Arthur Li has ‘open mind’ on next University of Hong Kong chief but says search is being dragged out
HKU council chairman says candidates need not be locals who are familiar with the city’s stormy politics
The University of Hong Kong’s next vice-chancellor need not be a local who is familiar with the city’s stormy politics, says its council chairman Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, whose combative governing style has intensified rows plaguing the institution.
In an interview with the Post, Li also departed from his colleagues on the process for finding a replacement for Professor Peter Mathieson, accusing them of delaying the process by wanting to hold a poll to appoint a search committee.
Mathieson tendered his resignation last month, two years before his contract expires. His premature departure fuelled rumours among staff that he had been sidelined by Li.
Li dismissed the recent political controversies, including the council’s decision not to appoint liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun to a key managerial post.
He did not think the recent rows would deter candidates and said an understanding of local politics was not a job requirement.
“I don’t think we should have any preconceived idea on whether he should be a local or an overseas person,” Li said. “We should keep an open mind to look for the best candidate.”
He then pointed the finger at council members for “dragging out” the process.
“I want to move ahead quickly for a simple reason – we have a deadline,” Li said, adding that it took the school two years and five months to pick Mathieson.
“I want the academics who sat on the past committee to be incorporated [in the search committee] straight away so we can start working, but other people in the council felt that we must have an election again to elect the three academics.
“[We’re] dragging this instead of sorting it.”
Mathieson, who is leaving to take the helm at Edinburgh University in Scotland, arrived at HKU in April 2014, five months before the outbreak of the 79-day pro-democracy Occupy protests, which were led by students.
He witnessed the row over Chan’s rejection and what he called “mob rule” by some students when they besieged a council meeting in January last year to press for a review of the university’s governance structure.
Li denied the council was adopting a delaying tactic by setting up a working group to look into recommendations put forward by a long-awaited governance review report.
Two members of the panel had endorsed the idea that the chief executive’s role of chancellor should be made honorary to avoid any suggestion of political interference, while the third member submitted an addendum against stripping the leader of his powers.
“If the report had reached a conclusion then we could act very easily ... but because there isn’t a conclusion, we have to draw a conclusion for them,” he said, adding he would not set a deadline for this working group.
Education lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen rejected Li’s claims that there was “no conclusion” in the report, saying the addendum should only be viewed as an additional reference.
William Cheung Sing-wai, chairman of the HKU Academic Staff Association, slammed Li for wanting to appoint the search committee members. He pointed out that one of Li’s suggestions, Richard Wong Yue-chim, was widely regarded as a Li ally and pro-establishment figure and he believed Li was trying to use Wong to influence the choice of next HKU leader.
