Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act- A Shadow of Law

98121314 Hannah Ho

The Wangs’ houses in Shiln, Taipei, were forcedly demolished on March 28. This is the first case of a forced demolition by Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act since the Act was brought to implement on 1998. It had caused widely various reactions in the whole society, from the public to the government, from commonplace gossips to academic speeches, and from internet discussion to street protests. Among many debates, a basic question emerged, that is, what’s the matter with the Act? Is not a law set to help maintain the order? However, it seems that the Urban Renewal Act is the main target that was attacked. There are two issues worthy of careful consideration. One is the right to be silent, and the other is the legitimacy of majority of vote.

Many people questioned why Wangs did not even attend the public hearings once to express their position of objection. Therefore, they were responsible for being included in the urban renewal proposition, because no written objections had been presented. Their silence presumably meant their no objection, and no objection was equal to agreement. This is an obviously absurd inference. In this case, keeping silence has lost its historically meaningful inspiration both in India Sage Gandhi’s Non-cooperation Movement against England and Henry David Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government.

Another issue is the legitimacy of majority of vote. The threshold for acknowledging an urban renewal proposition varies. As the threshold varies in different countries, it reveals that the legitimacy of majority of vote in urban renewal propositions is controversial. Therefore, the legislators are obliged to be more careful when dealing with it. In Singapore, the threshold is of 90% resident agreement, in Korea, 80%. In Taiwan, it was 80% before 2007, but 60% after that. It apparently shows that people who live in Taiwan are more easily to be expelled out of their houses than People in Korea and Singapore. How comes this is the result as the government and legislators are supposed to work for the happiness of the people? 

Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act may be a law regarded by the government, some legislators and part of the public, but it is merely a shadow of law for others who expect a real one which would have resulted in a better solution on March 28, 2012.   


References
“張今鴞：公平社會是要付出代價的.” 今週刊2012, 04, 09. pp. 44-46.
“台北墻拆風波衝擊郝龍斌.” 亞週周刊, 15/4/2012. pp. 18-20.
“政府八次修法給建商合法拆屋令.” 商業周刊, 1272期. 2012.4. pp. 54-56.
“同意或拒絕改建住戶自保步驟.” 商業周刊, 1272期. 2012.4. pp. 58-60.
“有一絲勉強都更都是錯誤的.” 商業周刊, 1272期. 2012.4. pp.62-66.
"Wangs threaten to sue over demolition of homes in Shilin." The China Post. April 4, 2012.