Looking at land value the way a farmer does

The Ministry of the Interior’s Regional Planning Committee approved the fourth stage of the Central Taiwan Science Park last Thursday, despite much public protest and a number of important factors not having been clarified, such as the environmental impact assessment. The approval of this development project and the disregard for public participation in the administrative process once again raise serious questions about both the legitimacy and rationality of the government’s public policymaking.

At the committee’s previous meeting, teary-eyed senior citizens from Changhua County voiced grievances over the government’s planned brutal expropriation of their land, complaining that they would have nothing with which to make a living. All in attendance were touched and could feel their sorrow.

Land expropriation is a very important state measure. Most advanced democracies are reluctant to use it, and see it as a last resort because of the serious consequences. In Taiwan, however, land expropriation has long been abused. The government exercises this right at every turn, making it the favored method for policymaking. This is a great irony in Taiwan, a country that claims to adhere to democracy and to guarantee the right to private ownership.

We must understand that the initiation of land expropriation must be predicated on the public interest, and the fulfillment of the public interest requires strict administrative procedures and the full participation of local residents to reach the widest possible consensus.

However, the Non-urban Land Use Control Regulations (非都市土地使用管制規則) and the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例) are seriously flawed, turning the “public interest” into the best excuse and the sharpest tool for those in power — such as local governments — to deprive people of their right to own private property and their right to survival. The sad thing is that current legislation gives local residents and landowners no right to oppose expropriation. Despite legal requirements for public hearings, price negotiation between the government and landowners and reviews by the local land planning committees, these are all empty promises.

Local residents are closely tied to the land they call home, and have a different take on farmland from that of the government or big business. Such land should not be viewed from the economic aspect alone, because the safety and lives of local residents depend on this land and they identify with it on a spiritual level. It is exceedingly important, especially for those who are now in their 70s or 80s. They feel that if they have their land, there is hope that their lives and livelihoods will continue. Most Taiwanese farming villages are dealing with aging populations, but these elderly residents also have the fundamental right to survival, and this right should not be sacrificed on the altar of economic production value.

It goes without saying that the government should thoroughly investigate the impact that the fourth stage of the science park would have on local communities, culture and public welfare, and it should also respect the right of residents to choose. The government should evaluate the public interest based on relevant administrative procedures and regulations, and at the very least hold public hearings. This is the only way to avoid further social division and confrontation and to guarantee the rights and interests of the public.

The government should postpone the fourth stage of the science park until these issues have been resolved.



Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG

本文翻譯自政府浮濫徵收民地一文
並於2009/11/19刊載於Taipei Times, Page 8

與「台北菁英」談中科四期

聽聞中科四期園區即將動土，筆者來自農村，想與「台北菁英」分享一些媒體沒有報導的事情。

首先，面對中科四期區委會的通過及當地農民土地即將遭受徵收，如果區委會純然是個由學者專家組成的委員會，那中科四期開發案是遭否決的，因為共有十六位委員投票，贊成者十一位，反對者為五位，贊成者中九位為政府各單位代表，學者專家僅二位贊成；相對地，五位反對者全部皆為學者專家。所以，扣除政府各單位代表，反對與贊成的票數是五比二，反對比率高達七十一％！政府其實是藉由政府各單位代表來灌水，才讓此案通過，試問，這樣的決策結果，怎會有其正當性及合理性？部分彰化縣民又怎麼會服氣呢？

「球員兼裁判」的制度偏頗設計，並不僅止於此。中科四期雖已通過環評，但是環境影響說明書是由誰來製作？根據環評法第七條的規定，環境影響說明書是由開發單位自己提出，也就是說，開發單位自己要開發，竟然是由自己來作環評，這有可能客觀嗎？

再者，土地徵收的程序中，規定要舉行公聽會，但是這個公聽會是由誰來舉辦？根據土地徵收條例第十條的規定，此公聽會竟然是由需用土地人自己來舉辦，也就是說，要徵收私有土地的人自己來舉辦公聽會，試問，這有可能中立嗎？有可能做出不應徵收的結論嗎？簡直是天方夜譚！

這就是制度設計的偏頗，這才是問題的關鍵！一般民眾皆被排除在外，成為沒有權力者，對公共政策的決策根本沒有置喙的餘地。

十一月五日的區委會中，來自大排沙農場旁相思寮的阿公阿嬤們，淚灑會場，他們哭喊：「我七十幾歲了，從出生就住在那裡，十多間房子徵收才百來萬，你們的樓房一間百來萬要不要賣啊？比土匪還不如。堂堂一個縣府，沒有照顧我們這些傻百姓，反而陷害我們。」「我們這些百姓從年輕一直拚到老，才能有個地方住而已。這麼鴨霸什麼都要把我們遷走，十一月底說就要去拆房子，公媽不知要請到那裡？」

國家可以這樣對待農村的「傻百姓」嗎？

本文於2009/11/18發表於自由時報

政府浮濫徵收民地

在民眾抗議聲中及許多重大影響事項皆尚未釐清之前，如同環評的審查，內政部區委會也通過了中科四期的審查，這樣的結論及其嚴重忽略公民參與的行政程序，再度重創政府公共政策制定的正當性及合理性。

在區委會前次開會時，來自彰化的阿公阿嬤們當場泣訴自己家園即將遭受政府蠻橫徵收，未來生活將無所依靠，聽者無不動容，同感哀戚。土地徵收是國家非常重要的公器，一般先進民主國家皆不隨便使用，往往將其列為最後、非不得已的手段，因為其將產生非常嚴重的效果。但是，反觀我國長期以來卻是進行非常浮濫的土地徵收，政府動不動就祭出土地徵收的公權力，土地徵收竟成為政府施政的最優先手段，這在宣稱為實施民主制度及保障私人財產權的台灣，實在是最大的反諷。

須知土地徵收的啟動一定要有公共利益的前提，公共利益的獲取是需要有嚴謹的行政程序及地方住民的充分參與，經由這些程序來尋求彼此最大的共識，但是，現行運作的非都市土地使用管制體制及土地徵收條例卻有著太多的缺漏與不足，公共利益一詞反倒成為權力擁有者（如地方政府）剝奪私人財產權及生存權的最佳藉口與利器。可悲的是，地方住民及土地擁有者在法令制度上竟然毫無反對的權力，法規中雖有公聽會、協議價購、及土地徵收審議委員會的審查，但本人要誠實及非常痛心的告訴社會各界，這些都是口惠而實不至！

地方住民與土地有著相當深刻的連結，他們對於農地也有著與政府及財團不一樣的詮釋，農地不應純然由經濟面向來對待，農地其實是當地住民安身立命及心靈認同的空間，尤其是對於那些七、八十歲的老人家而言，農地實在是太重要了，保有農地，生活及生命就有希望，他們的生活及生命也就得以存續。台灣農村雖大多已呈現老化的現象，但是這些老人家仍應享有生存的基本權利，這不應因提升經濟產值的口號而被剝奪。

政府理應深入調查中科四期的興建對當地社會、人文、及人民福祉所產生的影響，並且要尊重當地住民的生存選擇權利，而且也應根據相關行政程序法令，啟動公共利益的評估，至少要舉辦嚴謹的聽證會，如此才不會形成社會更大的撕裂與衝突，對於人民的權益也才有保障。建議政府，在上述工作尚未完成之前，中科四期應予緩議。
本文於2009/11/13 發表於自由時報