歲末寒冬，伴隨著經濟的不景氣，讓許多人覺得這個年相當的難過，在這個時候，更有一群年齡約七、八十歲的老人家，他們的內心相當的焦慮，很擔憂在他們有生之年無法收回自己的土地，而他們已經等待快六十年了。
人生有幾個六十年？又為什麼他們無法收回自己的土地？這涉及了過往的土地改革政策。民國四十年，在國共對峙的緊張時刻，政府為了籠絡佃農，制定了「耕地三七五減租條例」，強制規定在民國三十八年出租的農地，必須繼續出租，不得收回，縱然該條例有土地收回的規定，但卻異常嚴苛，農地出租人根本無法適用。雖然該條例也規定雙方每六年換約，但是，不論農地出租人願不願意，這個租約皆必須簽署，並不斷持續下去，而且承租權是可以由下一代繼承的。
民國四十二年，政府更進一步制定「實施耕者有其田條例」，在這條例中竟然寬鬆的定義，只要是把土地出租予他人耕作，不論其出租土地面積的多寡，皆是「地主」。因此，許多農地出租人所擁有的農地面積縱然是低於一甲，但是在此定義下都變成了萬惡不赦的「地主」，從此被貼上了剝削階級的標籤。
上述對於「地主」的定義其實是很不恰當的，這也與國民政府以往在中國對於「地主」的定義完全不同。簡單的說，台灣農地所有人的土地面積大抵都是非常狹小，根本不夠資格被稱之為地主，但國民政府遷台後，卻故意在台灣創造出不一樣的類別，並欲除之而後快。如今三七五減租政策大抵已經實施了六十年，根據內政部資料計算，目前每一出租農戶所擁有的面積約僅有二分地（○‧二甲），這個面積連蓋一棟農舍都不夠（需○‧二五甲），怎麼夠資格被稱之為「地主」呢？
當民國八十九年「農業發展條例」修正，明白規定以後農地租賃不再適用三七五減租條例時，其實也隱藏了重要意涵，那就是三七五減租政策的繼續施行是非常缺乏正當性的。如今，這一期的六年租約即將到期，距年底也僅剩三天，縱然司法院大法官早已有五七九、五八○及五八一解釋文，但是行政部門卻依舊不動如山，這實在讓人不解。
兩岸已經解凍，國民黨大員都能夠與共產黨高層寒暄送暖並相互擁抱，戰後初期因國共戰爭所刻意製造出來的階級仇恨是否也該放下了？所謂解鈴仍須繫鈴人，政黨輪替後，此刻應是適當時機了，我們又何忍讓這群老人家繼續苦等下去？他們又撐的了下一個六年嗎？敬愛的馬總統，人生又有幾個六十年呢？.
2008/12/29 發表於自由時報
2008年12月28日 星期日
Farmland bill would be bad news for farmers
By Hsu Shih-jung Lai Tsung-yu Yen Ai-ching 徐世榮 賴宗裕 顏愛靜
Taipei Times, Sunday, Dec 28, 2008, Page 8
In a changing economy and society, many farming villages are in dire need of assistance from the government and the public: The welfare of these villages must not be overlooked.
We have been very disappointed by the draft farming village revitalization bill, which passed an initial review by the Economics Committee, because the law would likely do farmers yet another disservice — depriving them of their rights in the name of revitalization.
The bill was not drawn up with farmers in mind. It focuses on developing land in rural areas in a way that could actually force farmers off their land. Land could be obtained through expropriation and farmland consolidation with the goal of building “farmhouse-style villas” intended for urbanites.
This proposal is an extension of attempts by construction companies and other interested parties to get around Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例), which protects farmland.
But the bill is designed neither to protect farmland nor develop agriculture. It would allow local governments to recklessly designate land for development and would significantly reduce high-quality farmland.
In turn, the nation’s food self-sufficiency would worsen, which would threaten our agricultural industry.
We are concerned that if most of the nation’s farmland is reserved for construction, the agricultural industry could die out, which would damage the environment and the cultural values of farming communities.
The bill would constitute a major encroachment on the ownership of private land.
If a farmer’s land fell within a zone that had been marked for “village revitalization” by the government, his or her land would likely be expropriated.
What must be asked is whether the public would have a say in the designation of revitalization zones.
It is necessary to consider the planning and organization of these zones, whether land would be expropriated with the public’s best interests in mind and how landowners’ rights could best be protected in the case of disagreements.
While the most important issues to consider are left unclear in the bill, the government authorities are endowed with enormous power.
Constitutional Interpretation No. 409 clearly states: “As the expropriation of land is by its very nature a significant encroachment on the property rights of the people, the requirements and procedures of expropriation should be comprehensively laid out in laws concerned with it. Purposes and end uses should be specified and standards for balancing public interests and justifying emergency expropriation should be provided in the legislation.”
Although the Council of Grand Justices said that any regulations concerning land expropriation should be laid out in full, this bill is a step in the opposite direction.
The passing of this draft could very well result in a situation in which the nation loses its farmers, farmland, agriculture and farming villages. We are very worried that our farmers may lose all their property rights.
In addition to expressing solemn opposition to this bill, we would like to urge the Executive Yuan to withdraw the draft immediately.
The government should instead propose a bill that has the best interests of farmers, farmland, the agricultural industry and farming villages in mind.
Hsu Shih-jung, Lai Tsung-yu and Yen Ai-ching are professors in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
2008/12/28 發表於Taipei Times
Taipei Times, Sunday, Dec 28, 2008, Page 8
In a changing economy and society, many farming villages are in dire need of assistance from the government and the public: The welfare of these villages must not be overlooked.
We have been very disappointed by the draft farming village revitalization bill, which passed an initial review by the Economics Committee, because the law would likely do farmers yet another disservice — depriving them of their rights in the name of revitalization.
The bill was not drawn up with farmers in mind. It focuses on developing land in rural areas in a way that could actually force farmers off their land. Land could be obtained through expropriation and farmland consolidation with the goal of building “farmhouse-style villas” intended for urbanites.
This proposal is an extension of attempts by construction companies and other interested parties to get around Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例), which protects farmland.
But the bill is designed neither to protect farmland nor develop agriculture. It would allow local governments to recklessly designate land for development and would significantly reduce high-quality farmland.
In turn, the nation’s food self-sufficiency would worsen, which would threaten our agricultural industry.
We are concerned that if most of the nation’s farmland is reserved for construction, the agricultural industry could die out, which would damage the environment and the cultural values of farming communities.
The bill would constitute a major encroachment on the ownership of private land.
If a farmer’s land fell within a zone that had been marked for “village revitalization” by the government, his or her land would likely be expropriated.
What must be asked is whether the public would have a say in the designation of revitalization zones.
It is necessary to consider the planning and organization of these zones, whether land would be expropriated with the public’s best interests in mind and how landowners’ rights could best be protected in the case of disagreements.
While the most important issues to consider are left unclear in the bill, the government authorities are endowed with enormous power.
Constitutional Interpretation No. 409 clearly states: “As the expropriation of land is by its very nature a significant encroachment on the property rights of the people, the requirements and procedures of expropriation should be comprehensively laid out in laws concerned with it. Purposes and end uses should be specified and standards for balancing public interests and justifying emergency expropriation should be provided in the legislation.”
Although the Council of Grand Justices said that any regulations concerning land expropriation should be laid out in full, this bill is a step in the opposite direction.
The passing of this draft could very well result in a situation in which the nation loses its farmers, farmland, agriculture and farming villages. We are very worried that our farmers may lose all their property rights.
In addition to expressing solemn opposition to this bill, we would like to urge the Executive Yuan to withdraw the draft immediately.
The government should instead propose a bill that has the best interests of farmers, farmland, the agricultural industry and farming villages in mind.
Hsu Shih-jung, Lai Tsung-yu and Yen Ai-ching are professors in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
2008/12/28 發表於Taipei Times
2008年12月21日 星期日
農村再生？四去一沒有！
農村再生？四去一沒有！
徐世榮、賴宗裕、顏愛靜
（作者皆為政治大學地政學系教授）
隨著經濟及社會結構的變遷，台灣的農村多已呈現嚴重凋敝及窳陋的現象，此時亟需政府及社會各界伸出援手，真正以農村及居住於當地農民的福祉為考量，努力扶植及振興農村相關產業，由此來扭轉農村的頹勢。我們原本對於「農村再生條例草案」抱持著相當大的期待，但是審視立法院近日所審查的行政院版本，我們的心情卻是跌入了谷底，因為這不是一部真正為了農村再生而設計的法案，它試圖假借農村再生之名，而行再度剝削台灣的農民、農地、農業及農村之實。
第一、「農村再生條例草案」並非為農民而設計，它是為了居住於都市地區的居民而量身打造的。該草案非常著重於「鄉村區建築用地範圍擴大」，它要用區段徵收、土地重劃、及整合型農地整備的手段，來取得可建築用地。因此，其目的是為了都市居民來興建「別墅型農舍」，而這也是建商財團及地方派系長久以來企圖突破「農業發展條例」第十八條及「農業用地興建農舍辦法」的延伸，其造成的嚴重後果將是農民的被驅趕、離開其所居住的家園。
第二、「農村再生條例草案」也不是為了保護農地及發展農業而來設計的，在上位計畫付之闕如的情況下，任由地方政府隨意的圈地及建築開發，其後果將會嚴重降低台灣優良農田的存量，並衝擊我們的農業能否繼續存活。維持一定的糧食自給一直是各先進國家非常努力的目標，也應是我們國家的重大政策，但是，目前台灣的糧食自給率僅有百分之三十二，已經遠低於鄰國日本的百分之三十九，我們政府對此不感驚心，竟然還要反向操作，大筆的劃出農地。我們憂心，當大部分農地都成為建地及其預備地時，台灣的農業也將一去不復返了，而農地及農業的環境生態及文化價值也都將大為減損。
第三、「農村再生條例草案」將會嚴重的侵害私人土地所有權。對於「鄉村區建築用地範圍擴大」，此法案欲以區段徵收為主要手段之一，但是，非常重要的，土地的徵收必須是以公共利益為前提。然而，觀諸條文，重要的「農村再生發展區」竟僅是由「直轄市或縣市主管機關」擬定，「報中央主管機關核定」即可，民眾倘有異議，也僅能「提供意見，併同計畫，報中央主管機關核定。」這樣的程序明顯過於粗糙，嚴重忽視了對於私人財產權應有的保障。
因此，農民所持有的土地若位於政府所規劃的「農村再生發展區」內，就很有可能會被徵收，但是此再生發展區的劃設過程有否納入真正的民眾參與？再生發展區的規劃內容為何？是否符合土地徵收所必要的公共利益？而當民眾有異議時，其權益要如何才能獲得確保？這些重要的內容在此草案中都不明確，相對的，卻賦予了行政機關相當龐大的權力，由其完全掌握公共利益的詮釋權，這相當不符合自由民主社會的常態。
司法院大法官釋字第四百零九號解釋已明白指陳，「徵收土地對人民財產權發生嚴重影響，舉凡徵收土地之各項要件及應踐行之程序，法律規定應不厭其詳。有關徵收目的及用途之明確具體、衡量公益之標準以及徵收急迫性因素等，均應由法律予以明定。」大法官要我們「不厭其詳」，並「應由法律予以明定」，但「農村再生條例草案」卻是背道而行，與大法官的要求不相符。
我們認為，「農村再生條例草案」的通過將產生「四去一沒有」的嚴重後果，那就是「去農民、去農地、去農業、去農村」，農民最後僅存的土地產權也會「沒有」了！因此除了要鄭重表達反對意見之外，也要呼籲行政部門儘速撤回這個草案，重新再擬定一部真正關心及照顧台灣農民、農地、農業及農村的法律。
2008/12/22 發表於自由時報
徐世榮、賴宗裕、顏愛靜
（作者皆為政治大學地政學系教授）
隨著經濟及社會結構的變遷，台灣的農村多已呈現嚴重凋敝及窳陋的現象，此時亟需政府及社會各界伸出援手，真正以農村及居住於當地農民的福祉為考量，努力扶植及振興農村相關產業，由此來扭轉農村的頹勢。我們原本對於「農村再生條例草案」抱持著相當大的期待，但是審視立法院近日所審查的行政院版本，我們的心情卻是跌入了谷底，因為這不是一部真正為了農村再生而設計的法案，它試圖假借農村再生之名，而行再度剝削台灣的農民、農地、農業及農村之實。
第一、「農村再生條例草案」並非為農民而設計，它是為了居住於都市地區的居民而量身打造的。該草案非常著重於「鄉村區建築用地範圍擴大」，它要用區段徵收、土地重劃、及整合型農地整備的手段，來取得可建築用地。因此，其目的是為了都市居民來興建「別墅型農舍」，而這也是建商財團及地方派系長久以來企圖突破「農業發展條例」第十八條及「農業用地興建農舍辦法」的延伸，其造成的嚴重後果將是農民的被驅趕、離開其所居住的家園。
第二、「農村再生條例草案」也不是為了保護農地及發展農業而來設計的，在上位計畫付之闕如的情況下，任由地方政府隨意的圈地及建築開發，其後果將會嚴重降低台灣優良農田的存量，並衝擊我們的農業能否繼續存活。維持一定的糧食自給一直是各先進國家非常努力的目標，也應是我們國家的重大政策，但是，目前台灣的糧食自給率僅有百分之三十二，已經遠低於鄰國日本的百分之三十九，我們政府對此不感驚心，竟然還要反向操作，大筆的劃出農地。我們憂心，當大部分農地都成為建地及其預備地時，台灣的農業也將一去不復返了，而農地及農業的環境生態及文化價值也都將大為減損。
第三、「農村再生條例草案」將會嚴重的侵害私人土地所有權。對於「鄉村區建築用地範圍擴大」，此法案欲以區段徵收為主要手段之一，但是，非常重要的，土地的徵收必須是以公共利益為前提。然而，觀諸條文，重要的「農村再生發展區」竟僅是由「直轄市或縣市主管機關」擬定，「報中央主管機關核定」即可，民眾倘有異議，也僅能「提供意見，併同計畫，報中央主管機關核定。」這樣的程序明顯過於粗糙，嚴重忽視了對於私人財產權應有的保障。
因此，農民所持有的土地若位於政府所規劃的「農村再生發展區」內，就很有可能會被徵收，但是此再生發展區的劃設過程有否納入真正的民眾參與？再生發展區的規劃內容為何？是否符合土地徵收所必要的公共利益？而當民眾有異議時，其權益要如何才能獲得確保？這些重要的內容在此草案中都不明確，相對的，卻賦予了行政機關相當龐大的權力，由其完全掌握公共利益的詮釋權，這相當不符合自由民主社會的常態。
司法院大法官釋字第四百零九號解釋已明白指陳，「徵收土地對人民財產權發生嚴重影響，舉凡徵收土地之各項要件及應踐行之程序，法律規定應不厭其詳。有關徵收目的及用途之明確具體、衡量公益之標準以及徵收急迫性因素等，均應由法律予以明定。」大法官要我們「不厭其詳」，並「應由法律予以明定」，但「農村再生條例草案」卻是背道而行，與大法官的要求不相符。
我們認為，「農村再生條例草案」的通過將產生「四去一沒有」的嚴重後果，那就是「去農民、去農地、去農業、去農村」，農民最後僅存的土地產權也會「沒有」了！因此除了要鄭重表達反對意見之外，也要呼籲行政部門儘速撤回這個草案，重新再擬定一部真正關心及照顧台灣農民、農地、農業及農村的法律。
2008/12/22 發表於自由時報
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)