THE PEACH GARDEN: A PROHIBITED AREA

开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇THE PEACH GARDEN: A PROHIBITED AREA范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！

According to the popular sayings of today, all the members of the pastorale club are above the middle class. The common ground of them is the yearning for calm and slow life style; abhor of the struggle and clamor life in the city after gaining a successful career. Upon that, they have invested millions with years of savings to the pover ty alleviation and chariry, like building reading room , out side gym , show room of the country culture collections and entertainment room in swan village. They want to live the rural life like all the other countrymen in swan village, planting flowers and vegetables during the d ay and playing cards, chess, talk of the poetry and paint during the night.

However, the pastoral members have been struggling on one thing for a long time, which is whether they could get the same right as all the other country men have after all theinvestments they have done? This confusion is due to the troubles and pressures from some government depar tments. They consider the members as citizens rather than the famers, so the members could not live in the country side like the other countrymen . In this case, the members are confusing that why the government could spend a huge amount of money to move the famers from the country side to the city, but could not let the city people move to the country side by their own money? They are questioning that why tens of thousands of Chengdu citizens could move freely between city and country side, whereas the other cities that are just hundre ds kilometers away from Cheng du could not imple ment the same policy? After more than fifty years of the separate administration of city and country, why the governments forbid city people’s moving to country while they have spent so much money to let the countrymen move to cities?

Therefore , we have checked somerel evant information about the couragement of free movement between city and countr y side of Chengdu. On 16th November 2010, Chengdu city held the press conference to an nounce the completely changing of the dual structure of cit y and country. They are planning to unify the city a n d c o u nt r y’s h o u s e h o l d re g i s te re d , to achieve the free movement between them w h i c h a ll ows th e c o u ntr y m e n to m ove to t h e c i t y a n d t h e c i t i ze n s to m ove to t h e country side freely as well. People could go to the place where they want. Government c o u l d a f fo rd s o c i a l s e c u r i t y a n d we l f a re f a i r l y, i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p o l i c y of “s a m e household registered” and “same residence g u a r a n te e”. W i t h a l , t h e p u b l i c o p i n i o n s from home and abroad have highly focused on these issues and they all consider this as the most radical change of the housed hole registered in China. Some specialists remarked: the aim of the new policy is not to p u t a ll th e co u ntr y m e n to th e c i t y a n d to move all the citizens to the country. The essential meaning is to give back the right of freedom of migration to people. People could decide freely either to live in cit y or country. As a result, after the new policy is carried out, the changing will be great and a big progress, even if there would not be a single countryman going to the city or city folk going to the country in the end. Because it represents the respect to the constitution, human rights, citizen rights and the respect to the pesonality of the in ividuals. The inspiration that the policy has represented is freedom, though it does not mean “to live wherever you want (including go to the city or the country as you like and do not move when you don’t want to)”. However, in fact, it is to redeem the citizen rights by carrying out the freedom of choosing where to live. I t re l e a s e d n ot o n l y f a r m e r, b u t a l s o t h e productively, creatively and soft power.

I f g o v e r n m e n t c o u l d a l l o w p e o p l e i n t h e c i t y t o m o v e i n t o t h e c o u n t r y s i d e while they are encouraging countr ymen to move into the cit y, it could truly break the i d e n t i t y d i f f e re n c e b e t w e e n c i t y p e o p l e and countr ymen; change the cognition of gentle and simple dif ference between cit y folks and countrymen which has been exited f o r a l o n g t i m e ; a n d a c h i e v e e q u i v a l e n t citizen rights and free two-way movement between country and city in the first place. S e c o n d l y, i t c o u l d w a ke n t h e p a s s i o n of l o n g te r m a n d h u g e s o c i a l i nve s t m e n t s ; s o l v e t h e p r o b l e m o f o v e r d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e g ove r n m e n t o f t h e i nve s t i n g a n d consumption. T hirdly, it could completely solve the investing and consumption demand f r o m u r b a n i z a t i o n ; r e d u c e t h e c o s t a n d pressure of the migration from the country s i d e to c i t y. Fo u r th l y, i t c o u l d re l i eve th e violent raising of the residence price which caused by the heavily migration to the city of the countrymen. Fifthly, it could solve the explosion of urban sickness caused by the migration from country to city. Sixthly it could affect and improve the quality of people from cou ntr y s i d e. S eve nthl y, i t cou l d im p rove the ef fective use of the land in the cit y by reasonable circulation and transferring of it. Eighthly, it could change the backwardness of rural development, just like the rural towns in the developed country are the first choice to live for the middle and upper class.

H o w e v e r , t h e r e a l i t y t r e n d i s incomprehensible. Cit y pe ople’s moving into country is still under extremely severe re stri cti o n, w h il e th e re i s l e s s re stri cti o n for the farmers to move into the cit y. The yearning for countr y life of a huge amount city people is ruthlessly suppressed. Their b e n e f i t s h ave b e e n d i s c r i m i n a te d . T h e i r r i g hts h ave b e e n s u p p re s s e d s e d u l o u s l y and despised enormously. So, what’s the reason for hindering resident to go to the countr yside? Obviously, the biggest concern is the arrangement of the land system. For instance, since the land p r o p e r t i e s o f c o u n t r y a n d c i t y a r e d i f f e r e n t according to The Constitution, how to protect the land proper t y that produced by the migration to the countryside from city and how to concentrate a n d c i rc u l ate t h e l a n d p ro d u c e d by t h e 2-way m i g r a t i o n? W h e t h e r to a l l o w t h e c o u n t r y m e n to go to the cit y or cit y people to move into the countr yside, the es sential is sue is whether we could eliminate the sense of the differential identity between farmers and city people. And we should truly establish the citizen concept; uphold the civil rights; rather than constrain it artificially, and allow the human resources and production factors to flow rationally. As long as the concept could be innovated, the operation issues could be solved via regulation and guidance of planning constraints, system-building and policy measures. The author b e li eve s th at th e d u a l str u ctu re w ill d i s a p p e a r and the society change will be successful when population, capital and other impor tant factors could flow freely between city and countryside.