For fans of the aesthetic, Taiwan is hailed as a pilgrimage destination for all things cute. Not just Hello Kitty, but cutesy characters of all kinds are just as common in the alleys of Taipei’s trendy Ximending (西門町) area as on the desk of a bank employee.
Visitors are sometimes taken aback by its ubiquity, especially in the hallowed halls of business or government, but the cognitive dissonance resonant in the minds of many Westerners appears to be absent in Taiwan. The aesthetic of cuteness seems entwined into the nation’s very fabric.
The trend is by no means exclusive to Taiwan. Neighbor and one-time colonial ruler Japan created what is there called kawaii culture, birthing the commercial powerhouses that are Hello Kitty, Pikachu and many more. Taiwan has directly emulated much of kawaii culture, including mascots to promote travel regions and events that are sure to be featured in every photo opportunity.
Yet in politics, Taiwan seems to have taken kawaii to a new level. Ahead of the January presidential and legislative elections, as in previous elections, it was almost an imperative that the candidates create cartoonized versions of themselves.
In the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) case, supporters could purchase Line stickers of a dog and cat reminiscent of the party’s candidates, Vice President William Lai (賴清德) and former representative to the US Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), or alternatively bobble-headed cartoon stickers of Lai himself.
At the final Taiwan People’s Party rally on election eve, thousands of people thronged the streets around Ketagalan Boulevard sporting tiny green sprouts in their hair. Even tough-acting New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), the former police officer who was the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate, was photographed with cutesy police mascots.
Cuteness has been a part of political campaigning since as far back as 1998. Then running for Taipei mayor, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the DPP created a doll emblazoned with his nickname “A-bian.” They were an instant hit, inspiring the party to create followup versions and other accessories in subsequent elections.
The cohort of supporters more reminiscent of fan culture than politics helped Chen to victory in 2000, leading to Taiwan’s first exchange of political power since the KMT instituted martial law decades prior. Ever since, parties have had to adapt to this uniquely Taiwanese form of campaigning.
Why did Taiwan readily adopt a political aesthetic that would be unthinkable in most other nations? Taiwan nearly stands alone in the world for its peaceful and rapid transition to democracy, especially coming off the back of what at the time was the world’s longest period of martial law. With state brutality fresh in the minds of voters, the promise of a softer side to politics rang true. The DPP’s victory in 2000 marked the symbolic fulfillment of Taiwan’s road to democracy, completing the first peaceful transition of power on the back of popular support represented by the A-Bian doll and kawaii fan culture. Politicians’ subsequent embrace of cuteness is one and the same with their embrace of democracy as they seek to meet public expectations.
For proof, look no further than to Taiwan’s adversary across the Strait. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has cracked down on comparisons of his likeness to Winnie the Pooh, blacklisting the character from the Chinese Internet in 2017 and in 2018 banning the film Christopher Robin.
Authoritarians are afraid of cuteness, ostensibly because they fear it will create a weak populace. In reality, cuteness can drive an egalitarian movement that can be far more terrifying to a despot than weakness. Taiwan should remain proud of its kawaii culture and the democratic strength it belies.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS