BEIJING, Aug. 31 -- Letters are supposed to be sent to the recipients, not to salvage stations. And yet, about 10,000 letters and other mails have been found in a Beijing salvage centre.

    Police and postal authorities are investigating the case. Preliminary results show the letters were sold to the station by unidentified sellers.

    Whether the sellers are postal office staff or thieves remains unknown. But either way, the incident has exposed how poorly our uncompetitive postal system is run.

    In a sense, this is not an ordinary stealth case. It happened against the backdrop of a public calling for breaking the monopoly in the postal sector, citing its low efficiency and lack of competition.

    The incident will fuel public sentiment against the postal authorities, which are entitled by law to monopolize the postal service.

    Currently the most heated concern under debate regarding the postal service is how to technically define the basic and competitive postal services and how to introduce competition into respective fields.

    While this is essential for the sound development of the sector, the incident shows that we must not ignore another equally important matter: How to ensure the safe and speedy delivery of mails.

    This must be clarified regardless of whether the sector remains under the monopolistic control of China Post or is split among multiple competitors.

    Under the Postal Law, the postal service provider, or China Post, need not to repay mail senders if ordinary unregistered mails were lost, and only needs to take responsibility for the loss of registered or express mails.

    Previously, there have been several cases in which ordinary mails were lost and China Post has given no explanation. The mail senders have no choice but to swallow it.

    The senders do pay for the service, however. The postage seems low, at 0.8 yuan (10 US cents) for out-of-town ordinary domestic mails; but once postage is paid, a contract is made between the sender and the postal office, which must be held accountable when it breaches the contract.

    This is simple and clear, but not recognized in the postal law. Without legal backup, it is hard for the senders to claim damages. And without stipulation on their responsibility, the postal offices may be encouraged to be casual in mail management.

    The issue should arouse the attention of lawmakers, who are reviewing the draft version of the revised postal law.

    Many laws were drafted by relevant departments, which made it possible for them to put their vested interests under protection. The monopoly sectors are a case in point, under the protection of many controversial articles.

    Now the legislation process is becoming more open and democratic. Legislators need to shake off the influence from the postal authorities and make the postal law more capable of protecting the legitimate rights of senders of ordinary mails.