The reason the corruption case involving former Taoyuan County deputy commissioner Yeh Shih-wen (葉世文) has caused such alarm is that Yeh was also for a long period in charge of the Construction and Planning Administration. In this position, he passed countless urban planning and renewal projects, as well as land zoning changes for non-urban areas, many of which would have involved forced land expropriation.
Past land expropriation appeals have been mere formalities, mostly for show, so if the Urban Planning Commission has passed a motion, the subsequent land expropriation is practically guaranteed. A case in point is the verdict handed down by the Greater Taichung High Administrative Court on the Dapu Borough (大埔) demolitions in Miaoli County, the appeals for which were cursory at best, taking on average little more than five minutes each to go through.
It has been many years since martial law was lifted, yet the government has not changed in terms of its excessive use of land expropriation. If anything, things have become worse in the past few years. For example, in the period up until late December 2012, the government completed the expropriation of 95 zones, involving about 7,672 hectares.
Since then, zone expropriations have either already been completed or are planned for a considerable amount of land. This includes 1,168 hectares for the Danhai New Town phase-two project, 126 hectares for Taipei Harbor Bali District (八里), 104 hectares in Fuzhou in Banciao District (板橋) and 236 hectares for Station A7 in Linkou District (林口), all in New Taipei City; 3,316 hectares for the “aerotropolis” in Taoyuan County, including 500 hectares to build an overhead track in the county’s Jhongli City; 447 hectares for the Puyu project and 440 hectares in Erchong Pu, both in Hsinchu County; 154 hectares in Dapu; 110 hectares in Cianjhu Borough (前竹), 30 hectares in Jioude Village’s Wurih Township (烏日), 196 hectares in Taiping District (太平) and 251 hectares for the Shueinan Airport, all in Greater Taichung; 184 hectares for the special district for Taiwan High Speed Rail’s Changhua Station in Tianjhong Township (田中) in Changhua County; 83 hectares for the Yongkang Artillery School in Greater Tainan; and 105 hectares in Yilan County’s Wushi Harbor.
The above list is not exhaustive, it includes just those of which I am aware and amounts to 7,450 hectares of expropriated zones. The land taken in that short period is almost equal to the total of all the expropriations that preceded them. Neither does it include the equally shocking scale, which has not been calculated, of other projects, such as the third and fourth phases of the Central Taiwan Science Park expansion project, the relocation underground and to the east of a segment of railway tracks in Greater Tainan and the Changnan Industrial Park near Siluo Bridge. It comes as no surprise that many people have found themselves the victims of forced land expropriation on more than one occasion.
The above cases were all decided in the urban planning preparatory stages, after which these projects quickly morph into orgies of deal-making and bribe-taking between politics and business, various factions and individual government officials. In these circumstances, how can land expropriation be conducted in a legitimate manner?
Government officials are wining and dining and lining their own pockets and it is all done at the expense of the public. The government must put all land expropriation plans on hold and promptly set up a democratic procedure by which citizens can participate in urban planning and land expropriation cases.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in National Chengchi University’s land economics department.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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 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
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more