Month: November 2007

Politicians vs. Private Citizens

Friday’s Taipei Times featured a scathing editorial about President Chen Shui-bian’s recent gaffes, most of which is hard to argue with:

A few weeks ago he crossed the line when in an attempt to highlight Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) faux localization effort, he attacked Ma over the inscription on his father’s urn.

I didn’t blog about that, but really, what could I say?  Speak no ill of the dead, I guess.  Sometimes it’s OK to violate that general rule, but in this case, he could easily have made his point without doing so.

The Times also indicted him for mentioning that declaring martial law was one option for resolving a procedural dispute for the coming referendums:

And just the other day, while at a campaign rally in Shulin (樹林), Taipei County, Chen raised a few eyebrows when he told the crowd that he was considering imposing martial law if the KMT did not back down on its threat to implement two-step voting in areas under its control during legislative elections.

Again, I didn’t blog about that because the threat seemed like nothing more than ill-advised machismo. 

Did I say ill-advised?  Stupid’s more like it.  Still, Chen didn’t declare a state of emergency back when he was shot in 2004, so I didn’t seriously believe he’d do so over an argument about this.  KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou said as much himself.

The Times mentions one gaffe however – one that I had a hard time figuring out what all the fuss was about:

[President Chen] thought it clever to hit back at a heckler with some snide remarks, only serving to spark a wave of copycat attacks and further damage his image and that of his administration.

Taiwan’s China Post sure made a big issue about that a few weeks ago:

…DPP leaders who once prided themselves on their folksiness and humble backgrounds now appear all but sick and tired of hearing complaints from the people. President Chen Shui-bian, the self-declared "Son of Taiwan" who rose from a poor farming family to become a famous lawyer and national leader, has now abandoned any pretense of being close to the ordinary man.

Last week when President Chen attended an exhibition of domestically produced high-fidelity audio equipment, a man approached him and loudly declared, "the people will soon be unable to live!" The president didn’t offer much of a reaction to the emotional heckler, saying only that he respected differing opinions that commonly occur in a democratic society.

But soon afterward, President Chen angrily announced that unlike his KMT predecessors, he would not train gangsters…and dispatch them to "whack" people like the protester…

After President Chen returned to his office, he told a group of visitors that Taiwan’s economy was clearly doing quite well, since the man who claimed the people could hardly live still had the spare time and money to buy a ticket to a hi-fi stereo exhibition.

I kinda thought Chen had a point.  Be that as it may, the Post went on to imply that this type of response was somehow less than democratic:

We do understand that leaders of all political stripes cannot abandon fundamental policies simply because they have been confronted by hecklers. However, we are quite surprised at the abrasive and harsh way that our leaders have dealt with these incidents. While heckling is rather common in other democratic countries, foreign leaders are almost always gracious enough to quickly brush away their critics and continue their original itineraries.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who has frequently been heckled during public speeches and gatherings due to the controversial U.S.-led war in Iraq, has never publicly lashed out at his critics with such abrasive and angry words. Even when an anti-war student spit in the face of the former U.S. President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, the controversial American leader merely wiped off his face with a handkerchief and continued making his way to where he was going.

I think the China Post confuses tactics with ethics here.  It’s entirely ethical for a democratic politician to respond to hecklers if he so chooses.  A bad argument is a bad argument, whether it’s made by a rival politician, a China-appeasing businessman, the Foreigner in Formosa, or a drunk in the back of the hall. If a bad policy proposal is being entertained by a sizable number of people then it’s worth being rebutted, no matter whether the one making the proposal is a member of the political class or not. 

(What’s more, I’d argue that rebutting a heckler’s arguments is in fact a sign of respect.  Not to respond to somebody is to snub them – it’s a way of showing that I hold you in such contempt that I don’t consider your statements to even be worthy of a reply.)

Sarcasm is of course, less justifiable, but if President Chen was rude to some of his hecklers, well, I fail to see why this should give anyone the vapors.  Let’s not forget the fact that heckling is rude to begin with.  Folks came to hear Chen speak, but his speech was interrupted.  Now, I know that Miss Manners tells us it’s impolite to answer impoliteness with impoliteness.  But in the real world, if you’re rude to somebody, you can’t really complain too much if they turn around and respond in kind.

After reading the China Post‘s litany of Western politicians who turned the other cheek when confronted by hecklers, I was tempted to find a few counter-examples:

Hillary Clinton heckles a heckler – 2007

Bill Clinton slams 9/11 conspiracy moonbat

Bill Clinton tears strip off a protester – 1992

Ronald Reagan’s less than gentle response to a heckler

(Sure wish I could find video of former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien strangling a protester back in 1996.  Richard Nixon and Jean Chretien – one of these is NOT a Quaker.)

Why Western politicians don’t confront citizens who interrupt their rallies more frequently is really just an issue of tactics.  First, there’s often nothing to be gained by giving fringe ideas the dignity of a response.  And secondly, a politician who engages hecklers is a politician who is allowing his opponents to set his agenda.  Every minute of time that he spends answering hecklers is a minute not spent delivering his own message.  Particularly on this latter point I can see why a person might say it was somewhat unwise for Taiwan’s president to respond to the critics in the crowd.  But surely the brouhaha was entirely out of proportion to the "offense".  It almost seems like we’re being issued a new set of rules:  those who govern are henceforth forbidden from ever speaking back to those that they govern.

That the China Post damns President Chen for whatever he does I take as a given; that the Taipei Times objects as well to his confronting of hecklers suggests something more is at play here.  My pet theory about this reverse Confucianism is that it may have something to do with holdover attitudes from the martial law era.  Nobody in the world likes to be called out by authority, but in Taiwan there’s an additional dynamic.  You see, for forty years, Taiwanese dictators could publicly denounce anyone they liked. And if you were one of the ones being denounced, you knew you were in pretty deep trouble indeed.  No wonder people here have a stronger than usual aversion to being criticized by their leaders!  The days of the political prisons and the knock on the door in the middle of the night may all be gone, but those memories still linger.  Taiwanese may be free now, but deep down, they’re still a little afraid.  And that, I think, creates a conundrum.

Taiwanese are free, and they want the freedom to criticize.  But they’re still afraid, so they don’t want others to be free to criticize THEM.  So it’s freedom for me, but not for thee.

Frankly, this foreigner just doesn’t see how that can really work.

Defending Freedom of Religion

C’mon, admit it.  You too, raised an eyebrow when the Dalai Lama proposed that his successor might be democratically chosen from a field of monastic candidates.

In today’s paper, Beijing plays the part of reactionary:

"The Chinese government has a policy of religious freedom and respects Tibetan Buddhism’s religious rituals and historic conventions," said [Chinese Foreign Ministry] spokesman Liu Jianchao.

"The Dalai Lama’s related actions clearly violate established religious rituals and historic conventions and therefore cannot be accepted," he told a regular news conference, without elaborating.

It’s a bad thing to violate established religious rituals and historic conventions?  Well then, I’m sure Mr. Liu is outraged by Beijing’s recent decision to ban reincarnation without government approval.  Yes sir, any day now we can all expect Mr. Liu to publicly denounce that little violation of "religious rituals and historic conventions", can’t we?

Mr. Liu, you say Beijing believes in religious freedom?  THEN BUTT OUT.  If Buddhists want to change their traditions, let ’em hash it out amongst themselves.  The State has many legitimate jobs – but micromanaging religious affairs isn’t one of them. 

NOBODY Expects the Stuffed-Bear Inquisition!

It’s official: Sudanese Muslims have now reduced their religion to Monty Python sketch material.

"Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Prophet…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again."

Chinese Deny American Vessels Shelter During Storm

On Saturday, Taiwanese papers reported that the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk was refused entry into Hong Kong at the last minute by Beijing authorities.*  Beijing’s still seething over the Dalai Lama’s visit to Washington.

Today’s AP however**, featured a story detailing another incident which was of even greater concern to the U.S. Navy:

[Admiral Gary Roughead] said he was even more troubled by China’s refusal, several days before the Kitty Hawk incident, to let two U.S. Navy minesweepers enter Hong Kong harbor to escape an approaching storm and receive fuel. The minesweepers, the Patriot and the Guardian, were instead refueled at sea and returned safely to their home port in Japan, he said.

"As someone who has been going to sea all my life, if there is one tenet that we observe it’s when somebody is in need you provide (assistance) and you sort it out later," the admiral said. "And that, to me, was more bothersome, so I look forward to having discussions with the PLA navy leadership," he said, referring to the People’s Liberation Army.

[Admiral Timothy] Keating made a similar point. He called the denial in the case of the minesweeping ships "a different kettle of fish for us – in some ways more disturbing, more perplexing" than the Kitty Hawk case because the Chinese action violated an unwritten international code for assisting ships in distress.  [emphasis added throughout]

Next time the American navy needs a safe port during a storm, it might want to consider Keelung or Kaohsiung, instead.  It’s, ah, entirely possible that Taiwan would provide it a more hospitable reception.

The Chinese want to send little messages?  Well, perhaps its time they learned that that’s something other people can do as well.

(Hat tip to The Tank.)

* In it’s coverage of the Kitty Hawk incident, Taiwan’s China Post couldn’t help emphasizing the anti-American angle, with the lurid front page headline, ‘World of Suzie Wong’ hurt by aborted visit.  ‘Cause like, isn’t it obvious that hookers losing their income is the most important part of the story?

** Or possibly yesterday’s AP.  Things get tricky when you’re dealing with the International Date Line…

UPDATE (Nov 30/07): Yesterday’s Taipei Times featured this story as well.

UPDATE (Dec 16/07):  Tardy in posting this update, but the View from Taiwan had some really excellent analysis of this:

Anyone who has observed China’s relations with the outside world for any length of time has seen this pattern again and again. In the midst of negotiations with the Vatican, it consecrates two bishops for the state Church. In the midst of negotiations over the Torch coming to Taiwan, it denies a visa to the representative of the city of Kaohsiung to discuss games held there in 2009. Arriving in India for negotiations, its ambassador announces a whole Indian state is part of China. Some months back the Chinese government shut down an expat magazine in China that was widely considered the most sympathetic and supportive expat rag in the nation. China gets the Olympics, and crackdowns on the internet, and journalists intensify, while state security arrests double. Catch the pattern?

Now Bejing has denied Kitty Hawk a berth in Hong Kong, thus abusing the one service in the US government that has consistently supported it, to the extent that the previous head of PACOM apparently instructed his underlings not to hold military exercises using Beijing as the imagined target. The one service that has consistently displayed an eagerness to form relationships with China. The one service that has imagined itself in partnership with China.

The fact is that in doing all these things, the Navy demonstrated that it had arrayed itself in the proper position of suppliant to the Dragon Throne. Just like those petitioners living in the petitioner’s village outside of Beijing, or the local peasant who comes before the mighty magistrate to ask for his benevolence. The Navy thinks it has a right to reciprocity, since it has given so much. But in China there are no rights that apply to one’s superiors — superiors give things out of benevolence, and in both receiving petitions and in handing out benevolence, the great demonstrate their greatness. (In addition to displays of benevolence, the Throne also demonstrates its greatness by abusing those who abase themselves before it. They should be grateful for Our Attention.) From this perspective, when the Navy petitioned China for openness, it validated the greatness of China, and presented itself as a suppliant for imperial benevolence. When it made offerings of information and access to the Throne, that is only right, for gift-making is the proper behavior of suppliants, and the Throne in its Benevolence accepts all gifts. Most regrettably, with its insistence on reciprocity, the Navy has defined itself as a collection of small children making wearisome demands on the Throne. If the Navy really understood its relationship to the greatness of the Dragon Throne, it would wait humbly for some display of benevolence, just like those petitioners in the petitioners village outside of Beijing.

Finally, my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the U.S. Navy should have paid a visit to a Taiwanese port turned out to be not entirely off the mark – the Kitty Hawk steamed through the Taiwan Strait in response to being denied harbor privileges in Hong Kong.  Michael Turton has more on that here.

Voodoo Economics on the Beautiful Isle

A while back, presidential candidate Frank Hsieh of Taiwan’s main independence party called for reducing the unemployment rate here to zero percent.  Today’s China Post correctly points out that that’s easier said than done:

…above all, no country has ever been successful at reducing unemployment to zero, unless it has been at war.

The reason why that’s true is that in a free economy, some people are always going to quit their jobs.  They don’t like their boss, or their coworkers, or their hours, or whatever.  So they quit.  Involuntary work gulags might be one solution, but the cure would be somewhat worse than the disease.

Not only is zero unemployment difficult to reach, but it would be positively undesirable even if it COULD be achieved.  Zero unemployment means that people grab the first job offer they receive, and hold onto it for dear life.  That’s bad for efficiency, because it’s a waste of human capital.  The economy is surely better off when society’s computer science graduates hold out a little for plum programming jobs rather than leaping at those easy computer operator openings.  A moment’s reflection will reveal that a LITTLE unemployment is a GOOD thing.

Long story short here: If Hsieh LITERALLY meant that he wants a 0% unemployment rate, then it’s time to break out the dolls and the pins and the plucked chickens.  On the other hand, if he was just employing political shorthand as a way of saying that he’d like to reduce current levels of unemployment – well, I suppose that’s possible.  Given that the the current unemployment rate is 4% however, I’m not sure how much greater progress can be done on that front.

(Incidentally, if the Post is so put off by voodoo economics, it might want to spare a word or two of condemnation for KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying jeou’s recent advocacy of totalitarian price controls.  Much more talk like that, and wags are gonna start calling him Ma-gabe.)

Robert Tsao: I am **NOT** a Quisling…

The China Post reports that Taiwanese magnate Robert Tsao is none too happy about his shiny new surrender monkey label:

"Why is it that Chen’s election as president by the expression of the will and volition of the people is called democracy, and the same expression over unification with China condemned as surrender?" Tsao questioned.

Well, that’s an easy one.  Tsao proposes to sign away the power Taiwan currently enjoys, in theory at least, of being able to call unification referendums.  Not only would he renounce that power, but he would cede that power in perpetuity to an foreign government.  In doing so, he would take a power currently invested not only in Taiwan’s executive and legislative branches, but in the people of Taiwan itself (via referendum petitions), and hand that power over to an enemy government – without a shot ever being fired in anger.  He would strip political power away from elected and accountable local politicians, and present it on a silver platter to the unelected, unaccountable commissars of a hostile communist nation.

And Robert Tsao still can’t figure out WHY this would be an act of surrender? *

By definition, Taiwan’s government and people under Tsao’s plan would be SUBORDINATE to the Chinese government with regards to this issue.  Taiwan would be announcing, for all the world to hear, that it was now recognizing Beijing’s authority over it.  China proposes, the Taiwanese electorate disposes.

We can all debate the significance of surrendering this one, particular political power to Beijing.  Is it an inconsequential surrender for a greater good, a catastrophic one, or something in-between?  We can even discuss its merits and pitfalls.  But at the end of the day, even a minor surrender is still a surrender.  And even an inconsequential initial surrender can lead to greater surrenders further down the line.  Has Tsao even bothered to spend a minute to think all this through?

Once the People’s Republic of China is granted this power, is it likely to be satisfied?  Will its government say, "Well, we got what we wanted, now we can have peace in our time"?  Or will it decide, quite rationally, that Taiwanese are nothing but paltroons, and demand ever more control over Taiwan’s government?

I’m willing to give Tsao the benefit of the doubt here, and assume he DOESN’T want to hand Beijing the driver’s seat.  All he is is a well-intentioned, "reasonable" man with a "reasonable" compromise – who hasn’t the foggiest notion of the consequences of letting the camel’s nose under the tent.  Having made this one compromise though, what other compromises is he willing to make, further down the line?  Robert Tsao is offended by the surrender charge, and asks, "What sort of a man do you think I am?"   The answer can be found in George Bernard Shaw’s famous quip to the lady born and bred into high-society:

"We’ve already established what you are.  Now we’re merely haggling over the price."

* Not surprisingly, one of Taiwan’s leading capitulationist newspapers, the China Post, attempts to blur the issue:

…analysts say the referendum on unification Tsao proposed is a means by which the people of Taiwan can freely express their will and volition…

Obviously, the Post‘s unnamed analysts are using some definition of the word "freely" that I wasn’t previously aware of.  These great Solomons aver that Tsao’s plan allows Taiwanese to "freely" express their will and volition…but only when Beijing in its infinite benevolence deigns to LET THEM.

Postscript:  It’s interesting that I haven’t heard anybody discuss the constitutional issues involved here.  I’m no expert on the Republic of China’s constitution, but I would very much like to see Mr. Tsao point out the relevant articles in it that state it’s OK for Beijing to become, in essence, a sixth branch of the R.O.C. government.

P.P.S.:  Tsao makes a nice analogy about Taiwan’s position, which I think is nonetheless flawed:

If [Taiwan] wants de jure independence, Taiwan has to be just as well-prepared as people desiring to climb the Matterhorn…Addressing hard-core independence activists, he pointed out:

"[President] Chen, your tourist guide…got elected president thanks to you…  You’ll have to ask him carefully what preparations he has made (for your Matterhorn climb) and how much.

I would argue that Taiwan’s position is a little more akin to that of someone who has lost a lot of pieces in chess.  Under Tsao’s analogy, demanding a roadmap to the goal makes a lot of sense; under mine, the act of telling your opponent your strategy is just about the worst thing you can do.

Sometimes when things look bleak for you in chess, the only strategy available is to try to simply keep your options open.  An opportunity may present itself later down the line, but you’ll only be able to take advantage of it if you haven’t allowed yourself to get pinned down.

Under that analogy, it seems to me Tsao’s policy is undesirable, because it closes a lot more strategic doors than it happens to open.

P.P.P.S.:  It must be admitted that one of President Chen’s objections to Tsao’s proposals was exceedingly odd:

…Chen fired a Parthian shot by saying Tsao spent "a lot of money" on ads and yet people who "are striving to make a living" don’t have the time to read them.

Um, why is Chen singing verses from the KMT hymnal?  It’s the OPPOSITION’S job to talk down the economy, not the President’s!

(The View from Taiwan has good news about the national economy here.)

French / Israeli Weapons for China

This is a pretty pro-Israel blog, but I can hardly rip the Europeans for wanting to sell weapons to China, and then give Israel a pass on this one.  From the Weekly Standard:

In 1987 [Israel Aircraft Industries] was forced to cancel a program to build an indigenous fighter, the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a modified version of the Lockheed Martin F-16 already being used by the Israeli Air Force, but cost significantly more than the U.S.-made fighter. So the Israeli Air Force opted to stick with the off-the-shelf model.

Some time later, the technical details of the Lavi were provided to [China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group], although no government has ever officially acknowledged this fact. When the J-10 was rolled out in a public ceremony in Beijing late last year, a report in the Singapore Straits Times noted the obvious: "The Jian-10 aircraft that China unveiled recently bears a striking resemblance to the Lavi. . . . The Jian-10's sophisticated pilot helmet, which allows missiles to be aimed in the direction of the pilot's eyes, is almost certainly of Israeli origin. So are the missiles themselves, which appear to be based on the Python 4 variety manufactured by Israel's Rafael Armaments Development Authority. Neither side will admit it, but the Lavi aircraft died in Israel and has now been reborn in China."  [emphasis added]

And now the J-10 menaces Taiwan.  Thanks ever so much for that.  But as it turns out, the sale managed to turn around and bite the Israelis in the end:

In late October, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group will sell 24 of its new-generation Jian-10 (J-10) fighter aircraft to Iran in a contract valued at $1 billion.

[…]

Last week, the Paris-based defense and strategy publication TTU reported that China is planning to supply the J-10 to Syria as well.

So, Israel sold fighter designs to China, which then sells the completed jet fighters to IRAN and SYRIA.  THAT deal certainly worked out well, didn't it?  It gives me no pleasure to say this, but what the hell were you guys THINKING?

The Chinese Jianjiji-10 multirole combat aircraft (also known as the Chengdu J-10).

(Jianjiji-10 image from Aerospaceweb.org)

Meanwhile, the French want in on the action:

France's Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA), which tightly controls all arms export sales, has been trying for more than a year to complete a sale of the Thales RC400 radar and MBDA Mica missiles to Pakistan for the JF-17 fighter. Although the JF-17 is being built under license in Pakistan, it is also a Chengdu design. The Pakistani Aeronautical Complex and its Chinese partners have comprehensive agreements that grant access for both parties to any technology acquired by the other.

Since the same French radar and missiles are on board the Taiwanese Air Force's French-built Dassault Mirage 2000 aircraft, acquisition of this technology by Beijing would be a considerable blow to the defense of the island nation. India, Pakistan's neighbor and rival, also operates the Mirage 2000. If France's DGA were to allow Pakistan to acquire the radar and missiles, Taiwan and India would see their air force's investment in French jets wiped out.  [emphasis added]

The Standard goes on to say that Taiwan's investment would be wiped out because the Pakistanis have not proven themselves to be overly scrupulous in keeping Western defense technologies out of Chinese hands.

The French Mirage 2000 multirole 4th generation jet fighter.

(Mirage 2000 image from Airforceworld.com)

UPDATE (Mar 3/09):  Former Soviet republics also selling hardware to China.

i-2

China Defends Freedom of Communication

…by not delivering Taiwanese mail.

From Thursday’s Taipei Times:

China said yesterday it had returned all mail and parcels found with a postmark supporting Taiwan’s entry into the UN because the wording promotes independence.

"Taiwan authorities preaching `Taiwan independence’ through postal services has infringed on Taiwan compatriots’ freedom of communication," said Fan Liqing (范麗青), a spokeswoman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office.  [emphasis added]

"This has seriously impaired the exchanges of letters between people on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as Taiwan people’s exchanges with other parts of the world," Fan told reporters.

But surely Beijing’s decision NOT to deliver that mail was the real thing "infringing on Taiwan compatriots’ freedom of communication", wasn’t it?

The Taiwan Chronicles has more on this, most of which I agree with.  In an earlier post, I defended the "UN for Taiwan" postmark campaign, because I thought it was a good way of raising awareness of Taiwan’s lack of U.N. membership to potential supporters in democratic countries.  However, I have to concede that one of the China Post‘s objections was right on the money – the paper was right to predict the  Chinese wouldn’t deliver those letters.

So, to modify (or at least clarify) my original position:

  • "UN for Taiwan" postmarks to democratic countries – good
  • "UN for Taiwan" postmarks to the People’s Republic of China – maybe not so good

What’s interesting here is that the Chinese government claims to object to the Taiwanese "authorities" preaching Taiwanese independence.  In other words, they portray this as a government to government issue (although they can’t quite bring themselves to admit that Taiwan’s government IS a government).  But the fly in the ointment for this line of reasoning is that the "UN for Taiwan" postmarks are now VOLUNTARY:

[Taiwan Post] said the mark [now] only goes on the letters of those who agree to have it…

Given that, if an individual Taiwanese VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to have the postmark placed on a China-bound letter, will the Chinese Post Office happily deliver it?  Heck, forget postmarks for a second.  A Taiwanese doodles his own "UN Membership for Taiwan" logo on one of his envelopes – will THAT be delivered?  After all, in the former, and certainly the latter case, the Taiwanese "authorities" are out of the picture.

I think we know the answer, and we all know that the Chinese government isn’t being straight with people.  It doesn’t care who advocates U.N. membership for Taiwan; it objects to the very IDEA itself, regardless of whether it’s being advocated by "authorities" OR individuals.

KMT reaction the next day was sadly predictable.  You know the kind of fella who always says, "My country, right or wrong"?  Well, in any disagreement with China, count on the KMT to boldly declare, "My country, always wrong":

"Taiwan Post must compensate the senders for ignoring their rights and wasting their time because of its unilateral decision to stamp all mail and parcels with such a postmark," KMT legislative caucus whip Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) said.

Blame Taiwan First.  Gosh, like I didn’t see THAT one coming.  For a moment though, suppose the situation were reversed.  Let’s say China started sending letters here postmarked with, "Taiwan: The PRC’s 23rd Province," or something like that.   And the Taiwanese post office refused to deliver them.

Any bets on who the KMT would blame THEN?  Beijing, for being the source of the offending postmarks?  Or Taiwan Post, for returning letters in violation of a "contract signed between Shanghai Post and Taiwan Post Office Co Ltd making it obligatory for both parties to deliver any letters and parcels"?  [emphasis added]

Postscript:  Whoops.  Looks like I clicked the "Publish Now" button prematurely, so a couple people read a very incomplete version of this.  Sorry about that!