2012年10月22日 星期一

The science park affair is shabby and a fraud

On Oct. 11, the Taipei High Administrative Court revoked the permit for the Central Taiwan Science Park’s (CTSP) fourth-phase development project in Changhua County’s Erlin Township (二林). It is well worth investigating how the permit came to be issued in the first place.
The first factor to consider is the choice of location. The site proposed for the park’s fourth phase covers more than 600 hectares in the heart of central Taiwan’s most important farming region. The area is short of water and suffers from subsidence. Picking this location runs completely contrary to Taiwan’s national land-use system.
The National Science Council got round this fact by sleight of hand. It excluded, or minimized the weighting of, important selection criteria such as the master plan, water supply and construction limits, when converting them into selection indices. In contrast, it gave heavy weighting to construction potential, construction procedure and overall assessment (which combined to be 71.25 percent of the total score). That is how Erlin was chosen.
The second factor is that the Ministry of the Interior’s Construction and Planning Agency arranged for the ad-hoc case group of the ministry’s Regional Planning Committee to hold eight meetings over four months in 2009 — an average of one meeting every two weeks. From the CTSP’s third-phase development on the Houli Farm (后里) and its proposed expansion on the Cising Farm (七星) to the fourth-phase development project, the CTSP Administration regularly assured committee members that there would be no further development, yet repeatedly submitted new development proposals for the committee’s approval. Some committee members felt that they were being taken for a ride.

A meeting was then held on Nov. 12, 2009 — excluding members of the public and civic groups — where the project was approved. There were 11 votes in favor, including two people who only gave conditional support. The nine who supported the development plan unconditionally were official government delegates sent to vote the government’s way. The five remaining committee members who voted against the development plan were all experts and academics.
From the choice of location through to the granting of the construction permit, the CTSP’s fourth-phase development plan demonstrates how experts go along with government, how science acts at the behest of politics and how administrative departments surrender their authority.
This shabby fraud has turned experts and officials into political tools, and has made a joke of the nation’s entire land-use plan. It has led to scandals such as the CTSP’s attempt to divert water from farms in Sijhou Township (溪州), the release of industrial waste water into the Jhuoshui River (濁水溪) and the expropriation of farmland in Siangsihliao (相思寮). The whole thing has got completely out of hand.
Seen in this light, the recent court verdict simply seeks to put the national land-use plan, administrative departments and the system of review by experts back on track, and to help the public understand that sustainable development can only be achieved if economic development and the construction of science parks comply with national land-use regulations.
The verdict is also a test of whether those in control of state machinery, having used their influence to undermine the administrative system, will now try to undermine the judiciary as well. The interior ministry is of course entitled to appeal the verdict, but to do so would be further proof that it is no more than a toothless political tool that is beyond hope of redemption.

Translated by Julian Clegg, Taipei Times, 2012/10/22

2012年10月19日 星期五

生之歌

寫於2012鐘丁茂教授紀念音樂會

對我而言,鐘老師既是老師,也是伙伴,更是朋友。所以,身為學生、戰鬥伙伴以及朋友的我,有三個角色看鐘老師。
當我是個天真的學生[1],我明瞭,原來身為一個老師,在課堂上所說必須自己能夠做得到,否則就是「騙」;而大學老師若願意獻身成為行動者、實踐者,社會就有改變的契機。喔,原來這是社會人格。
當我成為一個環境運動的伙伴,在漫天遍地的環境烽火中,看見戰鬥中的鐘老師,對事的堅持以及對人的善意。喔,原來這是人性的善與美。
當我作為一個朋友,從言談中深知,鐘老師對土地與環境、學生與朋友,乃至家人的在乎與關懷。喔,原來那是真正的愛。
社會人格、堅持、善意、在乎、關懷與愛,正是人類社會最根本、最可貴、可長可久的價值與精神。所以,只要些價值還流傳著,鐘老師其實不曾離開。
朋友們,今天我們在這裡聆聽鐘老師為天、地、神、人所譜寫的詠歎調,別忘了,鐘老師的生命正是一首歌,這首歌不會停止,人類會永遠的傳唱。謝謝鐘老師。


[1] 1998年參加環境佈道師南台營隊,課程安排鐘老師講授「生態倫理」。

2012年10月17日 星期三

中科四期案是面照妖鏡

台北高等行政法院判決撤銷中科四期(二林園區)開發許可,讓我們仔細檢視這張開發許可是怎麼發下來的。
首先是選址,中科四期吞食的六百多公頃土地,恰恰位於台灣中部重要農業生產區的核心地帶,更是位在水資源匱乏以及地層下陷地區,與國土計畫體制的定位完全相違背。但國科會藉由「中科四期擴建需求及遴選作業說明」將重要選址條件(如上位計畫、水源供應與發展限制)在轉換成評選指標與權重的過程中,被排除或成為不重要,並讓開發潛力(22.08%)、開發執行(29.17%)、綜合評分(20%)等,變成真正重要的指標(佔總評量權重的71.25%),因此可以選上二林園區。
其次,在內政部(營建署)積極配合下,於2009414~630日間連續召開8次區域計畫委員會專案小組會議(平均2週開會一次),其間有委員認為從中科三期后里農場到七星農場,再到中科四期開發,中科管理局皆對委員明言不會再有園區開發,卻又一再送審新開發,明顯欺騙區委會委員。另外,本案在20091112以召開延續會議之名,排除民眾與團體參與會議,投票通過本案,投票結果為11票支持開發(包括2票有條件支持),其中完全支持本案開發者9票皆為政府官方代表(投票部隊),而5票反對開發者皆為專家學者委員。
中科四期從選址到開發許可的取得,讓我們看到政治決定與專業臣服、科學為政治服務、行政體制自廢武功。這場醜惡的騙局,讓專業官僚成為政治工具,也讓整個國土計畫淪為笑話,更進而造成溪州搶水、濁水溪排廢水、相思寮徵收等問題,真可謂「全面失控」。
如此看司法的判決,只是要讓敗壞的國土計畫、官僚行政、專業審議體制回歸常軌,讓社會明白經濟發展、園區開發必須符合國土規範才是永續社會運作的正途。但是,此一判決更是在檢驗國家機器的掌控者,在以政治力量敗壞行政體制後,是否進一步破壞司法體制。面對判決,內政部當然可以依法上訴,但上訴正是自甘淪為政治工具、繼續自我閹割的展現,這樣的官僚體制,真的徹底沒救了。

 
本文刊登於2012/10/17蘋果論壇

2012年10月13日 星期六

929國際反迫遷日寫在士林王家前

社會運動,是守護、捍衛或建立社會基本價值的努力,但所有的社會實踐者必會面對質疑,不論這些質疑多麼盲目、虛浮及愚蠢,我們當然要回應。
反對「發展」嗎?我們從沒有反對發展。但是,我們反對沒有明天、不要明天、葬送你、我共同未來的發展。而出賣土地、環境的血、肉與靈魂,正是數十年來的發展模式,從山陵、海洋到平原。
反「商」嗎?我們從未反商。但是,我們反奸商,反倒行逆施的財團治國。而國家淪為財團守門員,為其掃除障礙,令其淘空一切,正是最最冥頑的邪靈。
反「民主」嗎?我們當然沒有反民主。但是,我們反對假民主之名,卻摧毀維繫民主社會運作的最根本價值。而浮濫的徵收、動用警力的拆遷,正是侵踏人權的蠻橫暴行。
所以,我們當然不能接受「犧牲別人、成就自己[1]」、「國家暴力[2]」以及「耳語、放話與抹黑[3]」,更是痛惡「該拆的不拆、不該拆的拼命拆[4]」以及「拆了人民的房子,卻躲到建商之後」。
朋友們,台灣社會遍地烽火,我們只能疲於奔命。站在王家貨櫃屋前,只有感謝。感謝王家的堅持與勇氣,感謝年輕朋友的陪伴與守護,感謝彭龍三大哥的奔走與訴求,感謝所有關心王家的人所做的一切。因為這一切,台灣才是一個實實在在的民主社會,民主的根本價值才能夠傳唱,而這些價值,正是所謂的專業、律法乃至國家行政之所以生、所以死的根本核心。
拆掉美麗灣的方法與讓大埔張藥局留下來的方法,以及讓王家就是王家的方法,從來都一樣。拜託也懇求,每一個社會力量,站出來,再站出來,通通站出來。


[1] 王家從來沒有犧牲別人,但建設公司與同意戶卻要求犧牲王家來成全自己。
[2] 當制度成為暴力,當警力成為暴力,大埔毀田、王家強拆,都只是縮影。
[3] 這是文林苑發生迄今,令我覺得最可惡也最在意的事。不證明而一味的放話,這是爭利與比壞的惡鬼道。
[4] 美麗灣該拆不拆,王家可以不拆卻暴力強拆。

2012年10月12日 星期五

中科四期,這件事與這些人

2009年,「中部科學工業園區第四期(二林園區)開發計畫與細部計畫案」為通過土地使用變更並取得開發許可,在內政部營建署積極配合辦理下,於414~630日間連續召開8次區域計畫委員會專案小組會議(平均2週開會一次),並於115日召開內政部區域計畫委員會第265次審查會,會中以部分陳情民眾與相關團體不願意離席,致無法進行實質內容討論,主席爰宣布散會,另擇日再進行本次會議未完成之討論程序」為由,於隔週(1112日)再度召開延續會議,在排除民眾與團體參與會議下投票通過本案。
投票結果為11票支持開發(包括有條件支持),其中完全支持本案開發者9票皆為政府官方代表(機關委員),而5票反對開發者皆為專家學者委員。這叫做政治決定,也可稱做政府無敵。但重要的是,這是中科四期取得開發許可、葬送二林基地、毀滅相思寮、甚至溪州向農奪水的開端。而這一幕,見證農委會拋棄農民與農地、營建署與地政司背叛土地、環保署棄守環境,整個文官體制徹底淪為服務政客的工具,此外,更見證知識界哪些人扮演社會良心堅持到底,哪些人又對政客妥協、讓步。
這件事中的以下這些人,理當為歷史、社會、世代、土地、環境負責,歷史不能遺漏,世代子孫應該評斷,而我們更不能忘記:
會議由內政部政務次長簡太郎(區委會副主委)代理主持。
支持本案開發之政府機關委員(投票部隊)總計九人有王如碧(財政部國有財產局)、高惠雪(經濟部工業局)、黃德治(交通部)、廖安定(農委會)、蔡玲儀(環保署)、黃萬翔(經建會)、羅光宗(內政部地政司),以上皆是派代表(非本人)前往與會投票,另葉世文(內政部營建署)、許文龍(內政部營建署),則親自與會並投票支持。
有條件支持本案開發之專家學者委員(二名)有張四立、簡連貴。
反對本開發案之專家學者委員(五名)有王珍玲、詹順貴、蕭再安、顏愛靜、張靜貞。
會議先行離席(未投票)委員有林靜娟(林教授投反對票,但因上課需先離席,遂以委託書委託顏愛靜老師代投反對票,會議主席簡太郎認為此不合規定,故未將其反對票計入)、林佳瑩、翁文德(內政部主任秘書)等三名。
未參加會議之專家學者委員有周天穎、黃聲遠、李錫堤、吳綱立、江彥霆、陸曉筠等六人。
未參加會議之機關委員有江怡樺(內政部長、區委會主任委員)、林慈玲(內政部常務次長)、季元俊(國防部)。

2012年10月11日 星期四

Time for ministry to face music over resort

The Miramar Resort Hotel development in Taitung County is an opportunistic plan that flies in the face of the conclusions of its environmental impact assessment (EIA). Anyone siding with this development is guilty by association. The Taitung County government has already shown its colors, and has been found wanting. Now it is time for the Ministry of the Interior to step up to the plate.
All land use is governed by a template of guidelines and standards that are to be complied with. Land use along Taiwan’s coastal areas, for example, is governed by the Taiwan Coastal Area Environmental Protection Plan. The ministry is the central government body responsible for this protection plan, and the Miramar Resort Hotel development happens to be on land designated under the plan as a general conservation area. According to the plan, the principle behind environmental protection within these conservation areas is “to maintain the existing model of resource usage such that the particular characteristics of the ecology and the natural scenery remains unaffected.”
As a result, Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源), who specializes in national land use planning and disaster prevention, should address a number of points.
First, can one really claim that the Miramar Resort will not affect the characteristics of the ecology and the natural scenery in the area?
Second, is the chosen location of the resort permissible according to the specifications of the coastal area conservation plan? Should it be issued a construction license?
Third, if this building is not declared illegal, exactly what would it take for a building to be declared as such?

Fourth, if this building is not torn down, does this mean that the coastal area conservation plan would need to be revised?
Finally, what exactly is the coastal area protection plan supposed to be protecting? Corporate interests? Hotel resorts? Or coastal areas?
The ministry completed the initial overall review for the coastal area protection plan in 2010, when the Dulan (都蘭) Shanyuan (杉原海岸) coastal area was designated a conservation area. This move not only specified that the ecology and the natural scenery of the Shanyuan coast was to be conserved, it meant that the conservation of the coast was to be elevated to the status of “strict prohibition of any activity that would change the ecology and natural scenery of the area, in which the conservation of the natural resources within the area is to be reinforced.”
However, the Cabinet has yet to ratify this overall review. One cannot say for sure whether this has anything to do with the Miramar Resort Hotel, but the suspicions are there.
In addition, according to measurements taken by the Ministry of Transport and Communications’ Directorate General of Highways between 1995 and 1997, the east coast is receding by 4m per year, on average, and studies have shown that the coast along the southern edge of the Dulan alluvial fan is being eroded at an average of 3.3m every year.
Waves whipped up by Typhoon Jelawat smashed against the Miramar Resort Hotel. Given the rate of land loss and coastal erosion, it is strange that such unbridled development and construction is being allowed, with apparent disregard for safety.
It is hard to imagine how Lee, who is supposed to be an expert in national land management, can turn a blind eye to rampant development on the east coast, and allow the local government and corporate groups to ravage coastal areas in the region.

Translated by Paul Cooper, Taipei Times 2012/10/09

2012年10月4日 星期四

為幸福而唱

農村武裝青年「幸福在哪裡」專輯推薦文


我的背包裡放著「幹!政府」的布條,那是我欲言又止的心聲;我閱讀環境正義的文獻後,輕呼了一口氣,原來「沒正義就沒和平」道盡一切;我腦海閃過「白海豚之歌」在國光石化案環評發言的畫面;我特別注意(在意)也喜歡專輯封面的「版權所有,歡迎翻印」。農村武裝青年,讓音樂成為行動,用音樂詮釋更實踐生命,原來這是搖滾精神。
這個單純的音樂與聲音,充滿前進的力量與戰鬥的意志,但內裡其實是向天低頭、向地認同,回歸命土與水源、生民與自我的真與誠,所以,批判中直指根本、反省進步並思索希望。
朋友們,抵抗者的熱血與淚水,孩童的雙瞳與話語,一如陽光、雨水、山林、土地、海洋、河流,自然而然。這個社會亟需要回到原點的思考。請來傾聽農村武裝青年為你、我以及世代的幸福而寫、而唱的「幸福在哪裡」。

捍衛海岸環境正義的部長在哪裡?

規避環評、投機違法的台東美麗灣渡假村開發案,還可以被保護嗎?凡是想要保護它的,顯然就是同夥、共犯。台東縣政府已經不堪檢驗,但台灣社會正在檢驗內政部。
美麗灣渡假村所使用的土地,其使用編定是風景區的遊憩用地,但這樣的編定就表示財團可以為所欲為、愛怎麼用就怎麼用嗎?當然不是。所有的土地使用皆有其相關的上位計畫作為其指導與規範,《台灣沿海地區自然環境保護計畫》就是沿海土地使用的上位計畫,其中央主管機關是內政部,而美麗灣渡假村正位於計畫所劃設的一般保護區之中,該計畫對一般保護區的保護原則是「以不影響環境之生態特色及自然景觀下,維持現有之資源利用型態。」
因此,做為國土規劃與防災專家的內政部李鴻源部長,應該面對以下問題:第一,美麗灣渡假村不影響環境生態特色及自然景觀嗎?這樣的土地使用是維持現有之資源利用型態嗎?第二,在《台灣沿海地區自然環境保護計畫》的規範下,美麗灣的區位選址可以被同意嗎?土地使用沒有問題嗎?可以核發建築執照嗎?第三、這樣的建物,如果不叫做違建,那該稱做什麼?第四、若不拆除,需不需要修改《台灣沿海地區自然環境保護計畫》?第五,《台灣沿海地區自然環境保護計畫》保護的對象究竟是財團、渡假飯店?還是海岸?
事實上,《台灣沿海地區自然環境保護計畫》已在2010年由內政部完成第一次通盤檢討,並因「杉原海水浴場南北兩端的海濱有珊瑚礁分布,特別是海水浴場北方礁石海岸,潮間帶長約數百公尺,寬約50~100公尺。」而將都蘭杉原海岸劃為自然保護區此舉不僅明白揭示杉原海岸之生態特色及自然景觀,更嚴格將杉原海岸的保護提升為「禁止任何改變現有生態特色及自然景觀之行為,並加強區內自然資源之保護。」但行政院卻尚未核定此一通盤檢討,是否與美麗灣有關,不無疑問
此外,依據公路總局東部濱海工務所1995~1997年測量發現,東海岸平均每年退縮近四公尺,研究亦顯示都蘭沖積扇南緣海岸侵蝕速率為每年3.3公尺,而剛剛離開的杰拉華颱風,海浪直襲美麗灣渡假村。這樣的國土流失與退化地區,竟可無視安全與防災問題,放任濫墾、濫建。
佔領東海岸的野蠻遊戲正如火如荼上演,做為國土管理專家的內政部長豈能浪得虛名、視而不見,放任地方政府與財團蹂躪海岸國土。本來就不該蓋的美麗灣渡假村,再不拆,莫非財團不僅佔領了地方,也進一步統治了中央。

本文(經刪修)以「檢驗內政部長捍衛海岸決心」
刊登於2012/1004蘋果論壇