So it has finally come out -- thanks to former Council of Agriculture chairman Fan Chen-tsung (范振宗) -- that the senior government official who despises the government's agricultural policies is Vice Premier Lin Hsin-yi (林信義) -- who, surprisingly, claims that the value of agricultural production is too low and therefore deserves no attention. If Fan's words were true, as a child of a farming family, I must protest against Lin's ideas.
The value of agriculture does not lie in the value of its output, but in its crucial importance in the event of war. The long-term peace between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait has enabled the public, and apparently Lin as well, to forget the true value of keeping the agricultural sector.
All past council chairpersons must take full responsibility for failing -- in dereliction of duty -- to raise the status of agriculture to the level of that of national defense.
The military has always said, "An army must be maintained forever to be used at the crucial moment." Why don't council officials similarly declare, "Agriculture must be maintained forever to be used at the crucial moment?" In the event of war, farmers and soldiers would be equally important.
The government has reportedly passed mobilization and preparation guidelines for the nation's defense, which requires the Ministry of Finance to raise a NT$3.5 trillion defense contingency budget to be drawn upon only if China attacks Taiwan.
I believe that such an outlay is necessary. But shouldn't part of the budget be allocated to farmers, who are equally important?
In light of Lin's "output value" perspective, it behoves a council chairperson to point out in no uncertain terms that however low the sector's output is, it's still higher than that of the military. Does the Ministry of National Defense enjoy a large budget because of its own activities or because of China's?
The government is constantly imposing restrictions on the use of farmland. With the exception of preparations for a possible war, however, such restrictions can hardly be justified. Since it is in case of war that farmland is cherished, the government should raise the status of farmers and the treatment they receive to those enjoyed by soldiers. It should stop bullying these simple and honest folk.
Farmers have a place in history and a value that is undeniable. Even in the affluent industrial and commercial society of today, the crucial importance of farmers endures. Let's not bully the farmers. They need to be treated with respect, not with sympathy and pity.
If the government really thinks that farmers are such a burden, it should consider giving farmland over entirely to construction, or easing the restrictions applied under the policy of keeping farmland for agricultural use. It should convert the sugarcane fields of the state-run Taiwan Sugar Corporation (Taisugar) into protected farmland. Then farmers will no longer need the government's concern and the government will not have to view them as a burden.
Perhaps Taisugar could hire a crowd of professional farmers or simply rent its land to them. This would not only solve the conflict between the government and the farmers but also provide jobs, thereby helping to solve the unemployment problem.
Su Chun-hsien is an associate professor at Chang Jung Christian University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS