Excuses to Justify Confiscating a Farming Community on Behalf of Rich Investors

     In Taiwan, the “greater good” appears to be good enough an excuse for government to take someone's land.  Strangely enough, the term greater good is defined by a crowd that in most countries is not particularly noted for its goodness: politicians and bureaucrats.

     Just such a case is the seizure of a farming community in Dapu Borough, Miaoli County, Taiwan. 

     For the past two years, the county has battled protesters and local residents who don’t want to see their homes demolished and their land and livelihoods taken away from them.  Even if they're fairly compensated for their homes and land, compensation for the loss of their livelihoods doesn't seem to enter the thinking of government kleptocrats.  To hear Miaoli County politicians tell it, though, all the residents of Dapu are delighted with the prospect of losing their land, homes, and livelihood.  After all, the construction project will be “beneficial to” all those people who are being removed.

     Their excuses are risible enough to quote in full.

     Jhunan Township Council Speaker Lin Shu-wen said, “I was born and raised in Dapu, my family’s house was among those being expropriated and I am fully supportive of the project because [drum roll, please] it’s going to bring prosperity to the community.  As much as 98% of landowners representing more than 900 households in the area have all agreed to the project.  Why would they support it if it’s bad?”  (Answer: Through clever rigging of statistics.  We’ll get to that one in a moment.)

     Dapu Borough Warden Cheng Wen-chen added that all the local residents—bar none—are “celebrating” the project and that only outsiders are opposing it.

     Protestor Yeh Hsiu-tao says that the opposite is true—that every member of his organization is a native of Miaoli County if not Dapu, and the same can be said of the members of the Youth Alliance.

     So how can both sides be factually correct?  Answer: Well planned and executed excuses!  Factual correctness isn't necessarily the same thing as truth.

     According to Yeh, “All of us received official letters from the county government some years ago asking us to provide our agreement [to the project] by a certain date; otherwise we could lose our right to receive compensation.”  In simple language, that’s, “We’ll take your home and land anyway.  If you don’t sign a document agreeing to support the confiscation of your home and land, we’ll take it without paying you a dime for it.” 

     Don Vito Corleone was never that cynical in “making someone an offer he couldn't refuse.”   Additionally, when Don Vito Corleone “made someone an offer he couldn't refuse,” he never tried to pass off his victim’s acquiescence as enthusiastic support.

     In case you’re wondering how a construction project was approved for a community zoned for farming, one of the government ringleaders of the project offered the straw man excuse, “We changed the land classification from ‘for farming’ to ‘for construction’ as early as 1979, so it has nothing to do with the high-speed rail project.” 

     Wait a minute.  The families of politicians with callous-free hands and clean fingernails were awash in cheap farmland, and those same government leaders used the power of their offices to rezone the land to something more profitable?  Was that how Liu Cheng-hung was able to repay a NT$50 million (US$1.6 million) debt within a year of taking office as county commissioner?

     According to the Taipei Times, Liu's sudden financial windfall was not because he “was involved in corruption.”  He had a good excuse for that one: “He said he was able to clear his debts by selling land owned by his family.”  Hmm.  Was he referring to land he’d used the power of his office to rezone, thereby increasing its “prosperity” generating potential?  Just how does he define corruption?

     And what will happen to Dapu farming community residents who, for several generations, had actually been using their farmland to eke out a living as farmers?  Even if they’re compensated for the loss of their homes and land, who is going to compensate them for the loss of their livelihoods?