As next month's local-government elections approach, debate over farmers' subsidies has picked up once again. President Chen Shui-bian (
Incomprehensibly, DPP lawmakers have subsequently proposed a similar amendment to raise the limit on farmers' subsidies.
Putting aside the controversy over legal procedures, let us take a close look at the question of the legitimacy of subsidies for elderly farmers. Since 1967, farmers' earnings have been only 65 percent to 70 percent of the nation's average income, putting them in the position of second-class citizens. But, it is common knowledge that Taiwan's economic development was based on "developing industry through agriculture." Agricultural production and processes provided foreign exchange, which Taiwan used to buy machinery from the US and Japan to build up its industrial base.
Why now do we not use our industry to support agriculture? The heart of the problem is the "US factor."
In 1971, Taiwan withdrew from the UN after China was admitted. Facing this adverse situation, then president Chiang Kai-shek (
The policy also affected the eating preferences of the Taiwanese and their animals over the past three decades, because grain and wheat were gradually replaced by livestock feed and flour imported from the US. For livestock products, the nation's agricultural production index was 4.7 in 1950, and had reached 24 in 1971. But after importing a significant amount of US grain crops, the agricultural production index rose sharply from 27 in 1975, to 114 in 1996.
Looked at in another way, this sharp increase in the agricultural production index of grain crops reflects that fewer and fewer Taiwanese people are consuming rice. Rice accounted for one-third of the public's main source of food in 1984, with the level falling to one-sixth last year.
Taiwanese people do not necessarily dislike rice. Instead, they have been guided by the government's policies and have gradually adopted a western-style diet, which in turn created demand, with the government seemingly having no choice but to expand agricultural imports from the US to meet it. If the government's expansion of US agricultural imports was not done to pander to the US, what other reason could there possibly be, given that 15 percent of corn that Taiwan uses, 70 percent of soybeans, 85 percent of wheat, 65 percent raw bovine hides and skins, and 33 percent of bovine leather are imported from the US.
Also, while Taiwan is burdened with an agricultural trade deficit as high as US$3.1 billion, why would Taiwan Grains and Feeds Development Foundation chairman Chen Hsi-huang (
Taiwan's agricultural industry and Taiwanese farmers don't lack competitiveness. But, the government has declared its submission to the US, which goes completely against the spirit of free trade. As a result, no matter how competitive Taiwanese farmers are, they still cannot win the agricultural battle with US farmers and its agricultural businesses. The so-called "elderly farmers subsidies" have become "funeral subsidies" distributed by the Council of Agriculture (COA).
In 1988, Taiwanese farmers took to the streets for the first time since the end of World War II. The fuse that sparked the demonstration was the government's decision to open up to imports of fruit and turkeys from the US. But the main motivation that prompted the farmers to take to the streets was the complete bankruptcy of Taiwan's agricultural industry.
In the decade between 1956 and 1965, the fixed capital accumulated by the business sector was 4.6 times more than that of the agricultural industry. The disparity widened to 9.9 in 1975 and 26.8 in 1985. The farmers' movement of 1988 was in fact the last cry for help before the death of Taiwan's agricultural industry.
The May 20, 1998 incident, lead by the then vice chairman of the COA, was a major demonstration by Taiwanese farmers against the agricultural policies of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) authorities and it ended in chaos after riot troops used force to disperse the crowds.
But since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) became the ruling party, farmers have taken on the attitude of resignation seen in Let It Be, a recent documentary film about the daily labor and lives of three elderly rice farmers in the heart of Taiwan's rice-producing county, even as the industry heads toward a final collapse.
We can say that the reasons behind the May 20th 1998 incident are the same ones that motivated rice bomber Yang Ju-men (楊儒門), who planted home-made bombs in public places on 17 occasions to protest the DPP government's policy on rice imports.
Yang's moves served to make the public aware of the plight of disadvantaged farmers. If the government still fails to safeguard the interests of Taiwanese farmers, more and more people like Yang will emerge to pose threats to the public in different ways. Even raising farmers' monthly pensions to NT$15,000 would not resolve the crisis in Taiwan's agricultural industry and revive its prosperity.
Instead, the crux of the matter lies in the government's long-term agricultural policies. From the farmers' standpoint, I can only say that both the ruling and opposition parties have never and will never be able to safeguard the interests of Taiwanese farmers.
Su Wei-shuo is chairman of the Taiwan Farmers' Federation.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS