On March 15, a couple from Harbin in Northeast China publicly smashed a Toshiba rear-projection TV into pieces in the pouring rain. They did so to express their anger and frustration that the TV, having already undergone numerous repairs and replacements, still failed to function properly and the seller or the manufacturer had shown every reluctance to solve the problem or pay a refund.

The act was staged to take place on March 15, "Consumer's Rights Day". It was a deliberate move by the couple to show their despair about current consumer protection laws in China and all the practical frustrations they have met in the past five years, ever since buying the TV in 1999 for 18,500 yuan (US$2,200).

A similar sensational event took place about four years ago when the owner of a Mercedes-Benz car in Wuhan of Hubei Province in Central China, smashed the vehicle in public out of similar anger and in an attempt to attract the attention of the manufacturer and retailer.

Prevalent legal views about similar events are that: consumers are better advised to settle the mater through legal means (by way of the product liability law and consumers protection law), for example); and although consumers are entitled to dispose of their property in any manner they like, such disposal must be in compliance with relevant laws and regulations, in particular, such disposal shall not be conducted in a way that damages the reputation of relevant parties (the manufacturer or the seller) without good cause.

It seems that nowadays, people's attention can only be captured by smashing, explosion and suicide. Otherwise, no one can drag me away from my own business. So a "small potato" has to stir some attention by way of smashing; the media has to stir some attention by way of reporting the smashing; and commentators have to stir some attention by way of commenting on the smashing.

So smashing news is very distinctive in the newspapers and it remains in people's memory for a long time.

But it only remains in people's memory, not on their agenda.

Four years have passed since the last smashing news, but China's consumer protection legal regime remains unchanged.

When the Harbin couple was interviewed about their reason for the smashing, among other things, they expressed their particular anger about the strange and unreasonable provision in the product quality examination and appraisal regulations promulgated in 1999, which requires consent from both parties to a product quality dispute (ie, both the consumer and the manufacturer or the seller) for a proper and valid application to the relevant authorities for such examination and appraisal.

But who would be glad to have his or her own defective product examined by the government by simply giving his or her consent? And without proper government proof of product quality (which would only come after an unworthily protracted period of time), it would be really hard time for the couple to go any further down the legal path.

This is only a sample of examples to show how an otherwise smooth or workable channel of dispute resolution is blocked by an unwise design of the system. In other aspects of our life and in other parts of the world, there are numerous examples and lessons where the unavailability or inaccessibility of a proper and creditable dispute resolution system has caused or is causing or will cause "smashing".

It is to the benefit of all that a society should provide reasonable and smooth methods of dispute resolution.

(Shanghai Star April 17, 2004)