Agriculture has once again been in the news. After battling over bananas and papayas, the pan-blue and pan-green political parties are now focusing debate on increases in subsidies for elderly farmers. The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) legislative caucus has proposed increasing subsidies for elderly farmers from NT$6,000 to NT$7,000 and have listed this as a priority bill for their next legislative session.
While the ruling party has stated that it needs to consider its finances, it will probably support the bill because of election pressure. It is sad that each time an increase in subsidies is proposed, it seems to coincide with legislative or presidential elections. Many are saying the rise in subsidies is little more than electioneering.
On average, farmers earn an annual income of NT$873,000. Not only is this lower than the national average of NT$1.128 million, but the amount they receive from farming itself doesn’t even account for NT$200,000 of the total. In recent years, farmers have been hit by increasing initial outlay and living costs, all going up at a rate much higher than the increased revenue from farming.
Considering the long-term contribution to food security and the preservation of the environment that farming makes, it is correct and necessary to increase subsidies, when appropriate, for our elderly farmers. However, these subsidies lack a wealth exclusion clause and there are currently many “farmers” driving around in luxury automobiles and living in mansions.
Apart from owning land and sitting around waiting for its designation for use to change so they can sell it off or use it for other things, such people also enjoy benefits like farmer’s insurance, subsidies for elderly farmers, crop subsidies and tax exemptions, and this is not in line with the principle of social justice.
The government should clearly define what constitutes elderly farmer status to identify who is eligible. These subsidies now account for more than 70 percent of total expenditure on agriculture and have been in place for a long time, and so have become a huge financial burden. Farmland utilization rates are low, with large areas of farmland being left idle and neglected. Spending on agricultural infrastructure has been discouraged and there is a lack of funds available for scientific research and development. It is high time something was done about this.
These are not new problems. If politicians were genuinely concerned about the livelihood of elderly farmers, they would have implemented agricultural reforms some time ago, not just in the run-up to an election. As it is, they conveniently come up with these proposals to keep the farmers happy, only to drop them again after the election, and even give out the most important executive positions in the industry as a political pat on the back to others, or simply for the sake of gaining some political capital for themselves.
In an age where politics trumps competence, agricultural policies can change overnight. This not only leaves farmers disoriented, it also makes businesses avoid agriculture, making it impossible to upgrade our agricultural system.
After all, even the best policies need people to implement them to deliver on their mandates. Especially now, with elections just around the corner, the majority of agricultural policy has been aimed at achieving short-term gains. Subsidy increases are constantly being proposed, restrictions on who is eligible for subsidies are being relaxed in an attempt to win over voters and the government has shown that it lacks the courage to carry out reform.
After relying on government protection for so long, our farmers have lost their ability to respond to change and cope on their own. This is the real source of Taiwan’s agricultural problems.
The main aim of agricultural policies is increasing the income of farmers and making rural economies more prosperous. Both presidential candidates have stated that Taiwan’s agricultural sector has to become more streamlined and move toward higher-value-based activities.
However, no concrete plans have been put in place yet. If the agricultural sector is to be upgraded and become more competitive internationally, constant innovations in industrial science and technology are necessary. However, our current agricultural testing and research institutions are getting old, and research is moving in the wrong direction.
We also have a problem with confidentiality surrounding the findings on agricultural science, techniques and crop varieties, with a great deal of Taiwan’s technology and knowledge of new crop varieties being leaked to China. Many agricultural researchers are leaving their jobs and the achievements of agricultural science and technology are being exaggerated. The contribution agricultural science and technology is making toward agriculture is decreasing and agricultural science and technology are no longer made freely available to farmers.
These are but a few of the problems facing Taiwan’s agricultural industry, yet nobody has said anything about how these problems should be solved. Another important issue is how to go about getting the younger generation to work on the land, because this would inject new energy into rural areas.
All the talk about how to best set up more complete production and marketing mechanisms and steady the price of agricultural produce, how to best promote low-carbon, green industries, how to carry out sustainable management for agriculture and how to increase exports of agricultural products to increase the income of farmers is just that: a bunch of talk. This makes people feel the government is ruling the nation with little more than slogans.
As the structure of our economy has changed, the gap between rural communities and cities has increased. Relying on agricultural subsidies alone is not enough to meet the goal of closing the gap in incomes between the countryside and cities. Instead, this will create an even bigger money pit.
Farmers want to be able to survive off their crops and live with dignity. I sincerely hope that political hacks stop manipulating agricultural policy for their own political interests.
Lee Wu-chung is a professor of agricultural economics.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.