The Yilan County Government on Jan. 23 published the county’s “Guidelines on Applications to Build Farmhouses on Agricultural Land” (宜蘭縣農業用地申請興建農舍審查作業要點). The guidelines provide farmers more flexible ways to build farmhouses than those permitted by the central government’s “Regulations for Constructing Farmhouses on Agricultural Land” (農業用地興建農舍辦法).
According to the regulations, farmers should build their farmhouses adjacent to the road and the borderlines between farmlands, and their area should not exceed 10 percent of the farmland where they are situated. Its purpose is to preserve at least 90 percent of the agricultural land for farming.
However, Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the county guidelines states that farmers “may” build farmhouses adjacent to the roads and borderlines.
Arguably, this paragraph seems to allow farmers to reduce the percentage of the land area for farming to 60 percent.
Yilan County Commissioner Derek Chen (陳金德) said that he would be to blame if the guidelines cause any bad results.
After the guidelines were published, Council of Agriculture Deputy Minister Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) said that they were not acceptable, because they violate the central government policy on use of agricultural land.
He interpreted the guidelines as an attempt to expand the land area for farmhouses.
Why is the council so concerned about the area occupied by farmhouses? The point is most of these farmhouses are not used for farming, but for living. People buy these houses to live on farmland and enjoy the spacious living environment in the countryside. Would it not be a good picture?
Actually, these ill-allocated houses are eyesores. If you drive on the highway from Taipei to the Yilan Plain, you will no longer see verdant farmland, but blocks of concrete buildings buried in the farmland.
Is the conflict between the central and local governments caused by a misinterpretation of the rules? Possibly, because the county commissioner has said that the guidelines do nothing more than follow the regulations and are stricter than the regulations in terms of farmland use.
Or is the Yilan County Government challenging the regulations for favoring mansion owners?
Article 5, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3 of the regulations states that minus the farmhouse area, the percentage of land left for farming should be at least 90.
However, the regulations also stipulate that farmers cannot use more than 40 percent of their farmland for setting up facilities and farmhouses.
The regulations seem to provide the county government a justifiable legal standing to increase the percentage of land area for non-farming to 40.
In this regard, the county government follows the central government’s regulations.
Even so, the county government might be challenging the central government’s policy by taking advantage of the loopholes in the regulations.
Shortly before the guidelines were published, Chen said that asking farmers to build farmhouses adjacent to roads and borderlines violates the Constitution, because it limits how people deal with their property.
He said that he would take this requirement only as “administrative guidance.”
Why then are both sides so concerned about the allocation of farmhouses? Farmers used to build their farmhouses alongside roads to keep the most of their farmland for agriculture and only use a small area for setting up facilities.
However, mansion owners, including Chen, would think of how to allocate their mansions in a safe and comfortable way. After all, who would like to build a mansion alongside a road and not be able to build a driveway, a parking space and a fish pond in front of their mansion?
Obviously, it is “building farmhouses alongside roads” that determines the outcome of the central government’s policy of “keeping farmlands for agriculture.”
Chen challenged the central government’s policy by cleverly taking advantage of the loopholes in the regulations, but he inadvertently offered a solution to the conflict. Asking farmers to build their workhouses alongside roads, as Chen said, interferes with how people deal with their property.
This requirement should not be enacted only as “administrative guidance.” It should be written into law according to the Constitution.
Also, since the allocation of farmhouses is a crucial policy instrument, why does the central government not define the details of this requirement through a regulation?
Both the central and the county governments seem to focus too much on either farnhouses or mansions.
A more important issue is how Yilan can preserve its verdant farmland while safeguarding farmers’ welfare.
For the central government, an equally important task would be mapping out a policy of sustainable agricultural development for local governments to follow.
Lin Yu-tzu teaches English at National Yilan Vocational High School.
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with