ABSTRACT
The incident under discussion originated in 1986, when tourism was in the take-off stage. As China’s reform and opening up advanced, the number of foreign tourists increased rapidly. The reception facilities, and in particular hotels, were not only quantitatively insufficient but also qualitatively poor and were unable to meet the requirements of the growing tourist industry. In order to accelerate development and improve tourist reception facilities, intensive efforts were made to attract foreign capital for hotel construction. At that time, an American investment company signed an agreement with a tourist company to build a top-rate hotel, named Sino-US Hotel. For this purpose, the foreign company and the Chinese tourist company (the company and the Tourism Bureau were in fact the same team despite having two names) established the Sino-US Tourist Co. Ltd, which was exclusively responsible for acquiring land for hotel construction. The company acquired 54.54 mu (1 mu = 1/15 hectare) of land from the third production team of the suburban Ruyi village, which meant that 187 people (the team had over 400 people at the time) would be shifted from agriculture to industry. According to the document of the municipal government at the time, these landless people could not work at the hotel because it had been funded by foreign investment. Instead, it was arranged that they would work at different enterprises in the city’s second light industrial system. At the time, it was regarded as a huge advantage for these peasants to have the opportunity to become urban residents. It was a rare chance for them, and those who could be shifted from agriculture to industry would be major players in the production team. For this purpose, the company paid more than 1.4 million yuan to the third production team and Ruyi village, including land compensation, agriculture-supporting fees and crop compensation. According to the document of the municipal government at the time, land compensation and agriculture support fees were not allowed to be divided among the members of the production team. They could only be used for living allowances and job searches. In fact, members of the production team divided the relevant fees equally among themselves, and the company had to allocate
additional funds for those who were to be transferred to the enterprises of the second light industrial system. The housing units of those peasants who would be transferred would become state-owned. However, as some housing compounds were shared by certain family members who would not be transferred, this made for difficulties. The municipal government also had a special policy at the time, called the economic yard system. Under this policy, a peasant household could have an additional lot for diverse operations such as raising pigs and growing vegetables, but these lots could not be used to build houses. By the time the land was acquired, some of the peasants who were due for transfer had already built houses on the additional lots after getting married and separating from their parents. As these lots had been turned into housing sites without policy permission, they could not become state-owned. In view of the above two reasons, an agreement was reached with the village whereby these lots would become state-owned later when conditions were ripe, and the charge for handling the relevant formalities would be paid by the company. As time passed, most enterprises in the second light industrial system
were mismanaged and had been closed down by the early 1990s. Accordingly, most of the peasants who had been shifted from agriculture to industry were gradually laid off. Then, as urbanization increased and the urban areas expanded, the price of suburban land skyrocketed and the suburban rural collectives and individuals became rich because of land acquisition. Therefore, the well-being of the peasants who were first shifted from agriculture to industry is worse than that of those who were not shifted. They became restless and suffered from mental problems. As they attributed their relative poverty to the land acquisition by the Sino-US Hotel, they began complaining to the Tourism Bureau in 1993, and their complaints became wider in scale and stronger in demand after 2000. They staged sit-ins, beat gongs and drums, and blocked the doors of the Tourism Bureau. They even broke into the bureau, smashed up doors and furniture, and attacked senior officials, preventing them from carrying out their normal duties. Initially, the peasants put forward five demands. First, compensation
should be paid to solve the employment difficulties of children under 16 at the time and to alleviate the poor living conditions of those people who had been shifted from agriculture to industry. Second, the acreage of the land acquired did not tally with the official figure. Third, the public reserve fund and properties of the production team when they were shifted from agriculture to industry should be divided equally. Fourth, the issues of the courtyard economy and property service charges when they were shifted from agriculture to industry should be resolved. Fifth, each person should receive 38,000 yuan for economic and mental compensation because of the failure to fulfil the promise that they would not be laid off within 3 years after being shifted from agriculture to industry. In all, 187 people should receive more than 7 million yuan.
