The dispute over Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) vice presidential candidate Su Jia-chyuan’s (蘇嘉全) farmhouse has caused much controversy over the past month, with new developments almost every day. Now there are reports that several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials also have luxurious farmhouses.
Council of Agriculture officials appeared to hew to the principle that agricultural land should be used for agricultural purposes only and accused Su of violating this principle, as if they were the guardian’s of Taiwan’s farmland.
However, now that the same allegations have been leveled against KMT officials, council officials have become strangely quiet. Given this stark contrast, one cannot help but ask whether they are really concerned about agricultural land.
Article 10 of the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例) states: “The delimitation or change of agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes shall not affect the integrity of production environments and shall be subject to the prior approval of the competent authorities.”
As the authority in charge, the council is supposed to play a key role in preserving agricultural land. The question is whether it has lived up to that responsibility or has it worked with local governments and other agencies to release land for other uses whenever necessary?
Data show that the council has often adopted the second approach.
The nation’s agricultural land is shrinking by an average of more than 13,000 hectares a year, roughly the equivalent of half of Taipei City, or 500 Da-an Forest Parks.
This land is mainly re--designated urban land and many of the changes are directly related to land expropriation. Examples include the science park expansion projects in Dapu (大埔) and Wanbao (灣寶) boroughs of Miaoli County and Siangsihliao (相思寮) in Changhua County; the special district for the Taiwan High Speed Rail’s Changhua Station in Tianjhong Township (田中); and the Puyu Development Plan in Erchongpu Village (二重埔) in Hsinchu County.
With the exception of the Wanbao case, has the council rushed forward to protect agricultural land as it did in the case of Su’s farmhouse? Has it insisted that agricultural land can only be used for agricultural purposes in any of these cases?
If the council has such little concern for farmland, how can we expect it to take care of farmers?
The principle that agricultural land should be used for agricultural purposes must be connected to efforts to increase farmers’ income, because the policy would otherwise be difficult to implement.
The government requires farmers to use their land for agricultural purposes in order to increase food self-sufficiency and restricts land use through the Non-urban Land Use Control Regulations (非都市土地使用管制規則). However, the government should also provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that farmers can make a living in today’s competitive market.
In Switzerland, the government provides direct environmental and cultural subsidies of between NT$1.2 million (US$40,000) and NT$1.5 million to each farming household per year.
How much does the Taiwanese government provide? Is the increase in the monthly subsidy for elderly farmers by NT$316 enough? Perhaps council officials need to be reminded that Su’s is not the only plot of agricultural land in Taiwan. As for farmers, they surely deserve more than a NT$316 increase in their monthly subsidy.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Land Economics.
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