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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS