The Yilan County Government’s zone expropriations in Luodong Township (羅東) has raised questions about their implementation, with suspicions falling on several county officials because of how they were able to expropriate land so easily.
According to the government, zone expropriation is development undertaken with the cooperation of the landowners, and yet land is often expropriated or rezoned irrespective of their wishes. Small landowners might not qualify for land compensation, or might only receive compensation in the form of cash.
In some cases, land expropriated through excess condemnation — private property taken for public use through condemnation under eminent domain of an area of land greater than needed for the immediate purposes for which the land is being condemned — is then auctioned off to consortiums or construction companies willing to offer high bids.
The practice opens up potentially huge profits from land development, and so often becomes a channel for government to raise funds and transfer interests between politicians, consortiums and developers.
Meanwhile, unscrupulous individuals would purchase large tracts of land before urban planning projects are announced to obtain at a low price land destined to become prime real estate. They can then make considerable profits with subsequent land use changes.
The Constitution guarantees private property rights, and says that the state, irrespective of the zone type of the land it seeks to expropriate, needs to comply with certain criteria if it is to forcibly expropriate private property: The expropriation must be for a clearly defined public interest purpose, to the extent strictly required by the undertaking, and no more.
Unfortunately, the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例) in its current form is not fit for the purpose of ensuring the aforementioned guarantees, especially as Article 4 of the act essentially ignores or negates the scope and limits thereof stipulated in Article 3.
In addition, restrictions have been excessively relaxed, enabling the government to legally undertake excess condemnation of private land, and then tender the expropriated land out for bids to fill its own coffers.
Clearly, the legislation governing land expropriations has long gone beyond any principle of proportionality that might once have existed, and goes against citizens’ property rights.
Many Western nations have long stopped the use of excess condemnation, but the system is still favored by local governments in Taiwan.
Democratic Progressive Party legislators — including Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁), now the mayor of Kaohsiung, Lin Shu-fen (林淑芬) and Yu Mei-nu (尤美女) — have proposed a draft amendment to the Land Expropriation Act to achieve land justice and protect private property rights, as well as the right to subsistence, enshrined in the Constitution by abolishing the regulations governing zone expropriations.
The government should address these issues properly and abolish zone expropriation legislation, which has become corrupt and is unfit for purpose.
John Huang is chairman of the CTW Culture and Education Foundation.
Translated by Michelle Mitchell
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS