蘇菲 - 令人作嘔

飛常Playgroup   香港蘋果日報   2015年10月3日

綜觀連日來各界對港大校委會的評論，曾任聯合國特使的憲法專家、港大法律學院榮譽教授Yash Ghai（佳日思）以「Nasty」來形容真是一針見血，他斥責校委為了取悅中國政府，卑躬屈膝，不惜用「Nasty tricks」來去除陳文敏。Nasty者，令人作嘔也。

校委會那N個否決陳文敏的Nasty reasons，根本就是中傷。一班校委心知已有足夠票數，在閉門會議上羅織罪名，一個接一個來中傷一位不受中方歡迎的人選。

Nasty者，是校委口口聲聲說要維護港大利益，一如盧寵茂所言「一切以港大長遠利益為依歸」，但他們卻將奠定大學的基石「學術自主」先狠狠地擲破。政通人和固然有助大學長遠發展，但大學從來不會本末倒置為了取悅政府或商家，而放棄學術自主。這一點，港大校委卻做到了。

Nasty者，是校委對馮敬恩公開部份會議內容而嬲怒莫名，迅速研究處分，但他們對堂堂港大校長馬斐森的私人電郵，內容被盜、繼而在左報披露一事，竟然視而不見。

Nasty者，是會議明明在討論副校長的任命，盧寵茂居然好意思在會上提出「跌倒後沒致慰問」此等鷄毛鴨蒜（註：語出自一位「博士」之口）之事。事後他批評學生「以不誠實手段以達到目的」，請問，馮敬恩達到甚麼個人目的了？

這班所謂的社會賢達，用大半生時間努力讀書，再用大半生時間努力建立自己在社會的位置，成就至此，人生應當圓滿。可惜他們贏不到大家的尊重，只青筋暴現地指摘一個黃毛小子。對，就是那個孩子，洩露了皇帝的新衣的秘密。

一切，怎一個「媚」字了得。

作者蘇菲，有小型飛機師牌的媽媽，拒做直升機家長，讓孩子翱翔。
電郵：faicosmos@gmail.com



【立場新聞編按：在港大法律學院任教多年、現為法律學院榮譽教授佳日思（Yash Ghai）早前回應傳媒查詢，對校委會否決陳文敏任命感到吃驚，他指自己任職港大以來，從未見校委會如此卑躬屈膝，用卑鄙招數去取悅中國政府，以下為佳日思回覆傳媒查詢的全文。】

I was shocked to learn that the Council of Hong Kong University has rejected Professor Johannes' nomination as the University's Pro-Vice Chancellor. The reasons given by the Council are spurious and totally unbecoming the Council.

I was Professor Chan's colleague for several years at the Faculty of Law at HKU. We are both public law teachers and collaborated on several research projects. He is also a distinguished lawyer who has participated in several leading cases on constitutional and administrative law.

It is absurd to say that he is not qualified to "process" job applications because he does not have a Ph D, Some of the world's leading law professors and scholars do not have a PhD degree. This is the case also at Hong Kong's own distinguished universities, including HKU and and Chinese University of Hong Kong. Certainly in my period at the HKU, the appointments boards usually had only a minority of members with PhDs. When I was law student, first at Oxford, and then Harvard for graduate studies, not one of my teachers had a PhD! Even my own study for the Ph D degree at Oxford was supervised by a professor who had merely a BA — and was acknowledged as one the most distinguished British professors of public law.

To say that Professor Chan has seldom published in academic journal or is seldom the "key author of the publication" is a deliberate attempt to vilify him. I collaborated with him in writing in and editing two books, one on human rights in Hong Kong, following the adoption by the Legco of international human rights, and the other on the decision of the Court of Final Appeal in the right of abode case, soon after the Basic Law came into force. Chan edited most of the chapters, co-authored one with me, and one on his own, in the first of these books. In the second book, he took responsibility for editing contributions in Chinese language, and wrote a chapter himself. Both these books were well received and provoked considerable debate — as a good book should. Two years ago in a book that I edited with Professor Simon Young, on the first 13 years of the Court of Final Appeal and that of CJ Andrew Li, Chan contributed an excellent chapter on public law. He has published articles in well known law journals, in Hong Kong and abroad.

To say that his achievement is "not even comparable to an assistant professor's", shows the spite and vindictiveness of the Council, and its determination to get rid of Chan at any cost — or trickery. In all my years at the HKU, I cannot remember the Council stooping so low.

Professor Chan has also written about Hong Kong's law in popular journals and newspapers, to educate ordinary people and to stimulate debate — which is also the responsibility of a good law teacher and professor. His involvement with cases in the Hong Kong is also consistent with scholar's contribution to the development of the law. Developing good working relations with the judiciary and the legal profession, which Chan as done with great success, is also often regarded as the responsibility of a law teacher. His contribution to the reform of law is well known, through litigation and research, contrary to the claim of the Council that his work has been of "low impact".

It is also a grave misrepresentation to say, as a member of the Council is quoted as having said, that Chan was elected Dean of the Law Faculty because he was "considered a nice guy". He is undoubtedly a nice guy. But before he became the Dean, he was the head of the Law Department. All the students and teachers had ample opportunities to see his leadership at close quarters. It is because we were convinced of his outstanding abilities, in giving leadership qualities, fundraising, relations with the judiciary and the legal profession, and a vision of the Faculty as a leading centre of legal scholarship, that we elected him as Dean. All the expectations that we had of him have been fulfilled. But there is no doubt that his achievements were at the sacrifice of his scholarship.

As a long serving member of the HKU and now an Emeritus Professor, it grieves me greatly to see the Council turn to these nasty tricks to deny Professor Chan, a distinguished scholar and administrator, the office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor, in order — one must assume — to appease the Chinese government. Soon after the resumption of sovereignty, the HKU and its Governing Council, stood up for Hong Kong's high standards of the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of its people (even to the extent of effectively dismissing a Vice-Chancellor for lack of integrity and taking order from the Chief Executive, himself under orders from Beijing). I wonder whether the Governing Council realises the harm that is inflicting on the university whose independence they were appointed to safeguard. The blow to academic freedom at HKU will also have equally devastating impacts on other institutions of higher education in Hong Kong.

Yash Ghai