Illegal land occupation fined only 1 yuan, effectively a disguised toleration

If the law, as one of the most important dikes, cannot effectively stop capital from encroaching on agricultural land, then who should guard the lifeline on which our future survival depends? To genuinely protect land, we cannot rely solely on administrative measures; we must close the loopholes in law enforcement at the institutional level, and never tolerate illegal land occupation, but instead impose severe judgments and heavy penalties.

Recently, Xinhua News Agency reported a case of illegal occupation of agricultural land. In Yangjiang City, Guangdong Province, during the illegal expropriation of tens of thousands of sq m of agricultural land, the local land department issued 4 administrative penalty decisions on land over 8 years, yet the illegal land expropriation was not stopped; on the contrary, the occupied area grew larger and larger. Faced with the administrative penalties, the parties accepted the punishment while continuing to break the law, and the local land department kept imposing a fine of 1 yuan per sq m.

Farmland is not only the life-saving field on which farmers depend for survival, but also a lifeline vital to the national food security strategy. Yet in Yangjiang, Guangdong, effective law enforcement could not be carried out against the illegal occupation of agricultural land. Why did such an absurd law enforcement embarrassment occur? A careful review of the course of events reveals that the parties built before approval, with no fear at all, while the land department enforced the law passively, merely scratching the surface. According to the report, the land involved was only approved by the Guangdong Provincial Government to be converted from agricultural land to construction land in 2012. As early as 2007, however, the parties had signed a "Land Expropriation Agreement on Behalf of Others" with a local real estate development company in Yangdong, and the illegal facts before government approval and consent lasted as long as 4 years. From 2008 to 2010, although the local land department issued 3 administrative penalty decisions in succession, the penalty standard of 1 yuan per sq m could not even be called "raised high and put down gently"; it was completely "picked up lightly and put down lightly," merely tickling the parties involved.

Regarding such a penalty standard, the local land department said that according to relevant national regulations, for unauthorized illegal occupation of land, a fine of no more than 30 yuan per sq m of illegally occupied land shall be imposed. With a maximum fine standard of 30 yuan, they chose the 1 yuan fine standard. Such a "1 yuan fine" is in fact a disguised toleration of illegal land occupation! The parties happily paid the fine, then continued to further illegally occupy land, cementing the facts of illegality.

The "1 yuan fine" penalty standard is certainly speechless, yet the focus of attention in this case should extend from the penalty standard to the effect of law enforcement. All 4 administrative penalty decisions affirmed the illegal facts of the parties involved, but they simply could not achieve the law enforcement effect they should have. In response, the local land department said that starting in 2008, it had also repeatedly organized comprehensive law enforcement forces from urban management, construction, and land departments to go to the site for forced demolition, but in the end all came to nothing. If capital is allowed to dictate the logic of farmland use, and relevant laws and regulations cannot impose the constraints they should, then such a low penalty standard and law enforcement effect will inevitably create an egregious demonstration effect and lead to harmful consequences.

In fact, the case of illegal land occupation in Yangjiang City is not the only one. Last year, according to the inspection results of the Sixth Inspection Team of the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee, violations of land expropriation and land use, illegal buying and selling of land, and arbitrary changes to land use were common in all counties (cities, districts) of Yangjiang. Some current and retired members of the leadership teams of Yangjiang City and its counties (districts) abused their power for personal gain, interfered in engineering construction and land development, and illegally engaged in business activities. As early as 2013, Yangjiang City's "illegal land trading clique case" led to the punishment of 3 department-level cadres, and 17 people were held criminally responsible. In 2014 and 2015, Wei Likun, chairman of the Yangjiang Municipal CPPCC, and Chen Yuezhi, vice mayor of Yangjiang City in charge of land and resources work, were respectively "double-opened" and administratively removed from office because of land issues and other problems. Illegal land trading erupted in the form of clique cases, and the influence of the "1 yuan fine" in this can hardly escape blame.

Land should be the means of production and livelihood for farmers and an important resource for local economic development, yet in Yangjiang it has become a private money tree combining the power and capital of a small number of people. How much economic loss did this cause the state? How many farmers' interests were encroached upon? Even more worrying is that the law enforcement process, standards, and effects of the relevant departments are extremely "bonsai-like." If the law, as one of the most important dikes, cannot effectively stop capital from encroaching on agricultural land, then who should guard the lifeline on which our future survival depends?

In recent years, problems of illegal land occupation and illegal construction have emerged endlessly across various places, and the causes of such problems, on the surface, are administrative inaction and lax law enforcement by the relevant functional departments. Viewed more deeply, they cannot be separated from the combination of capital and power. Local governments want to develop the economy, urban built-up areas need to expand, industrial plants need to enlarge their area, and agricultural production needs to safeguard national food security. Among these multiple goals, none can be separated from land. Land use must be reasonable, lawful, and compliant; illegal land disposal must be severely punished; and illegal land occupation must not be tolerated in any form. This is the bottom line of land use.

However, to genuinely protect land, the reasonable and lawful use of land cannot rely solely on administrative measures; we must close the loopholes in law enforcement at the institutional level. At present, we are in the process of rapid urbanization. According to the Ministry of Land and Resources in May, among the 106 key cities nationwide, 89 cities have already had permanent basic farmland designated around them. We must ensure the red line for farmland and stop cities from continuously expanding in a "spreading pancake" manner. The work of designating permanent basic farmland in key cities is being advanced, and for third- and fourth-tier cities like Yangjiang, should the work of designating permanent basic farmland also be put on the agenda as soon as possible? In addition, sufficient attention must be given to the problem of land occupation in the development of third- and fourth-tier cities. We must focus on supervising the land use process in third- and fourth-tier cities, strengthen the law enforcement capacity building of local land law enforcement departments and their independence and vertical management, and never tolerate illegal land occupation, but instead impose severe judgments and heavy penalties. Only in this way can precious land resources be placed where they should be, and lasting fertility be cultivated for social and economic development.