But Billy Fung Jing-en, president of the HKU Students’ Union and a member of the school council, said their actions were reasonable, though he himself had voted for conducting the evaluation in two months.

He denied his actions and words were “contradictory”, saying he was trying to get the best from a “defective system”.

In an internal email to HKU staff members, students and alumni, Professor Mathieson, said video images of the protest were recorded and would be made available to police.

“I condemn the behaviour last night of HKU students who [among others] put the safety of council members, including me, and university and security staff at serious risk, and besieged the building in which the council had met so that we were unable to leave for several hours,” said Mathieson. “This is not the way to achieve progress: we will always be willing to engage in rational discussion and debate with students but we cannot condone mob rule.”

READ MORE: Surrounded – University of Hong Kong students besiege governing council meeting, demand talks with Arthur Li

The council on Tuesday had “unanimously agreed” to set up a review panel to study the governance and effectiveness of the institution. Students had demanded that in the wake of a series of controversies surrounding liberal scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun’s rejection for a key managerial position, which many saw as the result of political interference.

Fung revealed that it was Li who opposed the idea of conducting an immediate review. The chairman had said that such an evaluation should be done after the release of the University Grants Committee’s consultancy report on governance of all the city’s universities, which is expected in two months.

“I think the students’ demand to conduct an immediate review is fair ... as the school could first conduct a self-evaluation ahead of the release of the report,” Fung told Commercial Radio on Wednesday morning.

He said he still decided to vote for the resolution to delay the review because he was the only one on the council to press for an immediate evaluation, whereas the council had accepted his suggestion to include the students’ three key demands for the panel, including a review of the rule which stipulates the chief executive is the school’s default chancellor.

Fung also said that the students’ demand to meet Li on Tuesday night was reasonable.

“There is a need for Li as council chairman to explain the council’s decisions to students. He also has the responsibility to try to address students’ demands,” Fung said during an RTHK talk show.

He added that the students had remained calm when Professor Mathieson spoke to them. He said the question should be why students had had to resort to besieging the meeting.

“The students initially wanted Li to respond to them. I think this was a fair demand ... Communication is two-way. When he did not start a conversation, then students tried to start one,” Fung said.

READ MORE: University of Hong Kong students threaten to escalate action if council rejects their call for governance reform

Fung told Commercial Radio that Li conducted the meeting in a sterner fashion than his predecessor, Dr Leong Che-hung. Li would urge speakers to conclude their speeches and would even interrupt, while Leong allowed members who had different views to freely express themselves, Fung recalled, which he believed was important.

Fung also hoped the coming meeting with Mathieson and Li, promised by the former to take place in 10 days, would bear fruit.

Separately, council member Eric Cheung Tat-ming said he did not think the council’s decision to set up the review panel two months later was a delaying tactic as perceived by some students, though he found their protest understandable as they had lost trust in the council because of the previous controversies.