被操弄的農戶「分類」— 以臺灣土地改革為例

The manipulated ‘classification
of farm households – the example
of Taiwan’s land reform
被操弄的農戶「分類」— 以臺灣土地改革為例

Hsu Shih-jung
Professor, Department of Land Economics, National Chengchi University
徐世榮
國立政治大學地政系教授

Introduction: Taiwanese history textbooks have long sung the praises of post-war land reform such as the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act and the Land to the Tiller Act, and the Kuomintang up to today still relishes flaunting it as its past achievement. But as far as the Taiwanese farm households who had their land confiscated are concerned, did the entire expropriation process and relevant laws fulfill the justice principle? Which issues of transitional justice need to be addressed in connection with the land reform? The organizer of today’s forum, the Taiwan Historical Association, has invited scholars and experts to a symposium on “post-war resource allocation problems.” They engaged in in-depth discussions and analyses on Taiwan’s land reform, the KMT party assets, and economic resources allocation in Taiwan. The Taiwan News presents here the forum highlights.

引言：「三七五減租」、「耕者有其田」等二戰後土地改革政策，長期以來是台灣歷史教科書裡讚揚歌頌的題材，也是國民黨至今仍津津樂道的昔日政績。但是對當年被徵收土地的台灣農戶來說，整個徵收的程序與相關法律是否符合正義原則？這其中有哪些歷史的轉型正義問題需要處理？主辦單位台灣歷史學會特別邀請學者專家，舉辦「戰後資源分配問題」學術研討會，就「台灣土地改革」、「國民黨黨產」、「台灣經濟資源分配」等議題進行深入的剖析與討論。本報特別整理其中部分精采內容以饗讀者。

For a long time Taiwan’s land reform has been given high historic appraisal. It is also regarded as the cornerstone for Taiwan’s political, economic and social development under the Kuomintang government after World War II. Relevant research and papers largely focus on the administrative procedures for implementing the land reform and the recording of legal texts. And most of these papers sing the praises and glorify the KMT government and its great leaders, while lacking in-depth reflection over the land reform.

長久以來，臺灣土地改革被賦予了高度的歷史評價，也被視為臺灣在二次大戰之後，於國民政府統治之下，政治、經濟及社會各方面的發展基石。相關的研究與報告大抵是著重於土地改革實施的行政程序及法律條文的記載，其中更多是對於國民政府及偉大領導者的頌揚及讚美之詞，卻較乏對於它的深刻反省。

For instance, whose land did the KMT government confiscate when the “land to the tiller” policy was implemented? And those who had their land confiscated, did they truly qualify as “landowners”? We also need to ask whether the KMT government after relocating to Taiwan continued to uphold the definition of “landowner” that it had used in the past when still ruling the Chinese mainland. If it was not the same definition, where were the differences? Were these different definitions advantageous or disadvantageous for Taiwan’s numerous landowners? These are the issues that this paper seeks to explore.

例如，在耕者有其田政策施行之時，國民政府是徵收了那些業主的土地？而這些土地被徵收的業主們，他們是否夠資格被稱之為「地主」？我們也要問，國民政府來臺之後對於「地主」的定義是否維持了其過去在中國大陸統治時代的內涵？如果不同，不同之處何在？這不同的定義是相對有利或是不利於臺灣廣大的業主們？如此都是本文亟欲探索的課題。

Objective or subjective classification?
客觀的分類？抑或是主觀的分類？

The KMT government’s classification of peasant “status” differed widely during its rule of China and later during its rule in Taiwan. But in all cases it regarded those who owned farmland and leased it out as “landowners,” while “tenant-farmers” were those who leased and tilled land owned by others. As a result, Taiwan had an enormous number of “landowners,” although the acreage that they owned was actually quite small. Based on the classification criteria of the Chinese era, they would only qualify as “middle peasants” or “poor peasants,” but due to their being classified as landowners they became all objects of the revolution, had their land requisitioned and their livelihood jeopardized.

國民政府在中國統治時期與其在臺灣統治時期，對於農民「成分」的分類有著相當大的差異，凡是擁有農地並將其出租者即被視之為是「地主」，至於「佃農」則是租耕別人所有的土地。這造成的結果是臺灣出現了數量極為龐大的「地主」，而他們所擁有的土地面積其實是相當的狹小；倘以中國時期的分類標準視之，他們僅是夠資格被稱之為「中農」或是「貧農」，但是，在這樣的分類之下，他們皆成為了被革命的對象，土地被侵奪，生活陷入了困境。

How could such a deeply unreasonable “classification” have come about? Actually the “classification” and its connotations are not a manifestation of fairness and objectivity in our society – rather it is deeply affected by political intentions, interests and ideology.

為何會出現如此甚不合理的「分類」呢？其實，「分類」及其內涵並非是公正客觀的呈現在我們的社會，它是深受了政治意圖、利益及意識型態的影響。

The traditional landowner definition
and classification of farm households
傳統的地主定義及農戶分類

Traditionally the term “landowner” largely meant those who owned a large amount of arable land, but did not cultivate the land themselves, mostly lived in the cities and made a living solely by collecting high amounts of rent for their land. Since they collected high rents from tenant-peasants, the image of the exploitative unfair landowner was created. As a result they became the objects of social reforms or revolution.

傳統以來對於「地主」二字的詮釋大抵是指那些擁有大面積的耕地，不自任耕作，大部分是居住於城市之內，純粹靠收取大筆租額為生的土地所有權人。他們對佃農收取高額的租金，造成了剝削的不公平現象，因此成為了社會改革或是革命的對象。

When surveys were conducted in China in the past on rural villages or land, farm households were divided into several classes. For instance, the most often cited example, statistics from a land survey released by the Wuhan Central Land Commission in 1928, divided farm households as follows: Poor peasants (44% of the rural population), middle-class peasants (24%), rich peasants (16%), small and middle landowners (9%), large landowners (5%). In order to qualify as a small landowner, you needed to own at least 307.2 acres of land, which based on the Taiwanese unit of land measurement jia roughly equals 3.17 jia (1 are = 0.01031 jia).

過去在中國實施農村或是土地調查時，農戶之定義可分為許多的等級，例如最常被引用的一份統計資料為1928年武漢中央土地委員會所發表關於中國土地調查統計資料，其中之農戶就分為：貧農（佔農民44﹪）、中農（24﹪）、富農（16﹪）、小中地主（9﹪）、及大地主（5﹪）。如符合小地主定義的土地所有權人，至少必須擁有307.2公畝的田地，約折合臺灣甲數為3.17甲（1公畝＝0.01031甲）。

And based on a 1952 survey for the general compilation of landowners’ properties, 70.62% of all 611,193 farm households in Taiwan had an acreage of less than 1 jia, while 93.23% had less than 3 jia. Farm households with an acreage of more than 20 jia accounted for an absolute minority of just 1.19% of all rural households. In other words, before Taiwan implemented the land-to-the-tiller policy the ratio of households with more than 3 jia of land stood at 6.77%. This shows that the vast majority of landowners in Taiwan had less land than a small landowner in China at the time. This also means that based on criteria of the mainland era the lion’s share of Taiwanese proprietors at the time did not qualify as landowners.

而根據1952年地籍總歸戶的調查顯示，全台灣611,193戶中，所有面積在1甲以下者，佔70.62 %；3甲以下者達93.23 %；農戶中擁有20甲土地面積以上者，僅佔全體戶數的1.19%，幾乎是絕對的少數。也就是說，臺灣在實施耕者有其田政策之前，擁有超過3甲土地的所有權人戶數，其比例僅為6.77%，這表示絕大多數的所有權人戶數，其擁有土地的面積都是低於中國當時小地主所擁有的耕地規模。這表示說，倘以其大陸時代的標準來衡量，臺灣當時大多數的業主皆是不夠資格被稱為地主的。

Unfortunately, after coming to Taiwan the KMT government, guided by an authoritarian ideology and in order to implement the land reform policy, adopted a different classification method for farm households, greatly expanding the definition of the term “landowner.” Anyone who owned land and leased it out was regarded a landowner no matter how much land he owned and how rich he was. Against this backdrop landowners or proprietors were dealt a massive blow. Most miserable were the quite large number of people who co-owned small acreages of arable land. After coming to Taiwan, the KMT government displayed a vastly different attitude, be it regarding the classification of farm households or the definition of these categories. Without doubt this covered up political underpinnings.

遺憾的是，國民政府來臺之後在威權的意識型態主導下，為了實施土地改革的政策，所採取的方法就是對農戶進行不一樣的分類，並且把「地主」二字的定義給予大幅度的擴張，只要擁有土地所有權並將其出租者即為地主，而不考慮該土地所有權人所擁有的土地面積及其富力，在此情況之下，致使當時的土地所有權人或是業主招受了相當大的衝擊，其中最為悲慘的就是那些為數相當龐大的共有耕地的小面積土地所有權人。國民政府在來臺前後，不論是對於農戶之分類，或是對於各類別的定義皆呈現了極大的差異，這無疑是隱藏了政治的意圖。

The miserable owners of co-owned tenanted farmland
悲慘的共有出租耕地業主

Under the land-to-the-tiller policy co-owned tenanted farmland was invariably also confiscated. However, in Taiwan the lion’s share of privately owned farmland is co-owned land. As a result the vast majority of requisitioned privately owned land was co-owned. Many as 82.18% of expropriated households had shared land ownership rights, with their land accounting for 69.51% of the confiscated acreage, a ratio that was comparatively very high.

由於耕者有其田政策基本上對於共有出租耕地是一律徵收，而臺灣多數私有農地又是多屬於共有之狀況。這使得多數私有農地被徵收者中，共有佔了極大的部份。在被徵收之地主戶數中的82.18﹪，其土地權屬是屬於共有，而此部份之土地則是佔了被徵收耕地面積的69.51﹪，比率相對而言是非常的高。

Moreover, surveys from the Japanese colonial era until before the implementation of the land reform show that Taiwan’s land distribution was highly unequal. Statistics from 1920 show that 64% of all households owned less than 1 jia of land and that their accumulated acreage accounted for just 14.65% of total cultivable land. However, households with more than 10 jia of land accounted for just 2.03% of all farm households, but their acreage still added up to 35.8% of all farmland. These figures show that land distribution was quite unequal. Statistics from the general compilation of landowners’ properties after World War II, one year before the land to the tiller policy was implemented, show that households with less than 1 jia of land accounted for 70.62% of all households. Their accumulated acreage accounted for 24.97% of all farmland. As many as 93.23% of all households had less than 3 jia of land, with their accumulated acreage accounting for 58.43% of all farmland. But the just 0.82% of households with more than 10 jia of land owned 15.87% of all farmland, which shows that land distribution was as unequal as before.

再者，從日治時期到土地改革實施之前的調查，皆顯示出臺灣之土地分配已呈現高度的不平均的現象。如1920年之調查統計顯示，1甲以下之所有戶數，佔總戶數的64﹪，而其所有之土地面積，僅佔耕地總面積的14.35﹪；但是10甲以上之所有戶數僅佔總戶數的2.03﹪，而其所有面積竟然高達35.8﹪，由此可見土地分配相當不平均。二次大戰後，於耕者有其田政策實施前一年，從地籍總歸戶的統計資料顯示，1甲以下之所有戶數，佔總戶數的70.62﹪，其所有之土地面積，佔耕地總面積的24.97﹪；3甲以下之所有戶數，佔總戶數的93.23﹪，而其所有之土地面積，佔耕地總面積的58.43﹪；但是10甲以上之所有戶數僅佔總戶數的0.82﹪，而其所有面積則為15.87﹪，分配不平均現象依舊。

From these figures we can infer that the lion’s share of expropriated co-owned tenanted farmland (99,796 jia) was owned by small landowners. Based on the acreage of the subsequently confiscated co-owned farmland and the number of households that had their farmland requisitioned, every expropriated owner of co-owned farmland owned an average of 1.15 jia of land. This is a quite vastly discrepant from the definition of landowner used in the past during the mainland era. Having come to this point, the government’s one-sided propaganda that landowners were economically advantaged, should probably be open to objection. And our general belief that all landowners were allowed to keep at least 3 jia of tenanted middle-grade paddy field is also a misunderstanding, because all co-owned tenanted farmland had to be confiscated. Consequently, many small landowners with co-owned land had their livelihood thrown into jeopardy.

