First, we must clearly understand that the law and public opinions are associated. The law which is worked out by the legislature of the state is the public opinion with the highest level of enforcement power. The opinion that public opinion would be against the law is irrational thinking. If the majority of people think that one law is not a unit of the legal opinion and feel it necessary to make an amendment or repeal, then this should be resolved through legal procedures, not be resolved by" public opinion kidnapping laws". We should believe that it is rational to solve problems in real life by law, although this is not the only means. Similarly, when the courts apply laws or the enforcement branches carry out the law enforcement, it does not necessarily mean that the law reflects public opinion if we always yield to public opinions, conversely, it is probably against the rule of law .

　　Secondly, we should distinguish between public opinion and the interest of groups. Our laws should reflect public opinions, but public opinions can not become narrow nationalism sentiments, especially, it can not become an excuse of the enterprises for self-protection. What''s more, we must be careful not to allow public opinion be kidnapped by interest groups, and further become their tools to advance their own interests. When facing foreign M & A, our law enforcement agencies must remain clear-headed and rational. We should analyze the nature of relevant market behaviours by the law, not by public opinions. The demand to review mergers and acquisitions from the angle of national economic security arouses suspicion that some enterprises of the same business or industry seek the asylum from public authority in order to evade the competition.

　　Finally, the legislation, judicature and enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law are highly professional. Accordingly, it requires judgments from professionals who possess a strong theoretical foundation of law and rich legal practice.　It is neither serious nor scientific to determine the legality of market behavior only with their own intuitive senses. Usually, on the question of whether a cross-border M & A is illegitimate, ordinary people come to a conclusion based on their own intuitive feeling or "implicit to public opinion "（they have no own opinions and just listen to public opinions assertively）. This conclusion shouldn''t be the basis to judge whether a behavior is illegal or not, what is more important, it should not impact the decision worked by our national anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies. As a matter of fact, it is a violation of the rule of law to use the so-called public opinions to attempt to replace or suppress the law. China in the 21st century can no longer repeat the historical tragedy of 60''s and 70''s during the 20th century.

　　Conclusion

　　In addition to the impact of national sentiment, another key reason for the sensation of this abortive foreign M & A case is that China''s anti-monopoly laws and regulations lack the implementation details of some procedures. It highlighted the needs to set forth regulations regarding the discretion of the law enforcement agencies　 as well as to reduce the uncertainty of law enforcement. Although China''s Anti-monopoly Law became effective on August 1, 2008, the M & A''s application procedures, review procedures, standards and other issues are not yet clear, and there is a need for more detailed and corresponding implementing rules to come to a more transparent review decision.

　　We are concerned about foreign M & A, but do not discriminate against it.　We regulate the foreign M & A, but do not prohibit it. The regulation of foreign M & A is not only a pure legal issue, it also relates to economic implication, national industrial policy and economic security. But by no means is it a simple catharsis of nationalist sentiment. The incident, which led to a wide range of emotional expression due to some of domestic media speculation, has become an excuse for the international world to challenge the impartiality of China''s Anti-monopoly Law enforcement.