Two recent cases illustrate how this socialist thinking makes itself felt.

China has shelved the legislation of its first law on real property rights for the protection of private property, after a Marxist law professor slammed the draft for "violating principles of socialism." And an outspoken property developer has sparked public uproar by advocating social inequality. He claims it's only natural for "rich" and "poor" residential areas to be distinguishable.

At a meeting in October, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress scrutinized a draft law on real property rights, the first of its kind. It was generally expected the draft would be discussed and passed by the upcoming NPC annual session starting Sunday.

In March 2004, the NPC revised the constitution to include a clause: "Citizens' legal private property is inviolable," marking China's departure from socialism to constitutionally recognize and protect private property.

With such a revision, it is only natural for China to legislate laws to back up the constitution's new clause; legislation on real property rights becomes necessary. China already has laws on intellectual property rights in force. With a law on real property rights, legal protection of private property would be more complete.

However, in August last year, Gong Xiantian, a Peking University professor and Communist Party member, petitioned the NPC Standing Committee saying the draft law on real property rights "violates the principles of socialism."

Gong, a Marxist law theorist, says the essence of the draft law is to protect the real property rights of the extremely rich minority, though in form it sounds as if everybody's rights would be protected. "It equally protects a rich guy's limousine and a beggar's rod," he adds sarcastically.

Slamming the draft law for not copying in another clause into the constitution stipulating that "state property is inviolable," Gong says if legislated and implemented, the law would cause further state-asset losses. He goes on to say that the draft law "violates the principles of socialism and thus is reactionary."

Obviously Gong based his criticism on an ideological argument instead of a legal point of view and as such he acts in a way that defeats his own purpose. The draft law is an extension of the constitution, and any criticism must focus on whether it deviates from the spirit of the constitution. Failing to do this, Gong's criticism becomes pointless.

If the draft law does not deviate from the constitution, Gong's charge that it "violates the principles of socialism" becomes an accusation against the constitution itself. For this, he needs to offer an explanation.

The rights of the rich and poor must be protected equally if the rule of law is to be upheld. It is astonishing how confused this Marxist law theorist's mind is in this regard.

Gong's petition somehow reached the higher authorities. So now the draft law on real property rights is not included in the legislation list for the upcoming NPC annual session and will have to wait until next year at the earliest.

The second case is no less revealing. Last week at a forum in Shanghai, Ren Zhiqiang, the boss of property developer Huayuan Group said that: "In the past, China was like a slum. Now there are residential areas for the rich and those for the poor. That's natural. It's like letting some people become rich first"

This follows on from another comment Ren made last year: "I do not have a responsibility for building housing for the poor. [Private] property developers only build housing for the rich." Ren's words immediately drew harsh criticism.

Dong Fan, a professor in property research at Beijing Normal University, says it's ideal for people from all walks of life to reside in the same community. Advocating areas be classified rich and poor "poses a threat to social stability," he says.

Lian Yuming, a researcher with Beijing International Urban Development Institute, argues that such a move would widen the wealth gap.

Both Dong and Lian's arguments are based on the socialist belief in a classless society. But China's practice under Mao Zedong proved such a belief is idealistic, and Ren's comments just reflect the reality today. If anything, the criticisms reflect public concern with the widening wealth gap. To narrow the gap, the solution must be to help alleviate poverty. It would be disastrous to restrict people from becoming rich as this would reverse the course of reform.