Guiyang divorce tide is concerned by all parties.

Before the divorce tide in June 20 12 and June 20 1 10, the policy of large-scale publicity of rural housing ownership in time zone stipulated that the ownership of each household should not exceed 240 square meters. The relevant person in charge expressed surprise and said that this was because the villagers misread the policy of benefiting the people.

A misunderstanding! Put the blame entirely on yourself and throw all the twists and turns to the misunderstood villagers! The implication is that this is a good policy of benefiting the people. Who told you not to understand deeply? But is the fact really as the person in charge said? Need to restore the truth and process of the incident.

In principle, the right is confirmed by "one household and one house"; The control standard of each household's right confirmation is: the land area does not exceed 130 square meters, and the building area does not exceed 240 square meters. It is this policy that makes many people flock to the divorce hall. According to the villagers who came to divorce, after confirmation, all the unconfirmed parts were treated as illegal buildings. My home has exceeded the upper limit of 240 square meters. What if it's redundant? Is it treated as illegal building? The relevant person in charge did not give a specific explanation. If it is illegal, what is the legal basis? If it is not illegal construction, why is the policy unclear? Or why didn't the policy propaganda interpreter make it clear? According to the divorce of local villagers, anything over 240 square meters must be treated as illegal building! Otherwise, the people have nothing to do without food? Does it have to be a fake divorce?

It is the villagers who have different understandings of relevant policies for one reason or another, so there has been a wave of divorce for a week in a row. Why can't the relevant departments explain? Why do you have to wait until the media exposure and public opinion influence before the relevant departments think of policy interpretation? Moreover, according to local villagers, before the implementation of this so-called policy of benefiting the people, there was indeed a large-scale publicity in the district, indicating that there should be no problem in policy interpretation! Therefore, there is no so-called "misreading" problem of villagers.

The crux of the problem lies in whether we have considered it thoroughly at the beginning of formulating policies. Huimin policy is a major event involving the interests of people's livelihood, so we must think twice! Before the introduction of the policy, we should go deep into the grassroots reality, ask people more questions, ask people's needs, and see if it is important or not. No matter how good the policy is, if the people don't support it and the people don't want it, the result is a detour. A really good policy of benefiting the people should be to make the people live and work in peace and contentment and make them more peaceful and stable. The so-called policy of benefiting the people and letting villagers queue up for divorce is actually a policy of disturbing the people! It is a kind of shirking responsibility to attribute the cause of the problem to the "misunderstanding" of the villagers. The land is repeated. There will inevitably be some absurd things between truth and falsehood. For example, the villagers who got divorce certificates in Yunyan District of Guiyang City are not sad at all, but are in high spirits, and there are 90-year-old people in wheelchairs waiting to go through the formalities. Driven by interests, some extreme practices that are even more contrary to human ethics have also been exposed. Yin, a farmer in Yibin, Sichuan, actually divorced his wife first, then married his mother-in-law, and then divorced and remarried his wife. This kind of tossing is to increase the hukou, get hundreds of thousands of compensation for demolition, and at the same time provide his mother-in-law with old-age insurance. Of course, such behavior has been suspected of fraud.

"Fake divorce", also known as malicious divorce, has a variety of real purposes, but * * * is to exploit policy loopholes and gain practical benefits. The difficulty of "fake divorce" is that divorce is a civil right and protected by law, but it is difficult to grasp the true and false motives of divorce and to define them legally. Although the benefits of "fake divorce" are large and small, there are many benefits, but they are always real. At this time, moral constraints often appear pale and powerless.

"Fake divorce" essentially reveals a kind of thinking of hitchhiking and taking advantage of "public". By extension, we can find that there are many behaviors that follow similar logic in life. For example, some farmers temporarily plant trees to build houses on cultivated land or homestead in order to obtain more compensation for land acquisition and demolition. These trees and houses were not originally needed by farmers; There are also college entrance examination immigrants, just for their children to enjoy better college entrance examination resources in the place where they move in, but parents have no realistic needs for employment and development there.

Whether it is subsistence allowance, compensation or cheap housing, it is essentially a public resource distributed in different ranges. Because the allocation scheme of public resources is not perfect, some people can hitchhike and take advantage of the loopholes. As long as this resource is limited and it is necessary to set up access qualifications, then the phenomenon of qualification fraud and the possibility of being used will not be eliminated. Take the compensation for demolition as an example. If the eligible population is controlled by household registration, some people will increase the number through "fake divorce" and "fake marriage". If it is distributed according to the land area and the attachments on the ground, some people will make profits by temporarily planting trees to build houses. In fact, there is no perfect scheme to allocate public resources in reality, and even the highly developed Nordic welfare countries can't put an end to hitchhiking. Therefore, it can only be reduced as much as possible by increasing the intensity of the attack. The public security law explored in some places is linked with civil affairs, family planning, credit and other departments to deal with "fake divorce", which is worth popularizing.

In some cases, low-income groups or people with difficulties also have hitchhiking behavior, and their situation is more likely to arouse sympathy than violation. Of course, this group should attract the attention of the society and the government and give them more relief, but this is another problem and cannot be used to explain the rationality and legitimacy of the phenomenon of "fake divorce" and "fake tree planting".