The Foreigner in Formosa

Variation On The Old Barbara Walters Question

If you were a car, what sort of car would you be? 

Appropriate vehicles for the U.S. presidential candidates.  Funny stuff.  Click on the slideshow option.  (Hat tip to Neatorama)

Prayers for the Assassin

What's with the China Post's soft spot for political murderers?

A well-known retired [Taiwanese] Mafioso, Chen Chi-li died in Hong Kong not long ago. He was the head of the Bamboo Alliance, one of the largest mob families in Taiwan. He was arrested; indicted for assassinating Jiang Nan, the author of [a biography critical of former dictator Chiang Ching-kuo]; convicted of murder; sentenced to life imprisonment; and paroled after serving seven years in jail. He then exiled himself to the former British colony. The assassination caused a sensation in the United States, where the author lived and was considered a martyr who had fought for freedom of speech. The godfather claimed at his trial in Taipei that he did it for the good of his beloved Republic of China by order of Wang Hsi-ling, director of [Taiwan's] Military Intelligence Bureau.

[...]

...there's no dearth of busybodies in Taiwan. Our ubiquitous police turned out in droves to watch the procession from Taoyuan International Airport to a huge vacant lot in Neihu where funeral services would be held for the deceased mobster. An estimated 800 cops checked and double-checked hearst escorts and those who wanted to get into the Neihu lot where Chen Chi-li would lie "in state."

[...]

Why wouldn't our busybodies let the now harmless godfather rest in peace?

When Don Corleone's daughter gets married, the Feds show up to take pictures of the attendees.  And that's just the way it works.  A person chooses to lead a certain kind of life when they join the mob, and being tailed by law enforcement is part of it.  While it's understandable that Chen Chi-li's family pays its last respects, it's a little more puzzling why anyone else would.   Government has a compelling interest in this case to ask, "Who, exactly, kisses the ring of this former political assassin?"

Monday's Taipei Times reports on the reception the former mafia leader's corpse received once returned to Taiwan:

Fellow gangsters said that [Chen Chi-li] did not understand why the government would treat a patriot like him as a criminal.

Wu Dun (吳敦), a former Bamboo Union member who was arrested with [Chen Chi-li] for the Liu murder, told reporters last week that "The government had treated [Chen Chi-li] very unfairly."

"It is very disappointing that a man who sacrificed himself for the county was forced into exile overseas," Wu said.

Following [Chi-li's] death and the return of his body to Taiwan, fellow gangsters, some celebrities and media have begun portraying him as a patriot and a hero.

Chang An-le (張安樂), the former leader of the Bamboo Union gang, said [Chen Chi-li] was not a normal gangster, but an idealist who had made money doing the right thing.

Such praise forced President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to complain that the media should not turn the gangster into a hero.

The China Post is a publication largely aimed at a foreign readership, so not even it can go that far.  Instead, it frames the issue in humanitarian terms.  Lost somewhere in the debate however, is why the KMT-controlled Taipei city government seems friendlier to public displays of fealty and devotion to deceased mafia bosses than it is to rallies in favor of Taiwan obtaining U.N. membership.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Nov 15/07):  Part 2 of this post can be found here.

UPDATE #2:  Father Bauer at the China Post distanced himself from the paper's position a few weeks ago, and yesterday the paper seemed to back away from implying that Chen Chi-li was a patriot.

Incidentally, my position on police monitoring of Chen Chi-li's funeral is quite independent of Chen's character.  Had this been the funeral of Mahatma Gandhi himself, I would STILL want police to be present if a thousand mobsters showed up.

U.N. for Taiwan Torch Relay

Yesterday's China Post expressed displeasure about the recent rally for obtaining U.N. membership for Taiwan:

...President Chen was involved in an argument with Hau Lung-bin, mayor of Taipei, over the legality of a torch relay held on Oct. 24 in Taipei. The Taipei City government charged that the participants did not apply for a permit from relevant authorities. However, President Chen stressed that the U.N. bid is unstoppable, as it is what Taiwan's mainstream values, and, therefore, whoever opposes it will be "doomed to death." (The dispute was finally resolved by each side making concessions.) But, can anyone, any cause or anything stand above the law in a modern democracy?

Geez, if President Chen really said people are "doomed to death" for opposing the U.N. bid, he oughta tone the rhetoric down a notch.  There's no need for that.  But as for the question of whether anyone or any cause should stand above the law, the Post took rather a different tack on October 7th, when it came to anti-Chen protester, Shih Ming-teh:

[Shih Ming-teh] and the leaders of the Redshirts...may be convicted for staging an unauthorized rally [last October] that humiliated President Chen, who was delivering a National Day address before the diplomatic corps and foreign dignitaries. According to the Assembly Law, the people, whose freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the Constitution, have to ask for permission from the law enforcement authorities if they want to take to the streets. Rallies without permission are punishable by law.

[...]

As a matter of fact, prosecutors shouldn't have indicted the sixteen. The National Day march was peaceful. No clashes between protesters and police were reported; nobody was injured. The mistake the indicted leaders made was not receiving police permission for the rally. However, they claimed they had filed the necessary applications. When the applications were turned down, they alleged, it was too late to call off the march. There certainly were extenuating circumstances, and anybody but a strict adherent to the letter of the law would not try to "throw the book" at the leading protesters.  [emphasis added]

So, throw the book at President Chen, but not at Shih Ming-teh?  Sounds more like an argument of convenience than a generally-applicable principle.

A China Post letter-writer on Oct 26th elaborated on the question of permits for the rally:

...most recently there has been the comment by Shieh Jye-wei that the U.N. torch relay is a "sporting activity" and not a political rally.

Left unsaid however, is the fact that the KMT is equally guilty of classifying their political rallies as "sporting activities" for the purposes of acquiring permits.  From the October 21st edition of the Taipei Times:

[President] Chen criticized [Taipei Mayor] Hau yesterday for what he said represented double standards.

He lashed out at Hau for allowing KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to hold a bicycle relay to promote his presidential campaign.

[...]

At a separate setting yesterday, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Taipei City caucus slammed Hau for allowing the KMT's cycling event promoting its UN referendum bid also to be held on Wednesday.

The KMT's Taipei branch failed to apply for a permit before the deadline, but the city government granted it an extension so that it could complete the procedure, the caucus said.

"Hau insists on enforcing the law on the government's sports event, but indulged the KMT in holding [their] activity illegally," DPP Taipei City Councilor Lee Chien-chang (李建昌) told a press conference yesterday at the city council.

[...]

[Cabinet spokesman Shieh Jhy-wei] reminded Hau that most cities and counties governed by the DPP had not required that Ma apply for prior approval when he embarked on a round-the-nation bicycle tour in May to drum up support for his electoral campaign.

"Most of the DPP-controlled local governments regarded Ma's cycling tour as a sports event and exempted him from the permit requirement," Shieh said.

He said that the governments had even provided assistance with traffic control along the roads that the KMT presidential candidate had ridden on.

As for myself, I think it's unfortunate BOTH sides are skirting the assembly laws by classifying their political rallies as sporting events.  Surely it breeds cynicism and contempt for the rule of law when Taiwan's citizens see their two major political parties flouting the rules like that.  If permits for political rallies are more expensive or more difficult to obtain than permits for sporting rallies, then the laws governing those permits need to be loosened or repealed (as the China Post suggested in their Shih Ming-teh editorial.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Oct 28/07):  Michael Turton comes to a similar conclusion towards the end of this post:

Last week the Taipei City government rightly pointed out that the DPP's UN Torch relay was illegal under the law since they hadn't applied for permission (too bad the city didn't take the same attitude toward Shih Ming-te's faux protests). President Chen then challenged the city government to arrest him. It's nice to defy authority....except when you are authority. Then you simply signal that that law is irrelevant if you have power.  [emphasis added]

U.N. Bleg

Could anyone out there direct me to a newspaper story, editorial or blog post that enumerates the tangible benefits Taiwan would receive from U.N. membership?  I'd really like to get a firmer grasp on the subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Oct 27/07):  Maddog has provided a list of benefits (in Mandarin).

UPDATE #2:  Another list from the Taiwan News:

[U.N. membership for Taiwan would also allow it to join the following organizations:]

The International Monetary Fund for monetary cooperation and financial assistance that can enhance our financial security, such as South Korean benefited from US$21 billion in emergency IMF financing to help it recover from the Asian currency crisis of 1997.

The World Bank, which promotes international financial cooperation with developing countries through which Taiwan could enhance its global profile and gain access to infrastructure and other business opportunities.

The International Marine Organization, whose membership would help us protect and develop our own marine resources and the rights of our fishing industry, improve port security and give us a voice in the formation of global marine security rules.

The International Commercial Aircraft Organization, a key body for global air control.

The Food and Agricultural Organization, whose membership would help ensure protection for our agricultural product species and provide channels for the sharing and licensing of our agricultural technology.

The International Telecommunications Union, whose membership is key to ensure access to satellite and radio technology and channels and standards and the latest telecom related research.

The International Electrotechnical Commission which prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies.

The International Standards Organization, whose membership would ensure Taiwan's participation in the formation of global standards and help promote high-tech R&D and product development.

The World Intellectual Property Organization, which would be a channel for Taiwan to help shape IPR rules and thus provide better protection for our intellectual property.

Why Referendums Are A Good Thing

[I like this post, but it is quite long.  You maybe don't want to start reading it 5 minutes before your bus leaves for work, or anything like that.]

Must have been 4 or 5 years ago that the Taiwanese political parties passed a referendum law.  The China Post was opposed then, and hasn't changed its stance since.

Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best determined directly by the people and claim that such direct votes are a mark of democracy. The fact is, the referendum has been used by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, who used the practice to implement oppressive policies under the guise of populism. If referendums are a good way for the public to express their opinions on public issues, why should elections of people's representatives such as city councilors and legislators, be held? Voters in a referendum may be insufficiently informed about the questions they are asked, especially if the questions concern complicated issues. In Taiwan, most of the people living in the urban areas of the north are highly educated, and therefore able to deliberate carefully and independently on political matters. But residents of the south are much likely swayed by propaganda or large-scale advertising campaigns. And the DPP is currently carrying out an expensive propaganda effort to promote the idea that the island should seek U.N. membership under the name of Taiwan.

This is all worthy of a response.

Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best determined directly by the people and claim that such direct votes are a mark of democracy.

Um, yeah. The word democracy is derived from the Greek demos (common people) and kratos (rule or strength). When we speak of democracy we mean rule by the people, and part of the way the people rule is by voting. As long as referendum votes are conducted in a free and fair manner, the result IS a mark of democracy, by definition.

The world’s first democrats, the ancient Athenians, used to call their citizens to a nearby hill known as the Pnyx, to listen to debates and vote afterwards.  For any nation-state that’d be a tough act to emulate – imagine herding 10 million Taiwanese onto Yangmingshan Mountain to vote 10 times a year.  Given the difficulties involved, referendums represent a far more practical method for directly consulting the electorate about the issues.

The China Post then denigrates referendums, using the logical fallacy reductio ad Hitlerum: 

The fact is, the referendum has been used by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, who used the practice to implement oppressive policies under the guise of populism.

This argument can be used to “discredit” any number of policies, including representative democracy itself. To wit: 

The fact is, representative democracy was used by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, who used this system of government to obtain power.  (The implication being that representative democracy is dangerous, because it somehow leads to fascism.)

Or, how about this one:

The fact is, police forces were used by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini, who used them to implement oppressive policies.  (Here it's implied that police forces everywhere ought to be abolished immediately, because they allow dictators to oppress people.)

What’s important to remember is that if Hitler and Mussolini used (or rather, abused) referendums, then that’s not necessarily an argument against referendums – only against their misuse. Likewise, communist parties worldwide used to hold phony elections; again, that’s not a reason for eschewing elections – only phony ones. And finally, that police can be used as instruments of tyranny is something that should give us all pause. But rather than disbanding those who serve and protect us from criminals, we should instead think about institutional changes to police forces as well as to the political system that would reduce the odds of such an eventuality.

I took the liberty of checking out the circumstances surrounding one of the Nazi referendums the China Post alluded to:

Nazi Germany was striving to annex Austria during the late 1930s, which was fiercely resisted by the Austrian Schuschnigg dictatorship.  When the conflict was escalating in early 1938, Chancellor Schuschnigg announced a plebiscite on the issue on [March 3, 1938], which was to take place on [March 13, 1938].  [A day before the referendum was to be held], German troops entered Austria, who met celebrating crowds, in order to install Nazi puppet Arthur Seyss-Inquart as Chancellor.  With a Nazi administration already in place and the country integrated into the Third Reich, a referendum on [April 10, 1938, and widely considered to be rigged,] approved of the annexation with a majority of 99.73%.

99.73%.  In other words, somewhere in the vicinity of Saddam Hussein’s re-election numbers. Surely that’s an indictment of RIGGED referendums, not referendums of the free and fair variety.

(One last thought on this: How many, if any, Nazi referendums could ever be considered as free and fair ones? Because even if the Nazis HAD been 100% scrupulous in their vote counting, they still had  complete control of the press. As a result, no voices alternative to their own could be heard by the electorate. Under such circumstances, informed reasoning about the issues was well-nigh impossible.)

 Moving right along, the China Post has another objection:

If referendums are a good way for the public to express their opinions on public issues, why should elections of people's representatives such as city councilors and legislators, be held?

 The Post partially answers its own question in the next sentence:

Voters in a referendum may be insufficiently informed about the questions they are asked, especially if the questions concern complicated issues.

There’s more to it than that, of course. There are many issues which voters may view as being trivial, or at least, not being worth their time. Few people are interested in holding a referendum to hire a new dogcatcher. Too many referendums are an expensive proposition, in terms of time AND money. It’s simply more expedient for citizens to use the services of democratically-elected leaders to make certain kinds of decisions.

Does that mean referendums have NO role to play in a democracy? Hardly. To see exactly how referendums might contribute to society's political satisfaction, it might be helpful to consider about how we obtain satisfaction in the world of economics, specifically in the acquisition of consumer goods.

Suppose you want to buy a car, and you’re limited by a certain budget. You look at magazines, at the internet, and sound out your friends. When you have that information, you go to the dealer. At some point, you hand him a list outlining the options you want. Air con, bucket leather seats, sunroof – it’s all there, in black-and-white.

With any luck, at the end of this ordeal, you wind up getting a car bundled with the features you wanted. To be sure, you won’t get a Rolls Royce for the price of a Volkswagon, but you should get what you’ve paid for. And you’re about as satisfied as you can be, provided there aren’t any nasty surprises in store.

The process is roughly the same for other goods as well. Granted, a camera dealer won’t customize a digital camera for you like the car dealer will. But you CAN write up a list of necessary functions, and find something pretty close to what you want over at Steve's Digicams.  Once more, you obtain satisfaction by receiving the bundle of functions you wanted, for the price you can afford. 

Unfortunately, it doesn't really work this way in a representative democracy. The best political party for me – the one that has the exact bundle of policies that appeals most to me – is most likely some fringe party that stands little chance of winning. I know very well that if I vote for them, I’ll throw my vote away. So instead I chose one of the major parties, on the premise that getting some of my favorite policies enacted is better than getting none of them.

It’s a rational compromise, but it’s still a compromise. My political satisfaction would have been greater had my “ideal” candidate been elected; it’s less when my “acceptable” candidate wins instead. But that isn’t merely my problem – millions of people end up feeling the same way, because those folks didn’t get their “ideal” candidate, either. Furthermore, our unhappiness will be intensified if our “acceptable” candidate takes his election as a mandate for ALL of his policies, and starts enacting his unpopular ones. 

Here, the virtue of referendums become clear. Referendums are one way of unbundling unpopular policies from popularly-elected leaders. They’re an additional check-and-balance – a way for voters to veto the more marginal, fringe ideas of politicians who are largely acceptable in most other respects.

Let’s take a look at the Swiss, who’ve been employing referendums for over a hundred years, with nary a Mussolini in sight:

Frequent referendums do have an influence on they way both parliament and government act. Experience shows that a party defeated in parliament will call for a referendum on a new law and that chances are good that even a single one out of five major parties may win a referendum and block the new law, if it is too extreme. The German terms "Referendumsdrohung" [threat of referendum] and "mit Referendum drohen" [threaten to call for a referendum] cannot be found in dictionaries, but they are often used in Swiss newspaper reports on parliamentary debates ...

Both the Swiss government and administration and the parliament do take the "threat of a referendum" into account. There is even a formalised method of opinion polling before a draft is even sent to the parliament. In German, it's called "Vernehmlassungsverfahren" [procedure to hear opinions]. The reason is very simple: even the most sophisticated system of proportional election cannot guarantee that the opinions of the members of parliament are a true representation of people's opinions in any possible political question. So in a parliamentary debate some arguments decisive in a referendum campaing might get lost or not be taken serious enough.

The "Vernehmlassungsverfahren" gives a possibility to a broad spectrum of political parties, professional and cultural organisations etc. to put forward their wishes and views and to state where the limits for a threat of referendum are for them.

In the parliamentary debate these views are taken into account and usually a "typically Swiss compromise" is sought. If nobody is really happy with it, but almost everybody can live with it, chances are good that either nobody will call for a referendum or that the proposed law will at least be accepted by a majority of the electorate. But although all members of parliament know the system, sometimes a majority is still inclined to play the power game - usually they will lose it.  [emphasis added throughout]

Call me crazy, but none of that sounds terribly totalitarian to me.

Returning to the China Post’s editorial:

Voters in a referendum may be insufficiently informed about the questions they are asked, especially if the questions concern complicated issues.

No argument from me there. Except to say, some issues aren’t really as complicated as some politicians would have us believe. After all, we trust voters to vote for their leaders, do we not? Why, that’s an incredibly complex issue right there! Not only do we have to think about different politicians’ positions and compare them to our own individual set of political values, but we have to consider the politicians’ records – and then their characters and personalities to boot! Which we do while cutting through hostile (or obsequious) media coverage.

Compared to the sheer complexity of THAT, I’d say a referendum question about Taiwan joining the U.N. is child’s play.

The paper concludes by praising those who vote the way it likes, and denigrating those who don’t:

In Taiwan, most of the people living in the urban areas of the north are highly educated, and therefore able to deliberate carefully and independently on political matters. But residents of the south are much likely swayed by propaganda or large-scale advertising campaigns. And the DPP is currently carrying out an expensive propaganda effort to promote the idea that the island should seek U.N. membership under the name of Taiwan.

To which I’d respond by saying there’s education, and then there’s education. Those living in Taiwan’s southern areas may have suffered disproportionately more under the former KMT dictatorship - which is an education too, of another sort. But arguing whether Taiwanese Southerners are dumb hicks or virtuous citizens educated in the school of hard knocks is completely besides the point, because the KMT is FREE to carry out its own “expensive propaganda effort.” Shouldn’t be too difficult to convince all those Southerners of the errors of their ways – provided they’re as gullible as the China Post claims they are.

This post has run way longer than I thought it would, but I’d like to close with a few thoughts about the relevance of formal education to democratic expertise from Donald Kagan’s Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy:

The Athenian democratic system, brought to its height in the time of Pericles, has been harshly criticized through the ages…The Athenian renegade Alcibiades told a Spartan audience: “As for democracy…nothing new can be said about an acknowledged foolishness.” (Thucydides 6.89) Plato has Socrates make the same point more fully and seriously. He observes that when it is a matter of building a house or a ship the Athenian assembly listens only to experts. If someone without expert qualifications tries to give advice in such matters, “even if he is very handsome and rich and noble,” they refuse to listen to him. Instead, “they laugh and hoot at him until either he is shouted down and withdraws of his own accord or the sergeants-at-arms drag him off or he is expelled by order of the presidents.” But when the discussion is about affairs of state, “anyone can get up to speak – carpenter, tinker, cobbler, passenger and ship-owner, rich and poor, noble and commoner – and nobody rebukes him, as they did in the earlier case, for trying to give advice when he has knowledge and has not been taught.” (Protagoras 319D-E)

Plato may have been putting words into Socrates' mouth there, but Kagan replies:

The Athenians did, in fact, appreciate the importance of knowledge, skill, talent and experience where they thought these things existed and could be used in the public interest. Thus they elected military officers, treasurers, naval architects and managers of the water supply. If they did not elect professors of political science or philosophers or lawyers to govern and judge them, it was because they were skeptical that there was a useful expertise in these areas, and that if it did exist, it could safely and profitably be employed for the public good. It is not clear that the experience of the last twenty-five hundred years has shown them to be wrong.

[…]

[We should always remember that the Athenian] assembly itself was a far less unwieldy or incompetent body than is generally assumed. If a citizen attended no more than half the minimum number of yearly sessions [that he was legally obligated to attend], he would still hear twenty sets of debates by the ablest people of the state, chiefly elected officials or those formerly holding elective office, the leading politicians of all factions, and a considerable number of experts on a variety of subjects. Moreover, those were true debates in which it was not possible to hold to prepared remarks; speakers had to respond extemporaneously to hard questions and arguments from the opposition; nor were they irresponsible displays but serious controversies leading immediately to votes that had important consequences for the orators and their audience. If each attendant at the assembly had been listening to such discussions for an average of only ten years, such experiences alone must have fashioned a remarkable body of voters, probably more enlightened and sophisticated than any comparable group in history…”  [emphasis added throughout]

-Kagan, p 58-59

By the China Post’s standards, those Athenians were an ignorant lot indeed. I mean, what really did their education consist of? A lot of physical training and gymnastics to strengthen the body and develop courage. Some musical training to teach harmony and self-control. Rote memorization of Homer’s poems, to provide moral instruction. (Kagan, p 20-21)  And that was pretty much it. (What, you ask, no math?)  If a Taiwanese school limited itself to that kind of minimal curriculum it’d lose its accreditation, as quick as boiled asparagus.

But as Kagan points out, formal education wasn’t responsible for Athenian political sophistication.  Experience was.

Athenians listened to debates. Then deliberated. Then voted.

Time upon time - Year upon year upon year.

And THAT was how they became educated voters.  Which, come to think of it, is not a bad model for creating sophisticated electorates in our own time.  Expose citizens to so many debates over time that they’re able to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Build citizens who are good at thinking about public policy for the simple reason that they’re ACCUSTOMED to thinking about public policy. Create citizens who are darned good at voting - for no other reason but that they’ve had plenty of practice. *

In March of 2004, Taiwan held its first referendum, and in 2008, it’ll hold its second. Under the circumstances, I could be critical, and complain that’s not enough.

Or optimistic, and call it a start.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* None of this is to suggest that there isn't a dynamic tension between the experiential benefits of frequent voting and voter fatigue.  Obviously, some happy medium needs to be struck to prevent voters from getting fed up with unending consultation.

What Captain Picard Never Says to the Replicator

Tea.  Earl Grey.  Iced.

(Iced Earl Grey Milk Tea from a Taiwanese 7-11.  Photo by The Foreigner.)

Hello Dalai

The Drudge Report featured a photo of the Dalai Lama shaking hands with President Bush a few days ago with the headline, "Take that, China!"  Meanwhile, yesterday's Taipei Times detailed China's calm, measured response to the U.S. Congress' decision to award the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal

"The move of the United States is a blatant interference with China's internal affairs which has severely hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and gravely undermined the relations between China and the United States," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao (劉建超) told a regular news briefing.

He said Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (楊潔箎) had summoned US Ambassador Clark Randt to express a "strong protest to the US government."

"China urges the United States to take effective measures immediately to remove the terrible impact of its erroneous act, cease supporting and conniving with the separatist activities of the Tibet independence forces ... and take concrete steps to protect China-US relations," Liu said.

It'd be nice to think the Chinese over-reaction gives Americans some insight into what Taiwan faces whenever its gargantuan neighbor hyperventilates over trivialities.  The next time China hyperventilates over some supposed Taiwanese "provocation," Taiwanese leaders and overseas representatives need to remind Americans of the 2007 Dalai Lama affair, and tell them China's tantrum de jour is all par for the course.  As Michael Turton says, for China, acting provoked isn't an honest reaction, but a policy choice.

China's Olympic Demonstration Sports

During every Olympics, the host country is permitted to exhibit local spectator sports as a way of adding color to the Games.  John Derbyshire at the National Review tries to imagine what uniquely Chinese events will be held in 2008.  The best three:

Tibetan Snow Shooting. In their bid for a future Winter Olympics, the Communists will demonstrate their skills at picking off Tibetan refugees attempting to cross snow-covered Himalayan passes into Nepal. (This event may be scrapped because of a dispute with the Olympic authorities over the use of telescopic sights and snow goggles.)

Synchronized Slimming. Competitors here have to devise an agricultural policy so irrational that 30 million peasants starve to death simultaneously. Traditionally the winning contestant has his portrait hung in a prominent position overlooking Tiananmen Square, but for Olympic purposes a medal award will be substituted.

Chest thumping. In this rather advanced event, competitors attempt to intimidate each other by shooting down satellites, threatening to nuke major cities, asserting ancient claims to other people’s countries, and setting up missile installations aimed at long-independent provinces.

Taiwan Postmarks: A Violation of Free Speech?

I had a few things to say about the Taiwan Post Office's recent policy of stamping letters with, "U.N. for Taiwan,"  but as it turns out, Michael Turton has already covered one or two of my points; and one of his commenters another.  Guess it's still worth contributing a little to the discussion.

But first, some background:

Taiwan Post Co (台灣郵政) came under fire in the legislature yesterday over the company's stamping of domestic and international mail with the logo of the government's UN membership bid.

[...]

[An American teacher living in Taiwan], apparently surnamed Talovich, told reporters that the envelope of a letter he sent to his fiancee in the US was stamped with two logos by the postal service without asking for his permission.

"My fiancee considered this ridiculous and wondered why such things would happen ... I also felt very shameful," Talovich was quoted as saying in Mandarin.

"This is a private letter, not a government one. What the postal service did was like putting words in my mouth. I think this is intolerable," said Talovich, who has lived in Taiwan for more than three decades.

Talovich also posted a picture of the envelope on his Weblog, where he wrote in Mandarin: "Everyone enjoys freedom of speech. The more opinions people have, the better. A democracy cannot force its people to say something he doesn't want to say. No matter whether one supports or opposes a referendum [on seeking UN membership], a democracy cannot use our personal mail as propaganda flyers. This is an authoritarian measure," he wrote.

Apart from the free-speech objection, Mr. Talovich also took issue with what he claims to be the ungrammatical nature of the slogan:

The only comfort, according to Talovich, is that "UN for Taiwan" is so unlike English that no native speakers understand what it actually means.

[...]

The complaint filed by Talovich touched off a debate on whether "UN for Taiwan" is or is not English. Talovich believes the postmark grammatically means, "the United Nations should be presented to Taiwan (as a gift)."

[...]

Professors of English are all in agreement that "UN for Taiwan" is Chinglish.

ALL in agreement?  Quite unlikely.  From the View from Taiwan:

Phrases such as "A for B" are not uncommon. When a traveler says "It's California for me!" no one understands him to be saying that the State of California is to be given to him. Similarly, if the speaker says "It's Harvard for me," all listeners understand that he will attend that university, not that he is being given that university. Again, if a group of individuals is being asked what their political preferences are, it is perfectly acceptable to answer "Democratic party for me." Only a complete fool would imagine that the speaker was demanding the Democratic party be handed over to him.

My own example was going to be that of a high school student saying to another on Club Day, "It's the D&D Club for me, and the Photography Club for you." As Michael points out, none of this implies the Dungeons and Dragons Club is to become one student's possession or the Photography Club the other's.  Instead, it means these are two organizations which the students hope to JOIN.

(Just as "U.N. for Taiwan" indicates the U.N. is an organization which TAIWAN wishes to join.)

Putting aside the grammatical argument, what of Mr. Talovich's chief objection?  Ultimately, the Taiwanese Post Office stamped one of Talovich's letters with a message he disapproves of.  Does this constitute a violation of free speech?

Potentially.  Just imagine the furor if the U.S. Post Office stamped letters with a pro (or anti) Roe v. Wade message.  Oh, oh, oh!  It would not be pretty!

The View predicts other mischief should this become common practice here:

What if [KMT presidential candidate] Ma Ying-jeou wins and the Post Office starts having "Mongolia is part of the ROC!" or "Chen Shui-bian causes global warming!" stamped on every outgoing piece of mail? Stupid to set a precedent like this -- isn't it one of Taiwan's biggest problems that both sides have thoroughly politicized the government?

So, yes, there are hazards involved.  And yet, one of Michael's commenters makes an excellent point:

...the US government used postmarks to promote the savings bonds to finance the war efforts in the 1940's.

[...]

There are also postmarks in 1920's with slogans such as "Air Mail Saves" and "Let's Go! Citizen military training camps".

[...]

In 1960's, we can see privately or locally funded slogans such as "Help Goodwill Industries Help the Handicapped"

[...]

and a more recent one, in 2004... "Library Sta. Celebrating Talking Book Day Daytona Beach, FL... Reading Never Sounded So Good".

From these examples it appears then that the only difference between acceptable and unacceptable postmarks is in the level of controversy. No one opposes helping the handicapped, so postmarks advocating that position are acceptable to most.  But put a Roe v. Wade postmark on people's letters, and you've got a fight on your hands.  That's about as controversial a postmark as I can imagine.

With this in mind, we can get back to the, "U.N. for Taiwan," postmark.  Acceptable or unacceptable?  Or rather, controversial or uncontroversial?

Since polls show 70% of Taiwanese would like U.N. membership for their country, the U.N. side of the equation isn't controversial.  The only controversy lies under what name Taiwan should apply for membership: Taiwan or the Republic of China (R.O.C.).  And here I'd like to argue that using the name "Taiwan" shouldn't be controversial, at least for postmarks sent overseas.

The reason why I think so is that "Taiwan" has been preferred over "R.O.C." by local businesses promoting their products abroad for many years.  They understand the average man in Peoria has NO idea what R.O.C. stands for, and is liable to mistake "Republic of China" for the People's Republic of China.  "Taiwan" has international brand-awareness; "Republic of China" doesn't.  Sorry if stating the obvious upsets anyone, but that's how things have shaken out.

Personally, I have no preference as to whether Taiwan obtains U.N. membership as "Taiwan" or the "Republic of China".  It's the benefits of membership that matter, not the name.  But if Taiwan wants to get its message out to the rest of the world, then "Taiwan" is the name it needs to use in its promotion and marketing.

Freedom's Martyrs

It looks as though the uprising in Burma has been put down:

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

(Executed Buddhist monk in Burma.  Image from the Daily Mail)

Faced with such pictures, some will wonder, "Was it worth it?"  For the Burmese COULD have kept quiet - and lived.  Instead they protested - and wound up floating face down in dirty jungle rivers.  The poet once asked:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

Rather than answer directly, I'll instead point to the consequences of another failed uprising, which took place in Europe.  The cost was staggering:  200,000 civilians dead, 85% of Warsaw's buildings destroyed, the surviving members of the Polish Home Army sent to German POW camps - then subsequently persecuted (or murdered) by the Soviets.

In short, the 1944 Warsaw Uprising was just about as complete and total a defeat as one could possibly imagine.  And yet despite that failure, the Home Army's heroism in the face of tyranny was NOT for nothing. That's because it was an inspiration, an example, for future Poles demanding THEIR freedoms, many years later.

For the Burmese, this may all sound like small consolation, particularly now.  But alas, that is all I can offer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT:  At the Belmont Club, Wretchard gives his assessment to a Burmese letter writer, on the way forward.

You will be lonely, but there is no help for it. I would be dishonest if I said that the road to freedom was anything else but long, wearying and full of pain. But I know that is the road that you long to take. "Death and sorrow will be the companions of your journey, hardship your garment, constancy and valor your only shield." That is the path which you will embark upon, because as men you can do no other.