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.