The United Malays National Organization has been the strongest Malay political party since its foundation in May 1946; its leaders place it pre-eminent in the history of Malay nationalism and Malayan independence. Needless to say, these claims have been disputed by its opponents and queried by its students; not only have the origins of Malay nationalism been traced to the pre-war era, but also, it can be argued, in its early years the party's leaders were more concerned to safeguard Malay rights vis à vis the other races of Malaya, and were more inclined to collaborate with the British authorities in opposition to radicalism within their own community, than to struggle for self-government. Nevertheless, the formation of U.M.N.O. was a remarkable event. For the first time a mass and pan-peninsula Malay movement emerged to attack British policy. Its popular support, forceful leadership and effective organization surprised Briton and Malay alike. U.M.N.O. amounted to an unprecedented Malay response to colonial rule.

Territorial integration and resistance to it by the Malay States of Kelantan and Trengganu are not mutually exclusive categories of response to political modernization. Unlike the peoples of East Malaysia (‘Malaysian Borneo’) the population of eastern Malaya is overwhelmingly Malay in language and culture. Thus resistance to centralizing pressures has rarely had separatist overtones but has tended to express rejection of particular developments in the west coast polity from a standpoint of moral superiority. Resistance is often an expression of intense empathy with the condition of the Malays in other parts of the Peninsula, and should not be interpreted as a failure of national integration. By a curious dialectic, resistance takes on qualities of an integrative process.

When universal manhood suffrage was promulgated, with much eclat, on 5 May 1925, its friends and its enemies both agreed that this act was a new high-water mark in the thirty-five year history of Japanese parliamentarianism. Of a national population of nearly 40 million in 1890, the first electorate had been carefully confined to 400,000 adult males who met a stiff property test. By the early 1920s inflation, population growth, and eased voting requirements had gradually spread the franchise to some 3 million persons, still a mere fraction of the populace. Then, at a stroke, the universal suffrage law of 1925 gave the vote to males aged twenty-five and older, swelling the pool of electors four-fold to more than 13 million.

Protestantism in the early Meiji era has long interested Western students as an aspect of the encounter between Japan and expanding European culture in the nineteenth century. Edward Warren Clark (1849–1907) and other American laymen, who went to Japan as teachers and not society missionaries, played a significant role in the process during the 1870s. Edward Warren Clark is known to Western scholars of the Meiji period for his contribution to the development of English-language education and as the author of books based upon his experiences in Japan. In his letters to William Elliot Griffis (1843–1928), Clark reveals opinions concerning Japan and Japanese acquaintances, and the hopes and tribulations of teaching Western studies. These are interesting in themselves as one American's views, and they also shed more valuable light upon Japanese attitudes toward the West between 1871 and 1875. In this study of cultural contact, particular attention will be paid to Clark's evangelistic work in Shizuoka and later in Tokyo, and the influence of his Christian ideas and misconceptions upon certain Japanese, especially Nakamura Masanao (Keiu, 1832–91).

Like most research on Japanese involvement in Korea in the latter years of the Meiji period, this article is deeply indebted to the pioneer work of Professor Hilary Conroy. I have also drawn heavily on the work of Eugene and Han-kyo Kim. However, a detailed study of the railways of Korea does not come within the framework of Professor Conroy's book, and there is little material on the subject available in English. In Japanese there is the official government history, the Chōsen Tetsudō Shi, but the purpose of this essay is to show the views of the business world on the subject, and so contemporary articles in the leading economic journals have constituted the most important source. A consideration of those articles which comment on the changing state of affairs will perhaps clarify the reasons underlying dōmestic pressure for Japanese involvement in the construction of Korean railways.

In the past decade or so there have been several critical revisions of the long-accepted view of the important role of the state in Japan's economic development and programme of modernization generally. Professor Harry Oshima has attempted to demolish the argument that the Meiji governments' policies were at all economically beneficial. On the contrary, he has said, those policies retarded growth, particularly through their neglect of agriculture. Professor Hugh Patrick has cautioned us against giving the Meiji governments too much credit for the development of the banking system. Private enterprise, he has insisted, was also important. Most recently, Professor Kozo Yamamura has delivered yet another broadside against what he considers the myths of Japanese economic history. This time he criticizes the view that the government, by intervening and pioneering model plants, played a significant role in Meiji Japan's industrial dcvelopment.