Tue, Dec 07, 1999 page3

• Peng and KMT spar over new farmland bill

  REFORM Analysts say the KMT's passing of a bill liberalizing the sales of agricultural land caters to conglomerates and puts the environment at risk

  • By Lauren Chen / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The revised Agriculture Development Act now sitting in the legislature -- the brainchild of the Council of Agriculture under Chairman Peng Tso-kwei (彭作奎) -- was originally regarded as a `second chance' for land reform in Taiwan. With the presidential election gearing up, however, the KMT and the cabinet's inner circle recently came under enormous pressure from KMT legislators -- particularly those elected from traditional rural constituencies -- to substitute the revision with one of its own. The result was a reversal of the government's stance on loosening restrictions over newly-purchased agricultural land, and the sudden resignation of an indignant Peng.

  A 'Pandora's box'

  Standing firm on his decision to step down from office, Peng yesterday sternly criticized the government's relaxing regulations over Taiwan's agricultural land-use policy.

  

  Chairman of the Council of Agriculture Peng Tso-kuei yesterday discusses his proposed reform plan by showing a picture of a European rural landscape during a press conference that he called to announce his resignation.

  PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES

  "It would be like opening a Pandora's box," he said, referring to a host of potential problems, such as renewed land speculation, overdevelopment, the further erosion of Taiwan's environment and the disappearance of the remaining land actually used to grow crops on.

  In fact, the revised version of the Agriculture Development Act, drafted by Peng's agency, differs in only one respect: the controversial article over whether or not to allow houses to be built on newly-sold farm land. The Cabinet version stipulates that only community-style subdivision housing be permitted, while the KMT's new proposal would allow individual homes to be built.

  The Cabinet's version of the bill includes two other major proposals: opening up the market for agricultural land (農地自由買賣), and decreasing limitations on how shares of agricultural plots smaller than approximately five hectares can be subdivided (放寬分割限制) -- a measure aimed at reducing inheritance disputes.

  Aides to Peng have criticized the three articles describing them as a three-legged table, which, once one leg has been damaged, the whole structure will be brought to the ground.

  Analysts say, however, that reform on the free trade of farm land must be undertaken in order to introduce both capital and modern technology into agriculture as Taiwan nears entry into the WTO.

  They said even Peng agreed about that.

  However, the core of the issue, according to Peng, lies in housing development.

  "If barriers to lowering the price of agricultural land are dropped, and people are allowed to subdivide it into portions, and if we begin granting permission to build on newly purchased farm land, I'm afraid that agricultural land will be washed away on a massive scale," Peng said.

  Critics also worried that if the ban on building farm houses on newly sold agricultural land is lifted, some land, especially those plots located in city suburbs, will be swallowed up by conglomerates. Furthermore, they said, in the name of building farm houses, they may actually feed the trend of mansion-style housing complexes.

  "This would also endanger the progress of our agricultural modernization," Peng said.

  To consolidate his policy position, Peng raised other questions regarding the KMT legislative caucus' alternative proposal.

  "If every single farm plot becomes full of farm houses, we can neither proceed with large scale hi-tech agricultural cultivation, nor spray insecticide from the air," Peng said.

  While saying they understood Peng's argument, representatives from local farmer's associations said that as long as the ban continues on building new housing on farm land, there is no incentive for anyone to purchase agricultural land.

  "If the cabinet does not lift the ban on housing construction on farm land, I believe there would not be enough incentive for buyers," said Wu Ming-hui (吳銘輝), an official from the Taichung County Farmer's Association.

  "Whether building a brand new complex or leaving a boundless green field, the contribution to the village is the same," Wu added.

  Local farm leaders said that while they understood where Peng's policy was coming from, they had no choice but to consider their self interest first.

  Lin Jing-yuan (林金源), the general-manager of Pingtung(屏東) County Farmer's Association, went straight to the point.

  "If a farmer can count on earning a living on his land, then no farmer would want to sell his land," he said.

  Farming doesn't pay

  The statement reveals a crucial problem in Taiwan's agricultural sector: namely, that farming doesn't pay. According to current statistics, local farmers say that the more crops they actually plant, the more financial losses they accrue, leading to a cycle of debt and massive government subsidies for farmers.

  "Farmers are so poor that if farmer associations refuse to grant loans to them, I suspect the banks would also be reluctant to extend credit to land tillers," Lin said.

  To further illustrate the fact that agricultural land is worthless as long as current policy holds, Lin pointed to the difficulty of unloading land onto the market.

  "We have a plot of farmland in our hands, and we have tried to auction it off at least six times. But nobody wants to buy it," he said.

  "I can't imagine who, if the construction of farm houses is prohibited on newly sold agricultural land, would want to buy farmland," Lin said.

  Experts, however, have challenged the contention of local farmers, saying once the ban on newly purchased agricultural land is lifted, the land itself would become a gambling chip used by giant corporate conglomerates.

  "The price of Taiwan's agricultural land has long occupied the No.1 spot worldwide. Once we loosen restrictions over agricultural land use, it might create short-term advantages. But in the long term, once land supply exceeds market needs, prices will drop dramatically," said Lin Kuo-ching (林國慶), a professor of agriculture at National Taiwan University.

  "I agreed with Peng's stance. Agricultural land can preserve the nation's ecology. However, I would beg people not to ignore the problems of framers while serving themselves."

  "If everyone wants to live happily, then everyone has to pay the price," he said.

  Chen Chi-nan (陳其南), the dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at National Chiao Tung University, also said a balance is needed between national and regional interests.

  "On the one hand, the farming industry and agricultural land is a national heritage, and also an asset for future generations. But on the other hand, the livelihood and interests of farmers who live and look after the land on our behalf need to be shared by all citizens,'' Chen said.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Napoli’s title hopes shaken by late Genoa equalizer

  • 2

    Kane tastes first title as Bayern bid farewell to Mueller

  • 3

    Barcelona crowned champions

  • 4

    Taiwanese duos triumph in Taipei Open badminton

  • 5

    Entertainers questioned amid military service furor