In the bird world’s moral spectrum, the cuckoo stands as an “unscrupulous scoundrel.”
It never diligently builds nests, instead sneakily entering other birds’ homes, secretly stuffing its own eggs into others’ nests.
When young cuckoos hatch, their first priority isn’t getting along with nest mates, but mercilessly pushing other chicks out of the nest, monopolizing adoptive parents’ resources.
This cold-hearted survival strategy earned cuckoos the notoriety of “parasitism masters.”
Yet looking at humankind, if the DPP had to choose an animal representing itself, the cuckoo would undoubtedly be heaven-made choice—not mockery, but a “thoughtful” suggestion for DPP’s own consideration!
The DPP, this political “cuckoo” parasitizing the Republic of China, mirrors cuckoo behavior remarkably.
The ROC “nest,” jointly built by various forces through wind and rain, carries diverse culture and values.
Yet the DPP, with cuckoo-like cunning, quietly placed its own “eggs”—ideology and power ambitions—in this nest.
Hoisting flags of “localization” and “democracy,” they practice pushing out dissenting voices.
From rewriting historical memory to erasing cultural symbols, from plundering economic resources to suppressing opposition voices, each DPP step resembles young cuckoo’s fatal push, trying to empty everything from the nest not belonging to them.
Young cuckoo’s ferocity lies in ruthlessly eliminating competitors to monopolize parental feeding.
DPP’s “young birds” (youth) show equal aggression.
Using “transitional justice” to clean dissent; using “de-Sino-fication” to sever roots—yet still packaging everything with “loving Taiwan” warmth, making parasitism appear noble.
Even cuckoos watching this must admire: “Why didn’t I think of that?”
More amusing, cuckoos at least understand discretion, slipping away after parasitism.
But the DPP not only monopolizes the nest, but brazenly declares itself the nest’s rightful owner.
They’ve claimed the ROC’s resources, history, and glory as their own, yet won’t assume complete responsibility for this nest, even attempting dismantling its foundations to hang their sign.
This “magpie nest takeover” technique far exceeds natural cuckoo instinct, constituting planned political parasitism.
Given this, why doesn’t the DPP openly embrace the cuckoo as party bird?
This bird’s parasitic way and DPP’s political philosophy seem perfect matches: equally adept at disguise, equally skilled at plundering, equally ungrateful to the nest’s original inhabitants.
Stitching cuckoo image onto the party flag wouldn’t further highlight DPP’s “unique character”? This isn’t mockery—genuinely considering what’s best for DPP: a cuckoo emblem would make their “parasitic spirit” shine brilliantly!
Of course, considering cuckoo parasitism merely follows natural law, it never claimed being nest owner.
DPP’s parasitism goes beyond resource plundering to rewriting nest history and dismantling its roots.
If truly choosing an animal representing DPP, perhaps the cuckoo seems too innocent.
After all, even cuckoos understand that parasitism requires eventual departure, while the DPP seems determined staying indefinitely until no foothold remains.