In Tianjin Hedong district, 196 house owners from Xinghe Garden residential zone co-signed as constituency a dismissal of Ding Bing, who was the people's representative of Hedong district, as well as developer of Xinghe Garden residential zone. This is the largest constituency dismissal of people's representative in mainland China up to now. (See May 6th The Beijing News)

Ding Bing was standing committee member of the Tianjin Hedong district people's congress. He was municipal people's representative for Tianjin during the 14th session and was also executive committee member of the 9th National Association of Industry and Commerce. This dismissal case is the highest level in China. According to stipulations in the Election Law, it is relatively easier to dismiss people's representative that was "indirectly elected" compared with dismissing people's representative "directly elected" like Ding Bing. During the period when people's congress is closed, dismissal cases are initiated, reviewed, and voted on by standing committees of the people's congress. If representative was directly elected, then even if relevant organ motioned for dismissal, the initiation of the process still needs above 50 constituents from the original election district to co-sign a written dismissal plea, and the motion must be passed by over half of the constituents in the original election zone. In Ding Bing's dismissal case, the fact that 196 residents were gathered to do this, indicates an awakening of awareness for citizens' rights.
Compared with the "failed dismissal case" of Hunan Hengyang county in 2005, The Tianjin Ding Bing dismissal case has a different process. According to China Youth Daily, Aug. 24, 2005, Mr. Lu, people's representative of Hengyang county was seized and penalized by the police for gambling. After which the CPC Hengyang Municipal Disciplinary Committee suggested to Hengyang county people's congress standing commission to mobilize people through a series of meetings to attempt at passing through the "motion" of the Disciplinary Committee, but they never got 50 people to co-sign in the end. Thus the dismissal case was born dead. In the Tianjin Ding Bing dismissal case, constituents were enthusiastic in participating, the motion came spontaneously from constituents themselves. From top-down to bottom-up, this reflects an increase in the awareness for citizen participation and rights. Needless to say, this is significant.
Ding Bing has a duel status in this case. He is not only a people's representative, but also chairman of board for Tianjin Dingwang Group Ltd. The common grounds of the 196 constituents is that they are all house owners in Hedong district Xinghe Garden. And Ding Bing happened to be the developer of this zone. The 196 constituents formed a common interest group. They participated in the dismissal case in order to uphold their rights. This is different naturally from the Hengyang case. The Hengyang case failed because many constituents thought Mr. Lu did not infringe on their own rights, and his dismissal did not concern them. Even if Ding Bing lost his status as people's representative, the owners' housing problem may still not be solved. However, in the Ding Bing case, owners transformed their plea for real estate rights into an execution of political rights to dismiss their people's representative. The 196 Tianjin constituents were able to turn themselves from house owners into constituents in doing this. This was not easy and a precious action.
The right to dismiss is constituents' natural rights. According to the rules of modern democratic politics, people's representatives are spokesmen for the people elected by the constituents. People's congress formed by these people is the highest power organ at the same level. Representatives are elected by the constituents and must naturally be responsible to the people and accept their supervision. If constituents are dissatisfied with them, they certainly have the right to dismiss them. This is what happens in modern democratic countries. However, this seldom occurs in China. The way the 196 Tianjin citizens expressed their citizens rights by dismissing a people's representative is unprecedented in China's history of legal system and constitutional politics in level, scale, and initiatives. Thus no matter what the outcome will be in this dismissal case, it is significant as a milestone.

by reporter Pu Jia