So it has finally come out -- thanks to former Council of Agriculture chairman Fan Chen-tsung (范振宗) -- that the senior government official who despises the government's agricultural policies is Vice Premier Lin Hsin-yi (林信義) -- who, surprisingly, claims that the value of agricultural production is too low and therefore deserves no attention. If Fan's words were true, as a child of a farming family, I must protest against Lin's ideas.
The value of agriculture does not lie in the value of its output, but in its crucial importance in the event of war. The long-term peace between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait has enabled the public, and apparently Lin as well, to forget the true value of keeping the agricultural sector.
All past council chairpersons must take full responsibility for failing -- in dereliction of duty -- to raise the status of agriculture to the level of that of national defense.
The military has always said, "An army must be maintained forever to be used at the crucial moment." Why don't council officials similarly declare, "Agriculture must be maintained forever to be used at the crucial moment?" In the event of war, farmers and soldiers would be equally important.
The government has reportedly passed mobilization and preparation guidelines for the nation's defense, which requires the Ministry of Finance to raise a NT$3.5 trillion defense contingency budget to be drawn upon only if China attacks Taiwan.
I believe that such an outlay is necessary. But shouldn't part of the budget be allocated to farmers, who are equally important?
In light of Lin's "output value" perspective, it behoves a council chairperson to point out in no uncertain terms that however low the sector's output is, it's still higher than that of the military. Does the Ministry of National Defense enjoy a large budget because of its own activities or because of China's?
The government is constantly imposing restrictions on the use of farmland. With the exception of preparations for a possible war, however, such restrictions can hardly be justified. Since it is in case of war that farmland is cherished, the government should raise the status of farmers and the treatment they receive to those enjoyed by soldiers. It should stop bullying these simple and honest folk.
Farmers have a place in history and a value that is undeniable. Even in the affluent industrial and commercial society of today, the crucial importance of farmers endures. Let's not bully the farmers. They need to be treated with respect, not with sympathy and pity.
If the government really thinks that farmers are such a burden, it should consider giving farmland over entirely to construction, or easing the restrictions applied under the policy of keeping farmland for agricultural use. It should convert the sugarcane fields of the state-run Taiwan Sugar Corporation (Taisugar) into protected farmland. Then farmers will no longer need the government's concern and the government will not have to view them as a burden.
Perhaps Taisugar could hire a crowd of professional farmers or simply rent its land to them. This would not only solve the conflict between the government and the farmers but also provide jobs, thereby helping to solve the unemployment problem.
Su Chun-hsien is an associate professor at Chang Jung Christian University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing