Taiwanese expats turn up heat on Kuo
　

NO REWRITING HISTORY: Taiwanese organizations issued a statement that also called for a law confirming the historical status of the 228 Incident and forbidding its denial
　

By Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Mar 22, 2009, Page 1

A number of Taiwanese organizations in Toronto issued a joint statement on Friday demanding that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration take stern disciplinary action against a Government Information Office (GIO) official who allegedly wrote articles smearing Taiwan and Taiwanese, provoking ethnic tensions.

The allegations were made on March 11 by Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲), who accused former acting director of the Information Division at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Toronto Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英) of writing the articles using the pen name Fan Lan-chin (范蘭欽).

“In his articles, Kuo appears to have no feelings at all for the country in which he was raised, calling it an ‘evil spot’ or a ‘haunted island’ and insulting its people, calling Taiwanese ‘rednecks’ ... We demand that the government of President Ma [Ying-jeou (馬英九)] take a clear stand, recall Kuo and remove him from any official position. We further urge the government to make a clear statement that people who hold such views cannot represent Taiwan overseas,” the statement said.

“According to an internal investigation by the Government Information Office, his office computer had on it these controversial articles. That proves that he was writing the articles, not connected with his work, during office hours,” the statement said. “Incredibly, the government of President Ma handed only the lightest punishment of a transfer to another job to this civil servant loyal to the People’s Republic of China, treated him with courtesy on his return to Taiwan and let him get away with leaving the country the day after he was punished. We find this shocking.”

The statement also panned Kuo for “seriously distorting events in Taiwan’s modern history” by describing Chen Yi (陳儀), administrator of Taiwan during the 228 Incident, as “a virtuous official.”

“We call on Taiwan’s government to act in the spirit of UN General Assembly Resolutions 60/7 [establishing a global day of holocaust remembrance] and 61/255 [condemning holocaust denial] and to bring in legislation confirming the historical status of the 228 Massacre and forbidding any minimization or denial of the same,” the statement added.

Pedro Yuan (袁凱聲), acting director of the International Information Office of the GIO, said yesterday that the GIO would take more action on the case after it had obtained more “solid evidence” on whether or not Kuo wrote the articles.

Kuo reported to the GIO on Monday after he was summoned to return to Taiwan in order to provide an explanation. He denied he was Fan and was referred to the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries for investigation because there was a “substantial gap” between the evidence collected by GIO’s ethics personnel and Kuo’s version of story.

Kuo flew back to Toronto the next day so that he could hand over his duties to other staf members and he has been instructed by the GIO to return to Taiwan by the end of the month, officials said.

On Friday, the GIO said Kuo did not show up at the Toronto office on Wednesday and Thursday. The GIO said if Kuo was absent from work for two more business days, he would likely receive two major demerits and for that the GIO could relieve Kuo of his civil servant status in accordance with the Civil Service Performance Evaluation Act (公務人員考績法).

Yuan said yesterday that Kuo had reported to work on Friday, the third day after his return from Taiwan. Yuan said the GIO expected to receive a written statement from Kuo tomorrow explaining why he did not show up at work on Wednesday and Thursday.

DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) yesterday panned the government for not disciplining Kuo harshly enough.

Looking for the real Fan Lan-chin
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Sunday, Mar 22, 2009, Page 8

‘If Fan is a Chinese living in China or somewhere else overseas, that person should step forward and save Kuo, a “Chinese compatriot.” Would the Chinese government agree and identify with Fan’s articles that are so full of ethnic hatred? The answer is yes.’

Although many facts point to Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), the information division director of Taiwan’s representative office in Toronto, as the person who wrote several online articles insulting Taiwan and ethnic Taiwanese under the alias Fan Lan-chin (范蘭欽), Kuo has not owned up to the matter. This situation recalls questions about former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Diane Lee’s (李慶安) US citizenship. President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration and the KMT have handled the matter in the same way — handing out protection.

We can see that Kuo’s attempt at an apology was clearly fake, because he would have no reason to apologize if he wasn’t Fan and if he does not think he is a “high-class Mainlander,” as he has said. If Kuo is not Fan, then who is Fan, and why, with things having developed to this point, hasn’t this person come forward?

When Kuo was questioned about the matter in Canada, he said Fan was a pen name shared by “a group of people.” However, he later denied this. So, who exactly is this Fan character?

If Fan is a Chinese living in China or somewhere else overseas, that person should step forward and save Kuo, a “Chinese compatriot.” Would the Chinese government agree and identify with Fan’s articles that are so full of ethnic hatred? The answer is yes.

Chinese Internet sites are full of similar articles written by angry Chinese youth that have never been condemned or blocked by the Chinese government. As such, if Fan were to reveal himself, he would not face any danger and would even be viewed as a hero by the Chinese. In that case, why shouldn’t such a person come forward? We can therefore dismiss the possibility that Fan is a Chinese living in China or overseas.

If Fan is a Chinese living in Taiwan, he also does not need to be afraid of coming forward. Look at the members of the pro-unification Patriot Association who have said — just like Fan did in an article — that once Taiwan is annexed by China, Beijing should use the “Anti-Secession” Law to punish those who propose Taiwanese independence. It is fine for them to make such extreme comments because they are ordinary citizens and not civil servants and have the right to exercise freedom of speech. If Fan is the pen name of an ordinary citizen, the person or persons responsible should step forward to save this official.

Another possibility is that Fan is a pen name used by a group of Taiwanese civil servants who would be reprimanded if they owned up to what they have done. If this were true, it would be immoral and cowardly to hide and make Kuo the scapegoat. How could such a despicable individual or group of individuals feel they have the right to insult Taiwanese by calling them “Taiwanese rednecks” (taibazi, 台巴子)? Therefore, I do not believe that Fan is some ordinary citizen or a Taiwanese civil servant.

It would of course be a very different story if Fan or the person behind the pen name were Kuo or one of his superiors. Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) has said that Fan does have some link to Kuo. Su chose his words very carefully when he was speaking in front of this “high-class Mainlander.” What did Su mean by “link?” Did he mean that Kuo is in fact Fan or that Kuo has some other kind of connection with Fan?

It is hard to see how the term “high-class Mainlander” would be an expression of self-depreciation, as Kuo has said in his defense. Fan wrote: “My workplace was within walking distance of [Jiancheng] Circle, but I would never go there for lunch.” This shows how “high-class Mainlanders” look down on the Taiwanese food and culture that could be found at Jiancheng Circle, Taipei’s oldest food market. These racist opinions are more detrimental to Taiwan than the lack of national identity certain people show.

Simply put, “high-class Mainlanders” is just a synonym for “powerful and privileged Mainlanders.” Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟), former secretary-general of the Presidential Office, said during a speech two years ago that senior leaders of the pan-blue camp can tell people who their fathers are and everyone would know them. These include the fathers of former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and Ma.

But who has ever heard of the fathers of pan-green leaders, whether they be the former president, vice president or premier?

“Powerful and privileged Mainlanders” are different from ordinary Mainlanders because they enjoy high positions and wealth here in Taiwan, whereas ordinary Mainlanders had to leave China for Taiwan because of their anti-communist views and fear of the Chinese Communist Party. Many were also forcefully conscripted to fight against the Communists. Their initial days in Taiwan were tough and this is a distinction that must be made.

Being a “high-class Mainlander” is not a sin, but it is unforgivable to use this “high-class” status to look down on ethnic Taiwanese and even join hands with China to suppress Taiwan. Chen’s grandfather was also a “powerful and privileged Mainlander,” but Chen has integrated well into Taiwanese society and set a good example for others to follow.

On Tuesday, Kuo suddenly left Taiwan after being referred to the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries of the Judicial Yuan for investigation. Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) was not even aware that Kuo had left Taiwan. Maybe Ma himself “took care” of the matter.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.