關於聖約翰學院的欺凌事件，本報收到匿名讀者來函，揭露內部討論群組內就欺凌事件有激烈討論。有人就事件希望同學認真檢討，亦有人指責退選幹事破壞學院形象，稱「唔鍾意咪走囉」。
欺凌事件昨日被主流媒體廣泛報導，引起聖約翰學院學生及舊生激烈討論。有人留言質問涉事同學的同理心和常識何在，強調如果不滿候選人的表現應以選票表達。亦有人留言希望同學認真檢討。不過亦有留言反問是否退選幹事的說法和媒體的報導是否就是「事實」和「真理」。
更有人留下長篇文章，指候選幹事「無膽無信心就唔好搞咁多野／吃得鹹魚要抵得渴」，又針對其改革政綱指「唔鍾意又唔肯走／死都要改變傳統去迎合你自己」，稱「無文化嘅聖莊同一間普通宿舍無分別」。就候選幹事公開事件，該文章稱「打曬上status 博咩啫／聖莊嘅形象俾你整衰晒啦」。該文章獲過百個表情回應，更有相信是諷刺候選幹事的留言。
該位匿名讀者認為上述留言屬「嚴重欺凌comment」，反映了被欺凌的同學的苦況，「盼媒體可以加以整理，讓人反思裡面的comments同like」。
昨日聖約翰學院新一屆幹事之選舉，退選後剩餘的四名候選人均以約二十餘票贊成，五六十票反對，及約二十票棄權落選。
（截圖隱去所有人名）
There was a proposed chair. He had criticizers. They acted unchilvarously. Given the chance, he willingly publicizes the event in a demagogue-esque fashion, without room for rational discussion. Rational discussion is there enough within the college itself. So now it is politically incorrect to criticize this demagogue-esque public shaming? Ignoble, I must say. Democratic elections are anonymous for a reason. When both parties are corrupt, I long for an independent.
This discussion is supposed to be within the closed group. I hope any media would respect the nature of this group and remain the discussion confidential.
Your point of view caught my eye and was very interesting. Thanks. I have a question for you.