In 1868, Japan transitioned from a feudal society to a modern nation under a constitutional monarchy. The political and social movements that unfolded in the final years of the shogunate and culminated in the establishment of the Meiji government are known as the Meiji Restoration
At its core, the Meiji Restoration was not just an act of political upheaval — it was a sweeping project of cultural reformation and social revitalization.
Japan’s internal character and external statecraft converged, drawing on the Tang Dynasty’s retrospective reforms and the transformations of the Meiji era, forging the essence of Japanese identity.
As European colonial ambitions surged, Japan embraced militarism, launching its Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in 1940 — a misguided strategy that ultimately led to its demise.
Despite this, Japan’s post-WWII resurgence — akin to West Germany’s rapid postwar recovery and reunification after its division — has been nothing short of remarkable.
In mid-19th-century Germany, the Enlightenment ignited an intellectual tempest: Philosophers, artists, cultural figures and scientists flourished under the newfound liberalism.
That era fostered rationalism, liberating awareness and above all, a thirst for knowledge. The period was crucial to shaping Germany’s identity. The rise and fall of Nazi Germany served as a painful lesson; from its ashes, postwar Germany rebounded with a sense of determination for redemption.
In contrast, Taiwan has long lacked a robust and autonomous national identity. Colonized by Japan, Taiwan absorbed nearly all early modern social forms from Japanese influence, with little space to develop its own.
However, the 228 Incident, which claimed the lives of countless Taiwanese, dealt a devastating blow. In the postwar years, under quasi-colonial governance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), premodern social habits re-emerged, while decades of martial law inflicted spiritual erosion. Cultural aspirations withered.
Entering the 21st century, Taiwan earned global acclaim for its “quiet revolution,” as political parties alternated power through democratic elections.
Yet party politics have not oscillated along right-left ideological lines. Instead, they reflect fluctuating identities between “Taiwan” and “China.”
Having been shadowed between the Republic of China (ROC) and the People’s Republic of China — both legally and emotionally — Taiwanese have yet to be given the chance to mold a steadfast sense of identity.
To possess a “quiet revolution” without a cultural movement to furnish a century-defining renaissance is to squander a quarter-century in political disarray.
Since 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has held the presidency for five terms, while the KMT has won only twice, suggesting sustained public support. Yet the lingering colonial mindset discourse of “exiled ideology” (流亡殖民) has hindered genuine recognition of Taiwan as a nation encompassing both long-established and newly arrived communities. At the root of this malaise lies the ROC’s exile-era education system, which did little to cultivate a modern civic consciousness and instead reinforced a party-state mentality.
The fog of materialism has solidified into the foundations of consumerism, while national cultural ambitions remain fragile — a weakness that continues to reverberate through Taiwan’s political turbulence.
Taiwan cannot rest on the laurels of its quiet revolution. It must also strive for a renaissance that cultivates civic consciousness and elevates cultural aspirations, spearheading a social movement worthy of a progressive modern nation.
Lee Min-yung author is a poet.
Translated by Lenna Veronica Suminski.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase