I'm sure you've heard of Robinson Crusoe, Daniel Defoe's masterpiece, first published in 1719. But Defoe also published sequels to Robinson Crusoe, including the Further Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, in which the hero makes a stop at Formosa on his way to China....
"Of Taiwan's 460,000 acres of farmland, more than 30,000 acres have been fallow for five years; 46,000 acres have been fallow for two years; 50,000 acres have been fallow for a year," said Chen.In other words, the US demanded that Taiwan curtail its own rice production to permit imports of rice from the US. The results were of course pernicious, as I observed a couple of years ago:
The current system offers stipends to encourage land to go fallow. It was implemented when Taiwan was preparing to join the WTO in 2002. The country wanted to cut its own grain production at the time to allow an influx of imported staple foods.
In Taiwan the government runs a set-aside program for farmland under which large quantities of farmland lie fallow. In some years the amount set aside exceeds the amount planted in rice (!). This program has come under much criticism, since sometimes farmland becomes unusable after being set aside and land lying uncared for invites pests that affect nearby farms. This results in abandoned land, 50,000 hectares by one 2004 estimate. When land leaves the market, it drives up the price of remaining land, pushing up rents -- and many farmers are renters, not owners. Further, for many observers it makes little sense to set aside good farmland in the lowlands while permitting farming on slopes. The set aside program is also driven by shortages of water, diverted for industrial and residential needs. Everything is exacerbated by the lack of government oversight and monitoring, a persistent problem in all areas of government policy in Taiwan.Another long-term process, still being felt, is the change in demand for rice as Taiwan's food desires changed. As demand for meat grew in the 1970s and stimulated local livestock production, this drove demand for feed crops for the animals, which in turn pushed farmers to switch from rice to feed crops for animals. This reduced the land in rice, especially since the government set a price floor for feed crops in the 1970s. Accession to the WTO slammed rice production further.This journal article has the call:
To prepare for joining the WTO in 2002, the Taiwanese government implemented a new plan in 1997, the “Adjustment of Paddy Field and Uplands Utilization Program,” to cushion the adverse effects of agricultural trade liberalization on domestic farmers. According to the negotiated schedule for opening the rice market, Taiwan was required to import a specified amount of brown rice annually, roughly 8% of annual domestic rice consumption, before the rice market was completely opened. The additional supplies of rice from imports (about 144,000 tons of brown rice) represent a need to reduce further rice production, which will be met by letting an additional 40,000 ha of paddy fields go fallow (Shi, 2002). Thus, the goal of rice production in Taiwan has changed from self-sufficiency to a demand–supply balance (Lee et al., 1997).Finally a 2007 a revision to the village rebuilding law permitted the further conversion of 160,000 ha of farmland for the construction of "idyllic communities."
Additionally, as a developed economy, Taiwan was required to reduce its AMS [ag subsidies] by 20%. To achieve this goal, the Taiwanese government reduced the land growing forage crops at a guaranteed price, and further encouraged diversion to different plants and fallow lands. The area planted with feed maize decreased accordingly and fell to the level it was in the late 1960s.
Chen said the total acreage of local rice paddies has decreased from some 600,000 hectares 30 years ago to about 250,000 hectares at present.The piece then offered a translation of a UDN article on the new policy giving details:
In contrast, the acreage of fallow farmland has increased steadily since Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2002 and has exceeded 200,000 hectares by now.
Which large plots of farmland are left idle, their owners can still receive subsidies. "The phenomenon violates the principle of fairness and justice," Chen said, adding that the Council of Agriculture (COA) needs to take actions to improve the situation.
At present, farmland owners are entitled to receive NT$90,000 (US$3,072) per hectare in two installments annually if their farmland is left fallow.Under the new laws, the government promotes production while reducing fallow land without a change in budget. This is ok if you are a young farmer, but older farmers who leased land long-term and invested in new equipment to farm it expecting X amount of subsidy, as the UDN piece goes on to point out, will now be getting 1/2X. Ths policy might encourage land sales by debt-stressed farmers to developers, which unfortunately Taiwan has no shortage of.
Under the COA's new fallow farmland revitalization project, land owners can only receive NT$45,000 in subsidy annually for fallow farmland.
The restriction is aimed at encouraging landlords to plant crops for at least some months instead of leaving their land plots fallow all year long.
If landlords are unable to plow their farmland, the COA-backed farmland bank will help mediate leasing deals for them during a grace period from 2013 to 2014.
During this period, landlords will be given an additional NT$20,000 in farmland maintenance subsidy.
Owners of land plots that are unsuitable for farm produce plantation or are reserved for ecological conservation will be offered NT$68,000 in subsidy in two installments annually. The COA will also help landlords to transform their land plots for other usage.
Chen said the new project will need a annual budget of NT$11 billion, the same amount needed for the current project.
However, the council is failing to control production and supply under its current policy, which leaves 60 percent of activated fallow land for local governments to decide which crops to grow and does not regulate the plantation of import substitution crops, such as flint corns, sugarcanes, soybeans and wheat, the lawmaker said.The new policy also encourages farmers to plant corn and wheat, two crops not particularly suited for northern Taiwan. The policy -- of course not, why even say it? -- also appears to contain no promotion of sustainable, organic, or permaculture farming. Hope I am wrong....
The council’s planning and seasonal adjustments would be crucial for the farmers, otherwise the farmers could be exploited by middlemen or farmers in various regions could cultivate the same crops, which would result in lower prices, he added.
DPP Legislator Huang Wei-cher (黃偉哲) said the central government would be in a better position to monitor and control production and supply than local governments.
A media buyout in Taiwan which would put independent news outlets critical of China into the hands of a pro-Beijing media tycoon is cause for concern for the island's press. Jimmy Lai, the outspoken mogul behind Hong Kong-based Next Media and the Apple Daily tabloid, is selling his unprofitable Taiwan holdings to a consortium including Tsai Eng-meng, whose China Times Media group is supportive of China, according to local and international news reports....showing how publicity about the effects of the buyout on the media atmosphere in Taiwan is reaching globally. Kudos to everyone who has worked to publicize this sad affair.
A second worrying incident occurred on Monday, when the legislature passed an initial screening of a draft amendment to the Communicable Disease Control Act (傳染病防治法) that would force media organizations to correct any “false” information they publish on disease prevention measures during an epidemic. While this makes sense on paper, the proposed amendment raises the specter of the government — perhaps in collusion with pharmaceutical companies — having final say on what constitutes “true” or “false.”The 'first incident' referred to the editorial was this survey published by the Taipei City government.
Renowned local writer Chang Ta-chun said the biggest problem of the students is not that they were being impolite but that it was their "empty" remarks that led society to lose the main point of the movement.Chang Ta-chun raised an important point: the student's comments enabled the pro-KMT media to shift the media focus to the behavior of the students rather than to the behavior of the government in permitting the Next Media buyout, which concentrates at least 40% of the media in the hands of a single pro-China plutocrat.
He also said the education minister was "dumb" and did not listen properly to the demands of the students.
Richard Chia-Tung Lee, an honorary chair professor at NTHU, said that "the behavior of Chen led me to think of the Cultural Revolution in China, in which the red guards scolded society's elite."
The statement issued by NTHU that apologized "on behalf of Chen for his misbehavior" also drew angry responses from the school's student communities.
NTHU's Student Association, Graduate Student Association and Student Council issued a late night statement Tuesday saying they "do not agree with the way the school interpreted Chen's behavior".
Freedom is not only a right but also a responsibility. Freedom is not a free lunch. Freedom is a severe test of a person’s abilities.This article presents common anti-democracy propaganda themes of right-wingers everywhere, which boil down to the observation that freedom is good unless it is actually used. The idea that freedom = anarchy is one aspect of a pervasive cultural ideal here in Taiwan that social order = sameness. This is particularly held among KMTers. I've noticed over the years that if a local expresses the idea that society is falling into anarchy, they are usually pro-Blue.
On December 3rd, several college students were invited by three DPP legislators to attend a committee meeting for the exclusive purpose of listening to a report by the Education Minister. The students pointed their figures at the Education Minister while reproaching and scolding him. The Legislative Yuan is a mechanism to exercise “freedom” and students also have “freedom” of expression. However, the December 3rd meeting stirred a controversy in society. The question is: College students have the right to express their opinions freely, but do they have the ability to “exercise freedom”?
Freedom can reveal a person’s good side as well as a person’s bad side. Freedom allows for all possibilities but it is not the content of freedom. In a free society, a freeman has the right to express opinions. As a consequence, the person has to have the ability to be responsible in exercising “freedom” and should not become a person who is disabled to exercise freedom.
During the authoritarian era under the Martial law rule, people pursued “the right to exercise freedom,” and “opposition to authority” became synonyms for “freedom.” Moreover, even “opposing for the sake of opposition” had legitimacy. However, in today’s free society, more than twenty years after the lifting of Martial Law rule, people have “the right to exercise freedom.” Consequently, people should pursue the “ability to exercise freedom” instead, because freedom is not a free lunch, and freemen have to be responsible in exercising freedom.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has become a party made up of “people who have become disabled to exercise freedom.” The college students who attended the committee meeting acted like “DPP legislators” because the words and gestures they used were almost the same as those used by DPP legislators. The students seemed to be “disabled to exercise freedom.” The students’ behavior sacrificed their freedom as intellectuals and almost made them parrots. We praise the college students for bravely exercising freedom, but we hope in the future the students will pay more attention to their ability to exercise freedom.
In fact, many in today’s media have also become “disabled to exercise freedom.” The college students were concerned about the media’s disability to exercise freedom of speech. The students might believe that they were justified; therefore, they should pay more attention to their ability and responsibility in exercising the freedom of speech.
Chinese dissident Wang Dan, who is currently a Visiting Chair Professor at NTHU, posted on his Facebook page that "it is amazing how the United Daily News publishes two pages of stories just to scold the students."The Taipei Times translated Wang Dan's remarks much more pithily:
"The students' demands and the inappropriate conduct of the ministry are dismissed as minor points. Instead, the 'impoliteness' of the students is being magnified."
"The way the media reported the story shows that it is taking sides."
"Students are young. Of course they cannot be as eloquent as politicians. Why is society being lenient toward the authorities but critical of students who actively participate in public affairs?" he asked.
KMT Deputy Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu said students have no right to question officials at legislative sessions. Even if they hold different opinions on an issue, they should follow the "pecking order" and respect their seniors.
“I’m wondering why society is so tolerant of authority, yet so critical of young people who participate in public affairs,” he said.As noted above, the Next Media buyout has vanished from the discourse. The Ministry of Education's behavior has also vanished from the discourse. Now the focus is on the behavior of students.
In President Ma’s post-reelection inaugural address last May, he discussed his plan to further cooperation between China and Taiwan. Ma stated at the time: “In the next four years, the two sides of the strait have to open up new areas of cooperation and continue working to consolidate peace, expand prosperity and deepen mutual trust. We also hope that civic groups on both sides of the Taiwan Strait will have more opportunities for exchanges and dialogue focusing on such areas as democracy, human rights, rule of law and civil society, to create an environment more conducive to peaceful cross-strait development.”The Dalai Lama had been invited to Taiwan by exactly those kind of civic groups Ma apparently lauds in his speech, but their initiative was refused. The context is identical -- China relations. Like so many other campaigns in Taiwan society under the current Administration, movement is permissible, provided it is in a pro-China direction....
The Marines, no change in Marine Corps presence west of the international dateline, despite the fact that the Marine Corps is going to be reducing in size at the end of the Iraq/Afghanistan war. No change to Marine Corps west of the international dateline. And in fact, they -- they'll be seeing more of the Marines in the Pacific, and the Army too. Why? Because they're not in Afghanistan. The Army itself plans to align 70,000 troops to the Asia Pacific region as part of its new general regional alignment, which heavily weighs the Asia-Pacific region.
Letter on Chen Shui-bian incarceration in Taipei Times today. My thanks to the editors for printing it. They cleaned up a typo and strengthened the beginning. Title is also better than I could have thought of...
清大今天發出聲明，對於陳為廷昨天在立法院的不當行為「深感痛心」，也對蔣偉寧及社會大眾所造成的傷害致上最深的歉意。Tsinghua University was responding to comments by Chen Wei-ting in a session of the legislature yesterday in which he and others criticized Minister of Education Chiang for the Ministry's email which asked universities to "care for" students protesting. To many ears it sounded like a coded authoritarian message. The Taipei Times reported on the legislative session in which Chen Wei-ting spoke:
National Tsing Hua University today issued a statement yesterday in the Legislative Yuan, saying that it was "deeply saddened" by the inappropriate behavior of [student leader] Chen Wei-ting and offering its deepest apologies for the harm caused to [Minister of Education] Jiang Weining and the community.
