Farming groups recently organized an overnight protest on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office against land seizures, and a few months ago, the Snails Without Shells movement that 21 years ago protested against soaring housing prices reappeared at the same place. The land situation in Taiwan has deteriorated sharply in the past two decades, bringing hardships to people in cities and the countryside.
The protest by the farmers could be seen as a desperate call as they are pushed to the edge of survival. From a systemic perspective, distorted value and land systems also pose a serious challenge to the public as a whole.
Because land prices in Taiwan are not subject to any restrictions, the cost of the land is generally high. Companies wanting to acquire land for factories cannot afford to do so at market prices. They therefore call such plans “infrastructure investments” to push the government to expropriate the land they need. On the other hand, the government can’t afford to purchase land using public funds and therefore it uses its powers to transform farmland into land for construction in order to attract investors.
In recent years, several cities and counties have obtained land through expropriation or redistricting. This practice has been seen as symbolic because of the government’s ideological pursuit of development. Several cases of successful expropriation have also created countless nouveau riche.
However, not everyone is pleased with what has happened. We never hear about those farmers who do not want the classification of their farmland changed, those who want to continue to till the land. These farmers, however, are in the minority and their values are out of step with mainstream opinion.
Many countries with a free market economy have placed controls on the price of land. Germany is a good example of this. The German government focuses on its citizens’ right to make a living and that is why it has many laws and mechanisms to prevent the government from rashly expropriating land. Instead, it has developed ways to purchase land at the going market rate or to exchange land. Furthermore, because the government has to acquire land at the market price, it is forced to implement policies to control prices.
The outcome of this is that land prices remain reasonable, speculation is not encouraged and people’s rights do not suffer under government infrastructure plans. In addition, the government must explain its construction plans, which serves to improve planning and administrative expertise. This is a reasonable and positive self-reinforcing mechanism.
To bring about long-term improvement, the government must learn from mistakes, reform the land system and lead Taiwan toward reasonable real estate values. The question is whether the farmers can, through their protest on July 17, turn their suffering into a catalyst that will push the rest of us to take action to bring about the land reform. I hope for the sake of all of us that the answer is yes.
Tseng Shu-cheng is dean of the College of Visual Arts at Tainan National University of the Arts.
TRANSLATED BY TAIJING WU
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS