I would like to add that WTS in Mexico wasn't a religious organization, even though under the 1917 constitutions they had the right to be registered but they chose not to. Until, the 1990s(?) they were known as a Cultural Society and the KHs were Cultural Centers. Since government didn't allow religions to own property, wts had no problem owning land and buildings, this law applied to even cults since the 1917 Mexican constitutions allowed for existence of such. Whether this had any relevance in wts decision in the 1960s I don't know.
Just because bribes are "natural" arrangement in a country, that doesn't make them a legal way of doing business but only acceptable by the society where this is practiced. What the apologists are trying to do, is downplay the fact that bribe is an illegal act because everyone is doing it. And that maybe a small number of witnesses would have done so because of born in witness population, which is irrelevant as we're talking about wts allowing the bribes to take place and we're not focusing on individual jws.
Feb4, 1960 is the letter from Mexican branch asking about Cartilla, and this is the wts reply from COC.

To me, it looks like GB took the path of least resistance. Since bribing was an acceptable practice in Mexico and other countries they allowed Mexican to do so if their conscience didn't bother them. GB didn't think too deeply on the matter and the consequences. From looks of it, Malawi witnesses thought it was wrong to buy a "political" card, so GB simply agreed with their stand and made an example of faithful witnesses in Malawi for their view of purchasing a "political" card.
- Again, does the branch not realize that the card can be obtained without bribery and without the military training merely by getting exempt from military service? And that it could have been obtained before the brother was a JW? Is the branch calling this a 'custom among the brothers' when in 1960, statistically speaking, less than 10 brothers would have been drafted for the military training each year during that decade.
- Interesting that the Aug 27, 1969 letter from the Mexican branch did not quote the Feb 4, 1960 letter because that was the letter that they themselves wrote according to Franz or Cameron and that letter contained no policy but rather only their question. It would have been the June 2, 1960 letter from the WTS to the Mexico branch, not the Feb 4, 1960 letter that the Mexico branch quoted from.
First point is irrelevant as stated earlier because the apologist is trying to downplay the fact we're talking about wts and not individual actions. It makes no difference if there was only 1 jw drafted who paid a bribe after wts gave him their blessing or if there were 1000s. It's wts' decision we are talking about.
If WTS made a mistake in dates regarding letters, so what? The point is they allowed the practice, not that they pointed to wrong letter.
http://i43.tinypic.com/21ka5ci.jpg
Whoever the ThirdWitness is, he is in same mental state as Rolf Furuli.