In the UK, the PhD VIVA is not opened to the public. Usually just two examiners (one internal and one external) with PhD candidate!

Yesterday I passed my PhD VIVA with a minor correction after a period of 5-year study. I have to say that this is the best result I can get for such a controversial research subject in the planning department from two distinguished professors (examiners) in the transport field. Many friends have told me that “just prepare some key questions, relax, and enjoy!” It is ture. I enjoyed very much the whole process and felt lucky and even spoilt to have full two and half hours’ discussion with examiners who were asking critical questions about it. 

This is a list of rough questions they had asked (in fact, the whole process was not so clear-cut, there were a lot of discussion and links between different questions…) 

1. Explain why I choose this research subject?
2. Why not include more recent literature on some impact studies ? (Chapter 2 and 3)
3. The research methods I use and my strong claims quantitative chapters (Chapter 4 and 5). 
4. Almost no questions on my qualitative chapters (Chapter 6,7,8, &9) except for a few comments.
5. Then the final conclusion, they want me to put more reflection, not summarize what I found, but put some discussion on limitation and more on suggesting future study and next steps….

The biggest debate was on my quantitative analysis. Why not use statistical test modeling, time effect on impacts, and what do I think the difficulties and limitations will be.. etc? I managed to defend the request for some statistical tests and the clarification of terms which may be confusing somehow. They are both very friendly and encouraging! I learn a lot from the process. Approaching the end of viva, they were really nice to ask that whether I have questions for them after they had questioned me for 2 hours. I honestly said to them that I am very glad to have both of them to be my examiners because this is a controversial and interdisciplinary subject. I am curious about their view on my subject and the way I conducted with this topic…I do feel and believe their input will strongly enhance the PhD thesis! After all, the PhD VIVA is just the beginning of a professional career.

After the first 5-day working inside the office,  I had to get a sense of the city Manila which I will stay for the following three months. Most people suggested me not to take MRT but the taxi to wherever I want to go in Manila. But I decided to have a try because I want to know why it is not recommended. In addition, I don't need to negotiate with the taxi driver how much I want to pay and want to avoid traffic congestion on the road.

Some facts about the Metropolitan Manila which has a population of about 21millions, nearly the same number of the whole Taiwan, while there is only one MRT (metro rail transit), two LRTs (light rail transit) and two national rail lines for public transport, in addition to buses, jeepneies and cars. There is a serious lack of capacity by urban transit system to serve such size of population. Four more MRT lines and the extension of national rail lines are proposed.   

(P1) This picture taken from the condo unit I stay near Ortigas MRT station. 

腦海中一直浮現幾個月前的某個餐會上跟一位 Oxford Brookes 的教授的對話: 有關發展中國家與已發展國家的差別。他強調"其不在於富人與窮人的多寡，而是在於社會上對待弱勢的人態度如何，是如何採取政策來處理?" 在閒聊的過程，我接續以自己作英國與法國的比較研究之經驗，想問問他對於英法之間的文化差異、歷史糾結與競爭等等，他如何看待? 他以一個我這輩子都不會忘記的回應說道: "他去了一趟美國之後，他覺得他還是European"。雖然，他沒有正面回答我的問題，但是答案也是不言可喻且值得玩味。

這段話其實隱含了很多西方現代社會在發展的過程當中，對於資本主義的種種缺點，不斷的演變找尋最適社會發展的治理系統的基本價值。從長期歷史的演變來看，"左派"或"右派"這樣的分類實在是過於簡化，很多西方的偏馬可斯主義學者，喜歡用新自由主義來概括解釋一切全球化資本主義之下的不均衡不公平的亂象。然而，沒有任何一套系統是完美的，純粹共產社會主義或極端的市場經濟主義似乎都無法長久發展，而在各個國家歷史文化涵構之下，其政治經濟的價值觀，反映在社會發展的各個環節，透過政策面、學術面、產業面種種的執行與辯論，奠定了社會長遠以來所追尋的價值體系。

