The other day Mr.Shi Wen-yi, a high-ranked public servant using his real name, openly registered some contradictory comments against national policies in his facebook. The incident engendered controversies: some people thought Mr. Shi, as being a civil servant, should be reprimanded or disciplined for his improper words; others deemed it fit that he had the right to speak, and what he’d said should be protected by the lofty principle i.e. “freedom of speech”.

 

I don’t care a damn about this farce Mr. Shi incited. All I cared is that people should not adopt different attitude toward a “principle”. About two years ago, Mr.Guo Guan-yin, a middle-ranked information officier, expressed some opinion in his blog, by a pseudonym, that under constitutional One-China policy, Taiwan ought not to be called a “country”. He also said Taiwan is a “ghost island”, people in Taiwan are “yokels”; and humorously called himself a “high-class Mainlander”. The blog enraged the islanders, especially people of DPP camp, and then they “skin-searched” and found out Mr. Guo’s real identity. The opprobrium was so fierce that Ma administration, in order to appease the critics of this “national furor” and cater to the “potiential voters”, finally axed Mr. Guo, and deprived him of his qualification of being a civil servant, his retirement pension as well. Ma also severely told Mr. Guo off for his speech of dividing Taiwan, hurting people’s feeling etc..

 

In contrast to Mr. Shi’s words, had Mr. Guo not the same right to express his thoughts, let alone by using a pen name? Is the one-China policy enshrined in the Constitution just kind of a tokenism? The truth was his words had been against those of “mainstream mind”, the words people didn’t want to hear; therefore, he was not entiled to have freedom of speech. Those “insulting” words hurt the feeling of the people of Taiwan? How about “Chinks” and “Chinese pigs” to the mainlanders? Shame on you, people. You knew it’s unfair, you have known it much better than Mr. Guo did.