Farmhouse renovation rules forced to make a U-turn, Chen Pao-chi says there was no pressure, drawing sharp criticism from farmers' groups

The controversy over the amendment of farmhouse regulations continues. Legislators from both the blue and green camps have voiced opposition to the amendment. The Council of Agriculture originally planned to amend the "Regulations for the Construction of Farmhouses on Agricultural Land," stipulating that both the builders and transferees of farmhouses must have farmer qualifications (excluding inheritance, judicial auction, and gifts to second-degree lineal relatives). Today, however, a major U-turn occurred: the qualification of transferees will be split off and left to an amendment of the "Agricultural Development Act." On the surface, this raises the legal hierarchy, but the regulations only need to be announced by an administrative agency to take effect, while the "Agricultural Development Act" requires three readings in the Legislative Yuan and is unlikely to pass in the short term.

The Taiwan Rural Front and the Guard Yilan Workshop criticized that the legislative spirit of the "Agricultural Development Act" is farmland for agricultural use and farmhouses for agricultural use, and that the qualification of transferees could have been amended directly in the regulations. Taiwan Rural Front spokesperson Chen Ping-hsuan criticized that administrative agencies knew full well that many legislators opposed the amendment for fear of affecting their election prospects, yet still sent it to the Legislative Yuan, "which is nothing but a feint and a major reversal."

The Executive Yuan this morning passed the draft amendment to Article 18-1 of the "Agricultural Development Act," requiring that transferees of farmhouses must have engaged in farming for more than one year, but those with farmers' insurance or Category 3 health insurance are not subject to this limit. It also excludes inheritance, judicial auction, and gifts to second-degree lineal relatives, but recipients and auction buyers cannot own a farmhouse for their own use.

The Ministry of the Interior, meanwhile, planned to pass an amendment to the "Regulations for the Construction of Farmhouses on Agricultural Land" at this afternoon's departmental meeting, requiring builders to have farmers' insurance or Category 3 (fishing and animal husbandry) health insurance qualifications, or to present relevant proof of agricultural operation.

A U-turn in the amendment? Chen Bao-ji: No pressure was received

The qualification of transferees is the focus of this farmhouse amendment. Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Bao-ji once said that the "Agricultural Development Act" stipulates that farmhouses must be for agricultural use, and since the Council of Agriculture clearly defined the qualifications of builders, transferees should of course be regulated as well.

Many legislators questioned that the "Agricultural Development Act" does not stipulate the qualifications of transferees, and the "Regulations for the Construction of Farmhouses on Agricultural Land" are enforcement regulations formulated under the "Agricultural Development Act." Yet the Council of Agriculture arbitrarily amended them, raising the problem of exceeding the parent law.

However, the Council of Agriculture had discussed this issue before, and later concluded that the spirit of the "Agricultural Development Act" is farmland for agricultural use, so there was no problem of exceeding the law. In July, it handed the draft "Regulations for the Construction of Farmhouses on Agricultural Land" to the Ministry of the Interior for pre-announcement.

Speaking at a press conference after the Executive Yuan meeting this morning, Chen Bao-ji said that during the public announcement period for the amendment, many responses were received. The "Agricultural Development Act" only stipulates that builders must be farmers but does not regulate the qualifications of transferees, so directly amending the regulations could cause controversy. "We could originally have directly amended the 'other matters to be handled' in the regulations, but considering the rights and obligations of the people, we therefore put the qualification of transferees into the amendment of the "Agricultural Development Act."

When reporters pressed on whether the amendment was under pressure from the general election, Executive Yuan spokesperson Sun Li-chun avoided answering and directly skipped to the next question; Chen Bao-ji said after the press conference that no pressure was received, and that legislators had simply misunderstood, thinking that this would mean no farmhouses could be built on any farmland.

Chen Bao-ji stressed that this amendment of the "Agricultural Development Act" was proposed on the initiative of the Council of Agriculture, and that actual farmers would not be affected at all. "What we are banning is people who speculate on farmhouses as villas," he said, calling on legislators from both the ruling and opposition camps to support the amendment together and leave a clean land for future generations.

Civic groups question the Executive Yuan's feint and major reversal

Next year brings the nine-in-one local elections. After Chen Bao-ji announced the amendment of the farmhouse regulations in May this year, he came under pressure from both blue and green legislators. Miaoli legislator Chen Chao-ming even said outright, "Can't rural land prices be a bit higher?" bluntly stating that amending the law at this time would affect the election.

Afterwards, it was first reported that the amendment had been "put on hold," and it was not until July that the draft was pre-announced. In August, after the Council of Agriculture consolidated opinions, it relaxed the rules so that second-degree lineal relatives and judicial auction buyers could be exempt from farmer status. At this point it also "split off" the farmhouse amendment, triggering strong backlash from civil society groups.

Upon hearing the news, Guard Yilan Workshop spokesperson Li Bao-lian let out a long sigh and said that the legislative spirit of the "Agricultural Development Act" was originally farmhouses for agricultural use. The Executive Yuan simply did not want to take responsibility and pushed it to the Legislative Yuan. "Legislators fear losing votes, but it is this kind of messing around that will lose the people's hearts."

Taiwan Rural Front spokesperson Chen Ping-hsuan sharply criticized that farmhouses for agricultural use inherently includes construction, transfer, and acceptance. The Executive Yuan on the surface strengthened the legal hierarchy of the farmhouse amendment, but in reality it was entirely unnecessary. Moreover, the Executive Yuan had long known of legislators' backlash and deliberately delayed and obstructed, disregarding the rule of law. Now sending it again to the Legislative Yuan is nothing but a feint and a major reversal.

Chen Ping-hsuan stressed that, based on the spirit of the "Agricultural Development Act" of farmland for agricultural use and farmhouses for agricultural use, the Council of Agriculture could itself formulate the regulations, and if after implementation it found it necessary to raise the legal hierarchy, it could adjust then.

Civic groups question a loophole in judicial auction of farmhouses

Li Bao-lian also questioned that the amendment excludes judicial auctions from requiring farmer status, but those who want to sell can set up a mortgage. That is to say, buyer and seller can agree that the seller borrows money from the buyer, the seller mortgages the farmhouse, and when the money cannot be repaid, the buyer can naturally take over the farmhouse, even faster than the five-year transfer period currently stipulated by the Council of Agriculture.

Yang Wen-chuan, director of the Yilan County Department of Agriculture, said that if the central government believes there is a legal problem, the Yilan County Government respects that, and also hopes legislators from both camps can support the amendment of the "Agricultural Development Act."

He added that excluding judicial auctions is indeed a shortcoming, but the amendment cannot be advanced all at once and must proceed step by step.