Robert Carroll
The politicization of the appointment of a new University of Hong Kong chancellor has been unfortunate. More unfortunate has been the rejection of a previously highly vetted and approved candidate on spurious grounds. It is very hard to see the situation as being other than the result of heavy pressure by outside forces. Since there was no controversy over or strong opposition to the anointed candidate until local pro-Beijing newspapers took aim at Johannes Chan Man-mun’s candidacy – and not just a salvo or two but a heavy barrage – how can we come to anything but the conclusion that it was Bejing’s hands at work. However we can understand why they would do so.
If that was the case surely it means that academic freedom is at stake, or most likely that political affiliation will now affect other academic appointments at senior level if that has not already been happening in other universities here. The real reason council members vetoed the former law dean for the vice-chancellorship is widely seen by the public and within academia as stemming from Chan’s pro-democracy sympathies. He’s a defender of human rights too, but worst of all, he has a good relationship with former law faculty colleague, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an organizer of the Occupy Central movement. This led to pro-China forces’ behind the scenes lobbying. Reportedly the university’s councillors were summoned individually by Beijing’s intermediaries and it is concluded enough of them bowed to pressure to halt Chan’s candidacy.
If the appointment had gone ahead as planned there would have been no blowing up of the issues and antagonizing numerous students and alumni. If, as his accusers claimed, he was incapable of doing the job surely he would not have lasted long in the position. If the accusers are right doesn’t it mean that whole appointment process is flawed; and all those involved are incompetent. What a can of worms! Now, not only has the authority of the institution’s academic recruiting and vetting process been undermined but there is now a climate of outrage and fear at HKU.
So why does it matter so much to Beijing that someone linked to Benny Tai get the job? From Chinese government’s viewpoint, mass organized opposition to the National People’s Congress’s plan for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, is a direct challenge to their authority. The NPC is the legislature of the country and the Standing Committee the senior body of that institution. Therefore in their eyes publicly challenging that decision in such a manner is tantamount to challenging the very legitimacy of the government too. That the demonstration and occupation was illegal is without doubt and adds to the anger in the corridors of power in China.
Any demonstration in Hong Kong must get prior approval, and most do, but given the long advance notice given by Occupy Central’s organizers, the opposition too was long and heated. In that climate Occupy saw little chance of getting approval for their campaign and certainly it would not have been given permission for such a long duration as occurred. Moreover there’s the issue of civil disobedience. They felt that the law should not be respected when greater issues were at stake than demonstrating without permission – a relatively minor offence – a more democratic means to choose future leader of the SAR.
On the other hand it is clear that China does not trust Hong Kong’s citizens to choose their own leader, unless he or she is one among two or three they pre-approve.
Stalemate.
No Comments