2013年9月27日 星期五

Land rights can come from death

I became acquainted with Chang Sen-wen (張森文) and his family three years ago, when the Taiwan Rural Front got involved in protests against the forced demolitions of four houses in Dapu Borough (大埔) in Miaoli County.

Chang impressed me as a hardworking, frugal, kind and honest man who loved his wife and family. After the family home and the pharmacy they ran was torn down, he became full of self-recrimination and felt that he had failed in his duties as a husband and a father.

Chang said that after the demolition, he felt as if he had been hamstrung; that he no longer had the strength to stand. He suffered from depression and mood swings.

He used to have a permanent smile on his face. I never saw that smile after the demolition.

We still do not know what the immediate cause of his death was, but I would say that the true cause of death was homicide: He was killed by a cruel government and an unjust system.

On Aug. 17, 2010, I accompanied representatives of the Dapu Self-Help Organization to a meeting at the Executive Yuan, which came to two main conclusions: The four properties would not be demolished in the plans to make way for a science park in the area and any farmland lost would be compensated by an equivalent area of land elsewhere.

As there already existed a general consensus on these issues prior to the meeting, the atmosphere that day was laid-back and convivial. The Construction and Planning Agency had already drawn up its urban development plan for everyone to examine.

At that meeting were Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who was then the premier, Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), then the minister of the interior, and Miaoli County Commissioner Liu Cheng-hung (劉政鴻). The meeting went well and everybody was pretty much in agreement. After the meeting, official documents were drawn up, including the minutes.

As the Ministry of the Interior was responsible for urban planning and land expropriation, Jiang should have handled those two aspects, but he deferred them to Liu. The results of the meeting were overturned in a later meeting of the Urban Planning Commission. The Land Expropriation Examination Committee breezed through the review as a mere formality that did not take even four minutes.

A new plan was settled. The official Cabinet documents drawn up at the end of the meeting I had attended were apparently not worth the paper they were printed on.

Liu has always responded to criticism by saying that he acted according to the law. It must be asked: What kind of law is it that pushes a good man to his death?

The Dapu affair involves the Urban Planning Act (都市計畫法), the Equalization of Land Rights Act (平均地權條例) and the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例). The current version of the Urban Planning Act was formed after two major amendments in 1964 and 1973. In the interests of economic growth and to avert land speculation, the Urban Planning Act concentrated power in the hands of the authorities and reduced public participation in the process; major decisions are made in closed sessions. It has become a way for the powers that be to consolidate their own interests.

When the Equalization of Land Rights Act was amended in 1986, in reference to the official stipulation of “land compensated by cash due to zone expropriation,” the definition of “zone expropriation” was changed to mean “compulsory expropriation of public land for joint development initiatives.” The government thereby disingenuously evaded the contingencies put in place to constrain land expropriation that would later be incorporated into the Land Expropriation Act.

These pieces of legislation remain unchanged despite the lifting of martial law, retaining the same form that they had when Taiwan was ruled by an authoritarian regime and when a minority consisting of the political elite and technocrats monopolized decisionmaking. Ordinary people have no say.

It was all of Liu’s doing. Under this system, land is a commodity to be bought and sold; to invest in and make money from. However, for Chang and his family, their land was home and their means of survival. They relied upon and had an emotional attachment to the 20m2 of land on which the family pharmacy stood. You cannot put a price on that. This is why land and property ownership is a basic human right.

There is never a time when the expropriation of land is necessary; it is a violation of human rights and should be strictly forbidden. Such measures are very rarely taken in advanced countries. If the system in Taiwan is not changed, human rights violations will continue as the government continues to wantonly wrest people’s land from them.

Minister of the Interior Lee Hung-yuan (李鴻源) has argued that land expropriation is needed if there are to be public construction projects. He is wrong. Land expropriation does not happen in advanced countries, but those nations have public construction projects.

Land expropriation in Taiwan is not about freeing land for public construction projects anyway. In most cases it is more about land speculation.

It is too late for Chang, but perhaps his death was not in vain. Everybody should do their best to make sure that these unsuitable laws are revised to create a government that truly works for the public.

Hsu Shih-jung is chairman of the Taiwan Rural Front and an economics professor at National Chengchi University.

Translated by Paul Cooper

Published in the Taipei Times, 2013/09/26.

政府殺人、制度殺人

   三年多前台灣農村陣線開始介入大埔事件,我才得以認識張森文先生及他的家人,他給我的感覺是勤儉、善良及憨厚老實,他非常顧家及愛他的太太,這使得張藥房被拆之後,他相當自責,深覺沒有盡到作為一位丈夫及父親的責任。他說,房子拆了,就好像把他的腳筋斷了,讓他的人生無法再站立起來。此外,他也因土地徵收而得到重度憂鬱症,精神狀況時好時壞,從他的臉上我再也看不到過往的笑容。他的立即死因目前仍然不明,但我要說的是,他的真正死因絕對是「他殺」,是這個殘暴政府及不義制度殺了他。

   江宜樺沒履行結論

   三年前八月十七日,我陪著大埔自救會代表進入行政院會商,得到兩項重要結論,即「原屋原地保留、農地集中劃設」,由於會前已有共識,因此當天的會議氛圍相當融洽,營建署並也已畫出都市計畫圖,供大家確認。當天主席為吳敦義前院長,江宜樺前內政部長及劉政鴻縣長也都與會,大家一團和氣,毫無異議,會後行政院並正式行文,留下會議紀錄。由於都市計畫及土地徵收的主管機關皆是內政部,我原以為江宜樺前部長一定會認真履行這兩項結論,但是,他沒有!他完全配合劉政鴻!後來的都委會會議竟然翻轉了會議結論,而土地徵收審議委員會也僅以四分鐘時間進行形式審查,全案因此底定。行政院公文如同一張廢紙,政府的承諾比狗屎還不如。

   劉政鴻依惡法行政

   面對外界批評,劉政鴻總是以「依法行政」予以回應。試問,是怎樣的法律逼死善良老百姓?大埔事件涉及兩項重要法律,一為都市計畫法,另一為平均地權條例及土地徵收條例。我國都市計畫法體制主要成形於一九六四及一九七三年的兩次修正,為了經濟成長及土地炒作,都市計畫強調集權及排除民間參與的黑箱作業模式,它成為權力擁有者獲利的工具。後者,一九八六年平均地權條例修正時,正式訂定「抵價地式區段徵收」,區段徵收的定義被扭曲為「政府強制民間一定要參與的土地合作開發事業」,政府惡質的以合建來規避土地徵收必備要件之拘束,這個制度後來並被納入於土地徵收條例之中。

   這兩項法律並沒有因為解嚴而有變革,仍然停留於威權統治型態,完全由少數政治菁英及技術官僚來壟斷公共利益,一般老百姓根本無權置喙,這也造就了劉政鴻這個土皇帝。在這樣的制度底下,土地成為買賣炒作的商品,是用來投機賺錢的。然而對於張森文及他的家人而言,土地就是家,是用來生活的,張藥房六坪土地是他們安身立命及情感認同的地方,這是無法用金錢來衡量的。也就因為如此,土地及財產權是重要的基本人權,倘不符合土地徵收必備要件,即會侵犯了基本人權,應嚴格禁止,而這也就是為何先進國家甚少進行土地徵收的主因。惟,我國體制未改,政府也養成隨意徵收的惡習,致使人民之基本人權不受保障。

   李鴻源部長你錯了

   李鴻源部長辯稱,「要公共建設,就要土地徵收。」這是錯誤的,因為先進國家很少進行土地徵收,還是有許多公共建設,更何況台灣的徵收真是為公共建設嗎?大部分都是土地炒作。張森文已過世,但我們一定要讓他的死有意義。期盼大家一起努力,修改不合宜法律,建構真正為民服務的政府,不要讓他白白犧牲了!

發表於自由時報,2013/09/23, 自由共和國版。

馬總統,別以為我們看不懂!

   馬總統重話批評王院長,讓人驚訝、遺憾,也無法接受。本案在相關程序及法律面向皆尚未釐清之前,馬總統竟然就急忙將問題定調為「關說」,並欲下重手,這實在是匪夷所思。

   需知,司法及行政必須非常重視正當程序,所謂「沒有程序正義,就沒有實質正義」,缺乏合乎法律及道德的正當程序,其所獲得的結論就會讓人無法接受。本案在程序面向明顯充斥瑕疵情況下,怎可隨意就將其定罪為「關說」?這會侵犯了王院長等人的基本人權,如同是政治謀殺。

   其實,就公共政策研究來看,一個問題往往是可以由許多面向來給予解釋及定義,無形之中,選擇的解釋面向也就決定了問題的解決方案。例如太高的犯罪率可以解釋為:沒有足夠警察、家庭問題嚴重、輟學率太高、法律不合時宜、槍枝太多、毒品氾濫等,那到底哪一個解釋才是對的呢?誠實而言,沒有一個規則或定律可以決定哪一個解釋才是正確的。選擇解釋的方案是獨斷的,一個人的立場、利益、價值及意識形態,會導引他所要做的選擇,前述「關說」的定調也是如此。

   因此,問題的定義,基本上就是一個主觀議題,它的定義是倚賴於政治判斷,然後以此來解決問題。也就因為如此,問題的定義往往是在我們確定解決方案之後,才會逐漸地明朗化。所以,非常重要的,問題並非是先前或客觀地存在,而是決定於我們要如何地解決它。著名的Lindblom & Cohen就明白告訴我們:「其實,問題並不是客觀地存在那裡,讓我們去發現它,而是我們做了一個選擇來形塑我們的問題(we make a choice about how we want to formulate a problem)。」

   整肅王院長,是否才是馬總統將問題定調成「關說」的主因?

   馬總統,台灣民智已開,別以為我們看不懂!

(發表於自由時報,2013/09/09,A15)

2013年9月2日 星期一

《星期專訪》徐世榮︰土徵程序不正義 即無實質正義

記者鄒景雯/專訪     《自由時報》,2013/9/02,A5

記者廖振輝拍攝


                                                                  記者廖振輝拍攝

苗栗大埔事件引發社運團體發起「拆政府」行動,政大地政系教授、台灣農村陣線理事長徐世榮收到了中正一分局的報到通知書。本週將前往「自首」的徐世榮受訪指出,不論是七二三或八一八,都是言論自由表達的範疇。台灣如果連這麼平和的抗議都無法接受,政府就準備迎接更多的抗議吧!

戒嚴土徵法律 至今還在用

問:大埔案一路走到至今,產生了好幾塊值得深思的面向,你如何看待?

徐世榮:我們不是反對徵收,為了公共建設,有些徵收確實無法避免,我們是反對浮濫、不符合徵收要件的土地徵收,這會侵害人民的基本人權。換言之,一方面注重經濟發展,一方面基本人權要照顧到,兩者應該均衡發展,但是不能以犧牲基本人權為代價。

特別是,多數利益與公共利益是兩個不同概念。我們現在誰選舉選贏了,如劉政鴻當了縣長,好像他就有這個權力,要徵收就徵收。又如我們的法規,都市計畫法、土地徵收、區段徵收等,都是戒嚴時期訂定的,因此權力非常大。劉政鴻剛好給我們一個很壞的示範,讓人民知道,過往戒嚴時期一個縣長是可以怎麼做的。

公共利益 不是數人頭決定

公共利益必須透過正當行政程序,讓民眾一起參與,表達意見,有選擇的權利。經過溝通對話,最後得到的共識,才叫公共利益。公共利益不是用數人頭來決定的,基本人權亦然。如洪仲丘、江國慶都只是一個人!大埔一個里長說,我們來公投決定這四戶要不要拆。已經到了二十一世紀,我們居然用多數可以決定他人的財產該如何處理,這是一個很恐怖的觀念。

我們總把土地當做商品,當成經濟生產要素,我們都從金錢的觀點來看待土地。這是片面的,不是完整的。「農陣」希望給大家更完整的面向來看待我們的土地,期待今後我們在制定公共政策時,應該融入更多不同的價值選擇,讓不同種族、階級、學歷、性別等多元主張,皆能進入決策過程,大家都有相同的權利。這是所謂的土地正義,而不是把與主政者不同,或與我不同觀念的人排除在外。

執政者靠炒地皮維持命脈

問:真正問題的核心是什麼?

徐:坦白講,土地徵收及其創造出來的土地利益是執政者的命脈,說好聽叫土地開發,實際是土地炒作。透過土地開發,可以獲得利益,彌補財政上的需要,另外,在政治上也很有幫助,可以藉此來固樁腳。這背後的政治、經濟、財政利益都非常龐大,所以執政者一直在抵擋現狀改變,這也是我們在體制內講沒有用的原因。

問︰你提到的是「系統性貪腐」的問題,它又是如何運作的?

徐︰土地使用計畫改變了,才有後續的土地徵收,而土地使用計畫的改變,一是都市計畫,屬於都市土地;一是區域計畫,是非都市土地。一直以來,我們總以為都市計畫通過了,就是公共利益的擔保,土地徵收時就不用審查,因而進行的是形式審查。於是內政部雖有土地徵收審議小組,事實上並沒有實質審查。

都市計畫 被少數人所把持

最近行政院副秘書長簡太郎的發言,就是這個論調,認為土地徵收的公益性、必要性在都市計畫通過時,即已確立了,這樣的觀點是我們反對的。一來地方都市計畫是少數人在做決定,而且都是縣長的人馬,在球員兼裁判的情況下,我從來沒看過說明會、公聽會後,決定是不必徵收的。案子送到中央時,表面上都委會中的學者專家人數是多一位,但實際上還是政府官員占多數,因為學者專家不會每次到,我就不說有些學者專家都是配合的。政府如果要讓一個案子通過,在人數方面,絕對是沒問題的。因此,都市計畫在台灣,事實上是利益交換的場域。二來都市計畫與土地徵收計畫各自審查的重點是不一樣的,這一點最高行政法院已經給予肯認,但政府就是不遵守,這逼得土地徵收審議小組成員最近都發表公開信抗議。

透過土地的開發與炒作,對執政者而言,他付出的成本極少,只要在圖上畫畫,只要把農業區改成都市計畫區,創造的利益非常大,他的派系、樁腳可以雨露均霑、照顧得到。前營建署長潘禮門就曾講過,哪個縣市長不是靠都市計畫在賺錢?收紅包非法,但都市計畫是合法炒作賺錢的管道。所以,我們雖然檢討的是土地徵收,但同時也要關注都市計畫問題。

迷信專家治理 無公民參與

問︰談談政治凌駕專業的操作技術?

徐︰目前都市計畫及土地徵收均仍迷信專家治理,經由少數人所組成的委員會來決定公共利益。但專家真的懂得那麼多嗎?專家會不會變成「專門害人家」?政府都用這些掛著學者專家名號的委員會在騙人,這是現今最受人詬病的。這其實是一九六○、七○年代,近半世紀前的規劃思維,我們在學校教規劃理論的,早就放棄這種治理模式,因為它所能考慮的面向太狹隘了。現今規劃理論主張,必須包括公民參與及賦權,要讓更多民眾進來表達他們不同的聲音,共同做決定。

大法官七○九號解釋,提供一個很好的解決辦法,就是正當行政程序。首先要提供資訊,要預備聽證,對人民不同看法要提出答覆。我們台灣很缺乏正當行政程序,現行公聽會或說明會也都不回答,最後就謝謝指教。中央如此,地方也如此。沒有程序正義,就沒有實質正義。未來正當行政程序如何落實在都市計畫、區域計畫、土地徵收、環境保護?這是一個關鍵。

此外,都委會如果一定要留的話,必須與正當行政程序兩個搭配在一起。而且,委員會中,行政官員必須退出,要利益迴避,使委員會獨立運作,人民才會相信。

抗爭遭打壓 回到威權時代

問:對於九月七日的「自首」活動,你有什麼話想講?

徐︰不論是七二三或八一八,都是言論自由表達的範疇。台灣恢復到警察國家了嗎?表面上我們講願意承擔,但內心真有白色恐怖的恐懼感。國家到底要怎麼對付我們這些敢站出來的人?最近,反動力量一直出來,讓人非常憂心。過往在前輩努力下,台灣好不容易走過威權統治,未來應該要過渡到民主憲政。但這封通知書,好像要把我們拉回過去。

我們只是貼貼紙、畫畫圖,種種青江菜,更重要的是,政府當初是怎麼親口答應人家的?而且還有正式公文呢!一個欺騙說謊搶人家土地、拆人家房子的政府,居然要求人民要理性冷靜,政府自己有沒有理性呢?台灣如果連這麼平和的抗議都無法接受,政府就準備迎接更多的抗議吧!