This land contract dispute case in Kailu County, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, was handled by local grassroots leaders in an overly publicized manner, and some netizens took quotes out of context, which led to a great deal of controversy in public opinion for a while. But after fact-finding and official explanations, we see that the essence of the matter is not pure.
Loading...
In the end, is it really in the collective interest for leaseholders to reclaim collective land in large quantities for profit? Should grassroots workers be punished if they only perform their duties according to law? This requires us to objectively analyze the truth and make rational judgments.
Let's look back at what happened. In 2004, Kailu County signed a ranch contract to lease nearly 5,000 acres of grassland to a group of farmers, and the contract stipulated that cattle would be raised within 30 years, but in fact, the contractor reclaimed nearly 4,650 acres of land into cultivated land. From the low rent of 4 yuan per mu at the beginning of the contract, they have intensified their efforts to rent 700 yuan per mu from outside every year, and they can get a profit of 46.5 × 700 = 3.25 million yuan a year. This is a violation of the original contract and constitutes an illegal reclamation of collective land.
Before planting in the spring of 2022, the village committee plans to collect a user fee of 200 yuan per mu according to the standard of cultivated land in accordance with the requirements of the higher-level documents, so as to recover part of the collective benefits. But tenants resisted. After the incident, some netizens only looked at it on the surface, believing that the grassroots staff obstructed farmers from farming, failed to see the truth of the incident, and made emotional comments.
The core problem in this case is that the tenant has changed the nature and use of the land without permission, and has changed from the original pasture to cultivated land for profit, which is itself an illegal act. Their annual income is 4,650 mu× 700 yuan/mu = 3.25 million yuan, which is really a large amount of self-profit. However, the village committee only requires the collection of reasonable use fees in accordance with the law to protect the rights and interests of collectively owned land, which is the duty to safeguard the law and collective interests.
It can be seen from this that the tenants' actions have violated the ranch contract signed in 2004 and have privately reclaimed the collective land for a huge amount of money, which obviously does not represent the collective interests and has changed the original intention of the government to sell the land. In contrast, the staff of the village committee charged 200 yuan per mu in accordance with the law to make up for the losses caused by the government's low price of land, which is in the collective interest and within the scope of the law.
Of course, at the beginning of the incident, the grass-roots staff handled it a little roughly, and the way they expressed it was not appropriate, which is also worthy of criticism. But in essence, they are only performing their duties in accordance with the law and safeguarding the ownership and collective rights and interests of land granted by the law, which should be affirmed. In contrast, the tenant has privately destroyed the original contract arrangement and coerced the masses to oppose the payment of royalties in accordance with the law.
This incident is not so much a case of grassroots workers "not allowing farmers to farm" as a case of legal disputes involving the modification of land contracts and the protection of collective interests. The key is that the tenant has changed the core facts of land use without authorization. Until this problem is resolved, unilaterally believing that the grassroots staff are at fault ignores the essence of the incident and makes it difficult to reach a fair conclusion.
In fact, it is the responsibility of grassroots workers to safeguard collective interests in accordance with the law. Grass-roots workers need to be more gentle in handling the matter and listen more to the people's opinions; the government needs to be clear about the content of the contract to avoid ambiguity when transferring land; and the implementation of the law needs to be more refined.
But in the nature of the incident, it is the behavior of the tenant that is the problem. Safeguarding the law and the collective interest cannot be described as "wrong". Only by fully restoring the truth can each involved be given a fair conclusion. We need to maintain a rational and objective attitude, and at the same time, we need to help the public understand the legal knowledge correctly and avoid misunderstandings caused by emotional or one-sided judgments.
Netizens' opinions
In the face of this situation, some netizens said: This is the truth, some people indiscriminately slander and attack rural grassroots organizations and rural cadres, misleading public opinion, hoping that netizens will recognize the reality, speak out rationally, and maintain social fairness and justice. Ji Yunhao is a grassroots cadre who dares to take responsibility.
Some netizens said: It turned out to be a saline-alkali barren beach, and people contracted to pad soil and sheep manure to level it, and now there are red eyes. You can't just see other people's profits, but you don't see other people's contributions, don't you have to spend money on transformation for so many years?
Some netizens said: The soil has been improved for the country, and the wasteland has become fertile land, which should be rewarded and encouraged.
At last
As a citizen, we all have a responsibility to uphold social justice and law and order. On social media, we should pay more attention to the essence of the event from a rational and objective perspective, so as to avoid being too emotional and affecting our judgment.
In law enforcement and dispute resolution, the government and grassroots workers should uphold rules and procedural justice, and their methods and styles should also be appropriate and elegant. This will help maintain authority and gain public support.
When paying attention to public welfare events, the public should also keep in mind the importance of facts, listen to the views of multiple parties, and do not take things out of context or be too arbitrary. Maintaining an open and tolerant mindset is a good quality of citizenship.
When transferring and managing collective resources, the relevant departments should pay attention to the clarity of contracts and rules to avoid disputes. At the same time, the exercise of public power also needs to be supervised to protect the legitimate rights and interests of all parties.