Urban renewal has never been a zero-sum game and the same goes for the relationship between land expropriation and protecting private property rights. The key element is whether urban renewal furthers the public interest and meets the requirements for land expropriation.
However, over the past few days, some commentators have said that criticism and protests against the forced demolition of the Wang (王) family’s property in Taipei City’s Shilin District (士林) show that Taiwan has the world’s strongest protection of private property rights, which overrides all else. These views are not only far from the truth, they are also devoid of any intellectual inquiry based on democracy and the spirit of public debate.
The reason why the Taipei City government’s forceful demolition of the Wang property caused so much fear and panic is that the public suddenly realized how incredibly weak government and systemic protection of private property is in Taiwan. A decision made by the majority can deprive the minority of a basic human right.
Also, after committing this big mistake, the Taipei City Government remains unwilling to face up to it. Department of Urban Development Commissioner Ting Yu-chun (丁育群) said it all when he said the administrative procedures pertaining to the case were completed and that we could not go back to the way things were. Such an attitude shows that the city government feels all it needs to do is ask for everyone to put up with their mistakes.
There are two main points when it comes to the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) urban renewal project. The first is that the Taipei City Government, relying on self-government ordinances and regulations written by itself, forced the use of the whole block as the renewal unit for the project. The other point is that the developer relied on Article 25 of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) to force a minority that did not agree to move — in this case the Wang family — to carry out a transformation of rights. When the Wang family refused to submit, the city government hit them with Article 36 of the act and demolished their property on behalf of the developer.
What exactly does “a block” mean? The definition is very abstract and unclear, allowing the city government to do as it pleases. On the block where the Wang family residences once stood, there are another three buildings. If the entire block was supposed to be used as the renewal unit, then these other three buildings should also have been pulled down. This is not what happened.
Even more important is the question of whether the renewal of the entire block is the same as the legislative prescription for planning of land for renewal as given in Article 6 of the Urban Renewal Act. Where in that article does it say that the entire block must be used as the unit for urban renewal? The city government has obviously exceeded legal regulations; it violated not only the principle of prohibiting inappropriate contracts, but also the protection of property rights outlined in the Constitution.
These things were made clear last year in a ruling by the Taipei High Administrative Court, so how are we supposed to believe that the Taipei City Government did not know about this?
The forced demolition of the Wang property could have been avoided. However, the Taipei City Government has kept making mistakes and remains unwilling to admit to having done so.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in National Chengchi University’s department of land economics.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS