'The shockwave triggered by the two articles [carried in the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Economic Journal ] is something I did not anticipate. If the Post had revealed the way they would handle my article beforehand, the debate would definitely have been calmer and healthier.
Based on a moral obligation, I firmly refused to disclose the name of the messenger after the incident occurred. This is not just a general moral obligation for journalists to protect their sources, nor a moral obligation to keep contents of discussions confidential, but one between a mentor [Wong Siu-lun] and a disciple. No one may be able to guess this. After the article was published, it was not convenient for me - in the face of enormous pressure from the Government and media - to contact the messenger who is my mentor, one of the people I most respect. Without his consent, I could not put him under such enormous pressure. I would have had to bear the consequences of my moral obligation if I had not given him prior notice.
Now, I have discussed it with my mentor. He respected my decision and will not hide the truth. He is an upright gentleman. To me, the biggest baggage has been removed. I said in my statement on July 8 that I 'have absolutely no intention to attack the authority of the Government and the credibility of the Chief Executive'.
My starting point is purely to 'demand the Government uphold freedom of academic research'. So when the Chief Executive said he would not interfere with academic freedom in future I did not want to dig any further to the heart of the matter. As the Chief Executive has stated clearly his stance, I have given him the benefit of the doubt and don't want to indulge in more disputes.
I understand the media would have endlessly pursued it and society would not lay their doubts to rest if I had not clarified the 'third person'. But my thinking is that as long as the reputation of my mentor is not damaged and academic freedom is guaranteed, what does the downfall of a Chung Ting-yiu and a research programme matter? Nevertheless, what happened was that the matter was not laid to rest after the Chief Secretary for Administration said she hoped the matter would come to an end. In order to dispel speculation and avoid politicisation of a simple matter I decided to make public the identity of the 'third person', that is Vice-Chancellor Cheng Yiu-chung. I have not made any deal with the Vice-Chancellor. There is no question of a moral obligation to protect sources, nor a moral obligation to keep closed-door discussions confidential. Since my mentor has already said he respected my decision, I have already fulfilled my obligation. How the university handles it and how society evaluates my credibility is not my consideration.
I have to say that I have no dissatisfaction towards the Vice-Chancellor. He is an upright person, he has contributed a lot to the university. I am not playing into the hands of any forces to make waves by revealing his name. I only feel, as an intellectual, I have to take responsibility for my words. On the question of responsibility, everyone is equal. Vice-Chancellor Cheng Yiu-chung has the responsibility to explain whether the Chief Executive has or has not talked to him, directly or indirectly, about the relationship between the university and the opinion survey programme.
