Recently the legislature passed controversial changes to articles of the Farmers' and Fishermen's Association Law (農漁會法).
The draft amendments abolish the three-term limit for directors. Employees who are convicted can now keep their jobs until the third and final appeal, whereas before they had to resign if the conviction was upheld on the second appeal.
The parties hurt the most by this affair are the farmers' and fishermen's associations themselves, who in recent years have worked assiduously to improve their organizations.
They have had a rather hard time shaking off their poor image.
But if the farmers' and fishermen's associations want to develop normally, then the law must be revised. It should not be revised with an eye to elections or other objectives in mind.
LAWSUIT
In all of Taiwan there are only 14 association employees involved in a lawsuit, of which two are directors.
If the Cabinet fails in its attempt to reverse the amendments, the party that proposed them will save face but the situation will not get any better, and the image of the associations will be as despoiled as ever.
The main reason for abolishing the three-term limit for secretaries-general is that corporations do not set term limits for good managers.
Hence, so the reasoning goes, there is absolutely no need to limit the term for directors with a performance rating of "good" or higher, which currently applies to between 80 percent and 90 percent of the directors.
But we should not forget that most of the power in the associations lies in the hands of the directors, and that the managing board of an association has no effective power over their actions.
We need to restore the system of cooperatives, reform the election system and encourage mergers. This will boost the members' participation in and supervision of association affairs.
It will also improve their financial and management structures. If we don't apply these measures, it will be impossible for the associations to function properly.
INTRINSIC WORTH
Before we consider the direction the associations should take, we must first confirm the intrinsic worth of their existence, get a clear view of the environment they work in and understand the direction of the trends.
Only then can we act accordingly and ensure that there is healthy and continuous development in organizations that represent core agricultural interests.
The core value of the existence of the associations is providing services to farmers and fishermen; they should not become the tool of a particular political party.
If the associations want to enjoy public approval again, they must make some contribution to the villages, to agriculture and even to society generally by assuming certain social responsibilities.
The associations should secure the backing of the broad farming and fishing community and not lean on any political party for political profit and protection.
Equally important is the need for political parties to not hold the associations -- and their membership -- hostage.
Just give them the chance to develop with dignity and in a healthy way.
Woo Rhung-jieh is professor in the department of agricultural economics at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath