University council trio hit out at Hong Kong lawmaker’s demand it pays HK$700,000 cost of private member’s bill to reduce proportion of insiders on body
- Three Chinese University Council members criticise lawmaker Tommy Cheung over go-it-alone private member’s bill to increase proportion of outsiders on body
- The open letter also says there is ‘strong discontent’ over bill, drawn up despite earlier council consensus on changes
The three members, in a letter sent on Wednesday, also criticised Cheung, who also sits on the university council, for a failure to seek approval from the body for his bill.
The joint letter also expressed “strong discontent” with Cheung after he asked the university to pay more than HK$700,000 (US$89,419) to cover the costs of the proposed legislation.
They also complained that Cheung, also a member of the Executive Council, the government’s key decision-making body, had an “arrogant and hostile” attitude at university council meetings.
The private member’s bill to amend the Chinese University Ordinance was designed to downsize the council membership from 55 to 34 and increase the proportion of external representatives so they would outnumber internal ones 2:1.
It also has a provision to raise the voting threshold for the appointment of the university vice-chancellor from two-thirds to three-quarters of the council votes and increase the number of members chosen by the government.
The bill was also backed by other lawmakers on the university council, Bill Tang Ka-piu and Edward Lau Kwok-fan.
The letter opposing the move, posted on the Facebook page of one of the complainants, Kelvin Yeung Yu-ming, was addressed to council chairman Professor John Chai Yat-chiu.
Yeung is also the chairman of Chinese University’s convocation, a statutory body made up of all its graduates.
The other two co-authors of the letter were Dr Barbara Kwok Pik-lin, and Enders Lam Wai-hung. The trio were elected to the council from among the convocation members.
“It is nothing personal. We just hope to raise our concerns and draw the attention of the council chairman and relevant stakeholders to the matter,” Lam said.
Hong Kong lawmaker wants university to cover costs of private bid to revamp council
“Mr Cheung cannot just push ahead a version of reforms he has devised without any proper consultation.
“We have had a task force to look into the issue and there was comprehensive consultation. We think the views presented in the consultation should be respected.
“Even if Mr Cheung’s bill has gone to the Legislative Council, it can still be amended and changes can be made before it is passed.”
The trio also accused Cheung of acting “haughtily” by ignoring the recommendations in a previous report endorsed by the council on the restructuring of the body.
The letter said Cheung had “demanded the university settle the costs incurred” in the preparation of the bill and added “we members express strong discontent”.
“It is his private bill. The council has not discussed or approved it. It is only natural he himself should be responsible for the costs,” Lam insisted.
The trio agreed a publicly-funded institution should be monitored by Legco and the public.
But the letter said: “We cannot tolerate that Cheung, as a council member, has repeatedly destroyed the atmosphere of meetings with his arrogant and hostile attitude.”
“The matter will be dealt with by the council. In accordance with the principle of confidentiality, the university will not disclose the discussion at the council meetings,” a university spokesman told the Post.
Reforms push for university in Hong Kong after ‘appalling’ protest handling
Cheung’s assistant said he was not prepared to comment on the letter.
The private bill is expected to be introduced to Legco for a first and second reading on June 28 at the earliest.
The proposed amendment was seen as the pro-establishment camp’s response to the controversial reappointment of Tuan, who will stay on as university vice-chancellor until 2026.
Tuan was accused by some Beijing loyalist figures of being sympathetic to students involved in protests during the 2019 social unrest.
Tang has argued that it was “very reasonable” the university should pay for the costs of the bill, but some fellow council members spoke out against it.
They said the bill was an initiative by the lawmakers and had not been discussed or approved by the body.
A task force report backed by the university in April agreed that the council should be reduced to a maximum of 34 people, but still with a higher proportion of internal members than Cheung’s proposal.
It also called for two lawmaker members to sit on the council instead of three.
The task force also recommended that the threshold for electing the vice-chancellor and provost should be raised from about 66 per cent to 75 per cent of council votes.
The consultation conducted by the task force, which got 880 responses from interested parties, including staff, students and graduates, also found massive opposition to several elements of Cheung’s proposal.