粗略的分，光是西歐的資本主義系統就至少有三種 (英國/法國/德國)，而各國家又有不同的差異。有趣的是，英國是歐洲國家之間，最被認為接近美國的市場開放系統，但是，真正跟美國各項政策比起來，許多西歐國家都算是偏左派了，英國的保守黨都還算是偏天平的左邊，而在法國屬右派的前總統席哈克，更而是聲明將法國與英美的“Anglo-Saxon Ultraliberalism”劃清界線，美國追求個人自由民主與發展最大可能化，殊不知許多所謂的企業主“Entrepreneur”的產業發展是建立在犧牲整體的環境與社會成本之上，而一般老百姓的生活醫療保險、公共服務相對而言，則很多需要自費，如果不是中等收入，負擔相當重。雖然英國NHS一直被批評效率不好，但是他對於一般貧困百姓的照顧，功德無量。就針對重視社會公平這件事，英法兩國的確是比美國有更多對於窮人照顧的政策辯論與施行。

比較這些西方的政經系統，其實是一種文化衝擊與自省。西方社會的政治哲學辯論已經深深地融入政策、社會文化發展的各層面，一種基本態度，不求同，尊重差異與多元，見解有證據來支持。政策的決策需要多方思考後，負政治責任。即使經濟發展不如發展中國家的快速，許許多多的經濟轉型及社會問題，先進國家的進步是反映在提早面對下一階段的挑戰同時不斷的提升轉化。台灣有獨特的多元的殖民文化及複雜的歷史脈絡糾結，或許也是因為這樣的特殊性，讓求生存保安定的個人價值觀的重要性讓政治經濟社會價值觀的理性辯論薄弱無力，或許這是台灣的社會在多年的經濟停滯與有待轉型的蛻變期間，有待逐步建立起公民社會多元理性辯論的習慣與價值。

英國BBC 新一季有關都市規劃者 "The Planners"，寫實地將英國規劃專業者(公部門、民間、開發商)所面對的種種現實案例做專題報告，第一集以四種類型的申請案及其爭議處為例，說明英國規劃決策系統的操作。以下簡單介紹內容及分享我的觀後心得。

基本案情介紹:

• 第一案是連棟街屋的某一戶後院，想增建溫室，有日照實驗之類的檢討，鄰居抗議會影響其採光而堅決反對。
• 第二案是三個開發商預計開發約五百戶的集合住宅在某塊綠地上，基地周邊有四小戶連棟住宅，抗議開發案剝奪他們目前家前的一片綠地視野。 
• 第三案是臨道路兩旁的高級住宅區，被列為歷史景觀維護區，道路一側的住戶們可以自由將車停在自家庭院，另一側則不行，必須由家後方的另一個車道進出，進而提出將家門口增設車道及停車空間，但是被公部門之planner及conservation officer反對。 
• 第四案是在Chester老城牆邊旁一戶歷史古蹟民宅屋主，想將自家古蹟屋面上放上太陽能板，向公所提出申請，公所內的conservation officer不同意，認為這樣會破壞老城牆古蹟保存區周邊景觀視野。

此類小型中型個人開發案或申請案，英國規劃決策系統的操作程序為:

每次有從事建築規劃相關專業的師長或朋友，我都會介紹他們來倫敦的The Building Centre參觀, 自己也每隔一段時間會來這裡了解倫敦的都市發展脈動、看展覽、聽演講、逛書店、喝咖啡聊天等等，跟倫敦眾多STARchitectural Buildings 比起來, The Building Centre (別稱New London Architecture, NLA) 並不算是一棟特別起眼的建築，跟倫敦豐富的文化藝術活動資源相比，也不算是重點場所，但是從這個單位的成立宗旨與長年努力的經營，我看到的是，它呈現了西方先進國家如何透過系統性的思考與作為的模式，形成一股帶領社會進步的動力。