On July 18, four houses in Dapu Borough (大埔) in Miaoli County’s Jhunan Township (竹南) were demolished against the will of their owners to make way for a controversial science park extension project.
The origins of the Dapu incident can be traced back to 2008, when an optoelectronics company applied to the Miaoli County Government for land on which to build a factory.
The county government, keen to attract investment from the company in question, drew up a plan for the expansion of the Jhunan Science Park, which is a branch of the Hsinchu Science Park, along with designated areas on the periphery of the Jhunan base. Although the company has said that it no longer needs land to build a factory, the county government is still determined to forge ahead with the plan.
To obtain a “dedicated park business area” of 27.98 hectares, the expansion plan demands 154 hectares of new urban planning land. Apart from the core “dedicated park business area,” the plan allocates 67.55 hectares for residential zones, 2.88 hectares for a business zone and 1.85 hectares for a scientific and technological commerce zone, and it specifies that this land is to be developed through zone expropriation.
In the past, government authorities always considered zone expropriation an example of “good government,” based on the idea that it offers great benefits to landowners, so landowners ought not to oppose the plan. However, contrary to the expectations of the authorities, the residents of Dapu did not appreciate the county’s plan and joined together to resist the proposed expropriation of land and demolition of buildings. The county government paid scant attention to the demands raised by Dapu residents, which eventually led to a series of protests and clashes.
The Dapu incident is by no means an isolated case, and it will not just fade away now that the buildings have been demolished. If the central and local governments remain insensitive to the issues involved, and are unwilling to make any reforms, more such incidents will occur.
There are a number of lessons that a government that is so fond of corporations ought to consider.
First, land expropriations should be in the public interest, necessary, appropriate and reasonable, and they should be subject to a more rigorous system of examination and deliberation.
Second, there should be stronger safeguards for property rights and land ownership rights. When there are plans to expand or establish urban planning areas, some of the land should be set aside for farming, so that landowners who do not want to take part in zone expropriation can be provided with appropriate places to settle down.
Third, courts dedicated to land issues should be established, so that land expropriation disputes can be resolved in the courts, which should lead to a reduction in street protests.
Fourth, the government should recognize that there is already an oversupply of land for urban development.
Considering the glut of available land, the Cabinet would be well advised to revive the regulation stipulating that the expansion and establishment of urban planning areas should be put on hold except when they are needed for major national or local construction projects.
Fifth, hardly any land development instruments are available for urban planning, other than land readjustment and zone expropriation procedures under the land administration system. It would therefore be helpful to formulate a new law regulating land development.
Yang Chung-hsin is dean of Chinese Culture University’s College of Environmental Design.
Translated by Julian Clegg
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS