In a changing economy and society, many farming villages are in dire need of assistance from the government and the public: The welfare of these villages must not be overlooked.
We have been very disappointed by the draft farming village revitalization bill, which passed an initial review by the Economics Committee, because the law would likely do farmers yet another disservice — depriving them of their rights in the name of revitalization.
The bill was not drawn up with farmers in mind. It focuses on developing land in rural areas in a way that could actually force farmers off their land. Land could be obtained through expropriation and farmland consolidation with the goal of building “farmhouse-style villas” intended for urbanites.
This proposal is an extension of attempts by construction companies and other interested parties to get around Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例), which protects farmland.
But the bill is designed neither to protect farmland nor develop agriculture. It would allow local governments to recklessly designate land for development and would significantly reduce high-quality farmland.
In turn, the nation’s food self-sufficiency would worsen, which would threaten our agricultural industry.
We are concerned that if most of the nation’s farmland is reserved for construction, the agricultural industry could die out, which would damage the environment and the cultural values of farming communities.
The bill would constitute a major encroachment on the ownership of private land.
If a farmer’s land fell within a zone that had been marked for “village revitalization” by the government, his or her land would likely be expropriated.
What must be asked is whether the public would have a say in the designation of revitalization zones.
It is necessary to consider the planning and organization of these zones, whether land would be expropriated with the public’s best interests in mind and how landowners’ rights could best be protected in the case of disagreements.
While the most important issues to consider are left unclear in the bill, the government authorities are endowed with enormous power.
Constitutional Interpretation No. 409 clearly states: “As the expropriation of land is by its very nature a significant encroachment on the property rights of the people, the requirements and procedures of expropriation should be comprehensively laid out in laws concerned with it. Purposes and end uses should be specified and standards for balancing public interests and justifying emergency expropriation should be provided in the legislation.”
Although the Council of Grand Justices said that any regulations concerning land expropriation should be laid out in full, this bill is a step in the opposite direction.
The passing of this draft could very well result in a situation in which the nation loses its farmers, farmland, agriculture and farming villages. We are very worried that our farmers may lose all their property rights.
In addition to expressing solemn opposition to this bill, we would like to urge the Executive Yuan to withdraw the draft immediately.
The government should instead propose a bill that has the best interests of farmers, farmland, the agricultural industry and farming villages in mind.
Hsu Shih-jung, Lai Tsung-yu and Yen Ai-ching are professors in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
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
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
RSS