Land Expropriation Amendment Passes, but the Pursuit of Fairness and Justice Still Requires the People's Efforts
Lead image/ Editorial Department
After a day and a half of intensive negotiation and four hours of voting on December 13, at 10:30 p.m. the Legislative Yuan passed the "Draft Amendment to the Land Expropriation Act" on third reading. Judging by the articles passed, both the Executive Yuan version and the civil-society version gained and lost ground, but overall the Land Expropriation Act, which had not been amended in 11 years, took a small step forward.
An unexpected controversy arose today when President Ma Ying-jeou personally held a press conference mentioning expropriation "at market price," yet the Kuomintang caucus proposed an amendment motion concerning the implementation date of expropriation "at market price," to be set by the Executive Yuan, on the grounds that "because the act has just passed, the drafting of the sub-laws on market-price expropriation compensation requires a buffer period," though how long the buffer period would be was not stated, and as long as the date remains unset, this amendment will be nothing but an empty promise. The Rural Front was strongly dissatisfied with this and accused the Executive Yuan of "fake amendment, real vote-buying."
Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah went to the Legislative Yuan immediately to show concern, and he believed this amendment represented progress and would make future land expropriation procedures more rigorous. However, no matter how the law is amended, the government cannot avoid the fact that land expropriation in Taiwan is overly excessive, and it has yet to recognize the infringement on human rights that land expropriation entails. If the government believes that such an amendment can realize land justice, it is deceiving itself and others.
In addition, the passed amendment to the land expropriation law totals 63 articles. Today, the articles retained because no consensus was reached during negotiation were voted on one by one; every proposal from the Democratic Progressive Party (proposed by Tian Chiu-chin and 22 other legislators) failed to pass, while every proposal from the Executive Yuan passed. This also highlights the problem of the Legislative Yuan's vastly disproportionate party seats, and on the DPP side in the end only legislator Tian Chiu-chin was left fighting hard, making many placards and constantly seeking support in the chamber. It is unacceptable that most legislators serve political parties rather than the people.
Give Yourselves a Round of Applause and Keep Working
Of course, this amendment still falls far short of the public's demands. At the moment the third reading passed, the people who had sat in protest outside the Legislative Yuan all day and had earnestly hoped for the amendment were grief-stricken, protesting the Legislative Yuan's rough passage of the amendment.
Associate Professor Liao Pen-chuan of National Taipei University mentioned many times that the purpose of legislating the Land Expropriation Act is to constrain expropriation behavior through the establishment of institutions, and that its spirit should return to the protection of the people's right to subsistence, right to work, and property rights under Article 15 of the Constitution, and realize this protection through public participation.
However, hoping to embody fairness and justice through amending the law is inherently a long road. It has been only a year and a half since civil society began pushing for amendment of the land expropriation law, and any slight achievement has been hard-won. At this moment, all the people who have ever taken part in the amendment should give themselves a bit of applause, and then, just as everyone shouted hoarsely in the cold wind these past two days on Ketagalan Boulevard and in front of the Legislative Yuan gate: "Keep working hard, until the goal is achieved, we will never stop..."
Key articles of the amendment and the controversies are as follows:
1. On "No Expropriation in Specified Agricultural Zones"
The civil-society version explicitly states that "no expropriation shall be allowed in specified agricultural zones," permitting exceptions only for major urgent matters such as national defense and water conservancy. Although the Executive Yuan version also proposed that "agricultural and pastoral land in specified agricultural zones shall not be included," it opened many back doors, for example including national defense, transportation, public utilities, water conservancy, public health and environmental protection, as well as the most controversial "those required for major construction approved by the Executive Yuan shall not be subject to this restriction."
(Passed Version)
The Executive Yuan version removed public health and environmental protection, which was only a very small concession, while insisting on retaining the most crucial clause: "those required for major construction approved by the Executive Yuan shall not be subject to this restriction." But so-called "major construction approved by the Executive Yuan" is all decided by the Executive Yuan. Farmland is a typical marginal land, and no matter how excellent the farmland, as long as it is designated as major construction, it cannot escape expropriation. This is how farces like the Puyu Project in Zhubei, Hsinchu County, arose, incorporating even excellent farmland that had grown top-ten classic premium rice into expropriation.
In the end, the Executive Yuan version made a slight concession by adding: if agricultural land in specified agricultural zones is expropriated after being approved by the Executive Yuan as major construction, and if there is a dispute, an administrative hearing shall be held in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. However, what kind of situation qualifies as "a dispute"? How this item will be implemented is still hard to say.
2. On "Clear Assessment Standards for Necessity and Public Interest Before Expropriation"
Regarding the public interest and necessity of expropriation, both versions list major assessment categories, including social, economic, cultural, ecological, and sustainability. But the civil-society version added sub-items under the major categories, making the assessment standards clearer.
(Passed Version)
The Executive Yuan was willing to incorporate the civil-society version's specific assessment standards on public interest and necessity. For the civil-society version, this was a major victory. However, how the assessment of public interest and necessity will be implemented must also be continuously monitored, because there are already too many similar provisions or review standards in existing laws, but whether they are implemented often depends entirely on officials' intentions.
Moreover, to implement this point, more rigorous citizen participation is necessary 3. On "Implementing a Hearing System with Public Participation" (Passed Version) 4. On "Implementing the Principle of Full Compensation" The civil-society version proposed that more than three real estate appraisers should be commissioned to conduct the valuation, and that the full appraisal report should then be submitted to the central competent authority as a reference for deliberation. But the civil-society version proposed that resettlement should treat everyone equally and need not be limited. (Passed Version) 6. On "Composition of the Land Expropriation Committee" (Passed Version) Further Reading 1212 All-Day Protest Over Land Expropriation Law Amendment - Iron-Blooded Expropriation Sent to a Vote, Farmers Weep and Cry That No One Pities Them Land Expropriation Amendment Decided Today, Farmers Take to Ketagalan Boulevard for the Third Time 1212 The Final Battle - The Devouring Empire Resisting Land Expropriation Land Expropriation Amendment (1) Farmers Take to Ketagalan Boulevard on the 12th to Monitor the Amendment Land Expropriation Amendment (2) Six Persistences of the Civil-Society Version Against Excessive Expropriation
The Executive Yuan was willing to hold public hearings before expropriation, but not willing to hold hearings. (The difference between the two is enormous: public hearings have no legal effect, and whether the opinions raised by the people at a public hearing are adopted depends entirely on the organizing agency, whereas hearings are held in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, and what all parties say at a hearing has legal effect.)
The Executive Yuan version changed from the past practice of announced land value plus 40 percent to "expropriation at market price," but the so-called "market price" is investigated by local governments and submitted to the "Land Price Evaluation Committee" for assessment. However, many land expropriation cases are initiated by local governments, and if local governments again conduct the investigation and evaluation, the Taiwan Rural Front believes that fairness and objectivity cannot be achieved.
(Passed Version)
Regarding the part on real estate appraiser valuation, the Ministry of the Interior believed that if expropriation compensation were appraised by a private institution, there would be disputes over administrative appeal jurisdiction, so the market price would still be appraised by the land administration agency and compensated accordingly, and every six months the extent of change in the market price of the expropriated land would be submitted to the Land Price Evaluation Committee for assessment.
5. On "Resettling Those Left Without Housing Due to Expropriation"
Regarding resettlement measures for those left without housing due to expropriation, the Executive Yuan version limited the targets to "low-income households with actual residence before the expropriation announcement, or those with no housing to live in."
In addition to low- and middle-income households, the Executive Yuan version added "those verified by social workers to be in the same situation."
In addition, regarding the Ministry of the Interior's Land Expropriation Committee, which has long deliberated behind closed doors, not opened to public participation, not allowing media interviews, and with appointed officials making up as much as 60 percent of the members, the civil-society version demanded that at least two-thirds of the committee members be civil-society members from various different fields.
On the composition of the Land Expropriation Committee, the Ministry of the Interior agreed that "expert scholars and civil-society representatives shall be no less than 1/2." This was another major victory won by the civil-society version, but efforts should continue in the future. In addition to fighting for the composition of the committee, it should also demand that the Land Expropriation Committee's review be fully open and transparent and subject to oversight. (This article is reprinted from Environmental Reporting.)