(Wen Wei Po) September 27, 2015.

September : The HKU Alumni Concern Group worked through the Convocation to hold a referendum in which several non-binding motions were passed by more than 7,000 persons, including demanding the Council to appoint the pro vice chancellor within 30 days. Although the turnout rate was only 4.8% of the Convocation, the HKU Alumni Concern Group told the Council that there is a strong public opinion among the alumni.

On the day of the August meeting, it was noted that all four candidates for the provost positions have withdrawn in view of the known situation and so a provost cannot be found in the short time. The Council decided to discuss the appointment of the pro vice chancellor in its September meeting. With respect to the "secret donation" affair, the Council accepted the university senior administrators group's advice to make recommendations to the various principals. The letter to Johannes Chan reminds him that as a senior staff member, he has certain duties and responsibilities which he must not overlook in the future.

August : The assault was regarded negatively by society and that was unfavorable to Johannes Chan's candidacy. But Johannes Chan disclosed that he had been "recommended" to become a candidate for pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources. He said that his successful appointment means that the university still has autonomy and vice versa. The opposition chimed in to say that failure to appoint Johannes Chan would lead to the disintegration of civilized society.

On the day of the July meeting, several dozen HKU students and several radicals unconnected to Hong Kong University charged into the conference room and applied pressure on the council members. Lo Chung-mau fell down on the ground injured. Ayasha Macpherson felt ill after being surrounded and not allowed to leave. The two were taken to the hospital by ambulance. Arthur Li was surrounded by students and called "shameless." Afterwards, Johannes Chan told the investigating press that Arthur Li has never sent anyone to get him to withdraw.

July : The opposition said that it was unreasonable to wait for the provost. The HKU Alumni Concern Group conducted various activities such as gathering signatures, holding press conferences, and publishing statements to demand that HKU make the appointment. Former Ming Pao chief editor Kevin Lau published an article just before the July meeting of the Council that "the pro-establishment camp led by Arthur Li and Leong Che-hung" asked a middleman to persuade Johannes Chan to withdraw his candidacy.

June : Former Ming Pao chief editor Kevin Lau wrote in an opinion column in Ming Pao that Johannes Chan applied for the pro vice chancellor position after being persuaded by HKU Council chairman Leong Chu-hung. Lau said that Chan was supposed to be promoted to that position in March, but his appointment was stalled. The opposition promoted this allegation to apply pressure on Leong Che-hung and the council to make the appointment. But the facts were that Johannes Chan's secret donation issue is unresolved and the selection committee has not made any recommendations. But the opposition didn't care and continued to say that the Council was stalling on Chan's appointment. On June 30, the "secret donations" report came out. The investigation committee said that Chan and Tai acted in a manner that does not meet expectations and they recommended the university to take action. At the Council meeting, university president Peter Mathieson said that the provost will be arriving in August and so the council voted 12-to-6 to postpone the appointment of the pro vice chancellor until the provost arrives. The opposition protested against the delay and threatened to use the special powers of the Legislative Council to investigate the matter.

The opposition now mounted a defense offered by Johannes Chan and Benny Tai, namely that there are no expected standards as such at Hong Kong University and therefore this is making up charges against them.

May : At the time when Johannes Chan was the Dean of the Faculty of Law, he took $300,000 in donations to the Law School via Occupy Central Trio member Benny Tai. He did not follow procedure and report the name of the donor. The school had to ask Benny Tai. Johannes Chan's conduct was said not to meet the expected standards of the university.

April : Hong Kong University Surgery Department director Lo Chung-mau was elected by the staff to represent them in the Council. However, the opposition said that this conclusively proved that the University Council is now populated with CY Leung fans. The Professional Teachers Union once again called for amending the university ordinance so that the Chief Executive is no longer the chancellor of the eight universities.

March : With questions being raised about Johannes Chan's academic leadership and a report on the "secret donations" being due, he was at risk of losing out. So certain media polled the various deans of HKU schools and finally came up with four school deans praising Johannes Chan. Although HKU president Peter Mathieson said that there was no government pressure on the appointment of the pro vice chancellor and that his personal conversations with the Chief Executive did not broach this topic, some groups are still demanding the amendment of the university ordinance which automatically makes the Chief Executive the chancellor at all eight universities. In addition, the appointment of Executive Council member Arthur Li to the HKU University Council was taken as proof that he was interfering with the appointment of Johannes Chan and that the pro-establishment camp was affecting autonomy at the university. At the end of the month came the report on the "secret donations." Certain media said that the report said that Johannes Chan did not break any regulations and therefore this should not affect this appointment as pro vice chancellor. But the report clearly stated that there were problems with how Johannes Chan handled the money, and his conduct was said "not to meet the expected standards" of a senior administrator at the university. During the regular March meeting of the University Council, there was no discussion about the pro vice chancellor position because the selection committee has not yet made it recommendations. Certain media reported that "the University Council was stalling on the appointment of the vice pro chancellor."

February : Unidentified parties told the media that Johannes Chan was recommended unanimously by the selection committee headed by HKU president Peter Mathieson as the vice pro-chancellor. At the same time, these parties also said that the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive CY Leung applied pressure on the HKU Council members to thwart the appointment of Johannes Chan. A member of the selection committee was interviewed by other media, and said that the committee has made no recommendations yet. The Chief Executive's office also issued a strong denial. Other HKU Council members also said that they have never been under any pressure. They thought that the leaker must have ulterior motives to pass out such erroneous information. Although nobody ever emerged to substantiate the media stories and no evidence was ever produced, the pro-democratic legislators and certain media insists that the autonomy of HKU has been "politically interfered with" and they want to exercise the special Legco powers to investigate government interference. They also demanded HKU explain the pro vice- chancellor selection process and to immediately appoint Johannes Chan to that position. Meanwhile Johannes Chan tried to deflect attention on himself and proposed that the Chief Executive should not serve as the university chancellor in accordance with the law.

January : The Research Assessment Exercise that was conducted by more than 300 international-class scholars evaluated the research articles of 4,400 Hong Kong scholars. Hong Kong University's School of Law had only 46% of its articles rated "excellent" or "world-leading" whereas the 10-year-old Chinese University of Hong Kong's School of Law was 18% ahead. The former Faculty of Law dean Johannes Chan was ridiculed by Internet users for "successfully degrading the HKU Faculty of Law." Johannes Chan counter-attacked and said that all criticisms of his RAE problems are "political oppression" because he is reported to be a candidate for pro vice-chancellor. Some media agreed with Chan's viewpoint and characterized the criticisms as "political oppression."

(Wen Wei Po) September 28, 2015.

Ip Kin-yuen said that they don't really care who gets appointed or not, but they want the University Council members to make the decision in accordance with the guidelines and rules. He said that he will present a petition at the meeting and HKU Alumni Concern Group representatives will be outside. A forum will be held one week later at which point Leong Che-hung will explain the relevant decision. "As for any other actions, that depends on whether the explanation of the University Council is reasonable." When asked whether there will be violence like during the July meeting, Ip Kin-yuen said that they will use peaceful means to express their views. HKU Student Union president merely said "Nothing further to add" to avoid answering the question.

Yesterday, Profession Teachers Union legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen held a press conference to release an open letter to the University Council. The letter contains two demands. The first demand is for the University Council to makes its appointment of the pro vice chancellor of academic staffing and resources. The second demand is that the University Council must provide detailed explanations of their rationales. Ip said: "The University Council should adhere to the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy while forgetting any political issues. The University Council members are held responsible for their decision. We recommend that the vote be conducted by open balloting with all the votes being written into the record." Of course, this recommendation is inconsistent with the principle of confidentiality that is in place for the University Council.

(Ming Pao) September 28, 2015.

The HKU Council has 21 members. One of them will be away from Hong Kong. That leaves 20 votes to be cast. According to the assessment of the HKU Alumni Concern Group, 9 votes (mainly staff members, teachers and students) support Johannes Chan's appointment. The pro-establishment side has 10 votes. That makes president Leong Che-hung's vote critical. If he supports the appointment, the vote will be 10-10 and further debate will be necessary. If he vetoes the appointment, then the game is over.

(HKG Pao) September 29, 2015.

On radio this morning, legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen said that it was rare for the University Council to hold secret balloting, and that it was also rare for the University Council to reject a candidate recommended by the selection committee. Former HKU Council member Cheung Pok-yin was on the same radio program and pointed out that during his tenure, controversial issues were usually voted by secret balloting and not "rare" as Ip asserted.

(HKG Pao) September 29, 2015.

The HKU Council has 21 members, of which 8 come from inside (namely, staff members, teachers and students). One of them will be away from Hong Kong tonight. Of the 8 from inside, 7 (including HKU president Peter Mathieson and School of Physics dean Kwok Sun) are for and 1 (Surgery Department director Lo Chung-mau) is opposed. Of the 12 from outside, all are opposed. So the writing is on the wall not to appoint Johannes Chan as the pro vice chancellor.

(Oriental Daily) September 29, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Council voted on the candidate for pro vice chancellor recommended by the selection committee. Council president Leong Che-hung did not cast a vote himself. By a small majority, the candidate was rejected. There were 20 members present. The vote was 12-8. Afterwards, Leong Che-hung told the press that the decision was made for the sake of the long-term interests of the university. Based upon confidentiality, Leong said that they will not discuss the decision-making process and they can't even provide any information on the unnamed nominee.

(SCMP) University of Hong Kong’s council votes 12-8 to reject Professor Johannes Chan’s appointment as pro-vice-chancellor. September 29, 2015.

Earlier, ahead of the meeting too, Chan urged the council to make a decision tonight, whether or not it wants to take him or reject him for the post, because the delay had affected the university’s operation. “I hope the council will conduct business in a transparent manner, particularly because this is a matter of public concern,” Chan said. “If their decision falls short of public expectation, it’s inevitable they should explain.” Chan disagreed with the council’s tendency to keep everything confidential.

“I really hope [the issue] can conclude as soon as possible,” said Leong as he arrived. “I hope the meeting can reach a consensus.” Leong and university vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson received letters from an alumni group and a group of university students, who urged the council to confirm the appointment.

Ahead of the critical meeting that has decided whether liberal scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun will be appointed to the key managerial post at the University of Hong Kong, Leong said he was giving up his vote in order to be “objective and fair”. Leong announced his move before the meeting started at 5pm, which was a turn from his previous practice as he voted twice in the decisions to defer deliberations of the appointment. The council voted in a secret ballot on Chan’s appointment tonight.

The outcome is likely to cause outrage among students and alumni, who are accusing the council of making a politically-motivated decision. Previous discussion deferrals on the pro-vice-chancellor appointment matter have been seen as an attempt to punish Chan for his support of democracy and his close ties to colleague Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a co-founder of the Occupy Central movement. Beijing-loyalist media have heaped criticism on the pair.

After months of delay and under a cloud of controversy, the University of Hong Kong’s governing council has voted by 12 to eight to reject Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun’s appointment as a pro-vice-chancellor. The decision was described by the chair of the institution’s governing council Edward Leong Che-hung, who did not take part in the vote, as being in the "long-term interests" of the university.

(SCMP) Going down swinging: University of Hong Kong's Johannes Chan decries political interference and wants reasons after appointment defeat. October 1, 2015.

Meanwhile, HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson clarified a Reuters report that quoted him as saying he could not rule out Beijing was behind the rejection of Chan. He said last night the interview was done on August 4, and he was talking about his email account being hacked, since he "did not know who" did it.

But some of the council members who were "exposed" by Fung hit back. Arthur Li Kwok-cheung accused Fung of lying, Leonie Ki Man-fung said the student leader had no integrity in breaching confidentiality rules and he "misinterpreted" their words, and Edward Chen Kwan-yiu denied saying Chan did not have a PhD. But they refused to reveal what they had actually said.

Several renowned international public law scholars, including HKU's Yash Ghai, dismissed council members' reservations about Chan's academic qualifications. They said a doctorate degree was not important in the discipline, and praised Chan's work and professional experience. "As a long-serving member of HKU … it grieves me greatly to see the council turn to these nasty tricks to deny [Chan the job] in order to - one must assume - appease the Chinese government," Ghai said.

After the closed-door discussions on Tuesday night, angry student representative Billy Fung Jing-en abandoned confidentiality rules and revealed the reasons eight pro-government members had given for rejecting Chan, ranging from his having no PhD degree to his failure to "show sympathy" to a council colleague who collapsed in July when students stormed a meeting.

On a radio programme yesterday, Chan said the council, being a statutory publicly funded body, had a duty to act fairly when exercising its powers. "Rule number one is openness and transparency," the former law dean said. "Confidentiality should not be an excuse to avoid accountability to the public, especially when this matter has drawn a great deal of public interest." Chan added on another radio show that he thought his rejection stemmed from "political interference", citing over 300 articles in pro-Beijing newspapers attacking him.

The council set off a storm by voting 12-8 in a secret ballot on Tuesday night against a search committee's recommendation that Chan be made the pro-vice-chancellor in charge of academic staffing and resources. Opposition to Chan's appointment had been linked to the liberal scholar's close ties to colleague Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a co-founder of the pro-democracy Occupy Central movement.

Legal academic Johannes Chan Man-mun yesterday urged the University of Hong Kong's governing council to give a public explanation for its controversial decision to reject his appointment to a key managerial post, as renowned international scholars spoke up for him. But Chan said he had no plan to challenge the decision in court, even though students and alumni were considering such a move as well as a class boycott.

(Ming Pao) A century-old university weakened by political struggles. October 2, 2015.

Hong Kong's political situation remains unclear in the post-constitutional reform era. The political struggles that arose from the appointment of Johannes Chan are in fact a microcosm of Hong Kong's political situation. Unless all sides change their mindsets and give up political struggles, incidents of similar nature will keep coming up in different forms. As the powers that be play a crucial role in shaping the political climate, society will fare better if the authorities give up political struggles. The University of Hong Kong has received a huge blow from the political struggles it has been caught up in. It is our hope that the university and Hong Kong will no longer be plagued by political struggles, that all disagreements will be resolved in a rational, tolerant manner and that internal strife will be kept to a minimum.

In fact, by rejecting the appointment of Chan as a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the HKU Council has mounted a challenge to the authority of the Vice-Chancellor. It is because the Search Committee was led by the Vice-Chancellor. Though the Council is the organisation that has the final say in the university, its focus should be on the university's long-term strategy. The Vice-Chancellor, on the other hand, should be responsible for its routine operation. This incident has the effect of redrawing the line between the power and duties of the Vice-Chancellor and those of the Council. It is worth our concern whether the Vice-Chancellor will be able to lead the university effectively. When interviewed by a foreign news agency, Peter Mathieson, the HKU Vice-Chancellor, said he and Chan's supporters had been under pressure. He also disclosed that his email account had been hacked into and some of its contents had been published by the media. He would not rule out the possibility that the incident was a carefully orchestrated one, he said.

The Search Committee, which was led by the university's Vice-Chancellor, recommended five individuals for the posts of Pro-Vice-Chancellors. Johannes Chan was one of them. The other four individuals have all received their appointments and are carrying out their duties. True, the HKU Council has the power to make a better arrangement regarding the appointment of Johannes Chan. However, if Chan has failed to get the job just because he does not have a doctorate or his academic achievement is not up to standard, this will mean that the Search Committee might have failed its tasks. It is because, if a doctorate and a solid academic background are the prerequisites of the job, Chan should not have been recommended for the job in the first place. And there is a Council member who claimed that Johannes Chan did not send him regards after he tripped and fell. If this was one of the reasons why Chan was denied the post, most people will be left speechless or be stumped for words.

The Council, in accordance with the principle of confidentiality, did not release an official explanation for rejecting Chan's appointment. However, Billy Fung, the HKU Student Union president and student representative to the Council, has breached confidentiality by disclosing some of the comments made by Council members. If what Fung said is true, it will mean that the Council does not have any convincing arguments to support their rejection of Chan's appointment. No doubt Fung's breach of confidentiality is itself a controversial action, and he might be punished by the Council. However, his unofficial account has brought to light the thinking of some Council members.

THE COUNCIL of the University of Hong Kong has rejected the recommendation to appoint Johannes Chan, the former Dean of the university's Faculty of Law, as a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the university. The issue might have come to an end, but Hong Kong as a whole has paid dearly. First, the university has been severely weakened by the turmoil. Second, the international community is likely to form a negative impression about Hong Kong's academic freedom and the autonomy of its educational institutions. Furthermore, there are a lot of signs showing that different political forces have been involved in the affair. They have turned the university into their battleground.

(Sky Post) Did the HKU Council make the correct decision? By Professor Francis Lui (UST School of Business). October 2, 2015.

When a university professor makes an honest profession opinion on someone else, it can be very hurting and it may create enmity. Therefore a system of confidentiality is an essential part of the university. The purpose is to make sure that the scholars can co-exist harmoniously. If there is enmity, then the reputation of the department, even the university, may be devastated. I have seen such situations in the United States. Fortunately at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, I and my colleagues work together well and we have never seen any office hostility or enmity. At present, there are rifts within the HKU Council, and that is not a good thing. I am even inclined to believe that the HKU Council members who voted against Johannes Chan very much welcome the students to file a judicial review because they are convinced that they will win.

Lo Chung-mau (according to the student representatives) said that Chan's qualifications are worse than an assistant professor. In universities, accomplished scholars often make these kinds of evaluations of others. I know any number of such people. But those who dare speak this way are major scholars or else they will be counter-criticized by their numerous enemies. Is Lo Chung-mau qualified to make this kind of statement? I checked Lo's citation rates, which numbers more than 20,000. His best 20 articles have been cited 11,577 times. Even though medicine has different citations rates than law, we think that it is hard to say that Lo is unqualified.

Different academic discipline have different citation rates. A good medical professor will be cited more often than a social scientist, so they cannot be compared directly. In economics, you have some status if you get cited one or two thousand times (young scholars are disadvantaged because it takes time to accumulate the citations). What about legal scholarship? I don't have an accurate answer. My articles are often cited in legal journals and that amazes me. This makes me think that legal scholars are also generous with citations and they must be at the same level as economic scholars.

The academic world rates a scholar based upon the anonymous expert opinions of his peers (those who have worked with or collaborated with him are not considered to be sufficiently independent, so that the Hong Kong media were wrong to interview his friends and collaborators). They also look at the number of books that he has published, or the number of articles published in the major academic journals and their subsequent citations. Arthur Li and Edward Chen have both served as university vice-chancellors before, so they clearly understand the logic behind this practice. I don't have time to figure out what the top law journals are. So I used Google Scholar to find the citation rates of Johannes Chan's article. There are about 400 citations (after excluding names that are close but publishing in different fields). Is that enough?

If Johannes Chan is going to be pro vice chancellor in charge of housing, infrastructure and finance, I am sure that not many people care whether he has a doctorate or a distinguished academic career. But this pro vice chancellor is someone who can determine who gets hired, fired, promoted or demoted. Although we don't know how the new Provost will eventually share power with this pro vice chancellor, it is certain that the job involves assessing the academic accomplishments of various professors. If the professors harbor doubt about Chan's curriculum vitae, he will be facing endless challenges if he gets the job.

Is a doctorate essential? That depends. The doctorate is the minimum entrance ticket in academia, so it doesn't amount to much. Under special circumstance, scholars without doctorates can be esteemed. One of my thesis advisor Leo Hurwiez never got a doctorate because World War II stepped in his way. But he was highly esteemed within the department and he eventually won the Nobel Prize. By then, obviously nobody cared about whether he had a doctorate or not. If you don't have a doctorate, you must have much better academic accomplishments than others in order to win over other professors. Does Johannes Chan meet this requirement?

As expected, there was a vicious fight in which two opposing political forces all came in. I am aware that the teachers were divided as well. Within the HKU Council, there were clearly two sets of opinions. During the fight, all the background details of Johannes Chan were blown up into the open. Normally, personnel debates within universities are kept strictly confidential so that nobody outside knows the details. But the Student Union president has disclosed parts of the confidential discussion to the public, so that the media are making amateurish judgments. In this case, academic persons are obliged to explain to the public just how universities operate so that they won't be misled. I am not interested in the Council members who are not academics; I am only interested what the academics think. The only information is based upon the brief comments by the person whom Arthur Li has called the "Big Liar." He did not say much and I am not sure that he covered everything, but I immediately recognized some ideas which are often used in academia. But perhaps the student doesn't understand academic standards and therefore unintentionally took the words out of context. So I will attempt to use standard academic logic to reconstruct the speakers' original intentions.

Most scholars who teach and do research in universities do not like politics coming onto their campuses to interfere with freedom of academic research and expression. At the same time, they are also very tolerant about people with different political views, because this is part of freedom of expression. If, within this domain, the university senior staff has clear political positions and preferences, then there could be many internal struggles that work against the interests of the university. For this reason, I have previously said that Johannes Chan should not jump into this mess. Obviously, my words are not worth much and have no effect.

(SCMP) University of Hong Kong council member accuses student of 'dishonest means' in Johannes Chan decision uproar. October 2, 2015.

In the face of criticism from several pro-establishment figures, including those mentioned in his revelations, Fung yesterday said on a Commercial Radio programme that he had no other goals to achieve than ensuring students’ right to know. “I don’t benefit from this,” said Fung. “This is different from some executive council members who leaked information for their own interests.”

Tsang yesterday defended the newspaper’s move, saying “it was hard to stop media from reporting”. Even if Chan were approved by the council, Tsang expected it would be very hard for him to be effective given his clear pro-democracy bent at odds with the central government. “Some staff [in the university] might question whether [Chan’s decisions] not to promote them are related to their patriotic stance,” Tsang said. “These excuses could easily be made and would make Chan’s job very difficult.”

Pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po first revealed last year that Chan was the recommended to the post of pro-vice-chancellor, and since then the appointment – which was supposed to be confidential until it was confirmed – had been heavily debated in the public sphere.

Meanwhile, Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, a university alumnus, said he felt sad about what had transpired. The handling of the incident was undesirable and would hopefully not be repeated, the veteran lawmaker said.

According to Fung, one reason raised by Lo was that Chan failed to “show sympathy” to him when he collapsed in July when students stormed a meeting. Reasons from other members included Chan's not having a PhD, Fung said.

“Integrity is the cornerstone of character,” Lo’s statement read. “Using dishonest means to achieve goals must not be tolerated.” He added that he hoped the student could reflect on what he did.

In his statement, Lo referred to a student member on the council breaching a confidentially agreement by “one-sidedly making statements on what was discussed by council members” during a recent meeting to discuss whether to appoint former university law school dean Johannes Chan Man-mun to a key managerial post.

Lo, a renowned liver surgeon, was quoted today by RTHK as saying he had received 2,000 emails since details of Tuesday's council meeting were exposed. He said some messages contained offensive language.

In a statement issued late Thursday, Dr Lo Chung-mau also said some had been “exaggerating matters” by attacking him online. He said such actions would “further split HKU” and “split Hong Kong.”

(Wen Wei Po) October 2, 2015.

It so happened that HKUSU members were also using the megaphone on campus. So the two sides started cursing each other out and drawing more than a hundred spectators. A teacher cursed the students and then broke down in tears. Students cursed out the demonstrators with obscene language and displayed their middle fingers. Finally, the university sent out a representative to accept a letter from the demonstrators who then dispersed peacefully.

About 20 members of the Cherish Group and the Defend Hong Kong Together Group demonstrated outside the HKU MTR Station. They said that Mathieson smeared our nation and his "Beijing interference" talk is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Hong Kong. Mathieson has also been completely indifferent to Billy Fung's breach of confidentiality.

HKU Vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson was quoted by Reuters that he could not rule out the possibility that Beijing was behind the episode. Mathieson quickly clarified that the interview took place in early August and was taken out of context. But certain people refuse to accept the explanation. They said that the storm over the pro vice chancellor appointment showed that Mathieson has no leadership qualities and therefore he should resign in order to protect the reputation of the university.

(SCMP) University of Hong Kong council leak prompts debate over transparency. October 2, 2015.

This is the crux of the issue - whether information relating to individual appointments ought to be made public even if a person has waived his right to confidentiality and the implications for hiring decisions.

The Guide for Members of Governing Bodies of Universities and Colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which the HKU council's code of practice refers to, says: "The agenda … and the signed minutes of governing body meetings … should generally be available for inspection by staff and students."

He said a public university funded by taxpayers' money should strike a balance between transparency and confidentiality. "The university is not an independent kingdom," he said.

Chong Yiu-kwong, a solicitor and senior teaching fellow at the Institute of Education's department of education policy and leadership, said it was not possible to make everything absolutely confidential. He cited exemptions such as when the council's discussions were part of a police investigation or a court case, when someone's rights were infringed or when there were "overriding ethical considerations".

While the council is considering punishment for Fung, Chung said the student leader should be kicked out for breaking the rules.

But pro-establishment lawmaker Christopher Chung Shu-kun, who is also a member of HKU's court that has the power to amend university statutes, said the council needed to change its rules according to new circumstances. He called on every council member to obey the rules and outsiders to respect the governing body's decisions.

Dr William Cheung Sing-wai, chairman of the HKU Academic Staff Association, said ever since the latest change, some council members had told him their discussions had been more "one-sided" towards members who supported the government.

In last year's version, the line said "it is necessary" to keep things confidential, while the 2004 version read "it is normally necessary".

Advocates of the move argued it made for more free-ranging discussion, while critics claimed it also allowed people to offer blunt or even offensive comments without fear of being challenged publicly. Yet others said outsiders should respect the council's decisions.

It was not as if the council had been unprepared. Sources told the Post that before the discussion on the appointment began that afternoon, a council member suggested that all members have their phones taken away to stop anyone leaking the closed-door discussions to the media.

Billy Fung Jin-en abandoned confidentiality rules and exposed the reasons pro-government members of the governing council of the University of Hong Kong had given in the closed-door meeting for rejecting Chan for the post of pro-vice-chancellor. Their arguments allegedly ranged from him not having a doctorate to his failure to "show sympathy" to a council colleague who collapsed in July when students stormed a meeting.

On Tuesday, there were red faces all around when barely two hours after the university's governing council voted 12-8 against appointing law professor Johannes Chan Man-mun to a managerial post, a student representative let the cat out of the bag.

Internet comments :

- Why secret ballots? The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous, forestalling attempts to influence the voter by either positive or negative reinforcement. The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.

If you cast an open ballot and I know how you vote, I can take retaliation. For example, here is the entire history of HKU Council member Ayesha Macpherson. If you don't like how she voted, you can take retaliation against her, her husband, her mother, her biological father, her foster father, her company, her book publisher, etc.

If you cast an open ballot, it will become obvious that you sold your vote because you voted the opposite of what you say that you believe. So that will stop vote buying.

But if you cast a secret vote, it will also stop vote buying. In Taiwan where vote-buying is rampant, they always tell you to take money from all possible sides and then vote according to your conscience because nobody is going to know how you actually voted.

So it all depends on the situation. If you are a legislative councilor, your vote should be open because you are accountable to those who elected you and your voting record will be decisive as to whether you are elected, re-elected ousted, impeached, etc. If you are an ordinary voter in the District Council/Legislative Council elections, your vote should be secret because your choice is nobody else's business.

Ip Kin-yuen wants an open vote. In the short term, it will make life hellish for those who voted nay. In the long term, it is going to make sure that no decent person would want to serve on the Hong Kong University Council because of what happened here. When that happens, Ip Kin-yuen will respond as he did last time to the violence in the July meeting: "Hey, I didn't bring those people here. Why are you blaming me?" The scenario here is foreseen by anyone who knows anything about the Hong Kong Internet (especially the Golden Forum guys).

- Why does Leong Che-hung say that the Council cannot disclose any information on the unnamed job candidate(s)? Well, you imagine that when you apply for the job, you may not have informed your current employer yet. If you get the job, you may then give notice to your employer that you are leaving. If you don't get the job, you will have to continue to work at the same place. You wouldn't want your employer to read in the newspapers that you were the candidate for a job elsewhere. That may affect trust, promotion, contract renewal and bonuses in the future. That is the reasoning behind the principle.

- You don't believe this could happen? Well, it has already happened. Because Billy Fung told everybody that Council member Lo Chung-mau criticized Johannes Chan did not "show sympathy" to him when he was injured by students in the July Council meeting, Progressive Lawyers Group convener Kevin Yam used his Facebook to start a "Show sympathy to Lo Chung-mau" campaign. "If we want to show sympathy to Lo Chung-mau together, compose your message and add the hashtag." Many netizens joined the campaign. Yam told the newspaper that he did not expect such a great response, but he noted that many of the comment crossed the line and so he is asking people to refrain from personal attacks and foul language.



- Ip Kin-yuen demands that Leong Che-hung give him a full explanation of the decision. Leong said NO WAY and hid behind the shield of privacy/confidentiality. The voting was by secret ballots, so Leong is in no position to say who voted which way. The only thing for sure is that he didn't vote himself. During the pre-vote discussion, certain members said certain things from which one can infer revealed preferences. But other council members did not articulate their preferences so their votes are unclear. The decision was made in a 12-8 secret vote, in which each member cast his/her vote this or that way for their own personal reasons. This is an aggregated decision. There is no way that Council chairman Leong Che-hung or anyone else can give a "full explanation" on behalf of the Council.

- As Henry Tang said after losing to CY Leung, "I lost because I didn't get enough votes."

- Ip Kin-yuen seems to be the only pan-democratic legislator standing out in the open to push for Johannes Chan. Everybody else is in hiding. The reason is that the political parties have to be concerned about their District Council election prospects, whereas Ip Kin-yuen is the Legislative Council representing the Education sector. Ip is not running for District Council and his re-election as Legislative Councilors is virtually guaranteed by the support of the Professional Teachers Union.

- The missing Council member is Abraham Razzak, who is overseas for the moment. He is a pro-establishment legislative councilor representing the real estate/construction industry. He would most likely vote against the appointment too. Also chairman Leong Che-hung recused himself, but he is labeled by Kevin Lau as pro-establishment, so we assume that he will also vote NAY in the event of a tie. That is, the final score should be 14-8.

- In social activism, it is common to use misinformation to attain your goals (such as talking about the specter of the phantom voters during these District Council elections). But this is usually done to mislead the people who hold the votes. The misinformation campaign here was conducted by people like Kevin Lau, who wrote a number of evidence-free "exposés". So the people of Hong Kong may have been successfully misled. But the people of Hong Kong don't hold the votes here. The votes are in the hands of 22 council members. They read Kevin Lau's articles about government pressure on them, and they don't find that to be true in their real lives. So there is this huge blowback now because they won't submit to this type of dirty trick!

- Example of misinformation:



September 28, 2014

One hour ago: Armored vehicle has arrived at Government Headquarters; independent media reporter threatened with being shot at; the orange flag has been raised; the police may open fire.

31 minutes ago: Somebody appears to have been shot with rubber bullets.

4 minutes ago: Latest news - they will begin shooting soon at 8pm; please be careful.

- Is there any chance that Arthur Li could vote for Johannes Chan? Previously, Kevin Lau wrote in Ming Pao that CY Leung and Arthur Li sent a middleman to persuade Johannes Chan to withdraw. This precipitated the student siege of the Council members at the July meeting. Kevin Lau wrote this breaking story in his opinion column and therefore he said that he did not need to verify the information. A Ming Pao reporter contacted Arthur Li before publication, and Li denied that he did anything like that. However, Ming Pao did not publish Li's response. It was several days later that Johannes Chan told the media that Arthur Li did not send any middleman to contact him. Yes, this was several days later when he knew exactly what the truth was the moment that Lau's column appeared in Ming Pao. As far as Arthur Li is concerned, Johannes Chan has problems with integrity, and he does not have the interests of Hong Kong University as his top priority.

- (The Stand) Ip Kin-yuen said that he was really pained and disappointed by the decision. He said that it was clear that this was made for political reasons, and that is why he is angry and pained. "Hong Kong University will likely be ruined in the hands of the outside members of the HKU Council." He pointed out that someone has took over personnel appointments through the HKU Council. He doesn't know where HKU's autonomy has gone. He said that Leong Che-hung has sworn that he won't give any accounts and he questioned whether this was the right attitude. He condemned the Council for talking only about privacy and confidentiality while tossing accountability and transparency to the winds.

- Leong Che-hung hinted obliquely that the decision was made for the "long-term interests of the university." What does the codeword stand for?

In the short term, the appointment of Johannes Chan to pro vice chancellor will make Ip Kin-yuen, Billy Fung Jing-en, the Civic Party, etc shut up. That is good.

In the long term, Johannes Chan will be a negative asset to Hong Kong University. First of all, every decision that he makes as pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources will be regarded as political. For example, if he approves the hiring of XXX or the dismissal of YYY, it will be regarded as political. XXX and YYY may decide to file a judicial review just like Ip Kin-yuen threatened to file a judicial review over Johannes Chan's non-appointment. Secondly, Chan's boss is the Provost, for which all four candidates have backed out already. Nobody wants to have a political time bomb ticking under his/her wings. The Provost wouldn't dare reprimand Johannes Chan for any mistakes, because Chan will scream: "Political witch hunt!" If Johannes Chan is appointed, they may never be able to hire a Provost. Thirdly, if Johannes Chan is appointed, he will always be in a weak position because his critics will continue harping away at how he is unqualified but given the job for political reasons. He will never get R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Fourthly, if Johannes Chan is appointed, it will validate the perception that the way to get a promotion is to "use force to stop tyranny" while "feeding misinformation to the press."

- The best example of someone who draws fire no matter what he does is Chief Executive CY Leung. But he pushes on, only because even if he resigns, his replacement will be in the identical situation. For the pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources, they should be able to find a completely apolitical person to fill that job.

- According to Cap 1053 University of Hong Kong Ordinance, the Council shall consist of:

(a) 7 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Chancellor, one of whom shall be appointed the Chairman by the Chancellor;

(b) 6 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Council;

(c) 2 persons, not being students or employees of the University, elected by the Court;

(d) the Vice-Chancellor

(e) the Treasurer

(f) 4 full-time teachers elected in accordance with regulations;

(g) 1 full-time employee of the University, not being a teacher, elected in accordance with regulations;

(h) 1 full-time undergraduate student elected in accordance with regulations; and

(i) 1 full-time postgraduate student elected in accordance with regulations.

Why is there only one undergraduate student representative on the Council? Because undergraduate students are there for only four years and have no idea how to run a University (even if they think they do).

Here is the current HKU Council membership (see also SCMP). You can Google their respective qualifications. Example: Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

- The university belongs to its staff, teachers and students. All decisions should be made by these stakeholders and not by any outsiders who know nothing about the university and its regulations.

- Know nothing? Pick any current council member from outside the university and any student now enrolled in the university, and quiz them about university regulations. Who do you think is more likely to know nothing?

- The mental hospital belongs to its staff and patients. All decisions should be made by these stakeholders in a democratic fashion. Since there are far more patients than staff, this means that all decisions in the mental hospital shall be made by the patients.

- No, schools are not mental hospitals. The situation is different.

- Okay, the elementary school belongs to its staff, teachers and students. All decisions should be made by these stakeholders in a democratic fashion. Since there are far more students than staff and teachers, this means that all decision in the elementary school shall be made by the students who are aged 12 or under. Okay?

- The reason why there are outsiders on the Council is that they provide broader perspectives and they have no conflict of interest. For example, Ip Kin-yuen says that the Hong Kong University Ordinance should be amended so that the HKSAR Chief Executive is not the chancellor. Fine, but how do you get there? HKUSU president Billy Fung's method would be to "use force to stop tyranny." That may crack a few skulls (mostly their own plus some of the security guards) but it won't change the ordinance. You can get an opinion from Council member Abraham Razzak, a legislative councilor who can tell you one or two things about legislating.

- Last time, Hong Kong University Students' Union president Billy Fung Jing-en said:"We are going to charge and clash at all of the University Council meetings."



- The Oriental Daily news story says that Hong Kong University Students' Union president Billy Fung has just spilled the beans. He is the undergraduate student member of the HKU Council. So much for privacy and confidentiality. Here are some of the highlights:

Arthur Li said that Johannes Chan does not have a doctorate and is therefore unqualified to be pro vice chancellor. The reason why Johannes Chan got to become the Dean of the Faculty of Law was because he was a 'nice guy.'

Leonie Ki, Margaret Leung Ko and Benjamin Hung said that the personal integrity of Johannes Chan is dubious because he jumped the gun to claim that he was the sole candidate recommended by the selection committee. As senior managers in large corporations, they would not hand the job over to Chan.

Lo Chung-mau was bitter that Johannes Chan did not show sympathy to him when he got injured in the Council meeting in July. Lo also said that Chan's academic accomplishments are worse than assistant professors.

Former Lingnan University president Edward Chen said that Johannes Chan rarely publishes in academic journals and he wonders if his academic accomplishments are as good as other pro vice chancellors.

Martin Liao said that Google showed that Johannes Chan's academic articles have been searched for only four times in the last five years.

Rosanna Wong said if Johannes Chan is appointed, it would be cause great rifts within Hong Kong University.

Billy Fung said that he was willing to be criticized for violating the confidentiality rules, and he apologized for it.

Video : Resistance Live Media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk9nHxN1TDI

- (SCMP)

- Former Lingnan University president Edward Chen was contacted by Ming Pao for Billy Fung's quotation of him. Chen said that he did not say that. He seemed to imply that Fung was not paying attention to the content of the discussion. "He did not even know who said what."

- (Wen Wei Po) Another source said that what Edward Chen said was that Johannes Chan seldom published in academic journals. Furthermore, Johannes Chan was not evaluated after he was promoted to professorship in 1998 so that there is no up-to-date objective assessment of his academic qualifications at this time. So there is a discrepancy with Billy Fung's presentation of what Edward Chen said.

- Billy Fung said that he was merely reading from the notes that he took during the meeting, and he does not know for sure it was Edward Chen who said it. Is that fair?

- (Speakout HK @YouTube)

0:25 Radio host: Edward Chen did not say that (Johannes Chan) did not have a doctorate. He said that maybe you weren't paying attention while you listened.

0:30 Fung: I was taking notes. When each person spoke, I jotted down notes. I was listening to what they were saying. Maybe while I was jotting ... I did not make an audio recording ... I cannot go back and check whether he said it. But when I was jotting at the time, this was what I jotted down.

- Martin Liao was quoted by Billy Fung as saying that he used Google Scholar to check up on Johannes Chan and found that his articles were "searched" for only four times over the last five years. Internet users immediately checked and found that Johannes Chan was "cited" more than four hundred times over the last five years. This proves that Martin Liao does not know how to use Google Scholar and therefore Johannes Chan should be appointed vice pro chancellor. Eh, the alternate scenario is that Billy Fung's English was poor and he knows nothing about Google Scholar such that he took "cite" to mean "search" and he jotted down "four" instead of "four hundred." Is that what Edward Chen is hinting at?

- (Wen Wei Po) On DBC radio, another council member Cheung Kie-chung said that Lo Chung-mau began by declaring that he has no relationship to Johannes Chan (including no contact even after the July meeting when Lo was injured) and therefore he is basing his decision on academic qualifications. This is what Edward Chen meant when he said that Fung "did not even know who said what."

- (EJinsight) "HKU Council member Cheung Kie-chung said he believes that Fung was left with no choice but to make a disclosure to the public, given the lack of explanation surrounding Tuesday’s vote." Well, that's sweet. If people are harboring doubts about whether Fung is telling the truth or merely misunderstanding what was spoken, then maybe the righteous Cheung Kie-chung can hold a press conference to confirm that everything that Fung said was true or otherwise make some corrections. But, no, Cheung Kie-chung has a choice and he has decided to say nothing. This is just typical Yellow Ribbon Zombie behavior -- he tells others to charge at the police while he stays behind because he says that there has to be a division of labor.

- Eight council members voted to support Johannes Chan. Where have the other six gone? They've got the same problem as Cheung Kie-chung.

- The most common reasons used against Johannes Chan are his lack of a doctorate, his poor academic citation rate and, most importantly, his mishandling of the secret donation to Benny Tai. It seems incredible that none of the council members mentioned this. More likely, one or more of them did, but Billy Fung cannot mention this. It is possible to come up with a defense of the lack of a doctorate because not every pro vice chancellor does; it is possible get cronies to stand up for his academic publication record; but there is no defense for the mishandled donation. Therefore, it has to be deep-sixed.

- Suppose that Billy Fung quoted correctly what the council members said and suppose that we don't even worry about the incompleteness of Fung's quotations. What were these people saying? They talked about Chan's lack of a doctorate, lack of publications in academic journals, not showing sympathy to the injured council members, etc. These council members appear to have very different reasons to vote against Chan. But in what way or manner do these reasons add up to "Beijing's interference"? In what way do these reasons add up to "the death of self-determination/autonomy at the university"?

- Billy Fung said that he had nothing personal to gain but he wanted to protect the students' right to know. Fine. So why is he only quoting the council members who appear to oppose the candidate. What about the others? For example, what (if anything) did Vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson say? Shouldn't we know where he stands? Why is the selective release of partial information protecting the students' right to know?

- (Wen Wei Po) Billy Fung said that one criticism of Johannes Chan was that he revealed in public that he was selected before the appointment process ended. However, people tracked down later that Wen Wei Po was the first to leak that Johannes Chan had been selected. This is confusing the roles of the press and the principals. On one hand, the press has the freedom to report on what it thinks is important to the public. On the other hand, the principals have the obligation to stay silent about the appointment process. Indeed, the Council kept its side of the bargain and declined to answer all press questions about the pro vice chancellor appointment. Even after the final vote was taken, the Council chairman Leong Che-hung refused even to name the candidate on privacy grounds. But the principal Johannes Chan decided to speak to the press and talk about his candidacy. LegCo chairman Jasper Tsang said: "If a newspaper reported that Chan is the sole candidate, those in the know who support or oppose him should remain silent, or simply answer that no comments will be made on a matter that is being handled. Perhaps the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po does not like Johannes Chan for what he did during Occupy Central. Maybe Wen Wei Po published many articles to denigrate him. But so what? As the saying goes: It takes two to tango. If Johannes Chan and the other Council members refuse to comment, there is no story."

- These Council members were questioning Johannes Chan's academic accomplishments. His supporters (including Billy Fung) seemed to be ill-prepared to mount a defense either because they were unfamiliar with his work (so how could they make a reasoned decision then?) or else they were familiar with it and knew that it was indefensible. Their only recourse is either to "use force to stop tyranny" in the July meeting or else hold a post-meeting press conference to launch a news bomb with misattributed information.

- The diatribe from Billy Fung may just lead investigative reporters to look into the scholarly articles of Johannes Chan and give them a proper appraisal. Not sure that Johannes Chan would appreciate this. Nothing good can come out of this for him, because the fight for the pro vice chancellor job is over and done with already.

- With allies like Billy Fung, who needs enemies?

- This seems to be the message that the discussion forums are getting -- namely, Johannes Chan sucks in academic research. They are wondering if Billy Fung is helping Johannes Chan, or stabbing him in the back?

- The tragedy is that Billy Fung actually believes that he is doing a favor to Johannes Chan.

- (Wen Wei Po) Arthur Li neither confirmed nor disavowed to i-Cable about what Billy Fung attributed to him. He criticized Fung for signing a letter of confidentiality and then betraying the promise. "Should you believe this liar?" Li said that there are many reasons why the contents of the discussion should be kept confidential, because there are some allegations that may have negative impact on the character, reputation and standing of Johannes Chan. In a free discussion, allegations may be raised but also rebutted with counter-arguments. But if you insist on total transparency, it means that everything you say will be used against you.

- Billy Fung said that if the council members are not ashamed of what they did, they should not worry about other people knowing what they said. Fung does not understand what the system of confidentiality is there for. Lo Chung-mau said: "As a university scholar, anonymous academic or job evaluations should be routine. For example, articles that are published in the academic journals, applications to fund research projects, nominating individuals for academic prizes and awards, job promotions/demotions/transfers/hires/dismissals are all based upon this gold standard. Confidentiality allows one to be objective and honest in making the evaluations. Without confidentiality, everybody becomes hypocrites who act as rubber stamps for the sake of friendship and power."

- Yes, there should not be any attorney-client, doctor-patient and priest-penitent privileges. Every discussion with your attorney/priest and all your medical information should be posted on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter. If you don't, it means that you must be ashamed or guilty of something or the other.

- If Johannes Chan is such a lousy candidate, then why is he the only choice for the selection committee? So he must have some good.

- Easily explained. Johannes Chan and his cohorts have turned the whole affair into such a stinking mess that no one else would put themselves forward for that position. Thus, Johannes Chan was the only applicant. What else could the selection committee do?

- Billy Fung said that he will accept the consequences of his news bombs. This sounds exactly like the kind of rubbish that Alex Chow was spouting: "You break the law, but as long as you surrender yourself afterwards, you will have completed the loop for the rule of law." Except one year later Alex Chow hasn't surrender himself and completed the loop yet. Billy Fung has no intentions to either. He will continue to sit on the Council and read out the minutes to the press afterwards. If he gets booted off, he will cry POLITICAL PERSECUTION!

- Who is going to hire Billy Fung when he graduates? He has shown himself to be thoroughly untrustworthy. If he goes with you to meet with a client, he is going to post what everybody said on his Facebook with negative annotations!

- Not even pan-democratic legislators would hire him as an aide. How can you let him get close to any secrets? You go and have a lunch with a government official, and nothing really happens. When you get back to the office, you find that the lunch date is already known all over Facebook. You ask him, Why? He'll tell you that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have to worry that everybody knows.

- Apple Daily can hire him for their paparazzi team. He seems to have no moral scruples and knows how to rant on about the people's right to know and the freedom of expression.

- Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki said that the confidentiality system isn't everything and should not override the quest for justice. I'm all for it. So why doesn't Kwok Ka-ki ask Occupy Central trio member Chu Yiu-ming who gave him that secret donation? So far Chu has been hiding behind the shield of confidentiality! Don't we the people have the right to know just who was funding Occupy Central?

- Johannes Chan got reprimanded for that affair too, so he presumably knows the identity of that secret donor. If there is "nothing to be ashamed of" (in the words of Billy Fung), Chan should tell us who that was.

- While we are at it, we the people also want to know the financial details for Alliance to Support Democratic Patriotic Movements in China, Occupy Central, Scholarism, etc. All these organizations solicit donations from the public by street booths and other means. None have divulged where the money came from or went to. We the People have the right to know.

- (Oriental Daily) April 6, 2015. The Federation of Students objected to the recommendation that those university students who have defaulted on their student loans have the information forwarded to the credit bureaus. The amount of default loan is $200 million over the past 3 years. Well, why have they suddenly embraced confidentiality? If the defaulting students have nothing to be ashamed of, they shouldn't violate the public's right to know who the deadbeats are.

- (i-Cable) October 2, 2015.

Because Billy Fung named the council members one by one and detailed what they said, he has become a target of criticisms. Fung said that he had decided to disclose what the council members say on the day before the meeting. He also assessed the potential consequences. Afterwards, Billy Fung was denounced for being a "liar" and for violating the confidentiality rules. Fung counterattacked by saying that if he was lying, then he would not be violating confidentiality. He said that the worst case scenario was that he would have to withdraw from the school. Fung said that he was still seeking legal advice. Once the council makes its decision, he would file for a judicial review as an individual and he will apply for legal aid to pay the bills. - If he told the truth, then he broke the confidentiality rule. If he lied, then he is a liar. Either way, he has an integrity problem. What kind of student would back himself into this dilemma? Is this the typical HKU student? - Usually you play the coin tossing gain with "Heads I win, tails you lose." Billy Fung plays "Heads you win, tails I lose." He is a true gentleman. - If he told the truth, then he may get kicked off the Council or even the university. If he lied, some council members may file libel suits. So which is worst for him? - Half the time he told the truth, and half the time he told lies. He broke confidentiality and he is a big fucking liar too. So he gets kicked out of school and then sued for libel. - Fung wants to apply for legal aid in order to file for a judicial review. DLLM! I as a taxpayer will have to pay the bill! Fucking parasite! ... digging an ever deeper hole for himself each day.

- (Passion Times) September 30, 2015.



Cheung Ka-man (Apple Daily): Fung Jing-en, do not think that just because you did something heroic means that you can look down on everybody. If it is alright if you don't respond. But saying "I feel that it is a common courtesy to show your telephone number when you call" and "I only speak to XXX and YYY over at Apple Daily" really makes people laugh. When those two colleagues of mine call you, you don't fucking reply either? These are unusual times, so I don't want to fucking scold you. But I need to say this: "I fuck your mother, please don't be so naive, University Student, Student Union president!" Melody Chan (Occupy Central Secretariat): He worked on withdrawing from the Federation of Students, but he won't work on a class strike now.

Cheung Ka Man: So it is. Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok (former HKUSU president): Everybody, I understand that it is important to have polite manners with others. But I hope that you can appreciate the pressure he has been under over the past half year. Each time that a reporter calls, it is not one independent call. Several dozen more calls will be coming in. Sometimes he becomes a machine that answers the calls from reporters. Over the past couple of days, he finds it hard to even attend work meetings. I apologize on his behalf to everybody for not being thoroughly considerate. I hope that you can appreciate that. Even though he is elected by the students, he is responsible for everything in the Student Union. In the end, public relations should take the majority of the Student Union president's time. I think that he must be vexed now. Cheung Ka Man: To the Queen, it's okay. The peers and I are alike. We will just mumble something on our Facebook. When we write our articles, we won't target his lack of manners.

- (HKFP) Hero or traitor? Student leader Billy Fung receives mixed reactions for HKU Council leak. October 2, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en has come under fire from members of the HKU Council for disclosing confidential information regarding the appointment of the pro-vice-chancellor. On Tuesday Fung breached the Council’s confidentiality rules by publicly revealing the reasoning behind the Council’s controversial decision to reject Johannes Chan Man-mun’s candidature for the University’s pro-vice-chancellor. Council member and HKU professor Lo Chung-mau released a strongly-worded statement accusing Fung of using “dishonest means to achieve his aim”, RTHK reported. Earlier, Council chairman Edward Leong Che-hung had also issued a statement condemning “the deplorable action” by Fung for showing “disregard and disrespect for… the Council member’s pledge of confidentiality.” He said the Council would consider sanctions against Fung. Fung, however, continues to defend his decision. He told the RTHK that the open and transparent operation of the Council is more valuable than the confidentiality clause. He also said that his revelation was not for personal gain but was in-keeping with the right of the students to know the Council’s reasoning. Others are applauding Fung’s move as a heroic one. In a China File blog post, Oxford University doctoral student and China commentator Samson Yuen said that if it was not for Fung’s “heroic” leak, the public would have been kept from the Council’s “anti-intellectual” reasoning behind Chan’s rejection. Chairman of HKU’s Academic Staff Association Dr. William Cheung Sing-wai told The Stand News he is proud of Fung for speaking up for righteousness.

- (EJinsight) October 8, 2015.

A maverick businessman has offered an employment contract worth HK$480,000 to Billy Fung in a show of support for the HKU Student Union president after the recent controversy related to the university governing council meeting. After Fung revealed to the public what transpired during the Sept. 29 HKU Council meeting, when pro-establishment members blocked law dean Johannes Chan’s appointment as the pro-vice-chancellor, the student leader faced criticism for breaking the council’s confidentiality arrangement. Some people from the pro-Beijing camp even said that Fung wouldn’t be able get any job in the future as employers would see him as a person who can’t be trusted. Now, to disprove such critics, Kwok Shiu-ming, who has various business interests and ventures including Man Fook Jewelry, has announced that he is willing to offer a two-year contract to Fung with a monthly salary of HK$20,000 anytime within the next three years. Kwok said he was furious when he learnt about the personal attacks on Fung, saying that they were akin to what happened during the Cultural Revolution in China. “Our society should not be like that,” Kwok said. “Authorities are trying to bully an ordinary citizen. There must be justice in society.” “When a society catches an unhealthy trend, we need to reverse that with a healthy trend,” the businessman told independent online media outlet SocREC. Kwok, who is not to be confused with Sa Sa chairman Kwok Siu-ming who shares a similar Chinese name, has now hit back at the critics, calling Arthur Li “rubbish” and challenging Li Tien-ming for a public debate. A man of mystery and miracle, Kwok had a PhD in Buddhism and founded an international exchange of Sakyamuni cultural centre. Once a boxer and also a car mechanic, Kwok evolved into a businessman and launched multiple ventures. In 2010, he stood for election in the Kowloon West geographical constituency but secured just 91 votes, ending his ambitions of becoming an independent legislator. On a Buddhism website, he has been described as a man with a crew cut who drove a Morris Minor in the 50s playing Indian music and wearing a 20s Rolex watch. Going by his latest pronouncements, Kwok still hasn’t lost his rebellious streak.

- HKU Department of Education associate professor Li Hui: "You (Johannes Chan) have no doctorate and no genuine academic accomplishments. We can deal with that. But while you were the Dean of the Faculty of Law, you led the way to encourage Occupy Central, you mishandled donations, you destroyed the rule of law and you violated university regulations. We find that hard to accept. We cannot believe that you are qualified or that you have the nerve to still want to become the university pro vice chancellor. Even if you get the job, how can you convince the masses?"



- (The Stand) The 12 Council members and the Council president Leong Che-hung were implementing a political assignment from the Chinese Communists and the 689 government. They gave up academic freedom and institutional autonomy. They damaged the basic interests of Hong Kong University. The students, staff, teachers and alumni have no choice but to fight till the very end for themselves, their alma mater and Hong Kong society as a whole. The most direct action is for the students to stop attending classes and the teachers to stop teaching. Let us boycott the Council until as such time as the decision is retracted. Hong Kong University affairs is not just for Hong Kong University people. It is actually an extension of the Umbrella Movement. The democratic movement did not end with the clearance of the Occupy sites. As long as the deep-layer social contradictions are resolved, they will explode out at various levels. The battle will continue until we attain the final victory.

If we cannot occupy the streets, let us occupy the University of Hong Kong.

- CY Leung must be saying: "Yes, go ahead. Stop attending classes and stop teaching, as if I care. Ouch, this is really hurting me ... NOT! Go ahead make my day." - If the students go on strike by not attending classes, they may get failing grades and thus postpone their graduation. But that would be something that they choose to do themselves as adults. If the teachers go on strike by not holding class, some student is going to file a civil lawsuit to recover tuition fees and/or lost time. E.g. "I'm in my sixth year of undergraduate studies and I am only two courses short of graduation. I've paid my tuition fee of $50,000 for the year already. I plan to go overseas and study Buddhism next year. But now the teachers refuse to hold classes!? I am screwed!" - The student/teacher strike is consistent with the philosophical approach of Occupy Central. That is to say, you hold the entire student/teacher population (especially your own selves) as hostage in order to extract something that your small group wants from the authorities. - Another similarity with Occupy Central is that the tactic dominates over any goals (their definitions and realistic assessment of the likelihood of success). Do you think a student/teacher strike will enable Johannes Chan to become the pro vice chancellor? Or make the Legislative Council amend the law so that the HKSAR Chief Executive does not automatically become the chancellor of all eight universities? Or make the University Council be elected completely from among the staff, teachers and students by genuine universal suffrage without any outside members? What are the chances of these goals being realized by student/teacher strikes? - The biggest similarity with Occupy Central will be the end result. After months of student/teacher strike, the silent majority is going to explode in anger, speak out and stop this type of thing from then on. Except for a few diehards, the participants will pretend that they have nothing to do with the strikes. - (HKG Pao) October 2, 2015. Former HKUSU magazine Undergrad deputy chief editor Chan Ah Ming wrote on Facebook: "After the battle last year, I no longer advocate a student class strike. A class strike only hurt yourselves, not them. It does more harm than good. At the next Council meeting, let's have another physical clash to counter-attack the Communist dogs. This is the best option out of very bad options." This drew praises from many radicals: "Magnify it" "The revolution is the main dish, because it is better than small actions without material gains" "Bring tomatoes to throw at the Council members" "Fucking beat up Arthur Li and Lo Chung-mau!" "If only we had beaten up those old bastard Communist dogs so that they have to be hospitalized for a few months ..."

- (Reuters)

... the HKU's president, Peter Mathieson, told Reuters before the vote that he believed pressure on him and others who back Chan's appointment was being "orchestrated". He said his personal emails had been hacked and some had been published in pro-Beijing media. He added that he could not rule out the possibility Beijing was behind the episode. - (Hong Kong Free Press) September 30, 2015. Hong Kong University president Peter Mathieson believes the pressure on him and others who had backed the appointment of Johannes Chan as pro-vice-chancellor was “orchestrated” by some political elements. Mathieson told Reuters that his personal emails had been hacked and that some had been published in pro-Beijing media. He said he cannot rule out the possibility that Beijing was behind the episode. - Well, I can rule out the possibility that Beijing is hiding underneath my bed -- I just checked. I am being facetious here, but what grown-up can tell the media that? This is the same as the factually challenged fantasies from the poison pen of Kevin Lau or the $100 million man Leung Kwok-hung -- if Peter Mathieson has a shred of evidence (such as a midnight phone call from the bogeyman CY Leung), please say so.

- Interesting. You cannot rule out the possibility of XXX. Just how can you rule out that possibility? Maybe Xi Jinping gave you a call and assured you, but can you trust him? Maybe the CIA/MI6 told you that their surveillance did not reveal anything, but that only means the Commies are even smarter? There is in fact no way for you to rule out the possibility of XXX. - (RTHK) As a HKU graduate, Martin Lee feels ashamed and humiliated by the outcome. With respect to Vice-chancellor Peter Matheison's disclosure that he could not rule out the possibility of Beijing behind the affair, Martin Lee said that Johannes Chan would be pro vice-chancellor already but for Beijing's interference.

If not for Beijing's interference, Martin Lee would be President of the Hong Kong Republic already.

If not for Beijing's interference, Jimmy Lai would be operating Next TV in Hong Kong already

If not for Beijing's interference, Hong Kong would have vindicated the June 4th 1989 movement already.

If not for Beijing's interference, [Please fill in the blanks with your own wish list; don't worry if you have no evidence because that is not a requirement] - (SCMP) " Meanwhile, HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson clarified a Reuters report that quoted him as saying he could not rule out Beijing was behind the rejection of Chan. He said last night the interview was done on August 4, and he was talking about his email account being hacked, since he "did not know who" did it. " Dr. Mathieson, welcome to the Hong Kong world of media distortion!

[Note: The above is put in bold red because it did not seem to have been picked up by other media outlets.] - Every word that Reuters reported was accurately transcribed as spoken by Peter Mathieson, except it is being placed in a different context for reporting purposes! - I am sure that Reuters will be happy to issue a non-apology apology: "We are sorry that certain users misunderstood." - (SCMP) The university’s vice-chancellor has declined to say whether Beijing was behind the council’s decision. Speaking after the official National Day reception this morning in Wan Chai, Professor Peter Mathieson stated, “The council made the decision based on a thorough debate of all the issues.” When asked whether he believed Beijing interfered with the council members’ deliberations, Mathieson said only that council members could speak for themselves. “Everybody has their own reason,” he said. “The principle should be that decisions are made in the best interest of the university, and that’s certainly the principle I bring to all my decisions.” (Hong Kong Free Press) October 1, 2015. In an interview with Reuters published on Tuesday, Mathieson reportedly said back in August that he believed pressure on him and others who back Chan’s appointment was orchestrated. He also said that the contents of his email had been published by state media and it was possible “Beijing was behind the episode.” However, Mathieson told Ming Pao on Wednesday that the interview took place before the Tuesday HKU Council meeting. He said the contents were taken out of context. He also said he was not sure who was behind it and that he could not exclude any possibilities , but he was not deliberately criticising or pointing the finger at anyone.

- (SCMP) In a statement, Johannes Chan said he had no further comment, now that the decision was made. "This is not an issue of personal gain or loss, but one about the core values of academic freedom and institutional autonomy," Chan said. He called on HKU supporters to keep safeguarding those values and not to feel frustrated.

- Thus begins the Johannes Chan watch to see how many days elapse before he files a judicial review. He will not be ignored. Addendum: He was only able to hold off for less than 12 hours as he turned up on two radio programs the next morning. Tsk tsk tsk.

- On July 27 2015, Johannes Chan told the Hong Kong Economic Journal in an interview that he was informed by the HKU Selection Committee in December 2014 that they will recommend him for the job of pro vice chancellor. The start date was set at March 17 2015, and all the terms and conditions in the contract have been agreed upon. According to the Cap 1053 Hong Kong University Ordinance Section 12 Officers and teachers, their appointment, powers, duties and emoluments Article (6) The Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Treasurer, the Registrar, the Librarian, and the other officers designated as such by the statutes shall be appointed by the Council in accordance with the statutes." That is to say, the power to appoint the pro-vice-chancellor lies solely with the Council and nobody else. So who on the selection committee is telling Johannes Chan that he has got the job ready to start on March 17 2015 with all the terms and conditions being finalized already? Just on March 4, 2015 Vice-Chancellor Peter Mathieson said that the selection committee has not forwarded its recommendations to the Council. If Johannes Chan has some familiarity with Cap 1053 Hong Kong University Ordinance, he must surely know that the person is acting way beyond his authority. If Honorary Senior Counsel Johannes Chan is not familiar with that piece of legislation, then maybe he should not think about become pro vice-chancellor at that university.

- (Bastille Post) The Third Kind of Opinion. September 30, 2015.

At a dinner with friends, the Yellow Ribbons and Blue Ribbons began to argue with each other just like they did during Occupy Central (...). At this time, one person who seldom touched political subjects suddenly interjected: "If this keeps on, what will happen to Hong Kong University in the future?" This friend is a HKU alumnus. He graduated more than 30 years ago. His daughter is in Form 5 of an elite school and considering whether she should apply to HKU to do a double major in Business Administration and Law. She is rated as capable of getting 34 marks in the DGSE and therefore can qualify for that program. But her father said that HKU is increasingly politicized and surpassed by UST in the most recent QS ranking. The daughter is vexed, because she does not like the politicized environment of HKU. She asked her dad whether she should be going instead to study law in England instead. My friend said that law schools in England are just as good, but there is a separate problem. In recent years, the legal sector in Hong Kong has protected itself by requiring graduates from law schools in England to take a PCLL course before they are allowed to intern. Previously, those who graduated from law schools in England are automatically allowed to intern. Since PCLL places are limited, this may be a risk. My friend said that he is a HKU alumnus and his daughter is a potential applicant. As such, they qualify as so-called "stakeholders". But does anyone care about what they think? He said that everybody likes to do politics nowadays, so that HKU has been a political institution with quarrels breaking out daily. Everybody including the University Council, the University president, the staff, the teachers and the students don't seem to care about the university rankings or recruiting the best and brightest. My friend said that if his daughter chooses to go to England, she better go there to do AS level at Form 6 in order to get into a good school. In England, the annual expenses are more than $400,000 per year. This is far more than the $50,000 to study at HKU. So it will cost him more than $2 million over five years. He said that universities in Hong Kong are subsidized by the taxpayers. But why do they wind up like this? If these people want to play politics, they ought to go to the Legislative Council. As my friend went on, he got angrier and angrier. The Yellow Ribbons and the Blue Ribbons at the table dared not speak, because nobody knew how to answer him. Before he left, he reminded me to write down what he said and publish it, because there are many people like himself in the silent majority. They are all sick and tired of the endless politicking. They want to lead normal lives without politics driving everything. Unfortunately for them, things are otherwise as they find by reading any newspaper. Their "third kind of opinion" is completely ignored. He only wants to the university to stop politicking and do their academic work well.

- (SCMP) Doctorate not that important for HKU managerial post, says committee member in Johannes Chan case. October 1, 2015.

A member of the search committee that recommended Johannes Chan Man-mun for a pro-vice-chancellor's post at the University of Hong Kong has said professional experience and standing is more important than a doctorate degree. As the committee's recommendation was rejected by HKU's governing council on Tuesday night, the member, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the council's considerations "differed" from the selection body. During the meeting, pro- government members who opposed Chan's appointment were said to have cited reasons including Chan having no PhD degree and not publishing enough in international journals. "This is a managerial post. We put more weighting on the managerial skills than academic qualifications," the member said. "For professional faculties such as law, medicine and dentistry, professional experience and standing count more than publications in journals." International and local legal scholars came to Chan's defence. Yash Ghai, an internationally renowned public law scholar and an emeritus professor at HKU, said it was "absurd" to say Chan was not qualified for the job because he had no PhD, as some of the world's leading law professors and scholars did not have doctorate degrees. To say Chan seldom published in journals was a "deliberate attempt to vilify him", Ghai said, noting he had published in well known journals locally and overseas. Chan has a 30-page list of publications on his HKU webpage that includes books, articles, conference papers and research projects. One of the recent works, Law of the Hong Kong Constitution, which he co-edited and co-authored, was hailed by former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang as "a seminal work" on the Basic Law. Cheryl Saunders, a laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, added that many senior public law scholars had published major books instead of undertaking PhD studies. Cambridge University professor David Feldman, who does not have a PhD, said it was a mistake to regard the international ranking of journals as reliable indications of the quality of the work published in them. Michael Ramsden, associate law dean at Chinese University, pointed to the fact that Chan was the only legal academic in town who was made an honorary senior counsel, having argued in landmark cases on constitutional law and human rights. He said it "speaks volumes" about Chan's contribution to the field.

- (Wen Wei Po) October 1, 2015.

According to Section 31A CAP 159 Legal Practioners Ordinance, (4) The Chief Justice may, after consultation with the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society, appoint a barrister as honorary Senior Counsel if he (a) is a member of the academic staff of a faculty or school of law of a university in Hong Kong; or

(b) holds office as Director of Legal Aid or as a Deputy Director or Assistance Director of Legal Aid; or

(c) holds office as Official Receiver or an office specified in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6); or

(d) holds office as Director of Intellectual Property or an office specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Director of Intellectual Property (Establishment) Ordinance (Cap 412), and who has in, in the Chief Justice's opinion, provided distinguished service to the law of Hong Kong. (5) The appointment of a person as a Senior Counsel in an honorary capacity does not confer on the person a right to act as an advocate in proceedings before the courts of Hong Kong and will not accord precedence before the courts.

Chan's supporters said that the fact that he is a honorary senior counsel showed that he is "qualified" to be pro vice chancellor at the University of Hong Kong. According to senior barrister Devon Sio Chan-in, a honorary senior counsel is a honorific title compared to a senior counsel who had to have been a senior barrister with more than 10 years of experience, in a way that a honorary doctorate is to a doctor of philosophy degree. Sio explained: "Your curriculum vitae is your curriculum vitae, but a honorary senior counsel is a honorific title. Being a honorary senior counsel does not stand for your curriculum vitae." When HKU graduate Rita Fan was asked whether a honorary senior counsel is qualified to be pro vice chancellor, she had to say that she did not know what the term means. Is this an academic degree? Or does this mean that the person is a legal practitioner who specializes in court cases?

Another law practitioner said that the "honorary" before a title makes it a honorific title: "A honorary senior counsel is not a proper senior counsel." A honorific title does not imply academic accomplishment. The universities in Hong Kong have awarded a number of honorary doctorates, in order to praise the accomplishments of those people in their respective domains. "But that does not mean that these people are qualified to teach in universities."

- Jackie Chen is a honorary professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and a honorary Doctor of Science from the Hong Kong Baptist University:

- (Hutchison-Whampoa) Mr Li Ka-shing, GBM, KBE, Commandeur de la Légion d’Honneur, Grand Officer of the Order Vasco Nunez de Balboa and Commandeur de l’Ordre de Léopold, has received Honorary Doctorates from Peking University, the University of Hong Kong, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong, The Open University of Hong Kong, University of Calgary in Canada and Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. - (City University) Honorary Doctors of Law

John J Swaine (November 1993)

Woo Po-shing (May 1995)

Lu Ping (November 1998)

Henry Tang Ying-yen (November 2003)

Norman Leung Nai-pang (November 2004)

Xiao Yang (November 2004)

Patrick Chan Siu-oi (November 2008)

Simon Ip Sik-on (November 2009)

Andrew Li Kwok-nang (November 2010)

Tsang Yok-sing, Jasper (November 2011)

Hatoyama Yukio (November 2013) - Top 10 Chinese celebrities with doctor degree

#1. Maggie Cheung (actress), honorary degree from the University of Edinburgh

#2. Zhang Yimou (director), honorary degree for Doctor of Fine Arts from Yale University

#3. Andy Lau (singer/actor), honorary doctorate from the University of New Brunswick, Canada although he was only a secondary school graduate.

#4. Jackie Chan (actor), honorary Doctor of Science from the Hong Kong Baptist University and honorary fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of Performing Arts

#5. Lisa Wong (actress), honorary Doctor of Letters from the City University of Hong Kong

#6. Wong Kar-wai (director), honorary doctorate from the Open University of Hong Kong

#7. Chow Yun-fat (actor), honorary doctorate from the City University of Hong Kong

#8. Ang Lee (director), honorary doctorate from the Taiwan Art University

#9. John Woo (director), honorary doctorate from Hong Kong Baptist University

#10. Eric Tsang (actor), honorary doctorate from University of Dayton in Keladuoha. - Johannes Chan is the only individual in Hong Kong who was given the honorary senior counsel title. Isn't that proof enough of his exceptionalism?

- Ahem, every other senior counsel earned it the hard way by working for decades. Johannes Chan got the honorary version through some cronies in the Bar Association/Law Society without having to work for it.

- (Bastille Post) A lot of universities hire pro vice chancellors with no doctorates mainly because these people are hired for their ability to raise funds from the business community. Very often, these people are hired with contracts that stipulate the expected amount of donations. If they failed to reach quota, their contracts will not renewed. Johannes Chan would clearly not be expected to fulfill this kind of function.

In addition, the university rankings often include the percentage of doctorates among its teaching staff as one criterion. Therefore they need to have a good reason before they will hire a pro vice chancellor without a doctorate.

- (EJinsight) October 2, 2015.

Is a doctoral degree necessary for the post of university pro vice chancellor? The question arose after the governing council of the University of Hong Kong voted on Tuesday night to reject the search committee’s recommendation to appoint former law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources. Billy Fung Jing-en, president of the HKU Students’ Union and a council member, told media that during the deliberations, council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung said that Chan had no doctoral degree and therefore was not qualified to be a pro vice chancellor. Fung quoted Li as saying that Chan could have been appointed dean of law just because he was a nice guy. Going by Li’s stated reason for turning down Chan suggests that his being the only “honorary senior barrister” in Hong Kong is still not enough to qualify him for the post. Chinese University professor Simon Shen Xu-hui, who specializes in international relations, indicated in a Facebook post that it is ridiculous to use a doctoral degree as a requirement for the post. Shen cited the case of Chi’en Mu, who was considered one of the greatest historians and philosophers of China in the 20th century. In 1949, he co-founded New Asia College, which later became the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and became one of its first principals. Ch’ien’s highest educational level was only junior high school. In fact, from 2013 to this year, only four out of six current or former deputy vice chancellors and pro vice chancellors are doctoral degree holders, according to research by Ming Pao Daily. In 2003, Chan said in a media interview that he did study for a doctoral degree in the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1988, but he later decided to give it up because he wanted to spend more time helping people understand legal problems in Hong Kong society that was then facing multiple issues regarding its return to Chinese rule. Chan, who has published a number of books and theses and represented many famous legal cases besides teaching, said he has never regretted his decision. On Thursday, Chan told Commercial Radio Hong Kong that a doctoral degree is not that important for someone in the legal profession, citing some judges in the Court of Final Appeal as examples.

- The supporters of Johannes Chan cite the case of Martha Minow, who is Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School. Here is what is said about the education background of Martha Minow:

After completing her undergraduate studies at the University of Michigan, Minow received a master’s degree in education from Harvard and her law degree from Yale. She clerked for Judge David Bazelon of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States. She joined the Harvard Law faculty as an assistant professor in 1981, was promoted to professor in 1986, was named the William Henry Bloomberg Professor of Law in 2003, became the Jeremiah Smith Jr., Professor of Law in 2005, and became the inaugural Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor in 2013.

Martha Minow does not have a doctorate. Therefore doctorates cannot be all that important. Right?

But you should take a look at this phrase: "She clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States." That changes everything. (Reference: The influence of the Supreme Court clerk at the SCOTUSblog). It means that many people know that Martha Minow was a central figure in many of the major decisions of the Supreme Court. So who did Johannes Chan clerk for? Nobody. In summary, you don't have to have a doctorate to become pro vice chancellor. But you need to have other accomplishments that are equivalent to or surpassing a doctorate. If you want to make the case for Johannes Chan, you cannot just say "Many other Law School deans don't have doctorates". That is just negating a negative; you need to accentuate the positives.

- From the Hong Kong University Department of Surgery staff list: Professor Lo Chung-mau, Chair Professor and Head of Department, MBBS(HK), MS, FRCS(Edin), FRACS, FACS, FHKAM(Surg), FCSHK. Well, this bloke doesn't have a doctorate (either doctor of philosophy (PhD) or doctor of Science (ScD)). All he has is a bachelor and a master, plus a bunch of fellow titles handed over by cronies. So how did he get to become a Chair Professor and Head of Department? By having cronies in high places, of course.

- Oh, on his way to cronyism, his papers have more than 20,000 citations and he carried out the world's first double liver transplant recently.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong liver transplant expert Lo Chung-mau is a hero wrongly condemned as a villain. By Alex Lo. March 21, 2016.

We Hongkongers love to beat ourselves up. But every now and then, it’s worth pondering things that we do right – like having one of the world’s great liver transplant team of doctors at Queen Mary Hospital. But for the efforts of Professor Lo Chung-mau and his team, a 39-year-old Canadian liver patient and father of three would have certainly died. Mike Watson suffered from a serious liver condition that could kill in three months. However, his doctors in Canada told him he would have to wait six months for a transplant. The waiting list was a virtual death sentence. But his enterprising wife, Lisa, started researching treatments around the world and found out about Hong Kong’s pioneering transplant expertise. “There are a lot of people willing to become a donor, but the doctors in Canada told us Mike was too sick to undergo such surgery,” Lisa said. “They wouldn’t even give us a survival rate.” Lo’s team was able to transplant a substantial portion of Lisa’s liver to her husband. Both have an excellent chance at recovery. Lo is a pioneer in performing transplants from live donors. His expertise is recognised around the world. People like Lo are our city’s treasures, but he is not being celebrated as such these days. Instead, trolls on the internet have attacked him mercilessly, while student activists have hounded him on campus. This is because he was one of the members of the University of Hong Kong’s council that voted against hiring Johannes Chan Man-mun as the school’s pro-vice-chancellor for research and personnel last year. Being a council member for a man of his scientific stature is clearly a thankless task. Professor Yuen Kwok-yung, HKU’s renowned virus hunter, saw the Red Guards were coming and wisely quit before the whole thing went out of hand. Lo pressed on out of a sense of duty and was rewarded with public denunciation and character assassination. But you could hardly accuse him of being a Beijing stooge, when he was one of the least political persons on the council. These days, there is no point for capable and meritorious people to take up public office because those little Red Guards will go after them unless they toe the “correct” political line.

- (Oriental Daily, October 4, 2015) In order to retaliate against Lo Chung-mau for whatever it was that he did, Internet users have ferreted out the detailed information on his daughter, including her name, her university and her department, her telephone number, even her ex-boyfriend. She has immediately deleted her Facebook account.

- Too late for the ex-boyfriend ... He has only himself to blame for having made a poor choice.

- They say that outsiders outnumber insiders on the 22-person university council and therefore the university has lost its autonomy. But all that happened in 2003.

(HKU) A three-person review panel, compri