housing is one of the most important issues in modern societies. It is a core issue that governments must deal with, but for several decades successive governments in Taiwan have failed on this issue. As well as being a basic human need, housing is related to national development, land use and policies, income distribution, government-business relations, social class, human rights, cultural shifts, sustainable cities and so on. Unequal access to housing is a result of many social problems.
The housing policies governments propose give us a glimpse of how they view people’s rights, and of their ability to provide a vision of life in the future. In the past, governments have equated the housing problem with the housing market. They have promoted the distorted phenomena of commoditization and luxurification of housing. Now Taiwan is seeing the warning signs as the “alliance of shell-less snails” re-emerges after a 20-year hiatus. Government officials have responded by repeating the mantra of “fostering a sound market,” while seeking to slip out of their own responsibilities and ignoring the market’s failings. This approach cannot assuage the anxiety felt by many members of the public. This raises several points worthy of discussion.
First, the authorities would be unwise to see the “shell-less snails” as representing just a minority, or a point of view confined to northern Taiwan. It should be recognized that the housing problem is a diverse and pervasive issue. Whatever different features the housing problem may have in different places, and whether big or small communities are involved, the main thing is that housing rights are fundamentally and closely linked to many other kinds of rights. In Taiwan, Aborigines’ housing needs are the most obvious sore point.
Following the floods caused by Typhoon Morakot in August, the process of resettling and reconstructing Aboriginal villages has been like an enchanted mirror highlighting the longstanding uncaring attitude of the current and preceding governments to social minorities, their culture and social ties, as well as to land planning and the social significance of housing rights, as well as their incompetence in dealing with these issues.
Second, housing policy reform should not be clumsily simplified in terms of suppressing the housing market. Sharing social benefits does not necessarily mean twisting the arms of the rich. To exaggeratedly interpret reasonable demands for meeting the public’s need for housing as encroaching on people’s property is to limit housing policy and associated problems within the bounds of a market economy viewpoint, without giving any thought to other possibilities. Handing limited land resources over to be manipulated through competition and one-sidedly encouraging real estate businesses that favor big, wealth-flaunting projects is to abandon government’s responsibility for putting a check on inappropriate planning and development under free-market forces. That can only create unending urban problems, and governments will suffer the consequences of their own actions.
In view of this, our first suggestion is to set aside illusions about giving free rein to market forces and expecting a robust market to solve the problem. The housing situation reflects the dominant social forces of the time. The stress these days is on building luxury homes and market competition pervades. It is time to get back to the level of human needs and to think about the complicated nature of housing.
The government should stress diversity in housing, and it should protect rent-paying tenants of all kinds from being eliminated by market forces and help them to overcome barriers and discrimination, so that they can regain the right to seek quality rented homes. The government should even consider reviving the provision of publicly owned rental accommodation.
The right to a home is a reflection of social relations, including relations of culture and production. In recognition of all the different kinds of families, the government should affirm the existence of mixed use and make regulations to support it. This applies especially to the existence of different grades of housing within local communities, with people from different social classes living within the same diverse neighborhoods. The trend toward uniformity of housing in particular localities should be avoided.
The diverse requirements for housing among people living in Taiwan can be gradually resolved by insisting that developers engage in mixed projects and by keeping their profits at a reasonable level. This could cultivate a sufficiently diverse and sustainable house-building sector, and, at the same time as bringing about an inspiring urban living environment, it would also uphold social equity.
In recent years Western academics researching urban issues have become more and more interested in Asian cities, with their variety and complicated community structure. These are the realities of our cities. A progressive mindset and cultural viewpoint and respect for social changes and diversity are essential in formulating policies that match changes in the natural and social environment and respond to living realities.
Shane Lee is a master’s student and Liu Ke-chiang a professor in the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning at National Taiwan University. Both are members of the organizing committee of the Social Housing Research Center.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It
RSS