My NTU classmate Steve Chen shared with me a rich message about Madam Chiang Kai-shek/Soong Mei-ling (蔣宋美齡) who lived in the US after her husband passed away, died at age of 106 in 2003. Currently her long Island mansion was tagged with $1,108 million dollars on real estate market (The link attached below provides info about this super-high-end with historically unique-value property.)
By the way, 大概有人會問: " 是國產呢? 還是黨產?? "
http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s__biz=MzAwMTA2MzY5Mg==&mid=400233644&idx=5&sn=df4d27942b14a2539adb3906d57300cd&scene=2&srcid=1105O26PfGnL3rQfBa04c5l7&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#rd ;
meanwhile my the other classmate James wrote about housing conditions in Taiwan.
By the way, 大概有人會問: " 是國產呢? 還是黨產?? "
http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s__biz=MzAwMTA2MzY5Mg==&mid=400233644&idx=5&sn=df4d27942b14a2539adb3906d57300cd&scene=2&srcid=1105O26PfGnL3rQfBa04c5l7&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#rd ;
meanwhile my the other classmate James wrote about housing conditions in Taiwan.
These two messages remind of what happened 3 weeks ago when I took a bereavement leave to go back to Taipei to attend my dearest sister's funeral. During the whole week I stayed at my brother Fu's home (where I grew up when I was young with my parents and siblings). Brother Fu is the only sibling among 8, who owns a business and has a financially sound living condition. He always encourages me to go back to Taipei.
(Attached is a very old picture of our small home lived with extended family members, which my parents purchased in Taipei via my father's selling roasted nuts and fresh fruits. It was remodeled later and brother Fu and his family, now, are residing there).
I chatted with brother Fu casually with a joking tone, "If I put all my pensions and some savings together, maybe I could afford a small place to live in Taipei, so I don't have to bother you guys when I visit Taipei..." Brother Fu, seemingly took my words seriously and said, "Ar May-ar (my nickname), let me tell you this - I think all of your hard earned money via all of your working and teaching from the US. - I have to be honest with you - those savings might not be enough to buy a piece of Brick of a small house in Taipei... So, don't worry, if you decide to come back, you still can choose to stay with us..."
Though just a short chat, I took it as a daily conversation without any extra feeling to interpret, since so far, I am the only sibling that brother Fu and his family deemed as a "valuable" relative. If it were some of my other siblings who might not be financially successful, then that could be a different story. Definitely, I did not take it as a humiliation, sarcasm, or a typical "anti-intellect" sentiment that once in a while runs through family feuds, because, brother Fu, always expresses his appreciation that I am the only sibling encouraging him during the darkest time of his life.
Nevertheless, it was still a shame - I thought about myself.... Many years ago, with 2 pieces of luggage and a big scholarship won through a 3-day National Competition, I landed on the US. I mailed money home whenever I worked, in particular, the amount of the scholarship which was from the hard-working Taiwanese taxpayers' money - all sent back to Taiwan. So, my dear friends and folks, are you still expecting me becoming a famous professor or a Nobel prize winner some sort like that? Frankly speaking, NOT in my life time - be candid with you guys, because today, I am still paying a couple of big mortgages through my teaching pay-checks :)!
Recalling the past, and looking at the current progress, obviously, many Asian students sent by their parents to America have enjoyed better learning and living conditions since a couple of decades ago when I started teaching at a couple of Universities and current a Technical College. These students included from Taiwan (the population have been dwindling drastically, though), not to mention from China, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, due to the flourishing economy and rising living standards. Apparently, compared to my early situation as an international student, their patterns of consumption are still strikingly shocking to me. For examples, some of my students from the Far-eastern Asia at a previous University that I taught, they purchased new cars with cash, rented the high-end apartments, shopped at personalized stores, and visited their native countries almost every semester. When I was a student at UW-Madison with tight budgeted scholarship, I lived in the co-op or got the sublease during summers and winters as the best as I could, looking for car-pools via the kind local people who gave you rides to grocery stores, and working part-time at a couple of libraries for buying extra books. The average years that I saved enough money to go back to Taipei was 3.5 years after I had been an educator while pursuing a terminal degree. That's why I always feel awkward when people's kind and casual chatting with "How is your summer/winter break? Did you go back to visit your friends and relatives?"
Even not being student anymore, a couple of my dear friends from Taiwan invested lots of money on the US real estate and resorts, purchased cars and houses via cash, and are constantly busying in leisure traveling. These are truly temptations to me : why not just quit my teaching job which constantly puts me under tremendous stress as almost the only minority (in terms of racial/ethnic dimension) faculty member among 268 at my current work-setting ???
Thinking of going back to Taiwan, if not staying with my brother's family, then I would be a 100% 無殼蝸牛 (literally, a-snail-without-shell , popularly used in Taiwan, in particular, Taipei) - the landless/ homeless. How could it be and what a funny joke: the knowledge, working experiences with several hard-earned/ "invested credentials" from the US, would lead to such an incredible situation?
By the way, a couple days ago I compared the kind-n-wise remarks of Jung and Gates on my blog. If they did say so, not from the mischievous posters, then I found them handy for my self-examining the mistake that I have ever made and testing Max Weber’s notion of life-chance.
Understanding the simplicity hidden behind the above two positive-and-statements, now check with the invisible forces embedded in the human societies that C Wright Mills expounds arduously that without Sociological Imagination the mass will always be trapped in the taken-for-granted world and incapable of understanding the structural dimension of personal predicaments. Coffin echoes this thought:
In short, long time ago when I worked at the Congress (立法院- the Legislative Yuan, later at 行政院 - the Executive Yuan) in Taiwan, “住者有其屋” 只當是個有屋有宅, 大廈連雲者的清涼口號. 到如今, 卻是官官相護, 官商勾結的業障... - both in the US. and Taiwan.
Note - If one has to use self-exposure (yes, the tightly guarded, priceless confidentiality) as a final resort to get a message out, then you can image the SEVERITY of the issue - What a big and ill Elephant in the room :)!
---------------------------------
他山之石 : In history, lands belonged to monarchs, aristocrats, war lords, churches, and later, the capitalists. Peasants, surfs and proletarians worked on the landowners’ lands/factories. Generally speaking, land reform involves different scales of changing laws, regulations or customs regarding land ownership in "some civilized" societies. Government may initiate policies to promote redistributing property - generally on agricultural lands. History shows that some land reforms did not come easily, and oftentimes, the bloody revolts or revolutions of land reform were the norm.
Just browsed through fb friend Andy Tung's post, and found how the Dutch deals with the housing issues:
"荷蘭社會住宅的現況與迷思" By Johanna Huang on October 6, 2014 in 社會 & 文化3
阿姆斯特丹 Wozoco 長青族住宅社區。（圖片來源：archidialog.com）
在荷蘭有超過三分之一的住宅單位是出租式社會住宅（台灣目前不到 0.1%），發展歷史已超過 150 年，制度上也相對完善，是因為荷蘭政府視居住權為每位公民的基本權利，而且近年來也成為其他國家社會住宅政策發展上的重要借鏡對象。為什麼荷蘭的社會住宅不會成為貧民住宅，也不會成為房地產炒作的工具呢？ 其原因可分別從房地產市場、補助政策、成立住宅協會（Housing association）等要素說起，接下來此文將從不同的角度介紹與剖析荷蘭社會住宅的現況。
社會住宅給誰住？社會住宅很便宜嗎？
2013 年底荷蘭將近有 300 萬戶出租住宅，其中約 240 萬戶是社會住宅（註 1），佔全國 40% 的家戶數，有人一定質疑：為什麼一個國家需要興建如此眾多的社會住宅呢？難道荷蘭人需要政府救助的比例這麼高嗎？ 以 2015 年為例，社會住宅的出租價格受到政府管制，房租不得超過 711 歐元／月，承租戶年收入則不得高於 34,229 歐元，才有資格申請承租社會住宅（荷蘭人平均年收入 37，876 歐元）。
依照此比例來看，荷蘭人可以申請社會住宅的資格，並非只鎖定在低收入戶和弱勢族群，不同於台灣社會普遍認為，中產階級既有能力負擔一般商業市場的住房。荷蘭政府較早就意識到社會住宅政策受益對象，不應只限定於傳統觀念中需救助的族群，無論是土生土長的荷蘭人或新移民，屬於低收入戶、身心障礙、長青族、單親家庭、社會新鮮人、甚至連ㄧ般家庭只要小孩比較多的，及被認定教育費用支出較高的雙薪家庭，都可在申請範圍內。其實在荷蘭社會住宅的租戶僅有約 5%，是供給無家可歸的人或無經濟來源的人居住。
出租社會住宅的關鍵單位：又是房仲、又是 NGO 的住宅協會
荷蘭社會住宅和ㄧ般房地產的租售市場是分開的，負責出租的單位是「荷蘭住宅協會（Housing Association）」，其擁有社會住宅的產權且負責租賃的服務，雖是不以營利為主要目的法人組織，因此賺來的盈利必須依法用於：增進該社區住宅的品質或空間維護；和社區管委會一起合作，防止社區犯罪、維護整潔、舉辦聯誼派對、維護社區運動休閒設施…等等。
除了能出租社會住宅，「住宅協會」視財務情況可「資金週轉」，將社會住宅出售或買回，售價以臨近的房地產價格為標準。為了避免投資炒作，社會住宅的銷售市場是受到限制的，社會住宅買主想將房地產脫手只能賣給原屬的住宅協會，賣出和買入價差有獲利或虧損由買主和住宅協會對分，這樣可以避免投資客炒作房價。
反觀日前台灣巢運的其中一項訴求：為確保障弱勢團體的居住權利，要求政府提供「只租不賣」的社會住宅；但另一方面，官方單位認為只租不賣的社會住宅，可能造成政府或住宅協會的營運虧損；雙方的衝突點，其實就在於無較健全的法源依據，可設立並規範專職處理社會住宅興建及租售的住宅協會，因此聽起來目前台灣的社會住宅建案，似乎只是創造了另一個讓建商炒房的新興市場。並非說不該開放社會住宅的買賣，但必須有ㄧ套完善的法源規範，才能避免落為投資客的炒房範疇。不過話說回來，在台灣不到 0.1% 的社會住宅比例，的確應該先以提供出租型社會住宅為首要之急。
社會住宅=貧民住宅？
當年荷蘭政府推動社會住宅的其一宗旨就是，為了要避免城市裡出現貧民窟，因此希望提供最基本的住宅單元，讓即便是弱勢居民也能夠住的舒服、健康。政策立意美好，雖然沒有了「貧民窟」，但荷蘭各地卻出現治安不好的「移民社區」（見圖，荷蘭台夫特 60 年代的 Poptahof 住宅社區），住著許多經濟條件相對弱勢的土耳其、摩洛哥、蘇里南裔等新移民戶，這些移民社區和荷蘭「主體社會」間的隔閡，也成為荷蘭甚至歐洲社會很大的問題。
荷蘭台夫特 60 年代的Poptahof住宅社區。（圖片來源：www.spaarhetklimaat.nl）
為了解決潛在的族群隔閡問題，荷蘭政府正在有計劃性地改建社會住宅。首先，讓部分社會住宅轉租，作為學生宿舍；其次，新的住宅建案必須結合一般和社會住宅，避免單一族群社區所形成的社會隔閡。
舉例來說，阿姆斯特的住宅社區 GWL-terrain 和鹿特丹的 The Red Apple 複合式住宅建案，都是將社會住宅和都市更新案結合在一起的案例，社區中同時存在社會住宅和一般私宅，外觀上並沒有什麼明顯的差異，這是因為政府透過補助社會住宅承租者的津貼，讓開發商和住宅協會，每月從社會出租住宅和一般出租住宅收取一樣的租金，進而維持住宅協會的營運利潤。
鹿特丹的 The Red Apple 複合式住宅建案。（圖片來源：KCAP Architects & Planners）
人人稱羨的荷蘭社會住宅制度，似乎是台灣值得追求的終極目標，但在這之中其實也充滿了許多迷思，希望此文能帶來些不同的見解，讓大家更深入地了解荷蘭的社會住宅到底是怎麼一回事。
註 1：所謂的社會住宅是由政府補助建造，合乎居住標準的房屋，以低於一般市場租金出租給收入較低或相對弱勢的居民，保障弱勢者的居住權益。
參考資料
1. Whitehead， C.， & Scanlon， K. (n.d.). Social Housing in Europe. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
2. 荷蘭政府網站
3. 再談荷蘭土地與社會住宅政策
4. 盧佳宜， 社會住宅可行性評估及具體措施
本文《荷蘭：只要想住，就有地方住》刊載於世界公民島雜誌，經同意轉登文章後增編內容，未經特定授權許可不得轉載。
(Attached is a very old picture of our small home lived with extended family members, which my parents purchased in Taipei via my father's selling roasted nuts and fresh fruits. It was remodeled later and brother Fu and his family, now, are residing there).I chatted with brother Fu casually with a joking tone, "If I put all my pensions and some savings together, maybe I could afford a small place to live in Taipei, so I don't have to bother you guys when I visit Taipei..." Brother Fu, seemingly took my words seriously and said, "Ar May-ar (my nickname), let me tell you this - I think all of your hard earned money via all of your working and teaching from the US. - I have to be honest with you - those savings might not be enough to buy a piece of Brick of a small house in Taipei... So, don't worry, if you decide to come back, you still can choose to stay with us..."
Though just a short chat, I took it as a daily conversation without any extra feeling to interpret, since so far, I am the only sibling that brother Fu and his family deemed as a "valuable" relative. If it were some of my other siblings who might not be financially successful, then that could be a different story. Definitely, I did not take it as a humiliation, sarcasm, or a typical "anti-intellect" sentiment that once in a while runs through family feuds, because, brother Fu, always expresses his appreciation that I am the only sibling encouraging him during the darkest time of his life.
Nevertheless, it was still a shame - I thought about myself.... Many years ago, with 2 pieces of luggage and a big scholarship won through a 3-day National Competition, I landed on the US. I mailed money home whenever I worked, in particular, the amount of the scholarship which was from the hard-working Taiwanese taxpayers' money - all sent back to Taiwan. So, my dear friends and folks, are you still expecting me becoming a famous professor or a Nobel prize winner some sort like that? Frankly speaking, NOT in my life time - be candid with you guys, because today, I am still paying a couple of big mortgages through my teaching pay-checks :)!
Even not being student anymore, a couple of my dear friends from Taiwan invested lots of money on the US real estate and resorts, purchased cars and houses via cash, and are constantly busying in leisure traveling. These are truly temptations to me : why not just quit my teaching job which constantly puts me under tremendous stress as almost the only minority (in terms of racial/ethnic dimension) faculty member among 268 at my current work-setting ???
Thinking of going back to Taiwan, if not staying with my brother's family, then I would be a 100% 無殼蝸牛 (literally, a-snail-without-shell , popularly used in Taiwan, in particular, Taipei) - the landless/ homeless. How could it be and what a funny joke: the knowledge, working experiences with several hard-earned/ "invested credentials" from the US, would lead to such an incredible situation?
By the way, a couple days ago I compared the kind-n-wise remarks of Jung and Gates on my blog. If they did say so, not from the mischievous posters, then I found them handy for my self-examining the mistake that I have ever made and testing Max Weber’s notion of life-chance.
Reading smart and/or wise people's words might make us think why, who and how certain social structures have been so well-maintained and how tough it is to be "re-structured"- by whom and how?
Haven't the philosophers and most of the sociologists only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is - let somebodies else change it?
Haven't the philosophers and most of the sociologists only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is - let somebodies else change it?
Now returning to my key point, being a sociology instructor, whether fortunately or unfortunately, tangoing between academic practice and social reality, declare: any social activists, reformers, or policy makers who dare to put a little bit more efforts to tackle the "snail-without-shell" issues, I think, I may reclaim my politic-economic interest, and engage more in dialogues and actions regarding this historically man-made disastrous problem, because if it could happen to me, one can imagine the pain and suffering of most people who have been trapped in their elephant-in-the-room social structure as their fateful destiny.
In short, long time ago when I worked at the Congress (立法院- the Legislative Yuan, later at 行政院 - the Executive Yuan) in Taiwan, “住者有其屋” 只當是個有屋有宅, 大廈連雲者的清涼口號. 到如今, 卻是官官相護, 官商勾結的業障... - both in the US. and Taiwan.
Note - If one has to use self-exposure (yes, the tightly guarded, priceless confidentiality) as a final resort to get a message out, then you can image the SEVERITY of the issue - What a big and ill Elephant in the room :)!
---------------------------------
他山之石 : In history, lands belonged to monarchs, aristocrats, war lords, churches, and later, the capitalists. Peasants, surfs and proletarians worked on the landowners’ lands/factories. Generally speaking, land reform involves different scales of changing laws, regulations or customs regarding land ownership in "some civilized" societies. Government may initiate policies to promote redistributing property - generally on agricultural lands. History shows that some land reforms did not come easily, and oftentimes, the bloody revolts or revolutions of land reform were the norm.
"荷蘭社會住宅的現況與迷思" By Johanna Huang on October 6, 2014 in 社會 & 文化3
阿姆斯特丹 Wozoco 長青族住宅社區。（圖片來源：archidialog.com）
在荷蘭有超過三分之一的住宅單位是出租式社會住宅（台灣目前不到 0.1%），發展歷史已超過 150 年，制度上也相對完善，是因為荷蘭政府視居住權為每位公民的基本權利，而且近年來也成為其他國家社會住宅政策發展上的重要借鏡對象。為什麼荷蘭的社會住宅不會成為貧民住宅，也不會成為房地產炒作的工具呢？ 其原因可分別從房地產市場、補助政策、成立住宅協會（Housing association）等要素說起，接下來此文將從不同的角度介紹與剖析荷蘭社會住宅的現況。
社會住宅給誰住？社會住宅很便宜嗎？
2013 年底荷蘭將近有 300 萬戶出租住宅，其中約 240 萬戶是社會住宅（註 1），佔全國 40% 的家戶數，有人一定質疑：為什麼一個國家需要興建如此眾多的社會住宅呢？難道荷蘭人需要政府救助的比例這麼高嗎？ 以 2015 年為例，社會住宅的出租價格受到政府管制，房租不得超過 711 歐元／月，承租戶年收入則不得高於 34,229 歐元，才有資格申請承租社會住宅（荷蘭人平均年收入 37，876 歐元）。
依照此比例來看，荷蘭人可以申請社會住宅的資格，並非只鎖定在低收入戶和弱勢族群，不同於台灣社會普遍認為，中產階級既有能力負擔一般商業市場的住房。荷蘭政府較早就意識到社會住宅政策受益對象，不應只限定於傳統觀念中需救助的族群，無論是土生土長的荷蘭人或新移民，屬於低收入戶、身心障礙、長青族、單親家庭、社會新鮮人、甚至連ㄧ般家庭只要小孩比較多的，及被認定教育費用支出較高的雙薪家庭，都可在申請範圍內。其實在荷蘭社會住宅的租戶僅有約 5%，是供給無家可歸的人或無經濟來源的人居住。
出租社會住宅的關鍵單位：又是房仲、又是 NGO 的住宅協會
荷蘭社會住宅和ㄧ般房地產的租售市場是分開的，負責出租的單位是「荷蘭住宅協會（Housing Association）」，其擁有社會住宅的產權且負責租賃的服務，雖是不以營利為主要目的法人組織，因此賺來的盈利必須依法用於：增進該社區住宅的品質或空間維護；和社區管委會一起合作，防止社區犯罪、維護整潔、舉辦聯誼派對、維護社區運動休閒設施…等等。
除了能出租社會住宅，「住宅協會」視財務情況可「資金週轉」，將社會住宅出售或買回，售價以臨近的房地產價格為標準。為了避免投資炒作，社會住宅的銷售市場是受到限制的，社會住宅買主想將房地產脫手只能賣給原屬的住宅協會，賣出和買入價差有獲利或虧損由買主和住宅協會對分，這樣可以避免投資客炒作房價。
反觀日前台灣巢運的其中一項訴求：為確保障弱勢團體的居住權利，要求政府提供「只租不賣」的社會住宅；但另一方面，官方單位認為只租不賣的社會住宅，可能造成政府或住宅協會的營運虧損；雙方的衝突點，其實就在於無較健全的法源依據，可設立並規範專職處理社會住宅興建及租售的住宅協會，因此聽起來目前台灣的社會住宅建案，似乎只是創造了另一個讓建商炒房的新興市場。並非說不該開放社會住宅的買賣，但必須有ㄧ套完善的法源規範，才能避免落為投資客的炒房範疇。不過話說回來，在台灣不到 0.1% 的社會住宅比例，的確應該先以提供出租型社會住宅為首要之急。
社會住宅=貧民住宅？
當年荷蘭政府推動社會住宅的其一宗旨就是，為了要避免城市裡出現貧民窟，因此希望提供最基本的住宅單元，讓即便是弱勢居民也能夠住的舒服、健康。政策立意美好，雖然沒有了「貧民窟」，但荷蘭各地卻出現治安不好的「移民社區」（見圖，荷蘭台夫特 60 年代的 Poptahof 住宅社區），住著許多經濟條件相對弱勢的土耳其、摩洛哥、蘇里南裔等新移民戶，這些移民社區和荷蘭「主體社會」間的隔閡，也成為荷蘭甚至歐洲社會很大的問題。
荷蘭台夫特 60 年代的Poptahof住宅社區。（圖片來源：www.spaarhetklimaat.nl）
為了解決潛在的族群隔閡問題，荷蘭政府正在有計劃性地改建社會住宅。首先，讓部分社會住宅轉租，作為學生宿舍；其次，新的住宅建案必須結合一般和社會住宅，避免單一族群社區所形成的社會隔閡。
舉例來說，阿姆斯特的住宅社區 GWL-terrain 和鹿特丹的 The Red Apple 複合式住宅建案，都是將社會住宅和都市更新案結合在一起的案例，社區中同時存在社會住宅和一般私宅，外觀上並沒有什麼明顯的差異，這是因為政府透過補助社會住宅承租者的津貼，讓開發商和住宅協會，每月從社會出租住宅和一般出租住宅收取一樣的租金，進而維持住宅協會的營運利潤。
鹿特丹的 The Red Apple 複合式住宅建案。（圖片來源：KCAP Architects & Planners）
人人稱羨的荷蘭社會住宅制度，似乎是台灣值得追求的終極目標，但在這之中其實也充滿了許多迷思，希望此文能帶來些不同的見解，讓大家更深入地了解荷蘭的社會住宅到底是怎麼一回事。
註 1：所謂的社會住宅是由政府補助建造，合乎居住標準的房屋，以低於一般市場租金出租給收入較低或相對弱勢的居民，保障弱勢者的居住權益。
參考資料
1. Whitehead， C.， & Scanlon， K. (n.d.). Social Housing in Europe. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
2. 荷蘭政府網站
3. 再談荷蘭土地與社會住宅政策
4. 盧佳宜， 社會住宅可行性評估及具體措施
本文《荷蘭：只要想住，就有地方住》刊載於世界公民島雜誌，經同意轉登文章後增編內容，未經特定授權許可不得轉載。
