Recently, an incident involving the farming rights of farmers in Kailu County, Tongliao has once again sparked heated discussions. According to the exposure of the identities of the protagonists of the incident, Zhang Wenzhu and Zhang Wenlin, who are known as the "Zhang brothers", they originally contracted more than 5,000 acres of land for 4 yuan, which is not as simple as it seems.
The cause of the incident can be traced back more than ten years. In 2002, Mengniu Dairy, a large dairy company, decided to set up a new dairy cow breeding base in Kailu County. In 2003, he cooperated with his younger brother Zhang Wenzhu and contracted 30 acres of land at an ultra-low price of 4 yuan per mu to start developing dairy farming.
With the support of low-interest loans provided by Mengniu and the duo's years of management experience, their dairy farming business expanded rapidly. In just a few years, the land area has increased to more than 5,230 acres, and the scale has been reduced to become the largest dairy farm in the region.
However, the identities of Zhang Wenlin and Zhang Wenzhu are far from simple. According to the data, Zhang Wenlin was favored by foreign companies when he was in college and has been engaged in management work for many years; Zhang Wenzhu himself graduated from university and originally worked in a power plant.
More importantly, since Zhang Wenzhu devoted himself to the cattle herding industry, he stepped into the political arena of Kailu County. He not only became a member of the Tongliao CPPCC, but also won a place on the Standing Committee of Kailu County, and his worth has reached millions. Why is such a person who is excellent in both politics and business willing to contract land at an ultra-low price of 4 yuan per mu?
Subsequently, the Zhang brothers subleased the land to local farmers to grow corn at a high price of more than 700 yuan per mu. The difference is too large, which has sparked speculation and doubts from the public. Some have singled out that the purpose of the land contract in the first place was not to ranch, but to lead the operation at a higher profit.
The farmers who were the parties also said that the land they contracted was not improved by the Zhang brothers, but that they had invested a lot of money to improve the wasteland in order to grow corn. This is in stark contrast to the Zhang brothers' original intention of building the ranch.
As soon as this incident came out, public opinion at first tended to support the peasants. But as the Zhang brothers' backgrounds were exposed, attitudes began to change. People began to question that with their resources and capabilities, it was indeed unreasonable to contract 5,000 acres of land for 4 yuan. More importantly, their low-cost contracting behavior may encroach on collective interests.
All of a sudden, the eyes of suspicion turned to the Kailu County Government. As the competent authority, they allowed the Zhang brothers to contract such a vast amount of land at a very low price, and never supervised their high-priced subleases, which inevitably aroused suspicion.
In response, the Kailu County Government said that the condition was that the construction of pastures was permitted, and that the subsequent change of land use was not expected. Acknowledging that there are flaws in supervision, we will strengthen supervision in the future and safeguard the interests of collectives and peasants.
On the whole, the Kailu "Zhang Brothers" incident is far more complicated than it seems on the surface. It involves many issues such as collusion between government and business, protection of collective interests, and also reveals the shortcomings of grassroots land management. This not only causes damage to the rights and interests of farmers, but also loses the fairness of public resources.
Post-mortem analysis shows that the best solution should be: the Zhang brothers should recover the difference in land price and compensate farmers for their input, the government should strengthen supervision to prevent similar incidents from happening again, and the three parties should work together to promote the reform of the land management system and move towards a fairer and more secure track. Only in this way can we bring equity and sustainable development to society.
Having learned this lesson, it is believed that all parties should review the shortcomings of the past and resolve similar disputes by more sophisticated means. Social governance will also move towards a new starting point of comprehensiveness and justice. This is of far-reaching significance for protecting peasants' interests and promoting agricultural development.