In the innermost strata of a nation’s foundation, culture is often the last element to reveal itself. It is incapable of being discerned and appraised like GDP figures, nor does it parade its presence like military strengths at a national day celebration.
Culture pulses gently beneath the surface of the everyday — in the lilt of conversation, the sculptures perched on street corners, the melodic rhythm of a song, the rallying words echoing through resistance. Suppose a nation was a body: The economy would be its blood, the military its muscle and culture its soul.
So, if a nation loses its soul, could it still claim to be alive?
It is precisely because culture eludes concise definition that constitutes its vulnerability for political expediency. Budget slashes are simple enough to justify, just paint the arts as wasteful, and characterize artists and cultural workers as unproductive liabilities dependent on subsidies. Nevertheless, this rhetoric is more than a matter of austerity; it is a deliberate erosion of the nation’s vitality.
History has proven to us that incursions on culture rarely remain surface-level. The Cultural Revolution in China stands as a brutal testament: The first to fall were not those who bore arms, but those who wielded pens — not top officials, but poets, painters, professors and thinkers.
When thought becomes silenced, society loses its ability to question and revive. When intellectuals become branded as conspiracists and the classics are dismissed as relics of a passe past, what is left is a suffocated homogeneity.
Although Taiwan has not experienced such overt repression, when lawmakers relegate cultural resources to be expendable — or worse, as mere mooching — they are engaging in a slow-burn cultural revolution. It might not immediately shutter out libraries, concert halls or theaters, but it would bleed them dry until they are simply stamped out from neglect.
Culture is not a frivolous luxury; it is a means of resisting erasure. Without it, Taiwan would be reduced to a mere geographical descriptor — stripped barren of stories, faces or memory.
The “soft power” that we speak of is not in reference to competing missile numbers, but about demonstrating to the world that Taiwan is a distinct, creative and soulful community. This kind of power defies quantification, but in critical moments, it determines whether Taiwan is understood by the world, and, furthermore, if it would be impressionable in human history.
Politicians carve away at cultural budgets in pursuit of fleeting political advantage — whether to bend fiscal narratives to their will or to appease those unmoved by the arts.
Furthermore, the deeper danger lies in how such a mindset gradually seeps into society: Do we begin to believe that watching a play is unimportant? Do we come to regard the works of literature as less valuable than the works of labor?
Once these beliefs take root, the voice of the cultured are suffocated into silence and society itself would lose the very capacity to imagine.
A nation’s culture is its soul not because it is merely leisure, but because it is our self-realization. A song has the ability to ignite passion and unite thousands in a baseball stadium. A film could reframe how the world perceives and understands the social dynamics of society. A novel wields the potential to plant philosophical revelations into the mind of young people, sparking themselves to ask the question: Who am I?
These ideological unveilings remain priceless in essence, yet they declare whether a nation can stand its ground and resist being overtaken as if it never were.
The critical conflict is not whether to cut a budget, but the underlying problem of how we see culture itself.
Culture is not confined to the perimeters of an exhibit or monetary grants; it is the lifeblood of daily existence, language and thought. If lawmakers fail to recognize this, the problem does not lie with the Ministry of Culture, it is with the cultural poverty of the ruling class.
To cut cultural funding is to boast: We need no soul, only numbers; no memory, only efficiency; no beliefs, only compliance.
Perhaps such a society could function in the short term, but braced against the currents of history, it would lose its voice.
Taiwan must not fall into such a trap. We already understand that culture is not mere recreation — it is our last line of defense against erasure. Without it, we are dots of population on a map. Bearing culture — bearing our soul — we are Taiwan.
So, when a politician blithely calls for a cut in the cultural budget, we must question: Is it just a few billion dollars being saved, or is it the price to pay for Taiwan’s future?
Liu Che-ting is a writer.
Translated by Lenna Veronica Suminski
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS