Taiwan: A Family’s Forced Eviction Casts Shadow on Urban Renewal Act · Global Voices
I-fan Lin

The outrageous eviction of the Wang family executed by Taipei City government showed the public how fragile citizens’ private rights is in front of the urban renewal projects. More and more, public opinion has urged the Premier, Chong Chen, to  revise the current Urban Renewal Act [zh].
Manipulation of resident opinions
Hsieh-Li Wang pointed out that [zh] the current Act allows construction companies to put forward an urban renewal plan even when the majority of the residents refuse to join this project:
Wang's house before demolition. Photo by Flickr User munch999 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).
都更條例的大陷阱在此：都更條例第十條第二款規定的「十分之一所有權人同意，再加上土地或建物樓地板面積超過十分之一，即可申請更新」。這是什麼意思？來自五分埔的都更受害戶李昭玫說，「就是只要有錢人或建商想都更，買下幾戶，灌進大量人頭，然後佔多數，就可以開啟都更大門。」李昭玫的社區就遇到幾戶灌進七十多個人頭的個案。
Based on Article 25 of the Urban Renewal Act, the government is allowed to approve an urban renewal project when 80% of the involved residents agree to join the project [zh]. For those who refuse to join the project, they will be punished with forced eviction executed by the government. Yo-Yu Hsih, a law student criticized [zh] the tyranny of the majority which violates the rights of a minority.
採行多數決同意之目的，無非係要使珍貴稀少的土地資源有效利用，避免在都更劃定範圍內發生少數綁架多數，阻礙都更進行，延滯都市發展。
按多數決同意的制度多有走向多數暴力的風險，其並無法兼顧全體所有權人之利益…目前都更條例第22條第1項僅有多數決原則而無相關保護少數人之制度，如此對少數人甚為不利，恐已違反最小侵害原則。
(However) Majority decision may result in tyranny that sacrifices the minority's interest… Currently Article 22, clause 1 of the Urban Renewal Act endorses majority decision without any protection for the minority. This will put the minority in a vulnerable situation and jeopardize their rights. I am afraid this Act has violated the legal principle of minimum encroachment.
A poster outside Wang's houses. It says ‘my house was bought when I was 40, and it was torn down when I was 70.’ Photo by Flickr User munch999 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).
Government involvement
Hsieh-Li Wang questioned [zh] why the Act allows the government to use police force to serve the interest of developers:
更爭議的是，第三十六條規定，建商可向政府申請，由公權力代為拆除拒遷戶。讓不少專家認為，都更條例的多數決和過度支持建商，有違背憲法對人民財產保障的基本權利.
The Taiwan Association for Human Rights demanded a thorough revision of the Urban Renewal Act in accordance with the Constitution. In the Yuan Legislature, legislator Mei-Nyu You urged [zh] the  Minister of Interior to revise the current Urban Renewal Act:
今天如果你的房子出租，遇到一個奧客不肯搬走，你能不能用公權力直接把他趕走？…你得要先去法院告他打官司，拿到勝訴後再向法院聲請強制執行，法院還會給他一個緩衝期讓他搬遷，這是尊重人民居住的權利.
今天我的房子好好的，沒有礙到誰，沒有因為交通、安全、房子破舊需重建的問題，完全沒有。只是因為建商看中我的土地，看中我的容積率，就叫我非遷（不可），然後就越過司法權，直接用行政權介入來拆房子，這樣符合程序的正義嗎？
Defending constitutional rights
Torrent criticized the political party's election politics and retreated [zh] to citizen action for defending their constitutional rights:
Graffiti against an urban renewal project. Photo by Flickr User theAthena (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).
與民眾權益攸關高居憲法總綱後的第二章人民之權利義務，越來越成為其它章節爭奪戰中的口號…台灣社會已經縱容這些人的謊言太久，他們告訴我們只要搶到憲法第四章的總統大位、得到第六章立法權的多數，就能夠自然達到憲法第二章居住權、遷徙權、言論權、生存權、工作權、財產權，但他們永遠都有理由和藉口。
所以我們要求改革不正義的都更，保障每一個人民的居住權。這才是寫台灣人民的歷史，才能從龐大的謊言中抗爭出空隙拿回屬於我們的憲法。