The farmers’ association in Taiwan is the largest and most important of all rural organizations, among which are fishermen’s associations, forest protection associations, agricultural cooperatives, and 4-H clubs. An understanding of the farmers’ association will give us a general idea as to how the rural community is organized in Taiwan, for the other rural associations are patterned more or less on the farmers’ association.
The farmers’ association system in Taiwan, initiated by the Japanese and improved by the Chinese, provides a structural pattern which makes it possible to increase agricultural production and promote the well-being of rural families. It is a federated system of multi-service cooperative organizations operating on three levels: 1 association on the provincial level, 22 associations on the county (or Hsien) and municipal level, and 318, associations on the township level. Farm families of each village in the township area organize themselves into small agricultural units. There are altogether 4, 9/9 such units comprising over 722,000 farm families. These units are the basic structure for the organization of farmers’ associations and the education of farmers as well as the media for the distribution of information in rural communities.
Organization
The members of each small agricultural unit elect a chairman to convene the meetings. Every unit in the same township elects 3 to 4 representatives to an annual convention in which control of the township farmers’ association is vested. A board of directors usually of 9 to 15 members, and a board of supervisors of 3 to 5 members are elected by the members’ representatives. The board of directors is the governing body of the association. The directors elect the chairman of the board and appoint a general manager who carries out the board’s decisions and policies. The board of supervisors is in the nature of a committee to inspect an approve the financial operations of the association.
Every township farmers’ association in the same county elects, in its annual assembly, 2 to 3 representatives to the county farmers’ association convention. The general pattern of the county farmers’ association is the same as that of the township farmers’ association.
The county farmers’ association elects, in its annual assembly representatives to the provincial farmers’ association convention. The number of representatives from each county farmers’ association ranges from 3 to 15; varying in direct proportion to the size of its membership.
The provincial farmers’ association follows the pattern of the county and the township farmers’ associations.
During the Japanese Administration, farmers’ associations were generally organized by government officials and the chairmen of farmers’ associations on the various levels were appointed by government officials of the corresponding level. The Governor-General was chairman of the provincial farmers’ association and the local magistrates were chairmen of the local associations. These associations were the agents of the Japanese Administration in matter relating to agricultural production and the control of farmers in complete disregard of democratic principles.
Since the retrocession of Taiwan to China, the chairmen and boards of directors and supervisors of all farmers’ associations have been elected by the members without government interference. No government official can be concurrently a member of the board of directors or supervisors. The provincial Department of Agriculture and Forestry (PDAF) has created the Farmers’ Organization Division to supervise the affairs and activities of the associations.
Owing to historical reasons and the reorganization and reconsolidation of farmers’ associations and cooperative societies which took place in 1949, control over the association slipped out of the hands of bona fide farmers. Since then the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction (JCRR) established by a bilateral agreement between the Chinese and American governments has made a thorough study of the laws, regulation and organization of the associations and recommended a number of revisions. For this purpose the Provincial Government set up in January 1951 a committee including representatives of JCRR, the PDAF and the Provincial Farmers’ Association (PFA). This committee drew up a draft of a completely revised la wand submitted it to the government in April 1951. The proposed law was subjected to scrutiny and discussion for about two years and certain modifications were made in the original draft to reconcile conflicting interests. The revised law and supplementary regulations were officially promulgated in June 1953. The principal revisions are:
1. There are now two kinds of membership in the association: active and associate. Active membership is limited to one representative of each family that earns 50 per cent or more of its income from active farming. It includes owner and tenant farmers, farm hands, and graduates of agricultural vocational schools engaged in agricultural improvement or teaching. Active members’ are entitled to all the rights of membership, inc1ueding the rights to vote, to hold any office, to participate in the meetings, and to use all facilities of the association. Associate members are those who do not qualify as active members. Associate members enjoy all rights except those to vote and hold elective offices; but 1/3 of the supervisors may be elected from among the associate members.
2. The functions of the board of directors are policy-making and. supervision. Both the directors and supervisors shall serve without pay and cannot be employed by the association. A manager will be employed to be the chief executive officer and manage the affairs of the association.
In cooperation with JCRR and PFA, the PDAF began to make active preparations for the reorganization of the farmers’ association soon after the promulgation of the revised law and regulations: The work consists of four major steps: (a) training of supervising personnel and working staffs for the county and township farmers’ associations; (b) publicity by posters, pamphlets, and radio broadcasts about the reorganization of the farmers’ association; (c) organization of township committees for the screening of active and associate membership; (d) holding of elections for the selection of new directors and supervisors. The township committees include chief of the township office, chairman of the township people’s council, chairman of the board of directors and that of the board of supervisors of the township farmers’ association, and a member of the town· ship land commission.
The Provincial Government has divided the Island of Taiwan into six rural areas, to each of which a 10-man supervising team is assigned to assist in the reorganization of farmers’ associations. Each team includes a leader and a deputy leader, who go around to inspect the farmers’ associations and serve as a liaison between the government and the associations for the solution of practical difficulties. The other members of the team remain on the spot to help the associations in the task· of reorganization. The county and municipal governments also send supervising personnel to assist the members- of the provincial teams.
The supervising teams began work in their respective areas on October 1, 1953, to screen the membership of the township farmers’ associations. A public announcement listing the names of active and associate members of the township farmers’ associations will be made in the period between October 31 to November 15. Then elections will be held first in the small agricultural units, next in the township farmers’ associations, then in the county and municipal farmers’ associations, and finally in the provincial farmers’ association. By February 22, 1954, the election for the provincial farmers’ association will be completed. With adequate preparation in each step of the reorganization and with sympathetic understanding and appreciation on the part of the farmers, this reorganization will successfully lay the foundation for democratic control of farmers’ associations by bona fide farmers. The government has the same determination in the reorganization of farmers’ associations as in the implementation of the land reform program because both will help improve the farmers’ economic condition.
Services and Facilities
The farmers’ associations in Taiwan perform such services and offer such facilities as rural credit and savings deposit, technical advisory aid, sale and marketing of agricultural products provisions for rural health and transportation and sale of farm tools, food, cloth and clothing rubbers, boots, bicycle tires, soft drinks, and canned fruits. In addition, they also render government entrusted services, provide facilities for rice-milling and for warehousing of rice and fertilizers, and aid in crop and livestock improvement. According to a survey made in 1950, 230 farmers’ associations performed on the average six different kinds of services for the farmers. Only 35 of these associations con- ducted less than five kinds of services, while 40 of them carried out eight or more.
The services rendered by the farmers’ associations and the nature of agriculture in Taiwan - have necessitated the development of consider able physical facilities, such as large office spaces, warehouses, processing machines, trucks, seed and animal-breeding farms, fishponds, jute- retting ponds and jute-packing machines.
Unfortunately about 50 per cent of the physical plants of farmers’ associations was reduced by general deterioration during and following World War II and Allied bombing. To meet the requirements for additional warehousing and processing facilities in handling increasing quantities of fertilizers, food crops, and live stock, JCRR has supported a number of projects sponsored jointly by government agencies and support, more than 62,000 M/T of food crop and fertilizer storage, 320 M/T of rice-milling farmers’ associations. As a result of the JCRR capacity per day (8 hours), 12,000 M/T of fertilizer mixing capacity, 5,500 M/T of jute fiber storage, 60 jute-packing machines and 227 boar shelters have been added to the physical plants of farmers’ associations. Both old and new facilities total 213,652 M/T of food crop storage, 227,584 M/T of fertilizer storage, 4,534 M/T of rice-milling capacity per day (8 hours), 60 jute-packing machines; 6,000 M/T of jute fiber storage, 339 jute-retting ponds with a total capacity of 7,000 M/T of jute fiber, and 250 boar shelters. The capacity of the current physical plants has exceeded that under the Japanese administration. For example, the total capacity of food crop and fertilizer storage is 441,23 M/T against 424,000 M/T prior to 1945. Besides, much of the new warehousing capacity is of cement rather than of wood construction. Owing to the increase of population and crop production, the need for the service of farmers’ associations is increased and the improvement and further expansion of the physical plants of farmers’ associations are in progress.
Financing System
During the Japanese occupation, the Administration exercised a rigid control over the farmers’ associations and consequently had to support them financially. Their financial sources included government subsidies, proceeds from business operations, membership fees, the surtax on land and the tax on livestock, and incomes from property rentals. Ample funds were therefore provided to the farmers’ associations for all activities.
Since 1946, however, the only major source of income available to the farmers’ associations is earnings from business operations such as warehouses, rice-millings, margins from money deposited and loans. Practically all other incomes except membership fees have been eliminated. No government subsidies are provided for operating expenses and only a limited amount for new construction. This sudden drop in their income has limited the scope of the services performed by the farmers’ associations.
To improve the situation, JCRR has cooperated since 1949 with the farmers’ associations and government agencies in providing financial and technical assistance for the renovation, repair and construction of the associations’ physical plants. Under this aid program, JCRR has assisted more than 250 farmers’ associations by providing US$670,000 (in local currency equivalent). Besides, JCRR subsidy in local currency equal to approximately US$26,349 has helped to renovate a large plant for the manufacture of animal sera and vaccine. That plant is owned by one of the farmers’ associations.
In the initial period of 1949-50, JCRR financial assistance was made largely in the form of grants covering all or most of the total reconstruction cash costs. In 1951-52, the assistance was usually matched up by equal contributions from farmers’ associations and government agencies (chiefly PDAF and PFB) at the rate of 1/3 for each party. Now JCRR is making loans instead of grants to revenue-producing facilities. It has been the policy of JCRR to help put the associations gradually on their own feet rather than cause them to depend on subsidies.
However, a sound system of financing the farmers’ associations has yet to be worked out. A number of them are facing financial difficulties. Their management and fiscal control needs to be improved. A uniform system of accounts has been recently adopted. It is believed that the government should not continue to give regular subsidies, but should instead pay them equitable fees for the services which the associations render to the various government agencies. The PDAF should pay the salaries and field expenses of all extension personnel on the staff of the associations because their work is educational and should not have to be supported on the earnings of the farmers’ associations.
Training
A competent staff is always an important factor contributing to the success of a program. Since the withdrawal of the top Japanese members of the staff, from the farmers’ associations in 1945, lack of trained personnel has been an acute problem. Therefore, JCRR has initiated and supported a number of projects to train directors, general managers and staff members of farmers’ associations to improve their professional competency. More than 8,000 staff, members of the farmers’ associations have received short courses of specialized training. A permanent school of the Provincial Farmers’ Association for training general managers and staff members has been establishes in the suburbs of Taipei and is on an almost self-supporting basis. Up to October 1953 this school has graduated 264 general managers and accountants who were selected for training by 341 farmers’ associations. In addition to these special training courses, JCRR is partly supporting 16 field assistants who, under the direction of the Provincial Farmers’ Association, are assigned to separate areas to give technical assistance to the associations of those areas. These field assistants together with the field staff of JCRR and PDAF are doing much to improve the operation and efficiency of the farmers’ associations.
In preparation for the reorganization of the farmers’ associations, the PDAF and JCRR jointly conducted a short course of seven days in July 1953 at Taipei for 150 students. The students included staff members of the county and the municipal governments-directors of the reconstruction bureaus, heads of agricultural divisions and heads of farmers’ association offices-and those of the Farmers’ Organization Division of PDAF and the Provincial Farmers’ Association. The course included a study of the Farmers’ Association Law and Regulations and the procedure of reorganization. The county and the municipal governments in all the areas also each conducted a two-day course of training in September for 1,348 students in all. The students included chairmen of the board of directors and chief executive secretaries of the township farmers’ associations, staff members of township, offices and county and municipal governments.
In September the Governor of the Taiwan Provincial Government called a conference of the magistrates and mayors of county and municipal governments to discuss plans for the reorganization of the farmers’ association. He stressed the importance of the program and asked for their cooperation.
Conclusion
The farmers associations of Taiwan passed through several periods, the initial period being one of organization, growth and development under the Japanese regime. This period emphasized results with little attention paid to the needs of farm people and to democratic control.
The second period, during and immediately after World War II was a period of destruction both of physical plants morale of personnel, and general operating efficiency.
Since 1949, with the active assistance of JCRR, good progress has been made in expanding their physical plants, training their staff members for professional competency, and revising the relevant laws and regulations to insure democratic control by bona fide farmers. But a sound system of financing local associations has yet to be set up, though progress has been made in the development of a good accounting system. Endeavors are being made to improve the farmers associations so that they may become “a federated system of multi-service farmers cooperatives that is organically strong, democratically controlled, efficiently operated and financially secure; alert and responsive to the interests and needs of members; constantly seeking to increase its effectiveness and improve its services, and recognized as a partner of government in the promotion of the rural welfare.”