The One's Left Behind: Rural China's Struggle for Land Rights

By Vince Wong, 3L, Centre for Comparative and Public Law, University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

They say that the brightest lights often cast the darkest shadows. China’s spectacular economic growth since Deng Xiaoping’s ‘reform and opening’ in the late 1970s has arguably been the brightest economic story in modern history. Yet those who observe the shadows make startling observations. Since 1978, an estimated 50-60 million rural Chinese have lost their land due to government expropriations. Roughly half of those dispossessed have become desperately impoverished and have lost their livelihoods at a time when the state is cutting back dramatically on social security.

While civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, are the focus of most China-observers from the West, it is economic and social rights, such as land and housing rights, that are the focus of most domestic observers. Unsurprisingly then, given their tremendous scale and pervasive effect, land disputes have become the de facto number one social grievance in China.

To understand this phenomenon further, I interned at the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. The Centre, directed by IHRP alumnus Professor Simon Young, provided me with a home base in order to conduct my research. Hong Kong was also an excellent city from which to research this topic, as it has long been a nexus for scholars conducting critical analysis on sensitive Chinese issues.

It wasn’t long before I was hopping between the law faculties of the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong and City University of Hong Kong, meeting with a variety of Chinese legal experts. My research also took me into the mainland, travelling across Guangdong province and into Guangxi province, from the sprawling metropolises of Shenzhen and Guangzhou to the bustling villages of Baguang and Dongfeng. While the beauty of China’s landscapes and cityscapes were captivating, the substance of my interviews and research brought me back to a much harsher reality.

To combat what many Chinese feel to be unjust and illegal land expropriations, evictees have employed a variety of different methods to protect their land. Many have gone to the courts, seeking to avail themselves of remedies under China’s Administrative Procedural Law. Others have sent letters and petitions to various levels of government, hoping to attract a sympathetic ear. Tech and media savvy Chinese have gone online to elicit support from China’s massive micro-blogging sphere as well as domestic and foreign media outlets. Some band together in mass protests and demonstrations, while others choose to write open letters to Beijing (such as an open notice representing 70,000 evicted farmers in Shaanxi province, attempting to reclaim a large tract of forcibly expropriated land). 

While in some instances these avenues can be successful in procuring more favourable resettlement and compensation terms, too often these protests are put down through harassment, intimidation and outright violence by hired thugs or local police. During my travels to Beihai in Guangxi province, locals of (former) Baihutou village described how hundreds of fellow villagers were indiscriminately beaten by armed police while resisting the demolition of their homes. For his part in advocating for villagers’ rights, the former village chief was arrested and convicted on seemingly trumped up charges of operating an illegal business and using a false name to sign in at a hotel. It is widely acknowledged that these are not isolated incidents, but common occurrences in contemporary China.

Why is this happening? The law itself is partially to blame. China currently employs a dual land tenure system, which is affirmed by China’s Property Law and Land Administration Law. Urban land is owned by the State, while rural and suburban land is owned by collective economic organizations – ordinarily corresponding to a village or group of villages. Individuals are then issued ‘land use rights’ which allow holders to use plots of land for a pre-defined number of years.