Written by Meng Kit Tang.
Image credit: _DSC9922 by xiangyang17/ Flickr, license: CC BY-SA 2.0.
Introduction
A widow in 1947 Taipei was struck by a rifle butt while selling contraband cigarettes. Her assault sparked the February 28 Incident, a violent rupture that left thousands dead and countless families scarred. That moment marked more than a political tragedy.
It ignited Taiwan’s long struggle to define itself on its own terms. For decades, people here lived under the weight of others’ names: Japanese, Chinese, provincial, or colonial. Each label carried its own expectations and imposed histories, yet beneath them all lingered the same question: Who is Taiwanese?
Today, that question carries new urgency. Taiwan faces a choice between rejecting Chinese heritage entirely through de-Sinicisation and Taiwanisation or redefining that heritage through its own democratic and historical experience. Both paths offer compelling visions, but they come with trade-offs.
By examining these models and their impact on society, history, and policy, we can assess how Taiwan can navigate 2025’s domestic polarisation and cross-strait challenges.
Defining the Models
Taiwan’s identity debate centres on two powerful approaches: rejection and redefinition. Each offers a different vision of how the island understands itself in 2025 and beyond.
The Rejection Model, often described as de-Sinicisation or Taiwanisation, rejects Chinese identity and seeks to build a distinctly Taiwanese narrative. It highlights indigenous heritage, local history, and cultural pride. This approach gained visibility in the late 1990s with the Understanding Taiwan textbooks, which for the first time presented Taiwan’s story from its own perspective.
In 2025, education reforms have reignited this debate, as new curricula emphasise local history and downplay connections to China. This message resonates with younger generations, 59 per cent of whom now identify as exclusively Taiwanese. The model empowers cultural sovereignty and restores pride to communities once marginalised, but it can also alienate mainlander descendants and provoke resistance from Beijing.
The Redefinition Model takes a different path. It does not reject Chinese heritage but reinterprets it through Taiwan’s lived experiences, from the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki to the lifting of martial law in 1987. It seeks unity through shared civic values rather than ethnic origins.
In 2025, this idea echoes in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or TSMC’s global success and in Lee Teng-hui’s “New Taiwanese” concept, which invites belonging through democracy. Yet, for some youth, its inclusivity feels vague, leaving questions about what being Taiwanese truly means.
These two models now shape Taiwan’s domestic unity and global stance. They influence how advocacy, democracy, and the Republic of China identity navigate the challenges of 2025.
Domestic Affairs: Comparative Analysis
Taiwan’s domestic identity debate reflects the tension between asserting cultural uniqueness and building civic unity. The rejection model drives a cultural revival. Schools reintroduce the Taiwanese language, local storytelling such as budaixi (glove puppetry) has gained renewed interest, and communities celebrate indigenous traditions that were once marginalised under the Kuomintang (KMT). These efforts resonate with a population increasingly identifying as exclusively Taiwanese. In 2025, 76 per cent of citizens see themselves as solely Taiwanese. For many young people, embracing language, art, and history is an act of pride.
Yet this model risks division. By emphasising separation from Chinese heritage, it can alienate mainland descendants and older generations. Critics, particularly from the KMT, have raised concerns over 2025 curriculum reforms that highlight local history. Pro-Taiwan advocacy under this model often aligns with pro-independence sentiment. While it inspires engagement, it can fragment consensus and marginalise diverse communities. Stories of children punished for speaking Taiwanese and grandparents living under Japanese rule illustrate why rejection persists while hinting at the potential for heritage integration.
The redefinition model offers an alternative. It promotes unity through shared civic values and participation. Lee Teng-hui’s 1996 “New Taiwanese” concept, reinforced by Taiwan’s first direct presidential election, invites all residents to belong through democracy. Identity becomes a matter of choice rather than ethnicity, emphasising freedom, rights, and collective resilience.
Redefinition faces challenges. Lee’s later independence-leaning rhetoric, KMT expulsion, and PRC labelling as separatist fuel scepticism. Pro-Taiwan advocacy under this model prioritises civic values over formal independence but sometimes struggles to provide the clear cultural markers youth desire. By rooting identity in democratic growth and historical memory of martial law and cultural suppression, redefinition shows that Taiwan can evolve while maintaining continuity with its heritage.
While both models shape domestic identity, their different approaches to inclusion and cultural assertion reveal trade-offs as Taiwan navigates cross-strait relations, balancing sovereignty and stability.
Cross-Strait Relations: Comparative Analysis
Taiwan faces a delicate balance between asserting sovereignty and engaging pragmatically with China. The rejection model emphasises uncompromising sovereignty. It aligns with 2025 surveys showing 90 per cent of citizens oppose unification. International support, such as U.S. calls for stability, reinforces this stance. By rejecting Chinese identity, Taiwan seeks to protect its autonomy and national dignity.
This model carries risks. Symbolic acts, like redesigning the 2021 ROC passport to highlight Taiwan, can provoke Beijing. Frequent ADIZ incursions in 2025 demonstrate how quickly cultural or political gestures can escalate into security threats. Economic interdependence also limits Taiwan’s options. Around 80 per cent of its technology supply chains remain linked to China, echoing vulnerabilities from post-1971 diplomatic isolation. Strict rejection may heighten tensions and expose Taiwan to economic strain.
The redefinition model offers a pragmatic alternative. It frames Taiwan as a democratic entity that has reshaped Chinese heritage through local experience. Pragmatic diplomacy deters aggression while sustaining economic ties. TSMC’s global success shows Taiwan can engage internationally without dependence. Historical resilience, surviving decades of diplomatic exclusion, illustrates the durability of a balanced approach.
Redefinition has challenges. It can appear conciliatory to Beijing’s “One China” stance. Lee Teng-hui’s independence-leaning rhetoric complicates perceptions of sovereignty. Yet by emphasising democracy and civic identity, redefinition supports 2025’s revival of the 1992 Consensus, allowing cross-strait engagement without sacrificing autonomy.
Both models face the same realities. PRC pressure and economic interdependence test strategies. Policymakers must weigh sovereignty against engagement and symbolism against pragmatism to navigate these pressures effectively.
Confronting Threats and Myths in Taiwan’s Identity Debate
Taiwan faces two intertwined challenges: the external threat from China and internal myths about security. In 2025, the PRC’s military exercises and air incursions remind the island that coercion remains real. These actions echo historical ruptures, from the February 28 Incident to decades of martial law, leaving a lasting sense of vulnerability.
The rejection model meets this threat with bold sovereignty: it fuses pro-Taiwan advocacy with independence and treats every symbolic break as defiance. This rallies the 90 per cent who reject unification but risks turning culture into confrontation.
The redefinition model chooses civic strength over slogans. It insists that pro-Taiwan advocacy need not mean independence, rooting identity in shared democratic values and historical experience. Lee Teng-hui’s later separatism, however, still casts a shadow over its inclusive claim.
Economic myths also influence security. Many treat TSMC as a “Sacred Mountain” that guarantees protection. With significant supply-chain ties to China, there is no guarantee of a shield. Rejection sees it as leverage for separation; redefinition views it as one tile in a broader civic mosaic.
True security lies not in chips or gestures, but in civic cohesion, democratic depth, and strategic diversification. Only these allow Taiwan to face Beijing’s pressure while preserving an identity that unites rather than divides.
Counterarguments and Opposing Views
Taiwan’s identity debate in 2025 reflects multiple perspectives shaped by history, politics, and generational experience. The KMT values Chinese cultural continuity and views de-Sinicisation as a threat to heritage. It also sees the redefinition model’s distinction of the Republic of China from “China” as erasing historical connections. This stance emerges from post-1949 tensions and current education debates. Redefinition can integrate Chinese heritage within a democratic framework, but Lee Teng-hui’s independence shift fuels KMT distrust and complicates cultural unity.
The Democratic Progressive Party frames pro-Taiwan advocacy as civic strength, asserting Taiwan’s distinctiveness without formal independence. This approach appears in the 2025 anti-infiltration laws and Lee’s “New Taiwanese” vision, which emphasises shared civic choice. Redefinition aligns with the DPP’s civic focus, fostering inclusion and participation, though past separatist rhetoric occasionally draws external scrutiny.
The Taiwan People’s Party favours pragmatic identity, prioritising clarity over ideological debate. It responds to youth protests against PRC-linked trade deals and legislative gridlock. Redefinition supports TPP cohesion but sometimes leaves younger citizens wanting clearer cultural markers.
The People’s Republic of China insists on “One China,” rejecting Taiwan’s distinct identity and equating pro-Taiwan advocacy with independence, reinforced in the 2025 “Restoration Day” rhetoric. Redefinition asserts Taiwan’s democratic and political distinction diplomatically while avoiding confrontation, though ongoing PRC pressure tests its resilience.
These perspectives show the trade-offs Taiwan faces in 2025. Navigating identity requires balancing heritage, civic unity, clarity, and diplomacy. Redefinition offers a flexible path forward, accommodating both internal diversity and external pressures.
Conclusion
Taiwan’s identity balances the passion of rejection with the unity of redefinition. Rejection inspires pride and cultural revival, while redefinition draws strength from democratic participation and shared civic values. Historical milestones, from the lifting of martial law to the revival of local languages, show how Taiwan has transformed adversity into cohesion. Yet Lee Teng-hui’s independence-leaning legacy continues to complicate civic harmony, reminding the nation that identity is always negotiated.
To secure its future, Taiwan must blend these models thoughtfully. It can diversify its economy beyond TSMC by investing in artificial intelligence, green technologies, and other emerging sectors. Expanding bilingual education and civic engagement will strengthen a shared sense of belonging and resilience against external pressures.
Taiwan demonstrates that courage and compassion can turn a contested past into a pluralistic, inclusive future. Its story offers a global example of how societies can redefine themselves while honouring history.
Meng Kit Tang is a Singaporean freelance analyst and commentator who works as an aerospace engineer. He graduated from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU, Singapore in 2025. He is also a regular contributor to Taiwan Insight.