Last week a rice crop — grown from seeds from Dapu (大埔) in Miaoli County that were taken to Taipei for a farmers’ protest on July 17 and then planted in Kaohsiung County’s Meinung Township (美濃) — was harvested, leaving the gigantic Chinese characters for “land justice” (tudi zhengyi, 土地正義) carved out of the paddy field like a crop circle. A day earlier, thousands of farmers and their supporters braved the rain to join hands and demonstrate on the streets of Taipei, warning that continued expansion of Taiwan’s petrochemical industry was putting the country in peril. Then, on Wednesday, Taiwanese taekwondo contestant Yang Shu-chun (楊淑君) was unfairly disqualified at the Asian Games, but government officials provoked a backlash from the public by saying that we should “swallow” the decision. Those in government would do well to heed the important message conveyed by these protest movements and outcries, namely that the public has quite different ideas from the government about Taiwan’s future and the meaning of “progress.”
In Taiwan, our land is seen by the government only as a factor of production, whose only value lies in its contribution to GDP. Farmland and wetlands keep being forcibly turned over for industrial use. This poses a grave threat to the environment and sustainable development. In addition, land is a very valuable asset and is seen as a commodity ripe for speculation. The government keeps removing restrictions on the buying and selling of land, and it takes rising land prices as a sign of progress. A lot of farmland has been reassigned for urban construction. The government inflates target population numbers to designate additional urban development zones.
This is meant to accumulate private capital and alleviate the government’s financial difficulties. It is also a means by which those in government curry favor with powerful local factions for whom land speculation is an important source of profit. Land is not just an economic commodity, but a political one, too.
Overseas, Taiwan is seen as simply a production base, while those who live here are apparently entitled to their own national aspirations. Our national prestige has suffered repeated injuries, but the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) blinds itself to the reality by clinging to the so-called “1992 consensus.” Few occasions remain where it is possible to display the Republic of China flag, and the name “Taiwan” is heard less and less. Even when international sporting events are held in Taiwan, we have to restrict ourselves to the title and symbols of “Chinese Taipei” according to the “Olympic formula.” Again and again, our national prestige is trampled upon because of China’s unreasonable demands. The recent spat at the Tokyo International Film Festival is one example, and now we have been wronged again at the Asian Games. Yet each time our country’s rights and interests are infringed upon, those in government expect everyone to swallow the insult. We have been reduced to little more than scarecrows, with bodies but no souls.
The mode of development that strips people of their rights to property, subsistence and a healthy environment is a regressive one. A development model that talks only of economics while avoiding any mention of politics or national consciousness is very outdated. Progress is not just a matter of economics. It is even more important to uphold environmental sustainability, social justice and political rights. Taiwan is not just a base for production. It is our home, and we rely on this land for our survival. As to the backward mode of national development that has held sway up to now, we just can’t swallow it anymore.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Land Economics.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS