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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS