Some say a majority agreement cannot represent the entire group of residents. Democracy cannot always resolve social problems but it does at least allow residents an opportunity to have a say. It also provides an opportunity for other options to be considered. In this case, these options came from the local grassroots government, who offered financial aid, and housing assistance to poor families in Jiuxianqiao, after the referendum result, had been announced.

Chun Hua (Guangzhou Daily): Confiscation of land is barbaric, while dingzihus are difficult to control. The major reason for this can be attributed to the absence of effective property statutes, by which private possessions are protected legally. Before the current Real Right Law was promulgated in China, public interest was more important, and individuals often had to make concessions. The Jiuxianqiao referendum is open to public opinion, putting residents on equal footing with the government and developers.

Legal experts questioned the referendum, saying that disposition of private properties shall not be decided by others. It may be stated in law, but the case of Jiuxianqiao is different. Here the government has to make a decision, as by not doing so the majority of residents will be put at risk because of the aging structures and facilities. In this case, the government should make the decision for the overwhelming majority.

Han Han (The Beijing News): Indeed, from a legal perspective, the majority can never dispose the properties of the minority. However, at least this referendum is a good start to giving the public a bigger role in the decision-making process.

A wise government should be more aware of the huge potential in allowing the public a voice. The Chinese Government is beginning to learn to ask for public opinion, reduce conflicts and confrontation, and promote policymaking in a more scientific and reasonable way.

That is why a public poll cannot be oversimplified. In the first place, the Jiuxianqiao project should not stop at the stage of referendum. There should be a hearing or follow-up debates before a final decision was made; second, the voting activity should be organized by residents or other neutral parties, and be coordinated by the government to ensure its independence and transparency; third, discussion and voting should not be confined to the transfer stage as procedures of community planning and welfare guarantee should also be addressed; fourth, the results are not the final outcome as further negotiations among the parties involved are still required.

Mao Jianguo (Shanghai Youth Daily): The opinions of even a small group should be respected. Elections and casting votes are the bedrock of democracy, and the people's voices must be heard.

The local grassroots government in the Jiuxianqiao area has acknowledged this by explaining that supervisors would be elected to ensure the transparency and fairness of the housing vote. Also a revaluation will be made to give full consideration to the interests of the Jiuxianqiao residents. By raising the proportion of compensation to the project's total turnover, every resident is guaranteed compensation in terms of financial interests.

Protect private rights

Yang Tao (www. xinhuanet.com http://www.xinhuanet. com): Democracy can be restrained by limits where it is ineffective. Civil servants can be elected or public decisions can be made in the form of democracy, however, individual freedom, particularly, the ownership of property, cannot be interfered in by so-called democracy.

The poll, organized by developers, is essentially a transfer of disputes and conflicts between residents and developers, to a debate between residents of different groups.

Dong Jiang (Guangzhou Daily): The residents, who don't want to move, have the right to claim for reasonable sums of compensation.

Both public interest and individual interest should be factored into a final plan. The principle of minority being subordinate to the majority is not applicable in the disposition of private property.

Xiao Hua (Yanzhao Metro Daily): More and more dingzihus are expected, as urbanization expands. When an overwhelming majority agrees to move, those uncooperatives left behind will definitely be headaches for developers.

One or two uncooperative households may easily delay a project worth millions of yuan. Fortunately, the annoyed developers can now turn to "democratic" referendum to let the majority potentially exert pressure upon the minority.

But a real democratic society protects the very legitimate right of everyone, including lawful ownership of individual property that cannot be deprived by anyone. The soon-to-be-effective Real Right Law is an evolutionary progress of China's legal system, in terms of acknowledgment and protection of private property. And a so-called referendum cannot resolve disputes between commercial developers and residents.

Li Kejie (Procuratorial Daily): Democracy is powerful and authoritative enough to decide a nation's path of development, frame or abolish a state's constitution, and elect or impeach a cabinet. But the major principle of democracy, which requires the minority to go along with the majority, also causes a majority run tyranny.

Perhaps the newly emerged form of democracy, which advocates wide participation of the general public, is the best solution. This newly invented mechanism allows more people to give their opinions, and requires them to listen to opposing ideas, or those they have little interest in. In one word, confiscation of land is different from other public affairs, and it should be cautiously dealt with.