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 Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS