The economy embodies society’s flesh and culture, its heart and soul. Economics and culture in a normal society need proper attention and simultaneous development.
Body and mind need to be healthy. If only the economy is developed, then the body grows obese. If only culture is developed, then the country resembles a skeleton.
Economies provide material conditions, and culture provides conditions of the spirit. Politics could be viewed as a critical bridge linking the two. Managing human relations could be seen as the conditions for constructing a society of laws.
Taiwan emphasizes its economy, but neglects its culture. Rulers over this land have done so since their ancestors first crossed over the “black ditch” — the Taiwan Strait.
Indigenous communities had yet to develop their own writing culture, but their cultures were ones that involved responding to nature, and enacting rites and ceremonies.
Taiwan was colonized by several foreign powers, absorbing everything thrown at it. Yet, because its national core was not fully developed, its cultural, economic and political spheres were not built up in a balanced fashion. The direction it has taken — economic emphasis and cultural neglect — has not changed one bit.
Because of economic emphasis and cultural neglect, the nation tends toward technological prowess under economic growth and production chains that tie the whole world together, with people innovating their way to the economic fruits of their labor.
Taiwan’s cultural progression pales in comparison. Worshiping in temples echoes business results, inundating people with a social mentality from a former era that dreads natural disasters. With broadcast media fanning the flames, the cognizance of the problems recognized by Taiwan’s New Culture Movement from a century ago are clearer.
The factories that grow the fruits of the nation’s economic labor not only pair well with the intoxication of government officials who fawn over industry, they also have the unfortunate effect of creating an age resembling a theocracy.
Economic ideals are a response to scientific roles, but the sentimentality of culture remains mired in swamps of ancient folk customs. When the scene is examined from a cultural perspective, is a nation really something wanted by Taiwanese?
Democratization is an ingrained part of Taiwan’s history, a history of a people governing themselves. Yet, as lords of their own land, Taiwanese have a long way to go to gain and have mastery over their rights and responsibilities.
Burdened by a long martial law period, Taiwanese grew complacent in being ruled through brutality, developing an incomplete personality that runs away from freedom. This is not far from what psychologist and philosopher Erich Fromm said of people being cowed.
In post-democratization Taiwan there is still the problem of it becoming an incomplete country. Stuck between the remnants of an iteration of China and a newborn Taiwan, Taiwanese still anxiously oscillate between identification and belonging. This problem was brought about by the “Republic of China on Taiwan.”
The “status quo” is an internal Taiwanese contradiction. Taiwan’s entanglement with China is also a problem of international governance.
To mold a modern public consensus, Taiwan needs to form a social movement with culture at its core.
Taiwan must build up a modern and progressive cultural revitalization movement to create a normalized, healthy sense of nationhood.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Tim Smith
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS