by Bryane Michael
South China Morning Post - Hong Kong feedToday, 00:00
Alumni of the University of Hong Kong have voted to kick out Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying as chancellor of the university. They made the right decision - on the wrong question.
Section 12(3) of the University of Hong Kong Ordinance makes the chief executive the chancellor of the university. The question of Leung's chancellorship thus lies with the semi-democratically elected representatives of the people in the Legislative Council - not HKU's alumni.
The ordinance harks back to the days of colonial paternalism. The colonial authorities put the law in motion in 1911 and pushed the reset button in 1964. Yet, imagine if America's Second Continental Congress had passed a statute defining the powers and organisation of Harvard University. And George W. Bush inherited rights passed down through generations to become its president? What would be the ramifications?
The vote over Leung's authority misses the point. The real question focuses on Legco's duty to decide how the university should operate at all. Section 8 describes which faculties the university may have. Statute III goes into great detail - defining which degrees the university shall offer. Clearly, HKU represents a part of the government sphere.
Being part of the government sphere means that legislation - laws rather than regulatory guidance - tell it what to do. HKU still represents a "statutory body". And don't think HKU is alone in this. Ordinances also pull in the other educational entities. From minimum wages to the definition of their own functional constituency, the universities receive special, targeted commands from Tamar.
But HKU also represents "civil society" - at least for some. Worryingly, the motion affirming "adherence to the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy" got voted down by roughly three to one. Lack of freedom and autonomy, by definition, equals quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation status for the university.
Who should decide how HKU behaves? The people's quasi-elected representatives? Or the professionals in the university responsible for competing toe-to-toe with Cambridge, Columbia and Stanford? What does this tell us about democracy in Hong Kong?
The real question is not whether Leung should serve as chancellor. The question lies in where to draw the line between the state and us. Do we really need our universities regulated by the closest thing we have to a parliament? Is the University of Hong Kong Ordinance a relic of a bygone century?
All I know is that British Prime Minister David Cameron and the British parliament don't tell the University of Oxford how many departments and degrees it should have.
Dr Bryane Michael is a fellow at the University of Hong Kong's Centre for Public and Comparative Public Law. The views expressed here reflect those of the author and not HKU
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1862160/controversy-over-cy-leungs-university-hong-kong-chancellorship-begs
