Change the Land Expropriation Act

Following forced land expropriations in Dapu Township (大埔), Miaoli County, earlier this year, farmers took to the streets and called on the government to amend the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例). The issue became controversial and a few days ago the government finally made an official response. For one, it promised compensation at market prices, subject to twice-yearly reviews.
However, is this going to solve the problem? Is this what the farmers were thinking about when they asked for changes? I fear the government has come up with a seriously flawed solution for the simple reason that it has failed to understand the nature of the problem.
First, forced land expropriation involves human rights and is not a simple matter of how much compensation is offered. Forced expropriations are uncommon in constitutional democracies — unlike in Taiwan. This is because these nations view the issue as one involving human rights and one that needs to be strictly observed.
The 1793 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen that emerged from the French Revolution specified that property “is an inviolable and sacred right.” This became one of the most important propositions of the time and was later adopted by constitutional democracies. The second chapter of the Republic of China Constitution — the Rights and Duties of the People — was also influenced by this idea and has similar stipulations.
What is so important about property rights? Aside from involving the balance of wealth, they are also intimately related, and inseparable from, the right to life and liberty. In other words, there is an absolute relationship between individuals’ right to life and liberty and their right to own property and to use it, or dispose of it, as they see fit.
It follows, then, that in violating people’s property rights, those responsible for forcibly stripping them of their land are also denying them their rights to life and liberty. This concept has been repeatedly emphasized in the Council of Grand Justices’ constitutional interpretations on the matter — Interpretations 400 and 596 being cases in point.
The issue of how much compensation is to be paid is, of course, important, but whether these forced expropriations violate human rights guarantees are even more so.
Second, land expropriation is a structural issue and not merely a matter of technical evaluation. Because land expropriation robs people of the constitutionally guaranteed rights mentioned above, expropriation must meet very strict conditions — it must serve the community, be necessarily proportional, a last resort and fully compensated. Not one of these conditions should be ignored.
The latest draft amendment has a special clause which states that when someone applies to have land expropriated, the service to the community and the necessity of the purpose for their application must be evaluated based on social, economic, cultural, ecological, sustainability and other aspects specific to the expropriation plan. How are services to the community and necessity to be determined, and by whom?
This involves the imbalance of power between the party applying to use the land and the landowner and cannot be solved merely by technical evaluations. The amendment proposes giving this right to the party applying to use the land, which is precisely what current public hearings have done.

Article 10, Section Two of the Land Expropriation Act states that a public hearing should be held in which the opinions of landowners and stakeholders are obtained before those applying to use the land have their plans and applications approved by the authorities. Since the interests of those applying to use the land are in direct conflict with the interests of landowners and stakeholders, allowing the party applying to use the land to hold public hearings is tantamount to letting them be both player and referee, making the hearings a mere formality lacking any real significance.
The draft amendment will bring the same result, since it hands the right to interpret service to the community and necessity to those applying to use the land.
The version of the amendment proposed by the Taiwan Rural Front emphasizes that after a land expropriation plan has been proposed, strict public hearing procedures should be followed, placing those applying to use the land, the landowners and the stakeholders on a level standing and providing sufficient information to allow landowners and stakeholders to freely express their opinions. After questioning, discussing and debating the issue, an objective and neutral third party should judge whether the decision made serves the community, is necessary and has not been monopolized by the party applying to use the land.
James Scott, a sociologist whose research focuses on farmers’ movements, has formulated a concept he calls the “subsistence ethic.” He believes that in the capitalist era, the subsistence ethic of farmers is often ignored. This makes farmers incapable of providing for themselves and is the main reason why farmers rebel.
Taiwanese farmers’ protests caused by excessive land expropriation can also be viewed in this light. It is really a pity that the amendments proposed by the government have not been aimed at solving the real problem. This means that the subsistence ethic of farmers will continue to be exploited and that farmers will have to keep on fighting for their rights.
Hsu Shih-jung is chairman of National Chengchi University’s Department of Land Economics.
Translated by Paul Cooper and Drew Cameron

本文於2011年9月6日刊載於Taipei Times
中文原文為土地徵收 勿偏離正軌

回應吳阿琴女士

在台灣，農業的價值長期被低估，農民的福祉也不被重視，吳阿琴女士「最道地農民心聲」投書，的確清楚指出這一點，文章內容讓人動容。惟該如何解決這個問題？吳文要求政府應開放都市邊緣農地變更為建地。筆者有不同看法，謹敘述如下。

一、長久以來，台灣農地面積不斷地縮小，尤其以都市邊緣農地最為明顯。據統計，台灣耕地面積平均每年約合法減少一萬三千餘公頃，這些優良農地大多因為政府新訂或擴大都市計畫區，而被變更為都市土地，其比率約為六十四％。二○○○年之後，農地上更興建許多農舍，但這些別墅型農舍並未納入上述統計。除了許多合法轉用之外，更有許多是違規使用，但各縣市政府大多視而不見。因此，台灣到底還有多少優良農地？坦白說，政府也無法完全掌握。在我國糧食自給率嚴重偏低的情況下，農地還要繼續轉用，實在是非常危險的。

二、都市計畫土地已經嚴重供過於求。目前都市計畫的預計人口數已經遠遠超過實際居住的人口數，這中間的差距竟然高達七百多萬，幾達目前人口數的三分之一。這表示我國都市計畫非常浮濫。為何如此？一方面，地方政府為了財政目的，不斷虛報人口數，由此把農地變更為市地，增加稅收；此外，地方政府（如苗栗及新竹）更祭出區段徵收手段，無償取得大面積配餘地，嚴重侵害農民的財產權及人權。另一方面，農地變更隱藏龐大利益，地方派系及財團建商常合謀攫取暴利。

在經濟掛帥下，農業及農民的犧牲似乎是永無止境，除了獻出土地之外，珍貴的水資源也要奉上。其實，農業及農村的式微絕非自然現象，這是長期偏頗的政策所造成的結果。因此，要協助農村及農民，必須趕快修改偏頗的政策。

台灣農村陣線近年來積極提倡歐盟、日本及韓國等國所實施的農業多功能主義，希望透過對地直接補貼，提高農民所得；我們也努力引入社區支持型農業及小農復耕的理念，並希望經由農業基本法的制訂及相關政策的實現，創造健康安全的農業，同時保障農民的福祉。深盼大家共同努力，不僅能夠解決吳女士宏文所指出的問題，也能夠保留吳女士珍愛的農地及農民的尊嚴。

（作者為政治大學地政學系教授、台灣農村陣線成員）

本文於2011年9月5日發表於自由時報

土地徵收 勿偏離正軌

在苗栗大埔事件之後，農民走上街頭反對政府浮濫徵收，並要求立即修改《土地徵收條例》。由於此事已成為嚴重的社會問題，政府終於在日前正式回應，如市價補償、每半年估價一次等。但這樣的作法有可能解決問題嗎？這是農民想要的改革嗎？筆者對此持悲觀態度，原因是主政者對於問題作了錯誤的定義，其所衍生的政策自然也就嚴重偏離。

　第一、土地徵收是人權的議題，非僅是補償多寡的問題。真正實施民主憲政的國家，其土地徵收的數量往往是遠低於我國的徵收件數，為何如此？那是彼等將土地徵收視為是人權保障的議題，必須要嚴謹對待。一七八九年法國大革命，提出了重要的《人權和公民權宣言》，特別指出「財產是神聖不可侵犯的權利」，這成為當時最重要的主張之一，並為後來民主立憲國家所援用。我國憲法第二章「人民之權利義務」即受其影響，有類似規定。

　財產權為什麼這麼重要？除了金錢衡量部分之外，它更是與生存權與人格權緊密連結，無法分離。也就是說，個人的生存及人格是與其財產的擁有與自由支配使用，有著絕對的關係，因此，對於財產權的侵害，也就涉及了對於生存權與人格權的剝奪。大法官相關解釋文就不斷強調這個理念，例如釋字第四○○號與釋字第五九六號。因此，土地徵收的補償多寡問題雖然重要，但，是否符合人權保障才更是關鍵。

　第二、土地徵收是結構性的議題，非僅是技術評估的問題。由於土地徵收是對於人民上述憲法保障權利的剝奪，因此一定要符合嚴謹的前提要件，如：公益性、必要性、比例性、最後手段、及完全補償，而且是缺一不可。雖然此次修法草案中特別增訂「需用土地人興辦事業徵收土地時，應就社會、經濟、文化、生態、永續發展及其他依徵收計畫個別情形評估興辦事業之公益性及必要性。」但是最後的公益性及必要性如何決定？由誰來決定？這涉及了雙方權力結構的不對等，絕非僅是技術性的評估可以解決。

　目前修法設計是要讓需用土地人獨享這個權力，這與現行舉辦公聽會的規定如出一轍，根本無法達成目的。《土地徵收條例》第十條第二項規定，「需用土地人於事業計畫報請目的事業主管機關許可前，應舉行公聽會，聽取土地所有權人及利害關係人之意見。」由於需用土地人的利益是直接與土地所有權人及利害關係人的利益相衝突，因此，由需用土地人舉辦公聽會就形同是球員兼裁判，往往會流於形式，缺乏實質意義。如今，修正草案竟將公益性及必要性的詮釋權完全賦予需用土地人，這將會得到相同的結果。

　有鑑於此，由台灣農村陣線所提出的民間修法版本特別主張，在土地徵收計畫提出之後，應該要有嚴謹的聽證程序，讓需用土地人與土地所有權人及利害關係人處於平等的位階，在訊息充分提供的狀況下，讓土地所有權人及利害關係人自由表示意見，經由雙方相互提問、討論及答辯，最後再由客觀中立的第三者來予以評斷是否具有公益性及必要性，而不是由需用土地人來獨占。

　長期研究農民運動的社會學者James Scott特別提出生計倫理（subsistence ethic）的觀念，他認為在資本主義時期，農民的生計倫理往往被棄之不顧，使得農民連最基本的溫飽也無法滿足，而這就是農民反抗的主要原因。目前我國浮濫徵收所造成的農民抗爭也可以由這個角度視之，惜政府所提出的修法版本根本沒有針對問題來回應，這使得農民的生計倫理遭致剝奪，農民抗爭必將持續不斷。（作者為政治大學地政學系教授、台灣農村陣線成員）

本文於2011年9月1日發表於中國時報