Advertisement
Advertisement
Former HKU law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun. Photo: Sam Tsang

Will all eight members of the University of Hong Kong council who voted for Johannes Chan Man-mun identify yourselves and explain why you believe he should be crowned pro-vice-chancellor? Simply saying the search committee had picked him won't do. That recommendation came when details were murky about Chan's handling of an anonymous HK$1.45 million donation to the university to partly fund the Occupy protests. The voting process was supposed to be confidential. But right after the vote Billy Fung Jing-en, the student representative on the council, mockingly fingered members who had opposed Chan. Other Chan supporters ridiculed those Fung fingered. Some alumni even want a no-confidence vote against council chairman Leong Che-hung and the 12 members who opposed Chan. But surely, those who ridiculed the reasons for rejecting Chan need to make a compelling case as to why he merits the job. Simply mocking the reasons for not appointing him smacks of the same politics Chan supporters accuse his opponents of playing. Public Eye doesn't give a damn who becomes pro-vice-chancellor, but we can't accept the haloed status his supporters have conferred on him, as if academic freedom hinges on giving him the job. His supporters, in fact the democracy camp, have painted themselves as righteous and smeared all 12 who voted against Chan as Beijing's lapdogs. Yet while they accuse the other side of dirty politics, Chan supported Occupy when Beijing and more than half of Hong Kong didn't. Aspects of the donation to Occupy co-founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting that Chan helped handle remain hazy. Why should council members not have the right to feel reticent about giving Chan the job? It's dishonest for Chan supporters to say this is solely about academic freedom. It's a proxy war between the democracy camp and Beijing that has risen from the ashes of Occupy.

Post