Chapter 22 Will the big boss before the "law" lose to the peasant woman?

As a society ruled by law, an invisible hand in Hong Kong has managed the city in an orderly manner. Everything is based on the law. No one is allowed to evade the law, influence the law, let alone override and manipulate the law. On January 6, 2006, Hong Kong's "Oriental Daily" published such an article on the front page - "Farmer's Wife Wins Henderson: Hegemony has become the owner after 20 years, and the final judgment is finalized".Holding this newspaper in my hand, I read it repeatedly N times, and then bent over my desk to think N times, and finally had to be convinced: "Law" is indeed supreme in Hong Kong, everyone is equal before the law, farmers and big bosses, poor and rich, Facing the court, there is no difference in identity and status between anyone and anyone. A "beautiful blueprint" that used to be completely ideal in my opinion, now appears in Hong Kong, which makes people look at it with gusto——

The article on the front page of "Oriental Daily" tells about an eighty-year-old peasant woman and her daughter in Hong Kong who successfully challenged Henderson Group, a real estate tycoon in Hong Kong, in August 2004. When the court dealt with this case of "adverse right to occupy land", it was unbelievable that the peasant women, mother and daughter, who are the real grassroots class in Hong Kong, won the case, and did not leave any special affection for the real estate predators.In this lawsuit between an ordinary peasant woman and a well-known business consortium, the land that the two parties want to regain is located near the Emerald Garden in Tai Po, New Territories, with an area of ​​120,000 square feet. It is a rare piece of farmland in Hong Kong. The estimated market value of this piece of farmland in 2006 Up to 36 million Hong Kong dollars.

The whole "story" process, once condensed, is actually quite simple: In 1951, the peasant woman's first husband entered into a lease with the owner of the land to farm and live there for a long time. In 1961, the land owner sold the land to the "Three Friends" such as Henderson Chairman Lee Shau Kee. In this way, two sales of one land and one daughter married twice, the troubles became more and more prominent. Finally, in 1993, Henderson's company issued a move-out notice to the peasant woman. The peasant woman did not move out, nor was she afraid of Lee Shau-kee. The reason for this was the original law of Hong Kong: Anyone who is within the scope stipulated by the government can bully her. After more than 20 years, the land is legally owned by it; and Henderson Group, as a supporting enterprise in Hong Kong society, not only has a lot of money, but also has evidence in hand. The new "New Territories Land Lease (Renewal) Regulations", if the period of hegemony is recalculated according to this "Regulations", Henderson Group understands that the peasant woman has "hegemony" on this land for less than 20 years, so they It is possible to win this lawsuit.

In 2004, the Hong Kong High Court ruled that the peasant woman won the case according to the law at that time, and Henderson’s company failed to recover the land in the first round of judicial battles and filed an appeal; In 2005, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal overturned the original judgment and ruled that the technical appeal of the company under Henderson was allowed (established).According to this judgment, Henderson Group should regain the land as it wished, but the overbearing peasant woman refused to accept it and continued to appeal; As a result, on January 5, 2006, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled that the "New Territories Land Leases (Renewal) Ordinance" only continued the status quo of land leases, and the period of hegemony did not need to be recalculated. "It was declared to be established again, and Henderson Group finally failed to take back the film in the face of the legal result of the final judgment.

"The farmer's wife wins the boss"?Such things may not seem strange to Hong Kong people.But I have been standing in front of this case for a long time, but I can't calm down in my heart. I can't help but compare it with the situation in the Mainland. I always have to assume that if this case is moved to the Mainland? After all, in the final analysis, a peasant woman is just an extremely low-key individual in society. Even if the court deprives her of her land, how much "movement" can her energy cause in society?The real estate tycoons are the pillars of the society, and to "influence" the judiciary, the avenues are definitely much wider than those of peasant women.Offending the peasant woman or offending the boss, which is more important?Can the judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal really abandon these objective existences?Mount Tai must uphold justice, rule according to law, and enforce laws like a mountain?

I am not qualified to judge whether the final ruling of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal on this case is correct or not, but I do things according to the law, do not show favoritism, and treat peasant women and big bosses equally, so that "everyone is equal before the law" is no longer empty talk, but It really opened my eyes. Of course, don't know how easy it is for them to achieve this?