The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) wants the public to vote on its mascot for the nine-in-one elections. Party leaders presumably view this as an indication of its democratic values and ability to engage with young people.
Mascots and emblems are effective ways to represent an entity, such as a nation, city or organization, be it political, public or private.
To be effective, they should be connected to a location in some way; be distinct, so that they are differentiated from other symbols; be consistent, to capitalize on the recognizability of the symbol; and have an easily identifiable connection with a set of values or a vision.
In Japan, Kumamon has proven to be extremely successful as an instantly recognizable mascot for Kumamoto Prefecture. Bears are not exactly plentiful in Kumamoto, but the connection lies in the name: In Japanese, “kuma” means bear.
Bravo the bear, created for the 2017 Summer Universiade in Taipei, has also proven very popular. The Formosan black bear provides the connection with Taiwan. Unfortunately, it is difficult to differentiate Bravo from Kumamon, and the post-Universiade adoption of Bravo as a mascot for Taipei has served to deepen the confusion.
Singapore’s mascot is the mythical Merlion, with a lion’s head and the body of a fish, “mer” from the Latin for sea and “singa” deriving from the Sankrit for lion. As such, the mascot has a strong connection to the sea and the city-state’s name.
In the US, the stylized elephant of the Republican Party and the stylized donkey of the Democratic Party have their origins in Thomas Nast’s 19th-century cartoons for Harper’s Weekly. The elephant embodies strength and dignity; the donkey intelligence, bravery and tenaciousness. They tick the boxes of consistency, instant recognizability and an identifiable connection with a set of values.
The KMT wants to let the public decide on its mascot, but surely it should be deciding for itself what qualities, values, traditions and ideas it wants to espouse and be associated with. It needs a consistent and recognizable symbol that can be used to represent the party in the long-term.
Not to disparage the designs of any one individual, but what does a plucked chicken say about the party, other than that it is vaguely shaped like Taiwan? Should we take from this that the party has stripped the nation of everything that it can, before stamping its party emblem on the poor bird’s rump?
The issue is not the design, it is the KMT’s willingness to have a symbol that it had largely no direct control over.
Then there is the question of the KMT emblem — the white sun on the blue background — that is all too easily confused with the Republic of China (ROC) national flag. Of course, this dates back to the early days of the KMT’s rule, when there was no discernible division between the party and the state.
That emblem is pregnant with meaning and controversy, and a change might be overdue.
The Conservative Party in the UK did it in the late 1980s, transitioning from the red, white and blue of the Union Jack to a solitary blue after the Labour Party adopted the color red — long considered a symbol of anti-authority, the blood of martyrs and socialism — and the rose, the national flower of England.
If the KMT needs inspiration, it could look to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) emblem: the shape of Taiwan, in solid green, set on a white cross on green ground and surrounded by a multicolored circle to represent diversity and inclusion.
Say what you want about the DPP, but its emblem contains its identity and vision, and while it might claim to represent the entire nation, there is no pretension to equating the party with the state.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing