Research on the lives of overseas Taiwanese in the state of Manchuria or Manchukuo (滿洲國) in the Japanese colonial era has been scarce. This study is a pioneering attempt to explore the history of this period through reviewing the life of the highest-ranking official originally from Taiwan, Hsieh Chieh-shih (1879-1954). Hsieh, a Taiwanese native from Hsinchu, was the first Foreign Minister of Manchukuo as well as its first ambassador to Japan.

     This paper traces the life of Hsieh, his early activities, his role in the restoration attempt of Chang Hsun (張勳), and his service to the last Qing emperor Pu-i. During his tenure as Manchukuo’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hsieh had to deal with the investigation team from the League of Nations and establish relationships with other countries. As ambassador to Japan, Hsieh represented Manchukuo at the Taiwan exhibition of the fortieth anniversary of Japanese colonial rule of Taiwan (台灣始政四十周年記念博覽會) held in October 1935. Having retired from official duties, Hsieh served as the director of Manchu House Property Company (滿洲房產株式會社) and moved to Beijing. After the Second World War, Hsieh was charged of treason and put jailed. He was released in 1948.

     Over the course of his life, Hsieh had different nationalities and identities. He was born in 1879 during the Qing Dynasty, recognized as a Japanese subject in the colonial era, became a national of the Republic of China in 1915, and changed again to become a Manchurian in 1932. What do his changes in nationality and identity say about changing loyalties? In sum, the life of Hsieh, with all its twists and turns, serves as a good starting point for understanding the activities of overseas Taiwanese in Manchukuo in the Japanese colonial era.

　　In recent years, scholars examining the history of Republican China have begun to pay attention to the Aides’s Office of the National Military Council, an important staff agency during the Anti-Japanese War. Nevertheless, these scholars have so far mainly focused on the role the Office played in the processes of making military and political decisions, and have neglected an important task of the Aides’ Office, that is, the establishment of the Kuomintang’s Documentation of Personnel, which was initiated by Third Department of the Aides’ Office.

     The Office was set up on July 8, 1939. The director, Chen Guofu, was regarded as the leader of CC Clique, an important faction within the Kuomintang. The Office was divided into four groups, namely group 7, group 8, group 9, and group 10, in charge of personnel “investigation,” “registration,” “examination,” and “allocation” respectively—which included almost all the personnel matters of the various organs of the government. Moreover, the Third Department also assisted Kuomintang in building dossiers that included as many as one hundred thousand personnel files. This article explores this, the so-called highest personnel staff organization during the war, in terms of its organization, the backgrounds of its members, and its actual operations, as well as offering a discussion of its subsequent effects and results.

　　With the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Communists amalgamated the postal and telecommunication services into one unit, the Department of Postal and Telcommunication Service (DPTS), which began the era of “The People’s Postal and Telcommunication Service.” However, many people wondered whether the DPTS really mangaged its enterprise on the principle of “service for the people (renmin).” There was even a punning jab of “service for the money (renminbi)” in Jiangxi. Through the examination of numerous newpapers and archives, this article discovers that practices of forced distribution and misleading propaganda were carried out across the entire scope of services: letters, packages, remittances, purchasing agents, newspaper distribution, telegraphy, and telephone. For the sake of fulfillment of its duty to increase production, the DPTS tried to maximize its profits and exerted pressure upon its staff to do so. This article examines the administrative responsibilities of the cadres and staffs, and also looks into their positions in the bureaucracy. It is clear that the charge of bureaucratism that was made in the New Three-Antis Movement was valid, but only partially valid.