值此房價高昂、土地及社會問題嚴重之際，孫中山先生一百年前的論述，頗值得再予以重視。孫先生領導國民革命，倡議平均地權，獲得海內外廣大的迴響與支持。由於土地壟斷造成嚴重的社會問題，孫先生對於土地之漲價增值完全歸私，持相當反對的立場，他於1920年說：
「前者值數元一畝之地，忽遇社會之進步發達，其地價乃增為數百元數千元一畝者不等。有其地者，不勞心、不勞力，無思無維，而坐享其利矣。細考此利何來，則眾人之勞力之致也。以眾人之勞力集思以經營之社會事業，而其結果則百數十之地主享其成，天下不平之事，熟過於此？」
如今，大都會區內之房價貴得離譜，僅少數富有階級才有能力購屋，一般民眾只能望屋興嘆，再度成為社會極為嚴重的問題，著名作家古蒙仁先生並為文歎恨：「在地人要想買一戶單純的住家，此生已注定無望。」
若問房價高漲的原因，是來自於建商或財團對於土地的改良嗎？非也，由於土地與一般商品不同，有其稀少性及絕對性，彼等因此將土地視為是炒作獲利的絕佳工具，透過政治力的運作，不斷地哄抬地價，並幾乎將土地增值部分全部攬歸私有，造成了社會極不公平的景象。現今的土地增值稅由於稅基及稅率制度的不健全，根本無法達成其原先設定之目的。
20年前，房價也是高漲，社會被激發出無殼蝸牛運動，一群年輕的無住屋者，轟轟烈烈的夜宿忠孝東路，帶給政府相當大的壓力。為了解決這個問題，當時財政部積極主導土地增值稅制的變革，在行政院內長期討論之後，終完成《平均地權條例部分條文修正草案》，並提出「土地所有權移轉或設定負擔，除本條例另有規定外，應按實際移轉價格或典價申報移轉現值並繳納增值稅」。遺憾地，後來在地方派系、建商及財團的大肆反對下，修法功敗垂成，王建煊前部長並因此下台，但是卻也獲得了許多來自於民間的肯定。
面對這一波高房價問題，政府主其事者似乎全然忘記了孫先生的平均地權理念，也無人膽敢再像王前部長，重提那最為關鍵的土地增值稅制的變革，如今端上檯面的，大抵僅是地價稅及房屋稅的些微調整，竟將責任轉嫁至土地及房屋的持有者，而不是那些炒作土地的建商及財團，如此一來，大概也只能發揮隔靴搔癢的功能，抑制房價的效果是相當的有限。
眼見社會大眾因高房價而受到嚴重的剝削，真是讓人有「天下不平之事，熟過於此」之嘆，我們此刻應該好好的重溫孫中山先生的主張，並思良策，否則慶祝什麼建國百年！
本文於2010/03/29發表於立報看守臺灣專欄
2010年3月29日 星期一
2010年3月22日 星期一
Experts vs the people: democracy in jeopardy
By Hsu Shih-jung 徐世榮
Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010, Page 8
Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) recently criticized the government, complaining about how too many democratic elections “interfere” with public policy. This attitude is perhaps best illustrated by the way in which the ruling party is determined to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China despite widespread opposition.
The proposed agreement with China has also prompted the Taiwan Solidarity Union and more than 50 pro-independence, labor, business and industry groups, to call for a referendum in the hope of stopping it. This situation illustrates the need to reconsider the relationship between democracy and specialization. Failure to do so could undermine the legitimacy of democratic participation and its role in the determination of public policy.
Public policy is related to the pursuit of public interest. In the past, when governments were more authoritarian, public interest was mostly decided by those in power. However, as Taiwan embraced democratization, businesses and members of mainstream society were encouraged to participate in the process by making their own proposals. This demonstrated an understanding that definitions of public interest could differ, and that in any society, public interest is an ongoing competition between different forces. If we want to achieve consensus on what public interest entails, as many different people as possible need to participate.
In contrast, those currently in power appear to have done the exact opposite. In addition to applying the knowledge of so-called “experts” to the formation of public policy, officials seem determined to embrace their ideas as the only standard worth listening to. Administrative organizations have worked hard to apply the ideas of experts to the resolution of complex social problems. While this may reduce the severity of certain problems, results can just as easily fall short of expectations and in some cases make problems worse.
When experts are unable to solve social problems, strange things happen. For example, such individuals often believe that problems are not caused by a lack of specialized technical knowledge, but by a lack of reason or rationale. This leads to the conclusion that it is society and democratic politics that need to be reassessed and reformed.
Another example of this trend can be seen when people oppose solutions proposed by experts. When this happens, these people are invariably accused of “politicization,” of being irrational, subjective and biased. Those in power say that irrational, mainstream opinions must be eliminated from the policy formulation process. This approach has been applied a great deal lately and has resulted in social problems being reclassified by those in power as special problems that can only be solved by a minority of experts. The implication is that democratic participation is a hindrance to effective policy making.
This is very worrying; it forces us to ask whether “government by experts” is really in tune with the public interest. In the rapidly changing age of the Internet, are not the opinions of experts themselves also limited?
We need to consider how best to combine specialized technical knowledge with more generalized knowledge, and ways to bring together individuals from academia and social groups to reach a consensus on public interest. When public policy decisions are being made, experts and those in power also need to accept the importance of the democratic process, rather than simply dismissing the ideas of those who are not in power or experts in related fields.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
本文翻譯自民主參與或專家傲慢?一文 2010/03/17發表於Taipei Times
Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010, Page 8
Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) recently criticized the government, complaining about how too many democratic elections “interfere” with public policy. This attitude is perhaps best illustrated by the way in which the ruling party is determined to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China despite widespread opposition.
The proposed agreement with China has also prompted the Taiwan Solidarity Union and more than 50 pro-independence, labor, business and industry groups, to call for a referendum in the hope of stopping it. This situation illustrates the need to reconsider the relationship between democracy and specialization. Failure to do so could undermine the legitimacy of democratic participation and its role in the determination of public policy.
Public policy is related to the pursuit of public interest. In the past, when governments were more authoritarian, public interest was mostly decided by those in power. However, as Taiwan embraced democratization, businesses and members of mainstream society were encouraged to participate in the process by making their own proposals. This demonstrated an understanding that definitions of public interest could differ, and that in any society, public interest is an ongoing competition between different forces. If we want to achieve consensus on what public interest entails, as many different people as possible need to participate.
In contrast, those currently in power appear to have done the exact opposite. In addition to applying the knowledge of so-called “experts” to the formation of public policy, officials seem determined to embrace their ideas as the only standard worth listening to. Administrative organizations have worked hard to apply the ideas of experts to the resolution of complex social problems. While this may reduce the severity of certain problems, results can just as easily fall short of expectations and in some cases make problems worse.
When experts are unable to solve social problems, strange things happen. For example, such individuals often believe that problems are not caused by a lack of specialized technical knowledge, but by a lack of reason or rationale. This leads to the conclusion that it is society and democratic politics that need to be reassessed and reformed.
Another example of this trend can be seen when people oppose solutions proposed by experts. When this happens, these people are invariably accused of “politicization,” of being irrational, subjective and biased. Those in power say that irrational, mainstream opinions must be eliminated from the policy formulation process. This approach has been applied a great deal lately and has resulted in social problems being reclassified by those in power as special problems that can only be solved by a minority of experts. The implication is that democratic participation is a hindrance to effective policy making.
This is very worrying; it forces us to ask whether “government by experts” is really in tune with the public interest. In the rapidly changing age of the Internet, are not the opinions of experts themselves also limited?
We need to consider how best to combine specialized technical knowledge with more generalized knowledge, and ways to bring together individuals from academia and social groups to reach a consensus on public interest. When public policy decisions are being made, experts and those in power also need to accept the importance of the democratic process, rather than simply dismissing the ideas of those who are not in power or experts in related fields.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
本文翻譯自民主參與或專家傲慢?一文 2010/03/17發表於Taipei Times
2010年3月15日 星期一
民主參與或專家傲慢？
「前衛生署長」楊志良對於民主「干擾」公共政策多有批評；以及執政黨執意簽署ＥＣＦＡ，逼使台聯黨聯合五十個本土、勞工及產業團體力挺ＥＣＦＡ公投以期反制，顯示專業與民主的議題實有深究必要，避免扭曲了民主參與公共政策制訂的正當性。
公共政策之制訂涉及了「公共利益」的追尋。以往威權統治時期，公共利益的內涵大抵是由權力擁有者所掌控，但是隨著台灣的民主化，不論是政府、企業或是民間社會，皆可能提出自己所喜愛的政策內容，也就是說，公共利益的定義會因人而異，它也是各方力量恆常的競爭，要尋得一個具有共識的公共利益，需要多方參與，尤其重要的是民主的參與。
但是，現今主政者卻反其道而行，除了積極將專家的力量引入公共政策制訂的領域外，並努力將彼等形塑成社會唯一的客觀中立力量，是大家必須尊崇及服膺的。行政單位很努力欲運用專家的建議來為複雜的社會問題找尋答案，這樣的努力在某方面也許可以減輕社會問題的嚴重性，但更多的面向上，其結果卻未必盡如人意，也使得許多問題更顯嚴重。
當專家無法解決社會問題的時候，一些奇怪的現象就會發生，例如，彼等通常主觀認為問題根源不是在於專業知識的不足，而是在於這個社會的「理盲與濫情」，因此，需要被檢討及被改革的對象，反變成了我們這個社會及民主政治。
又例如有人反對專家提供的解決方案時，往往被批判為「泛政治化」，是不理性的、主觀及偏見的、是民粹的、必須在政策的制訂過程中被排除。近來這套邏輯不斷複製，許多社會問題不斷的被主政者轉為專業問題，要仰賴少數專家解決，而不是民眾的民主參與。
這實在讓人憂心。這樣的專家治理是否吻合了前述「公共利益」的追尋？尤其處於相對高科技、高風險的網路倍速時代，專家的見解是否有其侷限性？我們是否應努力來嘗試結合專業知識及常民知識、專家理性與日常理性，跨越學科及團體來尋取公共利益的共識？在相關公共政策的決策過程中，專家及主政者是否也應併入民主的過程，而不是顯露出專家及權力擁有者的傲慢？（作者為政治大學地政學系教授）
本文於2010/3/15發表於自由時報
公共政策之制訂涉及了「公共利益」的追尋。以往威權統治時期，公共利益的內涵大抵是由權力擁有者所掌控，但是隨著台灣的民主化，不論是政府、企業或是民間社會，皆可能提出自己所喜愛的政策內容，也就是說，公共利益的定義會因人而異，它也是各方力量恆常的競爭，要尋得一個具有共識的公共利益，需要多方參與，尤其重要的是民主的參與。
但是，現今主政者卻反其道而行，除了積極將專家的力量引入公共政策制訂的領域外，並努力將彼等形塑成社會唯一的客觀中立力量，是大家必須尊崇及服膺的。行政單位很努力欲運用專家的建議來為複雜的社會問題找尋答案，這樣的努力在某方面也許可以減輕社會問題的嚴重性，但更多的面向上，其結果卻未必盡如人意，也使得許多問題更顯嚴重。
當專家無法解決社會問題的時候，一些奇怪的現象就會發生，例如，彼等通常主觀認為問題根源不是在於專業知識的不足，而是在於這個社會的「理盲與濫情」，因此，需要被檢討及被改革的對象，反變成了我們這個社會及民主政治。
又例如有人反對專家提供的解決方案時，往往被批判為「泛政治化」，是不理性的、主觀及偏見的、是民粹的、必須在政策的制訂過程中被排除。近來這套邏輯不斷複製，許多社會問題不斷的被主政者轉為專業問題，要仰賴少數專家解決，而不是民眾的民主參與。
這實在讓人憂心。這樣的專家治理是否吻合了前述「公共利益」的追尋？尤其處於相對高科技、高風險的網路倍速時代，專家的見解是否有其侷限性？我們是否應努力來嘗試結合專業知識及常民知識、專家理性與日常理性，跨越學科及團體來尋取公共利益的共識？在相關公共政策的決策過程中，專家及主政者是否也應併入民主的過程，而不是顯露出專家及權力擁有者的傲慢？（作者為政治大學地政學系教授）
本文於2010/3/15發表於自由時報
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)