“It seems so awkward and a waste of money,” renowned writer and social activist Wu Yin-ling said, gesturing toward the statue. “Huang disapproved of the idea and even joked that as he was not dead yet, what did it really mean if his likeness was cast in bronze.”
Wu was in town Feb. 22, along with 100 other people concerned about the potential impact of a rural reform draft bill that could change the face of Taiwan’s farming communities forever. The passage of the proposed law, currently undergoing its second reading in the Legislature, has been delayed due to strong protests from academics and civic groups.
Tentatively titled the Farming Village Revitalization Act, the legislation is designed to “construct rich and beautiful” farming hamlets and requires the government to spend NT$200 billion (US$5.75 billion) over a period of 10 years to attain this goal. The bill’s approval is essential if President Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign promise of revitalizing around 4,000 villages on the island is to be realized. The Soil and Water Conservation Bureau under the Council of Agriculture proposed the law, stating it aims to improve public facilities and living environments of the country area, thus reducing the urban-rural development gap.
With Taiwan’s farmers and rural communities suffering from falling incomes, increased numbers of people on welfare and a cloud hanging over the future of agriculture on the island, critics question whether the bill will be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back, destroying the country’s farmers and agricultural industry.
The legislation is divided into three parts: “to plan the redevelopment of farming villages,” “to revitalize the use of farmland” and “to develop agriculture and farming culture.” The first section specifies procedures for creating the so-called redevelopment blueprint, targeting roads, public facilities and landscape beautification. The second part concerns conditions for rezoning nonurban land. The third section touches on the promotion of rice culture.
According to Tseng Shu-cheng, an associate professor of architecture at Tainan National University of the Arts, although the bill is intended to beautify Taiwan’s dilapidated farming villages, it will not succeed because the diagnosis is problematic. Previously, Tseng led a team assisting residents from Tugou Village in renovating a community center. Many participants in the forum believe the problem with the law lies in the part regarding rezoning and land expropriation. “It focuses on technical aspects such as rezoning and land expropriation, while ignoring the need to revitalize the agricultural industry,” Tseng said.
Wu echoed Tseng’s sentiments and pointed out that the new legislation is basically a continuation of past policies that aim to free up more farmland for construction development. The January 2000 amendment to the Agriculture Development Act, for example, allows the sale of farmland for non-agricultural use, such as housing construction projects. This means that under Taiwan’s basic act for agriculture, development is possible even in forests or protected mountainous areas.
The controversial amendment, widely credited with causing a furor in the Legislature over the impartiality of some legislators, triggered the resignation of Taiwan’s then COA Minister Peng Tso-kwei in protest at its passage. Peng predicted that the act would clear the way for the wealthy to cash in on property speculation and enrich themselves at the expense of the nation’s farmers.
“The benefit for farmers is based on profits from farming, not selling their land,” Peng reportedly said while announcing his resignation in December 1999. “There will be no agriculture if there is no farmland, and there will be no farmers if there is no agriculture.” Some nine years later, his prediction looks like coming to fruition.
“The result of the amendment after being approved in 2000 is that the price of farmland today varies greatly,” Wu said. For those near Taiwan High Speed Rail stations, for example, property prices skyrocketed. “In contrast, land prices in remote villages are even lower than before the Agriculture Development Act was amended.”
As the author of 2007’s award-winning book “Where Have All the Rivers and Lakes Gone—an Observation on Taiwan’s Agriculture,” Wu is qualified to comment on the government’s move seen as a way of uprooting the nation’s farmers off their land. “When I first read about this bill, my feeling was one of alarm,” she said. “First of all, the scope for redevelopment is vaguely defined. Judging from its wording, the ‘land-assembling’ process could mean farmers of small rice paddies have to give up their property and livelihoods if a certain portion of their neighbors agree to a community development plan.”
Wu continued that the bill does not make allowance for farmland that should be preserved solely for farming. “This is a great threat to a country, which now has only a 30-percent self-sufficiency rate in grain supply, compared to 39 percent in Japan and 120 percent in the United States,” she stated. “Japan is doing everything to raise its grain self-sufficiency rate, while Taiwan is heading in the opposite direction.”
Wu warned that farming land on the island has dwindled from 640,000 hectares in 1980 to 470,000 hectares in 2002. By 2004, for the first time in history, land on which crops are still cultivated dropped to 230,000 hectares, less than the 280,000 hectares lying fallow. “The law, if passed as it is, would result in the abolishment of farming villages and agriculture,” she said.
In the wake of the proposed bill, civic groups have been organizing forums throughout the country and holding discussions with farmers and villagers. The Tugou forum drew concerned citizens from across southern Taiwan, including young farmers, architects and social activists. Participants worried that the legislation would come into force this parliamentary session, and have decided to band together in attempting to reverse the situation.
“From past experiences in my village, revitalization plans would mainly benefit those areas that are relatively developed,” said Maital, a Bunun social activist from Namasia Township of Kaohsiung County. She also questioned what “rich and beautiful farming villages” as described in the act really meant. Maital argued that what urban designers see as beautiful is not necessarily compatible with the natural surrounds and characteristic of local living styles. “But one thing to remember is that all of these changes still come at a cost to the farmers,” she added.
In a revision of the bill, civic groups proposed the entire second part be scraped. They also suggested rewriting articles to ensure the law focuses on farming culture and creating sustainable agriculture. “What is important is to revitalize production, living and ecology as a whole in rural Taiwan,” Tseng said. He argued that a prosperous agricultural sector would keep young people in their hometowns, and this relationship would breath life into the villages and make them beautiful again.
Tseng stressed that residents of rural areas needed to recognize this reality and force designers of redevelopment plans to do the same. “Granted the law is very likely to pass, but those people who stand to lose everything should band together and hold effective dialogue with the government,” he said. “It is not too late to exercise influence over the level of implementation.”
For Wu, this concern over respecting the original landscape and ecology has taken on a special meaning in Huang’s beloved Cingliao. As one of the model villages chosen by the Soil and Water Conservation Bureau to illustrate what a community would look like after redevelopment, the author-activist said that a disproportionate sum of money has been spent on building pavilions and creating artificial wetlands. She asked: “What if all the government’s redevelopment fund is wasted this way?”
Write to June Tsai at June@mail.gio.gov.tw