2015年11月28日 星期六

台灣要好 就要一起好

政論家楊憲宏先生以前曾說過一個「金馬桶理論」的譬喻,他說,有人要送你一個純金打造的先進科技馬桶,惟他有一個條件,即這個馬桶必須放在你們家的客廳當中,也就是以後你們家任何人上廁所的地方就都是你們家的客廳。你願意嗎?

遷建松機壓迫弱勢


他說,縱然馬桶再值錢、再科技、再先進,卻也不能剝奪了你是否接受的選擇權利。這個譬喻在提醒我們,純金的科技馬桶與它要放在什麼地方,這是二個不同的議題,惟我們卻時常將其混在一起,認為只要是先進科技,就可以隨意把它放在任何的地方。松山機場的遷建就是落入這個謬誤。

主張松山機場遷建者是立基於科技菁英的思維,他們將所建構的科技知識稱之為客觀「事實」,例如,桃機與松機空域重疊、松機主跑道太短以至於大型客機無法起降等,這些皆不容挑戰,因此,松機非搬遷不可,所有的飛機都必須飛至桃機。這批菁英隱藏其真正目的,故意把公共政策問題包裝及轉化為科技問題,認為公共政策純為科學研究的領域,是「價值中立」的,僅可以在他們所設定的科學範疇裡面來討論,並決定政策的方向,凡是膽敢反對者,就是反科學,就是沒讀書。

其實,這就是上世紀流行的「科技決定論」,政治菁英及技術官僚往往操弄這套論述,其目的就是要取代民主政治,剝奪人民的選擇權利。試問,當那麼大的容量要遷至桃機時,桃園市,尤其是大園居民,他們的聲音在哪裡?有去問過他們嗎?現行對空域重疊難道沒有解決辦法,不然現在是怎麼在飛的?又,所有的機場都一定要飛大飛機嗎?為什麼一定只能有大機場,而不能有中小型機場呢?這批菁英忘了,科技是用來幫助人們做選擇,而不是取代人們做選擇,這就如同你絕對有權利來拒絕前述的金馬桶一樣。

這套論述除了要排除民主選擇之外,也隱藏了強勢者對於弱勢者的壓迫,而這就涉及「環境正義」觀點。1987年,美國「聯合基督教會種族正義委員會」發表「有毒廢棄物與種族」研究報告,指出有毒廢棄物的最終處置場大抵都是集中於少數族群所居住社區周遭,這使得他們的身體健康及生命都招致嚴重威脅,承擔了遠高於其他族群及社區的風險比率。

資源分配獨善台北


例如,在1980年代末期,美國南方的有毒廢棄物處理場所、垃圾焚化爐或掩埋場,絕大部分是集中於黑人社區。另外,全美14個曾被考慮的核能廢料儲存場,竟然有11個都是位於原住民社區。
這種風險承擔極不公平的現象震驚全美,學者由此提出「環境正義」的呼聲,他們反對強勢群體及資本家以各種手段強行迫使弱勢群體接收包括機場在內的嫌惡設施。柯林頓總統也因此要求特定公共建設除了需進行環境影響評估之外,還必須進行「環境正義評估」,避免對於社會弱勢的迫害。如同紀駿傑教授所述,「環境正義的基本主張包括少數民族及弱勢團體有免於遭受環境迫害的自由,社會資源的平均分配,資源的永續利用以提升人民的生活素質。」
台灣的發展已呈現非常不均衡的現象,「重北輕南」大家皆琅琅上口。長期以來台北市已經獲得極多的好處,空氣、水質、交通、醫療、藝文等等,都是首屈一指,怎忍心還把自己不要的東西往外送呢?台灣要好,應該是大家一起好,而不是只有台北向上提升,卻讓其他縣市往下沉淪,承擔台北不要的惡。 
政治大學地政學系教授
(發表於《蘋果日報》,2015/11/27)

Confronting the nation’s land policy conundrum

A group of government officials, business people and academics specializing in land administration and real estate have formed the Taiwan Land Social Alliance.
The group recently held a press conference and unveiled its Taiwan Land Manifesto. During the conference, alliance founders demonstrated how the nation’s lack of a comprehensive land policy has contributed to numerous social problems and called on the central government to carry out an immediate land policy review.
The problems with Taiwan’s current land policy can be broken down into three areas.
First, land policy has overlooked the universal value of land ethics. Land is a purchasable commodity, but it is also an important environmental resource that provides Taiwanese with a place to call home.
For this reason, the manifesto makes particular mention of the fact that in a society based on the rule of law, land is the key basis for orientating a nation toward democratic governance, human rights, economic development, social equality, cultural preservation and environmental conservation.
Unfortunately, because governments are focused on achieving a fixed set of goals, land policy always ends up being dependent on other policy areas. This has resulted in the important issue of land ethics being cast to one side.
In Taiwan, land has now been reduced to a tool for investment and speculation. This has widened the wealth gap and caused Taiwanese society to develop in an unbalanced way.
Second, current land policy lacks both a strategic and legal framework fit for modern times. The alliance’s manifesto calls for land use to be planned and used in a rational manner in order to enhance public welfare. When the authorities intervene, they should do so with due legal process to ensure the public’s basic human rights are upheld.
Although the Martial Law era ended many years ago, the systems that are currently in place are an echo of that authoritarian age. The right to interpret what is in the public interest is still in the hands of a favored few. For instance, a variety of committees, made up of a handful of people, make decisions that affect the lives of the majority. The side effect of this system is excessive land expropriation, forced demolitions for urban renewal projects and other serious infringements of fundamental human rights.
Third, the government has forfeited its chance to use land policy to shape an ideal vision for the future by building a better society and doing something worthwhile. It is well known that increases in land values are generally a social effect, so these profits should be shared with all of society. Instead, land is almost entirely privately owned, which is unreasonable. Therefore, there is an urgent need to build a just and fair system of real-estate taxation so that the fruits of land value increases can be shared with all of society.
Furthermore, in accordance with land use zoning rules, agricultural land should be used for farming. Instead, much of the nation’s best agricultural land is now covered in luxury villas. This has contributed to a severe erosion of the agricultural environment.
A robust and rational land policy is needed in order to develop a better society.
The alliance recommends that the government gather together experts from industry, government and academia and convene a national land conference to fully review issues concerning land in Taiwan.
The government should then formulate a clear policy on land to address the nation’s land issues and the related social problems.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor of land economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Edward Jones
(發表於《Taipei Times, 2015/11/19, P.8)

土地政策總體檢

多位地政及不動產產官學界合組了「台灣土地社會聯盟」,鄭重發表「台灣土地宣言」,並舉辦記者會。會中,共同發起人指陳我國根本沒有明確的土地政策,由此衍生許多嚴重的社會問題,要求政府應即刻檢討改進。目前土地政策的問題至少有下述三項:
第一、忽視土地多元價值及土地倫理。土地雖是買賣的商品,但也是重要的環境資源,更是人民安身立命的家園,因此,「宣言」中特別指出,在現代法治社會,土地是政治民主、人權保障、經濟發展、社會平等、文化保存與環境保育等面向的重要基礎。但很可惜的,掌權者為了達成特定目的,土地政策往往成為附庸及花瓶,這使得重要的土地倫理被棄之一旁,土地也淪為投機炒作的對象,造成貧富階級差異及社會不均衡發展。
第二、欠缺合乎民主時代的法規制度與計畫體系。「宣言」主張,土地本應依合理的計畫使用,以此增進公共福祉,惟當公權力介入時,亦應符合正當法律程序,確實保障人民基本權利。遺憾地,我國雖已解嚴多年,但現行相關制度卻仍不脫過往威權時代色彩,致使公共利益的詮釋權依舊是由少數菁英所掌控,例如,極少數人組成的各式委員會竟然就可以決定多數人的命運,其造成的後果是浮濫土地徵收、都市更新強拆等,嚴重侵害基本人權。
第三、喪失經由土地政策來建構良好社會的理想願景與實際作為。眾所皆知,土地自然增值大抵是社會的貢獻,理應由社會所共享,但如今卻幾乎完全歸私,相當不合理,因此亟需建構合理的不動產稅制,讓土地自然增值回饋社會。又,依土地使用分區管制精神,農地本應農用,但現今許多優良農田卻是蓋滿了高級農舍,嚴重侵蝕農業生產環境,未來應重整農地政策。再者,住宅、環境、產業用地、原住民、公有土地政策等,皆與人民福祉緊密相關,惜皆未受到重視。
健全合理的土地政策是實現美好社會的關鍵,「聯盟」因此建議政府應以行政院層級,結合產官學界,儘速召開「全國土地會議」,全面檢討土地問題,擬定明確土地政策,由此來解決嚴重的土地及社會問題。
(作者為政治大學地政學系教授、台灣土地社會聯盟共同召集人)
(發表於《自由時報》,2015/11/16)