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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS