In a changing economy and society, many farming villages are in dire need of assistance from the government and the public: The welfare of these villages must not be overlooked.
We have been very disappointed by the draft farming village revitalization bill, which passed an initial review by the Economics Committee, because the law would likely do farmers yet another disservice — depriving them of their rights in the name of revitalization.
The bill was not drawn up with farmers in mind. It focuses on developing land in rural areas in a way that could actually force farmers off their land. Land could be obtained through expropriation and farmland consolidation with the goal of building “farmhouse-style villas” intended for urbanites.
This proposal is an extension of attempts by construction companies and other interested parties to get around Article 18 of the Agricultural Development Act (農業發展條例), which protects farmland.
But the bill is designed neither to protect farmland nor develop agriculture. It would allow local governments to recklessly designate land for development and would significantly reduce high-quality farmland.
In turn, the nation’s food self-sufficiency would worsen, which would threaten our agricultural industry.
We are concerned that if most of the nation’s farmland is reserved for construction, the agricultural industry could die out, which would damage the environment and the cultural values of farming communities.
The bill would constitute a major encroachment on the ownership of private land.
If a farmer’s land fell within a zone that had been marked for “village revitalization” by the government, his or her land would likely be expropriated.
What must be asked is whether the public would have a say in the designation of revitalization zones.
It is necessary to consider the planning and organization of these zones, whether land would be expropriated with the public’s best interests in mind and how landowners’ rights could best be protected in the case of disagreements.
While the most important issues to consider are left unclear in the bill, the government authorities are endowed with enormous power.
Constitutional Interpretation No. 409 clearly states: “As the expropriation of land is by its very nature a significant encroachment on the property rights of the people, the requirements and procedures of expropriation should be comprehensively laid out in laws concerned with it. Purposes and end uses should be specified and standards for balancing public interests and justifying emergency expropriation should be provided in the legislation.”
Although the Council of Grand Justices said that any regulations concerning land expropriation should be laid out in full, this bill is a step in the opposite direction.
The passing of this draft could very well result in a situation in which the nation loses its farmers, farmland, agriculture and farming villages. We are very worried that our farmers may lose all their property rights.
In addition to expressing solemn opposition to this bill, we would like to urge the Executive Yuan to withdraw the draft immediately.
The government should instead propose a bill that has the best interests of farmers, farmland, the agricultural industry and farming villages in mind.
Hsu Shih-jung, Lai Tsung-yu and Yen Ai-ching are professors in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS