The fundamental problem with the forced demolition of houses in the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) area of Taipei City’s Shilin District (士林) has been the questionable legitimacy claimed by the government to intervene in the decision of landowners on whether to participate in an urban renewal project.
After the Wenlin Yuan incident last month, netizens compiled a map of urban renewal projects in Taipei City. This showed that most projects are concentrated in the Zhongzheng (中正) and Da-an (大安) districts, where land prices are high. Fewer projects were in older districts, such as Datong (大同) and Wanhua (萬華), that are perhaps more in need of urban renewal, and where land prices are much lower.
As such, one apparent consequence of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) is that the authorities seem to be reinforcing, rather than challenging, existing economic inequality. In other words, the state’s legislative controls on urban renewal run counter to the justice principle proposed by liberal egalitarians such as John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin.
Not only is the increased floor area ratio of urban renewal projects not a public good, but house owners often make excuses to occupy green space, parking areas and other public spaces provided by developers. In addition, it has been pointed out that the blueprint for the Wenlin Yuan project violates fire safety regulations and could thus result in negative externalities for neighbors.
That means that it also contradicts the efficiency principle proposed by some economists. Furthermore, even if the public believes urban renewal requires a certain degree of regulation, individual actions could still be constrained by collective will through private means, without government intervention.
The government intervenes in people’s lives in many ways, whether through the requirement to wear a crash helmet when riding a scooter or motorcycle, the mandatory use of a seatbelt in the backseat of their cars, or the fines imposed on those caught idling their cars for longer than three minutes.
More onerous regulations include the Ministry of Education’s demand that National Taiwan University manage the opinions posted on its PTT, Taiwan’s largest bulletin board system, while other laws restrict people’s freedom of assembly and deny homosexuals the right to get married.
Perhaps it is the mindset of the authoritarian era that causes the government to instinctively want so much control over people’s lives.
Confucius said: “The people can be made to follow a path of action, but they cannot be made to understand it.”
It is this herd mentality that causes those being led to sometimes accept the legitimacy of those doing the leading without ever asking why. That is why so many fail to question or protest the fact that their freedoms and human rights are being eroded.
Hopefully, the example of the Wenlin Yuan urban renewal project will trigger greater discussion on housing justice and a critical review of rights and obligations in the relationship between the state and the public.
The outcome of such a discussion should be proper limitations and restrictions on government authority.
Jui-Chung Allen Li is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of European and American Studies.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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