Why not allow Hongkongers to air their views on Chinese University council reform?

Lawmakers seeking to initiate change through legislation, rather than leaving it to the governing council, should not shy away from having to defend their bill to the public
A request for a public hearing over the Chinese University bill should be allowed

Alice Wu

Published: 8:15am, 31 Jul 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

The Chinese University of Hong Kong has been making headlines, but not for good reasons, regrettably. As the saying goes, academic politics is the most vicious because the stakes are so small.

Until recently, the effort to reform the university’s governing council has made the news only occasionally. But now, its internal fight that once took place behind the scenes, has erupted into public view, with political heavyweights such as former Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying and other public figures weighing in.

Punches and jabs are being thrown from all corners. For those of us who have not been following collegiate politics and are not used to this sort of a slug fest, it’s a little off-putting.

The storm in the college tea cup has become quite a political headache for the government and Legislative Council. At the centre of the controversy is the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Amendment) Bill 2023, a private members’ bill initiated by three lawmakers – Edward Lau Kwok-fan, Tommy Cheung Yu-yan and Bill Tang Ka-piu – who sit on the university council.

Those who oppose the move to restructure Chinese University’s governing body have launched a petition against the bill, even taking out front-page ads in three newspapers last Thursday. More than 1,400 people have signed the petition, including notable public figures such as a former CEO of the Airport Authority, the director of the Hong Kong Palace Museum and a former undersecretary for commerce and economic development.

The deputy head of the Chief Executive’s Policy Unit, Nicholas Kwan Ka-ming, was also a signatory, but he has since withdrawn his support, citing concern that the expression of his personal opinion might be seen as reflecting the government’s position.

Reform of Chinese University’s governing council has been tabled for action at the Legislative Council after three lawmakers initiated a private members’ bill to drive change. Photo: K.Y. Cheng

What is actually at stake? The size and composition of the council’s membership, mainly. The proposal seeks to bring the number down from 55 to 34. But, more importantly, it wants to increase the proportion of external representation sitting on the council.

The bill also seeks to raise the council’s voting threshold for deciding the university’s vice-chancellor, to three-quarters instead of a simple majority.

For the city’s former leader Leung, who supports the bill, the issue is about personnel. Leung has in previous Facebook posts singled out the university’s vice-chancellor and president Rocky Tuan Sung-chi for criticism.

“Institutional autonomy and academic freedom have been abused after the 2019 black violence,” Leung said in one post, referring to the anti-government protests that year. “This exactly explains the need to reform the Chinese University council and remove Rocky Tuan.”

The controversy would appear to stem from the reappointment of Professor Tuan as university president until 2026, not necessarily over the bill itself.

Chinese University President Rocky Tuan, seen here in his office in June last year, is set to serve until 2026. Photo: Jonathan Wong

Meanwhile, opponents of the bill have been vocal about their objection to the reforms being pushed through Legco.

Members’ bills do not relate to public expenditure, political structure or the operation of the government. Such bills were almost unheard of before the Legco revamp, since the chief executive has to sign off on them before they can be introduced.

This year, apart from the Chinese University bill, two other members’ bills have also been introduced – over technical updates to the Lingnan University Ordinance and The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Ordinance, separately.

In today’s improved political system, where the executive and legislative branches enjoy friendly cooperation, we can expect to see more such members’ bills being introduced.

Yet, it is surprising that today’s improved Legco has apparently developed an aversion to public hearings.

From the left, lawmakers Edward Lau, Tommy Cheung and Bill Tang speak to the press at the Legislative Council building in Tamar on June 27. Photo: Jelly Tse

A request for a public hearing over the Chinese University bill was turned down. Tang acknowledged that the “reform of Chinese University’s governance, and even its school members, have always been of great concern in society and are quite political”.

As “a great concern in society”, is it not deserving of a public hearing? Tang said: “If there is a public hearing, I’m afraid people will attack individuals or things they don’t like, rather than reviewing whether the provisions are satisfactory or what needs to be changed.”

As a legislator, Tang should not be afraid of people’s opinions on what he himself believes to be a great concern for society. It is precisely the openness and transparency a public hearing offers that would reveal to the public whether objections to his bill are valid and whether arguments against it are sound.

Now that our lawmakers have heightened the stakes of collegiate politics, there’s no shying away from defending their bill to the public.

Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA