Land grabs, tax breaks give hi-tech unfair boost

     The way the government handles the Central Taiwan Science Park Erlin campus project is important because it involves key practical and legal issues. Therefore the project needs to be undertaken with due care.

     First, many of the listed benefits of science parks are the stuff of myth. According to the Control Yuan’s financial reassessment no. 0023, released last year, for every NT$1 billion (US$33.4 million) invested in the technology sector, only 6.4 jobs were created, compared with 16 new jobs generated for every NT$1 billion invested in traditional industries. Evidently, money invested in the sector is of limited value in terms of job creation.

     The reassessment also pointed out that hi-tech industry benefits from a large number of tax breaks and the actual tax rate tends to be lower than it is for traditional industries. Taking the year 2004 for example, the effective tax rate for the hi-tech industry was 5.8 percent, far lower than the 14.8 percent leveled on struggling traditional industries.

     The reassessment then says that the average electronic components manufacturer pays NT$2.4 million in taxes with 1,320 manufacturers from that industry cluster applying for tax exemptions, netting savings of almost NT$70 billion. This is before the high costs of pollution and other social costs have been factored-in.

     Second, land expropriation and diversion of irrigation systems have got out of hand and the government needs to put a stop to them. The Erlin campus — apart from being founded on the aforementioned myth — was initially constructed with AU Optronics Corp (AUO) in mind, which had indicated it would take up a considerable amount of space in the park.

     In Taiwan, private property is protected under the Constitution and the revocation of the right to private property needs to be handled judiciously and stringently in line with legal conditions.

     The primary requisite for land expropriation is for it to “further the public interest.” That being the case, I would like to know what benefits the public gets from the National Science Council’s (NSC) transition plan? How are things to be prioritized? Will the limited number of companies that have expressed an interest in moving into the park be sufficient? Also, the amount of land being expropriated depends on the requirements of the companies involved, in the same way their need for water is calculated. These are all calculated on a proportional basis, so how is it that AUO’s operational requirements can be applied to the tiny number of firms still expressing an interest in moving there?

     Another issue is how the Environmental Impact Assessment is to be addressed. The legality and proportionality of the transition plan has, frankly, been found wanting.

     Finally, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the excessive number of land appropriations that are happening across the country. The Academia Sinica’s Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences and National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center recently carried out a major social justice research project. The results of the study show that as many as 75.6 percent of respondents believed that the government failed to use the expropriated land according to the initial plans and another 70.8 percent thought that the government’s expropriation of farmland for the construction of plants and factories fell short of being reasonable. These are high percentages and the government would do well to take note of them.

     I would recommend the Cabinet and the NSC halt the ongoing project for the time being. There is no urgency to keep building. We ought to discuss together what steps should be taken to move forward.

Translated by Paul Cooper

Published in The Taipei Times, 2012/06/24, p. 8.

科學園區無限好？

   二林園區的後續處理涉及重要思辨及法律規範，建議政府應嚴肅對待，不宜採搓圓子湯方式予以解決。

   第一、科學園區是個迷思與神話。依據《監察院100年財正第0023糾正文》，「科技業每投入1億元的資本只能創造6.4個就業機會，而傳統產業同樣投入1億元卻可以創造16.0個就業機會，顯示科技產業之投資對於創造就業機會之效果有限，導致我國的勞動市場就業機會不足，而有失業率漸增之趨勢。」另一方面，該糾正文也指出「高科技產業租稅優惠過多，相較於傳統產業，實質稅率偏低」，若以2004年為例，「高科技產業實質有效稅率為5.8%，遠低於經營艱困的傳統產業的14.8%...電子零組件製造業平均每家廠商僅繳稅約240萬元，其中有1320家適用促產條例租稅減免，減免稅額達669億元。」這些都還未計算其所製造出來的高污染及其他社會成本。

   第二、政府應廢止胡亂徵地及搶水工程。二林園區除了是建構於前述迷思之外，它原本是為友達量身打造。由於人民財產權受憲法保障，對於財產權的剝奪必須謹慎並符合嚴謹要件。土地徵收首要前提乃是必須「增進公共利益」，試問，國科會所提轉型計畫，具體公共利益何在？形成的程序為何？少數廠家表示願意進駐即可充數？它們會否像友達一樣，再度爽約？另外，「徵收之範圍，應以其事業所必需者為限」、「取得水權，其用水量應以其事業所必需者為限」，這都是必要的比例前提，為何友達的事業範圍可以由少數廠家來予以填補？環評部分又要如何處理？轉型計畫的合法性及正當性皆非常欠缺。

   第三、針對我國浮濫徵收現象，社會已逐漸警醒。中研院人社中心及政治大學選研中心最近啟動一個社會正義大型研究計畫，研究發現竟然有高達75.6%受訪者表示政府徵收土地後，沒有依照原先的規劃來開發利用；另也有高達70.8%受訪者表示政府為了蓋工廠而徵收民眾的農田是不太合理的，這樣的高比率相當值得政府參考。

   誠心建議行政院及國科會先把相關工程都停下來，不要急，我們一起討論未來要如何走下去。

發表於《自由時報》，《澄社評論》，2012/06/22，A.17.

敬覆朱敬一主委

針對二林園區，國科會朱敬一主任委員建議國人能夠理性溝通。本人謹提供以下淺見供朱主委及國人參考：

一、中科四期被行政院核定為國家重大公共工程計畫，乃是奠基於國科會審議通過之興辦事業計畫（《科學工業園區設置管理條例》第七條參照），如今，友達不進駐，原先興辦事業計畫無法實現，朱主委面對國科會之前規劃的錯誤及疏失，勇於任事，將另提轉型事業計畫，我們願意予以肯定，但也請朱主委切勿倒果為因，並推卸國科會之責任。

二、國科會在提出轉型興辦事業計畫之前，其實更應該踐行兩大行政程序。第一，國科會應鄭重向社會道歉，深切反省檢討，並追究行政責任。我們要問，國科會當初怎會如此隨便的提出這麼重大的興辦事業計畫？因為，相關的土地徵收、土地使用變更、用水取水放流水、環境影響評估等等，都是以這個興辦事業計畫為基礎。國科會勞師動眾，引發社會這麼大的對立，相思寮農村社區並因此被摧毀，溪洲農民被凌遲，許多人的基本人權及家園都被侵奪，國科會難道不用向社會大眾道歉，並追究相關行政責任？第二，國科會應立即停止目前仍在進行的相關公共工程。根據《土地法》、《土地徵收條例》、《水利法》、《環境影響評估法》之規定，相關計畫及公共工程（如移撥莿仔埤圳農業用水）應立即「廢止」，如今農民僅卑微的提出「停工」要求，為何連這一點都做不到？

三、本人以為中科四期絕非僅是「轉型」而已，而是要回到原點、從零開始，因此建議國科會千萬不要急忙亂投藥、在月底之前就匆促提出轉型興辦事業計畫，而是要審慎思考，透過嚴謹行政程序來廣納各方意見，凝聚共識。因為，在友達不進駐的情況下，本案將是大規模的變更，絕非如本週一公聽會當日工程顧問公司所稱，簡單的重組分類及定義名詞內容，即可予以解決，這不是提出「環境影響差異分析報告」就可以符合法律要求的。我們雖對朱主委、賀陳副主委有所批評，但是對二位更有大期待！以上。

發表於《自由時報》，2012/06/01，A.17。