近日來農舍議題沸沸揚揚，每日都有最新發展，如今多位國民黨要員也紛紛被爆料擁有農舍。農委會高層緊抓農地農用原則，前些日子對蘇嘉全的農舍嚴詞抨擊，展現寸土不讓的決心，儼然一副台灣農地守護者的模樣，如今卻是噤若寒蟬，判若二人。農委會真的愛惜農地嗎？
根據農業發展條例第十條，「農業用地於劃定或變更為非農業使用時，應以不影響農業生產環境之完整，並先徵得主管機關之同意。」農委會身為主管機關，對於農地之保護扮演著關鍵角色，但歷年來，農委會有保護台灣的農地？還是積極配合地方政府或其他目的事業主管機關來釋出農地？由統計數字來看，應是以後者居多。
根據資料顯示，台灣農地面積平均每年約減少一萬三千餘公頃，約等於半個台北市，五百個大安森林公園，這些農地大抵皆變更為都市土地。這些變更其實有許多是與土地徵收有關，例如苗栗大埔、苗栗灣寶、彰化相思寮、彰化田中高鐵特定區、新竹竹北璞玉計畫、新竹竹東二重埔等，試問，除了灣寶外，其他眾多的土地開發變更案呢？我們有看見農委會像這次農舍事件一樣，站出來堅持農地農用？我們幾乎完全聽不到，反而是民間社會的大聲疾呼。
一個不愛惜農地的農委會，會真心照顧農民嗎？農地農用一定要與農民所得的提升相互連結，否則很難實現。當我們以提升糧食自給率的公益目的來要求農地維持農用，並以土地使用管制予以限制；相對地，也就必須提供必要的補貼，而不是讓農民在現存的產銷體系裡自生自滅。在瑞士，每年政府提供每一農戶新台幣一百二十萬至一百五十萬的環境及文化直接補貼，但試問我們政府提供多少？老農津貼增加的三一六元？
寄語農委會，台灣的農地，不是僅在蘇嘉全的那二分半農地！農民應得的補貼，也絕非僅是區區增加的三一六元！ （作者為政治大學地政學系教授）
本文於2011/10/28發表於自由時報
2011年10月28日 星期五
2011年10月19日 星期三
從監察院糾正文看農舍
台灣的農業及農地向來不受政治人物重視，此番卻因總統選舉，獲得極大的關注。農舍議題起於二○○○年農業發展條例的修正，當時在國民黨立法委員的強力壓力下，納入了農舍條款。政府當時雖堅稱農地農用原則，但此法一修，宛如猛虎出匣，一發不可收拾。
農舍議題誰該負責？是主管機關？或是權責機關？近日來農委會與屏東縣政府糾纏不清，讓人眼花撩亂。監察院於去年分別針對集村農舍及個別農舍提出糾正，其糾正文可以為上述問題提出答案。被糾正的機關皆是行政院農委會及內政部，而不是屏東縣政府。農委會並在集村農舍糾正文通過之後，立即發布令函，指出「為避免農地建地化且保護優良農田供農業生產使用目標，集村興建農舍坐落之農業用地不得位於特定農業區。」集村農舍政策因此有了根本的變革。
但是個別農舍就不同了，監察院雖然指出，農委會及內政部對農業用地興建農舍政策之執行，未能落實不影響農業生產環境及農村發展；又農舍興建與農業經營不可分離之審查機制闕如；且未能持續監督農舍後續使用情形，造成田間遍布附田園造景或休閒設施農舍之景象。這些嚴重的問題，皆顯示制度面出現了嚴重的缺失，農委會理應與其處理集村農舍的方法一致，立即由制度面來考量個別農舍問題的解決之道，但是，一直至今，農委會卻未針對個別農舍做出任何制度上的修改，而當初的始作俑者立法院，也未見修法提案，農地農用依然是各說各話，這樣能解決農舍問題嗎？
民主法制國家有一重要原則，即「不同的人，做相同的事，應受到相同的對待」。政治人物如果因政治目的，僅針對某人的農舍窮追猛打，卻故意忽視其他眾多農舍違規問題，這是相當不可取的。而要由這個人來承擔制度不健全所造成的農舍違規問題，這也未免太過於沈重了！（作者為國立政治大學地政學系教授）
本文於2011/10/19發表於自由時報
農舍議題誰該負責？是主管機關？或是權責機關？近日來農委會與屏東縣政府糾纏不清，讓人眼花撩亂。監察院於去年分別針對集村農舍及個別農舍提出糾正，其糾正文可以為上述問題提出答案。被糾正的機關皆是行政院農委會及內政部，而不是屏東縣政府。農委會並在集村農舍糾正文通過之後，立即發布令函，指出「為避免農地建地化且保護優良農田供農業生產使用目標，集村興建農舍坐落之農業用地不得位於特定農業區。」集村農舍政策因此有了根本的變革。
但是個別農舍就不同了，監察院雖然指出，農委會及內政部對農業用地興建農舍政策之執行，未能落實不影響農業生產環境及農村發展；又農舍興建與農業經營不可分離之審查機制闕如；且未能持續監督農舍後續使用情形，造成田間遍布附田園造景或休閒設施農舍之景象。這些嚴重的問題，皆顯示制度面出現了嚴重的缺失，農委會理應與其處理集村農舍的方法一致，立即由制度面來考量個別農舍問題的解決之道，但是，一直至今，農委會卻未針對個別農舍做出任何制度上的修改，而當初的始作俑者立法院，也未見修法提案，農地農用依然是各說各話，這樣能解決農舍問題嗎？
民主法制國家有一重要原則，即「不同的人，做相同的事，應受到相同的對待」。政治人物如果因政治目的，僅針對某人的農舍窮追猛打，卻故意忽視其他眾多農舍違規問題，這是相當不可取的。而要由這個人來承擔制度不健全所造成的農舍違規問題，這也未免太過於沈重了！（作者為國立政治大學地政學系教授）
本文於2011/10/19發表於自由時報
2011年9月6日 星期二
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
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
2011年9月5日 星期一
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
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
2011年9月1日 星期四
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
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
2011年8月2日 星期二
Time to stop robbing the poor to feed the wealthy
When farmers took to the streets of Taipei to protest earlier this month, the response from the public was tremendous. However, it was only one year ago that those same farmers staged an overnight protest on Ketagalan Boulevard that seems to have been largely forgotten. A year has passed, but the government continues to act as though nothing is wrong even though land expropriation cases have been just as appalling this year as they were last year.
Why is this happening?
One reason is that the government mistakenly believes land expropriation to be an important way to develop land and improve its fiscal position.
Government finances are in serious jeopardy, but instead of imposing higher taxes on the wealthy to boost revenue, the rich are given tax breaks, tax exemptions and other economic privileges. So where else is the funding for much needed infrastructure projects to be found? The answer is to use land expropriation to prop up land development.
Land-related taxes such as the land value tax and land value increment tax are the main sources of tax income for local governments. In this context, it is hardly surprising that how to collect more tax revenue becomes the focus of much policy debate.
In addition, those in power can utilize land development projects to co-opt local politicians, thereby killing two birds with one stone.
The reason local governments are using every means possible to turn farmland into urban land is that farmland is not taxable and as such brings in no revenue. Article 53 of the Executive Yuan’s Equalization of Land Rights Act (平均地權條例) states that all expansion or renewal of urban planning, or reassignment of farmland or protected zones as land for construction, must be achieved through zone expropriation. This has caused the expropriation of farmland to double.
Zone expropriation allows the government to expropriate large areas of land and subsequently make huge profits by auctioning it off or selling it by tender.
Because government has the final say when it comes to urban planning, many urban planning districts have been continually expanded and more designated areas are being established near industrial and science parks. As a result, urban planning has gotten out of hand as local governments exaggerate population numbers and use falsified data as a pretext to turn farmland into urban land.
At present there is a difference of more than 7 million between fabricated population numbers and the actual population. Although there is still much unused land in industrial and science parks, meeting the needs of these exaggerated figures creates the false impression that construction on this land is necessary.
The government has deliberately established such a distorted mechanism to expropriate land because it can then carry out its own land development agenda and significantly increase revenue intake.
It is most regrettable that the strict regulations and guidelines that should govern land expropriation have been willfully pushed aside, and that the basic property rights and human rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been neglected. As a result, the members of one of society’s most disadvantaged groups — farmers — are being forced to bear the burden of funding government infrastructure construction.
Social justice is turned on its head in a world where the poor are robbed to feed the rich.
Hsu Shih-jung is chairman of National Chengchi University’s Department of Land Economics.
TRANSLATED BY KYLE JEFFCOAT
本文於2011年7月30日刊載於Taipei Times 中文原文為〈澄社評論〉強盜政府 遍地是黃金
Why is this happening?
One reason is that the government mistakenly believes land expropriation to be an important way to develop land and improve its fiscal position.
Government finances are in serious jeopardy, but instead of imposing higher taxes on the wealthy to boost revenue, the rich are given tax breaks, tax exemptions and other economic privileges. So where else is the funding for much needed infrastructure projects to be found? The answer is to use land expropriation to prop up land development.
Land-related taxes such as the land value tax and land value increment tax are the main sources of tax income for local governments. In this context, it is hardly surprising that how to collect more tax revenue becomes the focus of much policy debate.
In addition, those in power can utilize land development projects to co-opt local politicians, thereby killing two birds with one stone.
The reason local governments are using every means possible to turn farmland into urban land is that farmland is not taxable and as such brings in no revenue. Article 53 of the Executive Yuan’s Equalization of Land Rights Act (平均地權條例) states that all expansion or renewal of urban planning, or reassignment of farmland or protected zones as land for construction, must be achieved through zone expropriation. This has caused the expropriation of farmland to double.
Zone expropriation allows the government to expropriate large areas of land and subsequently make huge profits by auctioning it off or selling it by tender.
Because government has the final say when it comes to urban planning, many urban planning districts have been continually expanded and more designated areas are being established near industrial and science parks. As a result, urban planning has gotten out of hand as local governments exaggerate population numbers and use falsified data as a pretext to turn farmland into urban land.
At present there is a difference of more than 7 million between fabricated population numbers and the actual population. Although there is still much unused land in industrial and science parks, meeting the needs of these exaggerated figures creates the false impression that construction on this land is necessary.
The government has deliberately established such a distorted mechanism to expropriate land because it can then carry out its own land development agenda and significantly increase revenue intake.
It is most regrettable that the strict regulations and guidelines that should govern land expropriation have been willfully pushed aside, and that the basic property rights and human rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been neglected. As a result, the members of one of society’s most disadvantaged groups — farmers — are being forced to bear the burden of funding government infrastructure construction.
Social justice is turned on its head in a world where the poor are robbed to feed the rich.
Hsu Shih-jung is chairman of National Chengchi University’s Department of Land Economics.
TRANSLATED BY KYLE JEFFCOAT
本文於2011年7月30日刊載於Taipei Times 中文原文為〈澄社評論〉強盜政府 遍地是黃金
2011年7月22日 星期五
〈澄社評論〉強盜政府 遍地是黃金
上週末，農民抗爭引起廣大的回響，但農民去年即曾夜宿凱道，一年過了，政府卻仍老神在在，土地徵收案件依舊驚人，為什麼？原因之一，乃是政府錯將土地徵收當成土地開發及挹注財政的重要手段。
政府財政問題極為嚴重，但它不僅不敢對大型資本課予重稅，竟還給予減稅、免稅及其他的優惠。那麼，所需的建設經費要從何而來？答案乃是進行以土地徵收為本質的土地開發。地方政府的主要稅源為土地相關稅目，如地價稅、土地增值稅等，因此如何增加這些稅收便成為施政重點。此外，透過土地開發，主政者也可藉機收編地方政治勢力，可謂是一舉數得。
由於農地不用繳稅，因此各地方政府藉由土地的開發，千方百計地要把農地變更為都市土地。行政院特別命令「凡都市計畫擴大、新訂或農業區、保護區變更為建築用地時，一律採區段徵收方式開發」，這使得被徵收的農地倍增。透過區段徵收，政府還可以無償取得大面積的配餘地，經由配餘地的讓售及標售，賺進大筆鈔票。
由於政府掌控規劃的高權，因此，許多都市計畫區不斷地擴大，工業區或科學園區附近，更出現了許多特定區。這使得我國都市計畫異常浮濫，各地方政府不斷虛報人口數，以此作為將農地變更為都市土地的藉口。至今，虛報與實際人口數之間出現了極為驚人的落差，二者相差高達七百多萬人！相對地，為了配合人口數的虛報，縱然工業區或是園區仍有許多閒置土地，卻仍不斷捏造必須興設的謊言。
為了遂行土地開發及挹注財政收入，政府建構了這個謊言機制，其目的就是為了土地徵收。遺憾的是，土地徵收所需具備的嚴謹要件，全部被拋諸腦後，憲法所保障的財產權及基本人權皆被剝奪。這也表示，國家建設經費竟然是由社會弱勢者—農民來承擔，這十足是劫貧濟富，社會公義蕩然無存！
本文於2011/07/21發表於自由時報
政府財政問題極為嚴重，但它不僅不敢對大型資本課予重稅，竟還給予減稅、免稅及其他的優惠。那麼，所需的建設經費要從何而來？答案乃是進行以土地徵收為本質的土地開發。地方政府的主要稅源為土地相關稅目，如地價稅、土地增值稅等，因此如何增加這些稅收便成為施政重點。此外，透過土地開發，主政者也可藉機收編地方政治勢力，可謂是一舉數得。
由於農地不用繳稅，因此各地方政府藉由土地的開發，千方百計地要把農地變更為都市土地。行政院特別命令「凡都市計畫擴大、新訂或農業區、保護區變更為建築用地時，一律採區段徵收方式開發」，這使得被徵收的農地倍增。透過區段徵收，政府還可以無償取得大面積的配餘地，經由配餘地的讓售及標售，賺進大筆鈔票。
由於政府掌控規劃的高權，因此，許多都市計畫區不斷地擴大，工業區或科學園區附近，更出現了許多特定區。這使得我國都市計畫異常浮濫，各地方政府不斷虛報人口數，以此作為將農地變更為都市土地的藉口。至今，虛報與實際人口數之間出現了極為驚人的落差，二者相差高達七百多萬人！相對地，為了配合人口數的虛報，縱然工業區或是園區仍有許多閒置土地，卻仍不斷捏造必須興設的謊言。
為了遂行土地開發及挹注財政收入，政府建構了這個謊言機制，其目的就是為了土地徵收。遺憾的是，土地徵收所需具備的嚴謹要件，全部被拋諸腦後，憲法所保障的財產權及基本人權皆被剝奪。這也表示，國家建設經費竟然是由社會弱勢者—農民來承擔，這十足是劫貧濟富，社會公義蕩然無存！
本文於2011/07/21發表於自由時報
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)