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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission