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
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS