Public Eye | A matter of opinion, without the smears, on HKU pro-vice-chancellor controversy

A matter of opinion without the smears

Public Eye stands accused of having written nonsense regarding the controversy over whether Johannes Chan Man-mun should be appointed Hong Kong University pro-vice-chancellor. The accuser is former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, in a letter to this paper. Nonsense, or is it that she simply can’t stand others having opinions different from hers?

As we’ve said before, our self-proclaimed democracy defenders expect everyone to accept that whatever they say is morally right by default. Otherwise, you’re a Beijing bootlicker. Here’s what Public Eye had said about the pro-vice chancellor controversy. On February 4, we questioned Professor Chan’s claim that Beijing mouthpiece Wen Wei Pao had politically persecuted him.

We argued that if muckraking in a free media environment is persecution, then democracy camp mouthpiece Apple Daily is equally guilty of hounding Franklin Lam Fun-keung for allegedly using insider information as an executive councillor, a claim dismissed by the ICAC.

On February 25, we said Chan is not to blame for the HKU controversy but suggested he withdraw his candidacy to end the bitter division. On August 5, we urged him to name and shame the mysterious middleman he alleged had requested him to quit as pro-vice-chancellor if appointed. We didn’t say it didn’t happen but simply noted that since it was such a bizarre request, few would believe him unless he named the middleman.

On October 7, we called on all eight HKU Council members who voted for Chan as pro-vice-chancellor to identify themselves since the names of those who had opposed Chan had already been leaked. We said since Chan supporters had mocked those who voted against him, it was only fair to hear the reasons the eight council members gave for supporting him.