The package,
which takes effect on April 1, devotes most of its 29 clauses to the division of
wealth after divorce, including houses, stocks, housing subsidies and retirement
pensions, as well as intellectual property income.
Mounting divorce
cases may be an embarrassing phenomenon to many who still hold the traditional
dictum for family cohesion.
Whatever the
reason behind the problem, the making of the judicial interpretations in itself
displays a positive means of addressing it.
The
interpretations define most property items procured in marriage as "joint
property," meaning they are subject to division in divorce.
That reflects
disfavour toward those who view their advantage in wealth as a chip to override
the feelings and interests of the other side in marriage.
To some extent,
it will provide better safeguards for female parties and children, who are more
likely to be disadvantaged.
The new
interpretations exhibit the Supreme People's Court's fine techniques in
rule-making, with consideration of the spirit of Marriage Law, as well as
traditional values and reality.
They will direct
local judges in handling divorce cases as a pragmatic supplement to the Marriage
Law which, enacted in 1980 and amended in 2001, is largely in general terms and
leaves room for wrangles over detailed issues, property in particular.
Technical
matters aside, the supreme court deserves kudos for its approach in producing
the interpretations.
In September the
court posted a notice on the Internet inviting public proposals and suggestions
for the interpretations.
The involvement
of public opinion not only sent the top judicial body closer to the masses, but
also added to the sensibility of the new interpretations.
It should be
maintained as a regular practice in making rules that matter to every citizen's
life.
