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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS