Robert Chung Incident and Academic Freedom

After a report conducted by the inquiry panel is open to the public, it evokes a further controversy about the dismissing of Hong Kong University vice-chancellor and the possible legal appeal. According to the report, it is concluded that Mr. Lo, Tung Chi Wan's top aside and Mr. Cheng, the vice-chancellor of University of Hon Kong, did not disclose as much as possible what was going on at the meeting and Mr. Lo is a "poor and untruthful witness". Thus they are strongly suspected to intervene into Robert Chung's polling survey and thus infringe on Hong Kong academic freedom.

Mr.Lo and Mr. Cheng did not accept the report result. Mr. Cheng regarded it as flaw while Mr. Lo treated it as a defamatory comment. On 5 September 2000, at least 360 of the 800 teaching staff has signed a petition to urge the University of Hong Kong council to endorse the report. But one senate member said that the council members should not plainly accept the report conclusion which is based on the vague definition of academic freedom. On the day, the council decided to set up two committees. One is aimed at defining academic freedom and finding a way to uphold it. The other is to design a way to improve communication within the university.

On 6 September, the Hong Kong University vice-chancellor, Cheng yiu-chung and pro-vice chancellor, Wong siu-lun, under the pressure from the University community, decided to resign in restoring the Hong Kong university to the normal operation. According to the South China Morning Post, the council members unanimously approve their resignation on the basis of preserving the reputation of Hong Kong University.

More than half the teaching staff-439 members-urged the Council to adopt the report in avoiding further damage to the reputation of the University. However the motion was finally withdrawn as it still left a room for the council members to reject the report, which could tarnish the image of the University. Despite the opposition from the student's union, the council decided neither to reject nor to accept the report.

The resignations of the University vice-chancellor and pro-vice-chancellor did not indicate that both would accept the Panel's findings. On the contrary, Mr Cheng denied the allegation that they are calculated to inflict on the academic freedom by exerting pressures to strop or restrict Dr.Chung polling work. Mr. Cheng said that he decided to resign because he failed to handle the incident well, which in turn dented the University reputation and polarized teaching staff. To end this saga, Mr Wong, under the pressure, decided to resign as well.

Amid the controversy over the Dr Chung incident, there is other undercurrent, which failed to be uncovered in depth. The most stimulating remarks was made by professor Bell Young, Head of the department of music, that we have always had academic freedom. There are always many constraints on the kinds of research we can do.” It is true that the academic community has its own definition on what is a legitimate academic research. Since this, not all researches or reports are treated as high-valued academic works. In this context, it is understood why Cheng Yiu-chung shows his concern over Dr Chung's polling works. According to the open letter drafted by Mr Cheng, it is said that his concern about polling activities consists of "the relatively low academic value of polling work, the desire to see Dr Robert Chung do more in-depth research and the need for the university to be seen as politically neutral." No doubt Mr Cheng takes a stance of academic scholar to evaluate the polling works of Dr Chung.

It is unsurprised to hear that as head of the Highest-status Hong Kong University, Mr. Cheng would show such concerns over those academic works which may affect the reputation of the University in the society. Although his concerns may be shaped partly by the opinion of Mr Lo, Chief Executive aides, they are relevant and reasonable in the academic context. Once it is recognized that the academic work of polling work is low, by an international social science standard, it will raise a question about whether the findings and conclusion from the polling activities which could significantly affect the reputation of the University of Hong Kong should be respectable or not. If the polling works do not have a high academic value, what is the point for the University to support it wholeheartedly?

The appointment of the vice-chancellor of the university is not controlled by the Chief Executive. It is believed that the university system is so independent from the government that the Vice-Chancellor could not be subjected to the control of Chief Executive Aides. If this is the case, what is the point for the Vice-chancellor to follow the order from Mr Lo? Does it help him extend the working years of being the Vice-Chancellor? If this is not true, why did Mr Cheng so easily accept the Lo's comment and express some dissatisfaction against polling works? Suppose that Mr Cheng lacks a sensitivity to handle this incident, it may affirm that he just takes a traditional scholar’s standpoint-a politically-neutual and scientific-oriented standpoint-to evaluate the polling work, instead of making a political judgment.

Now the University Council set up two committees to tackle problems from the Dr Chung Incident. One of committee is to find a means to strengthen academic freedom and avoid the possible government interference into academic works. Apart from establishing mechanism or regulation to protect academic works, its works also show whether the current university system easily suffers from the external interference. If it fails to show it, this would revive the question on why Mr. Cheng was easily influenced by Mr. Lo.

The second committee is set up to find a way in enhancing better communication within the University such that misunderstanding among teaching staff could be avoided. It seems that by doing this, the University can provide a free environment for researchers to do what they like. Indeed, the university is full of struggles and conflicts of values. In order to build up a high academic stand, a young researcher has to struggle to do the non-main current researches and topple the established vested interest and values in the academic community. No doublt the die-hard academic scholars would condemn or underestimate some marginal academic works. This is not unusual!