由此可推論，在所有被徵收的共有出租耕地（99,796甲）當中，應該有絕大部份是屬於小土地所有權人。而根據後來共有耕地的徵收面積與被徵收耕地戶數來計算，每一被徵收的共有耕地業主平均擁有1.15甲耕地，這也與過去在大陸時期對於地主的定義相去甚遠。至此，政府一面倒的宣傳地主是處於經濟上的優勢，可能就有其商榷之處。而我們一般認為所有地主至少都可以保留三甲的出租中等水田也是一項誤解，因為共有出租耕地皆必須被徵收，也因此使得許多擁有共有地的小業主生活陷入困境。

Therefore the uniform application of the expropriation policy to co-owned tenanted farmland actually dealt a quite cruel blow to proprietors of co-owned tenanted farmland. Although they were later on granted partial redress, the threshold was again very high so that only a very small number of people benefited from these measures. Back then the Taiwan Province joint supervisory group for the Land-to-the-Tiller-Act made the following statement:

因此，共有出租耕地一律予以徵收的政策，對於共有出租耕地業主而言實在是帶來相當嚴酷的打擊，雖然後來有給予部分的補救，但是所設定之門檻卻又是非常的高，這使得受惠者相當的稀少。當時之臺灣省實施耕者有其田聯合督導團就有下列之敘述：

Article 8 of the Land-to-the-Tiller-Act stipulates that in line with the standards of Article 10 the old, infirm, orphaned, widowed, and handicapped people whose livelihood depends on co-owned land may keep their land. In a supplementary rule, Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Land-to-the-Tiller-Act again restricts this to households whose total annual tax burden for fiscal year 1952 was less than 100 yuan. Due to this strict rule only a very small number of people in each county or city were allowed to keep their land. In large counties just 300-500 applied for retaining their land, while in smaller counties just 100-200 applications were filed, of which a scarce 10-20 percent were actually approved. Among those whose applications were not approved were inevitably a small number of people who definitely belonged into the category of single-living elderly or orphans and widows without relatives. According to reports from land offices across the island, people tearfully pleading for their land were a common sight. This group has already seen generations of orphans and widows left without any livelihood after their land had been expropriated. Even those whose household tax exceeded the 100 yuan cap just by a tiny amount had their land taken away. Even when tenant-peasants couldn’t bear it and out of sympathy wanted to renounce acquiring the expropriated land, land office personnel would not allow it, citing the law.

實施耕者有其田條例第八條規定，准許老弱孤寡殘廢藉共有土地維持生活者，照第10條之標準，保留土地。施行細則第17條第1項，又以41年度全年戶稅負擔總額在一百元以下者為限，以為補充規定；因此項嚴格之規定限制，故各縣市審查准予保留者，為數極少，計大縣申請保留者不過三、五百件，小縣不過一、二百件，而實際核准者，僅十分之一二；此中不免有少數確係老弱無靠，孤寡無親，而未得核准者，據各縣市地政事務所報告，到所哭求保留者，屢見不鮮。本團在各地亦見有兩三代孤寡者之土地被徵收後，即無以為生之實例；亦有戶稅超過規定至微，如一百零幾角，亦被徵收；甚有佃戶同情不忍，而願意放棄承領，地政人員亦以礙於法令，未予准許者。

These descriptions quite clearly demonstrate the tragic lot of owners of tenanted farmland. They did not own much land and relied on it for their livelihood. But back then they were all labeled “landowners” just because their land was co-owned and leased out so that they became unpardonable exploiters. Without doubt this is a quite wrong accusation and it did not come as a surprise that some tenant-peasants sympathized with the owners of co-owned tenanted farmland and were willing to voluntarily give up the land and return it to the original owners. However, due to the government’s compulsory rules, most moves to return the land to the original owners could not be realized as wished.

這段敘述相當清楚的指出共有出租耕地業主的悲慘困境，他們所擁有的土地面積不多，並且賴此維生，當時卻只因為是處於共有及出租的狀況，即被冠上了「地主」的稱謂，變成了萬惡不赦的剝削者，這無疑是相當不正確的指控，也難怪部份佃農會反過來同情共有出租耕地的業主，願意自動退耕，將土地歸還給這些業主，不過由於政府的強制規定，這些歸還的舉動大抵都是無法如願。

The KMT government’s inconsistent standards must actually be reexamined and reconsidered. This situation should be corrected. There must be a more appropriate classification, and based on this, belated redress must be made.

國民政府這樣標準不一致的作為，其實是必須予以檢討與省思的，這樣的情形應該要被更正，要有更為適當的分類，並由此來進行遲來的補救。

Edited by Tina Li/Translated by Susanne Ganz
編輯李美儀/英文翻譯全樹曦

2007/7/18 發表於 Taiwan News ,p.5.