It is clear that lowering the rent for arable land more than 60 years ago has made a great contribution to Taiwan’s agricultural economy, but the serious sacrifice of landlords’ rights cannot be ignored.
Although the 37.5 Percent Arable Rent Reduction Act (耕地三七五減租條例) stipulates that the rent “shall not exceed 37.5 percent of the total annual harvest of the principal product of its main crops,” the basis for its calculation is the average harvest in 1947 and 1948, not the annual harvest during the lease period.
Over the years, the production of rice and sweet potatoes has increased by 200 percent, while that of peanuts has increased by 300 percent and that of corn has grown at least one-and-a-half times.
Therefore, the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例) stipulates that land leases established after 2000 are no longer subject to the 37.5 Percent Arable Rent Reduction Act and the two parties may reach a rent agreement under their free will.
Why can we not adjust the rent of existing 37.5 percent arable land leases according to the lands’ current agricultural output?
In the past, the social assistance system was not sound; the government limited arable land rents to relieve tenants who were socially and economically disadvantaged. Whether that is till appropriate should be subject to review.
Today, if those tenants protected by the rent reduction act still need economic support, they should rely on social assistance from the government instead of their landlords.
Therefore, if the government cannot repeal the law, it should act promptly to amend it and allow landlords to raise their rent.
Daniel Lee is an assistant researcher in the Legislative Yuan’s Organic Laws and Statutes Committee.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers