Human Rights Commission Identifies 4 Contentious Points in Systematic Investigation of Public Property Forced Eviction Cases
The National Human Rights Commission has launched a systematic investigation into seven cases of forced evictions from public property, including LeSheng Sanatorium and Daguan Community, holding a public hearing today. The study found four major contentious points: insufficient communication, differential treatment, failure to provide legal and other assistance to those forcibly relocated, and significant discrepancies in the understanding of rights and obligations between the government and residents regarding their living arrangements before land repossession.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 25, 2026 at 17:26
- 🔍 Collected: April 25, 2026 at 17:31 (5 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 25, 2026 at 20:47 (3h 15m after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Central News Agency reporter Lai Yu-chen, Taipei, April 25) The National Human Rights Commission has launched a systematic investigation into seven cases of forced evictions from public property, including LeSheng Sanatorium and Daguan Community, and held a public hearing today. Scholars entrusted with the research explained that the investigation has so far uncovered four contentious issues: insufficient communication, differential treatment, failure to provide legal and other assistance to those forcibly relocated, and a significant discrepancy in the recognition of rights and obligations regarding the residents' tenure before the government repossesses land.
In February, the Human Rights Commission initiated a systematic investigation into seven public property forced eviction cases, including Huaguang Community, Taipei Wolong Street, Banqiao Daguan Community, Chan Chu Shan Village, Xindian Liugong Canal, the Liu family in Sanxia Longpuli, and LeSheng Sanatorium. Professor Ho Yan-sheng, Associate Professor of the Department of Real Estate and Urban and Rural Environment at National Taipei University, was commissioned to conduct the research. Today, residents who were forcibly evicted, supporting groups, and experts were invited to attend the public hearing, hoping to clarify institutional gaps through public evidence.
Mr. Liu, a representative for the Taipei Wolong Street case, stated that they cooperated with the city government's relocation and resettlement efforts back then, but the city government later denied the resettlement measures based on false household registration data, demanding that the resettled residents demolish their homes, return the land, and compensate for unjust enrichment.
The lawyer representing the Xindian Liugong Canal case said that the Control Yuan pointed out in 2021 that the Liugong Agricultural Water Conservancy Association had shortcomings in this case, and the government's mistakes should be handled by the government itself, not borne by the public.
Mr. Liu, a representative for the Sanxia Longpuli case, said that his family had lived by farming in the area for five generations, but were suddenly accused of occupying state-owned land. To avoid bearing the stigma, they lost land rights, compensated for unjust enrichment, and began leasing public land. However, their lease expired last year, and there has been no word on their renewal application so far; they don't even have the right to express their opinions. He sincerely hopes the city government will stop repeatedly persecuting them.
Hsu Shih-yung, a distinguished professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University, stated that the National Property Act was implemented only in the 1960s (Minguo Year 50s), and its enforcement rules were not introduced until March 27, 1970 (Minguo Year 59). The government can consider being more lenient. Moreover, as the government has now begun releasing public land, it should carefully consider avoiding releasing land on one hand while depriving citizens of their rights on the other.
Ho Yan-sheng indicated that there are currently four contentious issues and points needing clarification: First, before the government repossesses land, there are significant differences between residents and agencies in their recognition of the rights and obligations related to the residents' tenure. Second, different units have different ways of responding to the residential rights of residents in the same area, and this differential treatment raises serious questions about its rationality.
Ho Yan-sheng continued, third, the government directly demands demolition and return of land through civil lawsuits, with insufficient negotiation and communication, and the act of disguising public law obligations as private law litigation has caused great dissatisfaction among the public. Fourth, relocation has a significant impact on the physical and mental well-being of residents, yet government agencies have failed to provide necessary legal, medical, relief, and social assistance.
Tian Qiu-jin, a member of the Human Rights Commission, said that although the current term of Control Yuan members will end in late July, this systematic investigation will continue. It is expected to complete in-depth interviews and an interim report by the end of June, hold a preliminary presentation of in-depth interview results in July, conduct expert consultations and data analysis from July to September, hold a results presentation in November, and complete the systematic investigation report by the end of the year. (Edited by Hsieh Chia-chen) 1150425
(Central News Agency reporter Lai Yu-chen, Taipei, April 25) The National Human Rights Commission has launched a systematic investigation into seven cases of forced evictions from public property, including LeSheng Sanatorium and Daguan Community, and held a public hearing today. Scholars entrusted with the research explained that the investigation has so far uncovered four contentious issues: insufficient communication, differential treatment, failure to provide legal and other assistance to those forcibly relocated, and a significant discrepancy in the recognition of rights and obligations regarding the residents' tenure before the government repossesses land.
In February, the Human Rights Commission initiated a systematic investigation into seven public property forced eviction cases, including Huaguang Community, Taipei Wolong Street, Banqiao Daguan Community, Chan Chu Shan Village, Xindian Liugong Canal, the Liu family in Sanxia Longpuli, and LeSheng Sanatorium. Professor Ho Yan-sheng, Associate Professor of the Department of Real Estate and Urban and Rural Environment at National Taipei University, was commissioned to conduct the research. Today, residents who were forcibly evicted, supporting groups, and experts were invited to attend the public hearing, hoping to clarify institutional gaps through public evidence.
Mr. Liu, a representative for the Taipei Wolong Street case, stated that they cooperated with the city government's relocation and resettlement efforts back then, but the city government later denied the resettlement measures based on false household registration data, demanding that the resettled residents demolish their homes, return the land, and compensate for unjust enrichment.
The lawyer representing the Xindian Liugong Canal case said that the Control Yuan pointed out in 2021 that the Liugong Agricultural Water Conservancy Association had shortcomings in this case, and the government's mistakes should be handled by the government itself, not borne by the public.
Mr. Liu, a representative for the Sanxia Longpuli case, said that his family had lived by farming in the area for five generations, but were suddenly accused of occupying state-owned land. To avoid bearing the stigma, they lost land rights, compensated for unjust enrichment, and began leasing public land. However, their lease expired last year, and there has been no word on their renewal application so far; they don't even have the right to express their opinions. He sincerely hopes the city government will stop repeatedly persecuting them.
Hsu Shih-yung, a distinguished professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University, stated that the National Property Act was implemented only in the 1960s (Minguo Year 50s), and its enforcement rules were not introduced until March 27, 1970 (Minguo Year 59). The government can consider being more lenient. Moreover, as the government has now begun releasing public land, it should carefully consider avoiding releasing land on one hand while depriving citizens of their rights on the other.
Ho Yan-sheng indicated that there are currently four contentious issues and points needing clarification: First, before the government repossesses land, there are significant differences between residents and agencies in their recognition of the rights and obligations related to the residents' tenure. Second, different units have different ways of responding to the residential rights of residents in the same area, and this differential treatment raises serious questions about its rationality.
Ho Yan-sheng continued, third, the government directly demands demolition and return of land through civil lawsuits, with insufficient negotiation and communication, and the act of disguising public law obligations as private law litigation has caused great dissatisfaction among the public. Fourth, relocation has a significant impact on the physical and mental well-being of residents, yet government agencies have failed to provide necessary legal, medical, relief, and social assistance.
Tian Qiu-jin, a member of the Human Rights Commission, said that although the current term of Control Yuan members will end in late July, this systematic investigation will continue. It is expected to complete in-depth interviews and an interim report by the end of June, hold a preliminary presentation of in-depth interview results in July, conduct expert consultations and data analysis from July to September, hold a results presentation in November, and complete the systematic investigation report by the end of the year. (Edited by Hsieh Chia-chen) 1150425