The Ministry of the Interior’s Regional Planning Committee approved the fourth stage of the Central Taiwan Science Park last Thursday, despite much public protest and a number of important factors not having been clarified, such as the environmental impact assessment. The approval of this development project and the disregard for public participation in the administrative process once again raise serious questions about both the legitimacy and rationality of the government’s public policymaking.
At the committee’s previous meeting, teary-eyed senior citizens from Changhua County voiced grievances over the government’s planned brutal expropriation of their land, complaining that they would have nothing with which to make a living. All in attendance were touched and could feel their sorrow.
Land expropriation is a very important state measure. Most advanced democracies are reluctant to use it, and see it as a last resort because of the serious consequences. In Taiwan, however, land expropriation has long been abused. The government exercises this right at every turn, making it the favored method for policymaking. This is a great irony in Taiwan, a country that claims to adhere to democracy and to guarantee the right to private ownership.
We must understand that the initiation of land expropriation must be predicated on the public interest, and the fulfillment of the public interest requires strict administrative procedures and the full participation of local residents to reach the widest possible consensus.
However, the Non-urban Land Use Control Regulations (非都市土地使用管制規則) and the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例) are seriously flawed, turning the “public interest” into the best excuse and the sharpest tool for those in power — such as local governments — to deprive people of their right to own private property and their right to survival. The sad thing is that current legislation gives local residents and landowners no right to oppose expropriation. Despite legal requirements for public hearings, price negotiation between the government and landowners and reviews by the local land planning committees, these are all empty promises.
Local residents are closely tied to the land they call home, and have a different take on farmland from that of the government or big business. Such land should not be viewed from the economic aspect alone, because the safety and lives of local residents depend on this land and they identify with it on a spiritual level. It is exceedingly important, especially for those who are now in their 70s or 80s. They feel that if they have their land, there is hope that their lives and livelihoods will continue. Most Taiwanese farming villages are dealing with aging populations, but these elderly residents also have the fundamental right to survival, and this right should not be sacrificed on the altar of economic production value.
It goes without saying that the government should thoroughly investigate the impact that the fourth stage of the science park would have on local communities, culture and public welfare, and it should also respect the right of residents to choose. The government should evaluate the public interest based on relevant administrative procedures and regulations, and at the very least hold public hearings. This is the only way to avoid further social division and confrontation and to guarantee the rights and interests of the public.
The government should postpone the fourth stage of the science park until these issues have been resolved.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS