TONG Yihong smelled trouble and decided to flee his home in Wuhan after local police held him firmly responsible for "critically injuring a man when fighting off a demolition squad," an act he adamantly denied.

But why is it necessary for him to flee to Beijing and "surrender" to police there?

Tong, a resident of Tuku Village in Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei Province, got himself into trouble on November 18, when a 30-strong demolition crew, armed with a bulldozer, descended on his house and those of his relatives.

The Tongs were the only family left in the village that refused to sign a relocation contract, citing inadequate compensation, the Beijing News reported on Sunday.

Without identifying themselves, the demolition crew ripped open the barbed fence Tong had set up to keep out intruders.

The crew trespassed on private property in order to flatten the houses and make way for redevelopment.

At this critical juncture, Tong hurled bricks at the rumbling bulldozer to repel the assailants, he said, adding that he didn't target the people hiding behind the vehicle.

His resistance forced the demolition team to retreat after five minutes . He didn't spot any injuries following the confrontation, Tong was quoted as saying.

But police got to him the next day, claiming that his brick attack "had left one in a coma and dying in the hospital." They also demanded Tong present a detailed account of his "wrongdoing."

Tong sensed something fishy about the police charge, and rightly so. The nature of the allegation didn't correspond with the magnitude of the "crime" the police accused him of having committed.

He was charged with "provoking public disturbance," but as the Oriental Morning Post duly questioned on Tuesday, this applies only to minor offenses.

Serious injuries and fatalities are not liable to the same penalty. If Tong did injure someone that critically, why would the police wait a whole day before taking action against him, and doing so under the apparently wrong pretext?

The police's incoherent logic hints at the dubious, possibly trumped-up, nature of their accusation.

At a time when almost not a week goes by without media covering local officials' brutality in making land grabs, such as locking up petitioners and subjecting them to hard labor for daring to air their grievances in Beijing, Tong had a good reason for becoming suspicious of the police.

His desperate journey to Beijing dramatized the deep-seated mistrust of local authorities to handle his case in a fair and transparent way.

It certainly helped that his story traveled across provincial borders and got picked up by reputable news outlets before it could be muted locally.

While the investigation continues, Tong could at least consider himself lucky enough to have made it to Beijing. The less fortunate are "persuaded" to stay behind and kept under close watch.

Nonetheless, publicizing their woes in Beijing sometimes doesn't afford the least protection.

Petitioning can beget unusually heavy-handed countermeasures by vengeful officials, as two female petitioners in northwestern China found out after their public humiliation in a mass rally redolent of the "cultural revolution." (1966-1976).

Public trial

Duan Dingmei, 42, and Qiao Zhuanli, 47, both villagers in Fuping County, Shaanxi Province, ran afoul of local authorities for going on "unsanctioned" petitioning trips to Beijing in February over land and construction disputes with the government, the Beijing News reported on October 8.

They were seized in Beijing and fell into the hands of those who drove them there. The duo arrived home under escort on March 4, not to a hero's welcome but to a nightmare that has distressed them ever since. Both now shun acquaintances out of shame.

The next day upon their arrival, officials staged a public trial of the women after "collective study." The hapless women were taken to the county's public square, where the deputy county chief, legal bosses and more than 10,000 onlookers had gathered for the 40-minute event.

What followed conjures up images of "mass struggle sessions." Duan and Qiao were led on stage and heard their own trial with heads kept low and arms lifted behind their backs in the excruciatingly painful "airplane" position. Police had warned them against arguing or contesting that would mar the "solemn ambience."

Though the women were spared the worst of typical mass denunciations, like being spat on and verbally or physically abused, cameras recording their humiliation made their faces blush and eyes moist.

The blatant farce was later broadcast on local television to deter and terrorize similar offenders. It was withdrawn only after the women protested. But officials remained unapologetic over their tyrannical ways.

Liu Yinxue, head of a local petitions office, was cited as saying that "Fuping is ridden with petitioners. Their action is vaguely defined in law and thus not punishable. So some methods 'with Chinese characteristics' are justifiable in dealing with them."

What irony that petitioners are issuing appeals to the very people that oppress them.

Lingering faith in such "shock and awe" tactics as parading disobedient people through the streets to chasten and humble them is also alive and well beyond Fuping.

In a notorious case, Chen Xiaoping, Party secretary of Wanzai County, Jiangxi Province, brazenly claimed in late August that petitioners who go to Beijing should be disciplined and fined on their first trip. If it happens a second time they should be detained and on the third occasion, the individual should be sentenced to "reeducation through labor."

When noted professor Yu Jianrong castigated Chen's argument that "development warrants demolition," the reply he got was even brasher. "How do we feed you intellectuals without demolitions?"

But an equally arrogant question can be asked of Chen: what do we need officials for if they only know how to demolish things?

Some officials are so obsessed with pulling down homes that even career advancement can be sidelined.

Fang Xiping, mayor of the Anhui Province city of Chizhou, where 12.4 square kilometers of fertile farmland in Meilong Town was slated for conversion into an industrial park, reportedly has made the bold claim that "I'm willing to lay my job on the line to raze the town within 20 days."

His boldness incurred popular wrath, after locals affected by the project found their compensation money slashed to one third what they were previously promised.

On a November 3 visit to the planned site for the industrial park, the mayor's Audi A6 sedan was flipped over after he refused to go out and placate angry villagers.

In an attempt to brush off criticism of the mayor appearing indifferent, Chizhou's deputy publicity head said in an interview published in Wednesday's Oriental Morning Post that the "populist" mayor's high visibility among locals made him an easily identifiable target.

It's weird that a "populist" mayor of a city whose 2009 GDP of 24.5 billion yuan (US$368.5 million) made it the poorest of all cities in Anhui would feel so insecure about stepping out of his posh car to address the villagers. So much for the "populist" rhetoric.

Cozy collaboration

Tsinghua University sociologist Guo Yuhua said in an interview with the Southern Weekend in September that under the mechanism of "one veto kills an official's career," regional governments tend to prioritize stability during their term and hence brook no dissent.

Needless to say, the veto comes from above, meaning as long as superiors assume a "see-no-evil" attitude, no trampling of people's rights will be considered too harsh in reining in whoever steps out of line.

But Guo has been, let's say, economical with words. He certainly could've gone deeper. A clearly discernible culprit behind demolition-related violence is the nexus between officials and developers.

When official power is wielded not for empowering the populace, but for pandering to and sheltering interest groups that profit from theft and plunder, tragedies are inevitable.

Late American economist Mancur Olsen argued in his 1982 work "The Rise and Decline of Nations" that active official collaboration with interest groups in plundering from the public erodes the foundation for growth and saps people's spirit of entrepreneurship.

Only those who benefit from a corrupt system sing its praise and do everything to perpetuate it.

For those idolizing development with quasi religious fervor, their vision of development should be scrutinized.

Is it all about superficial prosperity without growth or amassing ill-gotten wealth?

And are those disapproving of it enemies to be crushed?