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
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS