Six years since democratically taking power, President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration has failed to redress the injustice done to tens of thousands of small landowners whose land was seized as a result of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) Land Reform Act (實施耕者有其田條例) implemented in 1953.
Transitional justice is an academic term that enjoys a great deal of currency in the Chen administration. It refers to the attempts of newly democratic countries to right wrongs committed by earlier authoritarian governments.
While the Chen administration has managed to render some transitional justice to the victims of the 228 Incident and to at least publicize the issue of the KMT's stolen assets, nothing has been done for the victims of the KMT's land reform.
To implement its land reform program, the KMT government classified Taiwanese farmers as landlords or tenant farmers. The term "landlord" became a synonym for a class of exploiters who were to be eliminated, while "tenant farmer" referred to the vast numbers of the poor who were being exploited.
Research on the KMT's land policy in China, however, shows that the KMT classified and defined farming households very differently before it came to Taiwan.
In 1928, the Central Land Commission issued a survey on land holdings in rural China. The survey divided farming households into five classes: poor peasants, middle class peasants, rich peasants, small and medium sized landlords and large scale landlords.
It defined a small landlord as one who owned the equivalent of 3.07 hectares of land. By this standard, only 6.77 percent of Taiwan's peasant households in the early 1950s qualified as small landlords.
In 1933, the Cabinet issued another study defining Chinese landlords as those who owned at least 5.12 hectares. By this standard, just 2.88 percent of Taiwan's landowners would have qualified as landlords.
And in 1941, the Bureau of Statistics defined a landlord as someone owning 18.41 hectares. By this standard, just 0.9 percent of Taiwan's farming households would have qualified. The Bureau of Statistics identified 1,545 such landlords in its study covering 89 counties in 11 Chinese provinces.
The results of these studies showed that the vast majority of Taiwanese farming households owned less farmland than landlords in China did.
But when the KMT carried out land reform in Taiwan, it reclassified farming households and redefined the meaning of landlord. In effect, practically anyone who rented out land was classified as a landlord, no matter how little land he actually owned.
The result was that a total of 106,049 households were classified as landlords. The vast majority were in fact land owners who rented out land that they owned. Most owned no more than a few thousand square meters. Nevertheless, if these owners had rented their land out, it was appropriated and they lost their titles.
Deprived of the title to their land, many of these former landowners fell into poverty. A contemporary team of observers estimated that more than 2 million people were affected.
Those in power controlled and manipulated land reform in Taiwan by controlling and manipulating the classification and definition of agrarian households to suit their changing needs. The Taiwanese landowners who held titles to their land were of course given no say in the matter.
More than 50 years later, those small landowners -- unfairly labeled landlords -- are still waiting for justice.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Michael Fahey
Local media reported earlier this month that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) criticized President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for referring to China as a “neighboring country,” saying that this is no different from a “two-state” model and that it amounts to changing the cross-strait “status quo.” I find it quite impossible to understand why civilized Taiwan continues to tolerate the existence of such a deceitful group that believes its own lies. The relationship between Taiwan and China is the relationship between two countries, and neither has any jurisdiction over the other — this is the undeniable “status quo.” Those who believe in the
On Thursday, China applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) — a regional economic organization whose 11 member countries have a combined GDP of US$11 trillion. That is less than China’s 2019 GDP of US$14.34 trillion, so why is China so eager to join? China says there are two main reasons: To consolidate its foreign trade and foreign investment base, and to fast-track economic and trade relations between China and member countries of the CPTPP free-trade area. China’s bilateral trade with these countries grew from US$78 billion in 2003 to US$685.1 billion last year, mostly because of China’s 2005
US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) talked on the telephone on Thursday last week, the first time the two leaders have done so since Biden assumed the presidency. While each side sought to put their own gloss on the content of the conversation, some common ground did emerge. Biden reportedly said that both sides have a joint responsibility to ensure that competition between the US and China does not spiral into conflict and that there is no reason that the two nations are destined to fall into this trap. The day after the phone call, the Financial Times reported
WASHINGTON [Special Commentary]: It is just a teensy-weensy change, a change of one little syllable. It is barely noticeable unless you’re watching really carefully: The Tai-“pei” Representative Office in Washington, D.C. (TECRO) could soon change its name — just ever so very slightly — to Tai-“wan” Representative Office. The office’s “TECRO” initials would remain the same. It will be only a symbolic change. London’s Financial Times reported last week that such a change may soon be coming. The timing was a bit awkward, though. The FT’s report came out on the very same day that Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu (吳釗燮)