....
陳為廷稍早也在臉書發表聲明，澄清自己昨天是受立委之邀前去「備詢」，立委本來就有職權邀請公民到場提供意見，他不認為自己的言行有錯；他也強調，昨天的發言只是陳述個人意見，並沒有要質問、要求蔣偉寧回答的意思，很遺憾被外界錯誤解讀。
Earlier on Facebook Chen Wei-ting issued a statement to clarify [his words from yesterday at the Legislative Yuan,] .....he stressed that yesterday's speech was a statement of personal opinion, and was not intended to interrogate Minister Chiang and demand an answer. It is regrettable that it was misinterpreted by outsiders [he said].
While legislators across party lines asked Chiang to apologize for the e-mail, he repeatedly said the ministry would engage in “profound reflection.”Many pixels have been launched along the intertubes about the generational change within the two major political parties, but in a sense this evolution reflects a tremendous social transition: the students in their twenties now grew up in the democratic era, while those who sit in judgment on them are relics of the authoritarian period, in many cases formally and informally vetted to ensure they had proper political views when they entered the system back in the 1980s. The two sides speak to each other out of completely different cultural worlds.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Ho Hsin-chun (何欣純) said the school regulations of 22 of the 37 universities included in the e-mail still included punishments for students who hold assemblies and protests, adding that the ministry should have showed concern by eliminating such rules.
DPP Legislator Tuan Yi-kang (段宜康) said that Chiang should at least apologize for the ministry’s inability to show real concern for students, even if he would not for its misguided wish to monitor them.
“We think the ministry’s words of concern are hypocritical,” said Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆), convener of the Youth Alliance Against Media Monsters and a National Taiwan University graduate student, adding that the minister could have approached the students when they were protesting in poor weather, or called the premier to tell him about the students’ demands.
“Minister, I think you are full of lies, a hypocrite and a minister that does not know repentance. I don’t think you are qualified to be a minister. Please apologize to us,” said another convener of the alliance, Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷), a student at National Tsing Hua University.
It added that some Taiwanese strains of agricultural products grown or raised in China have also dealt a blow to Taiwanese farmers, as the farmers’ products have been sent back to the country because they were still prohibited from entering China. They included red carrots, pineapples, groupers, black tiger shrimps, abalone, butterfly orchids, carnations and mushrooms.I've blogged on this before including this post from Nov 2011 on the bogus numbers on Agricultural Exports to China and this post on an enthusiastically awful NY Times piece. This month the government in Taiwan also moved to create a uniform fast track for agricultural exports. Why?
In the six years since 2006, China has acted “in a more systematic way” to lure Taiwan’s farming sector, with a total of 29 “Development Parks for Taiwan Farmers” established in 14 provinces as of this year, in addition to nine “Cross-Strait Agricultural Cooperative Experimental Zones” that have been set up since 1997, according to the report.
China not only offers Taiwan-funded enterprises in the agricultural parks a set of incentives in land acquisition, tax credits and lending, but also encourages and invites award-winning Taiwanese farmers to visit China through organized tours, or offer them money in exchange for seeds and techniques, the report said.
The report said that the 3,000 hectare Zhangping Yongfu Development Park for Taiwan Farmers, one of six in Fujian Province in southeast China, is being planted with oolong tea, all by Taiwan farmers from Nantou County, a famous tea-producing area, and is being developed into what China calls the “Alishan (阿里山) of China.”
It was estimated by Chinese research institutes that their annual production of oolong tea, which is under cultivation in the Zhangping Yongfu park, could be as high as three-fifths of the amount of high mountain oolong tea produced in Taiwan annually, the report said.
Local exporters have complained that without the mechanism, their products have often been detained in customs at Chinese ports pending quarantine checks, making it nearly impossible to get the products on the market while they are at their freshest.This functions as an informal barrier to agricultural exports from Taiwan. Is it deliberate? Well, the old saw runs that you should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Smuggling of agricultural goods from China, which has been going on for more than two decades, is almost never covered by the media. Sadly.