The students' siege of the University of Hong Kong Council meeting on July 28 has attracted considerable public attention.
As an alumna, I found the students' violent disruption of the meeting and the delaying of the injured being sent to hospital for treatment abhorrent.
The council is the legitimate body to take the decision on the matter of the appointment of the pro-vice-chancellor. So long as it has duly followed the prescribed rules of procedures in the conduct of its business, it is not up to anyone to interfere with its work, be it students, staff, alumni or politicians.
This is a proper way to respect institutional autonomy since the council is the supreme governing body of the university. Students can stage protests or sit-ins to express their dissatisfaction with council decisions, but they should not take such uncivilised action as to storm a meeting.
What exactly did they want to achieve? Does it mean that any time people make decisions with which they do not agree, they should react by barging in to stop proceedings?
If individual council members seek to exert pressure on the council by promoting the views of outside individuals/groups to reverse the corporate decision to be made, how can governance work effectively?