: one part consists of resource-based assets, such as cultivated land, forest land, mountain land, grassland, tidal flats, and water surfaces, and the other part consists of operational assets, such as factory buildings and storefronts built on collective construction land, and various operational organizations invested in and held in shares in the collective name. Most resource-based assets have already had their use rights granted to each household through household contracted management, while some remain in the village collective in the form of flexible land, with the village collective deciding how they are used. As for operational assets, most places operate them in the collective name, obtain benefits in the collective name, and also use them in the collective name.

In reality, much "village official corruption" occurs under the name of collective assets. Among the "village official corruption" cases exposed in various places, most are related to land compensation, disaster relief and assistance, and the leasing, transfer, and contracting of cultivated land, forest land, mines, tidal flats, wasteland, projects, and factory buildings. The reason these links are prone to corruption is that they all involve collective assets, villagers find it difficult to participate and difficult to supervise, and because they think it is none of their business and take a detached attitude, "village officials" have greater room to manipulate things.

Therefore, an important path to curb "village official corruption" and enable the development of the collective economy to benefit all villagers is, on the premise of advancing "villager self-governance" and strengthening legal supervision and other institutional development, to accelerate the reform of the share rights and powers of rural collective assets, clarify the property rights of rural collective assets, and give farmers more property rights. According to the spirit of the central authorities, an important part of comprehensively deepening rural reform at present is to actively develop farmers' share cooperatives and, in accordance with the goals of the pilot reform to grant share rights and powers to collective assets, explore clear ownership of property rights and establish a new mechanism for rural collective economic operation that meets the requirements of the market economy. Along this direction, through reform of the share rights and powers of collective assets, the collective economy can be pushed onto a development path with clear property rights, and all members of the village collective can become direct beneficiaries of collective economic development.

Of course, the forms of realization of the share rights and powers of collective assets are diverse, but no matter which share form is used, the property rights of members of farmers' collective organizations must be protected from infringement. Only on the basis of clear property rights of collective assets and the collective ownership economy finding an effective form of realization can each villager's rights as a member of the collective economic organization be safeguarded, and can they truly become masters of the collective assets and exercise the right to participate and the right to supervise how collective assets are used and how the collective economy develops. Only a collective economy developed and strengthened on this basis can go further.

In the current context of comprehensively advancing the rule of law, promoting the reform of the share rights and powers of rural collective assets will help curb "village official corruption" and strengthen the collective economy, which is both relevant to the present and beneficial for the long term.