Banners and posters advocating "independence for Hong Kong" keep popping up on university campuses after being torn away, and radical students persist with their extremist words and deeds. Whether one is willing to admit or not, it is an indisputable fact that "independence for Hong Kong" is unconstitutional and illegal, seriously interferes in and damages the normal operation of schools. However, despite "urgent appeals" in society to curb "independence for Hong Kong", the vice-chancellors of universities remain completely indifferent. A said anti-Hong Kong-independence "joint declaration" by the vice-chancellors of the eight universities has yet to come out.
It is not what a qualified school leader worth his salt would do to refrain from making known his position in a time when he should do so and to duck out of his responsibility when he should undertake his responsibility, which is also a far cry from the expectation of the general public. The vice-chancellor of a university is not only responsible for the daily management of the school, but should also take up his due social responsibility. In face of behaviour that openly challenges national sovereignty and tramples upon the rule of law, he is duty-bound and obliged to make a correct decision regardless how loud the voice of opposition is.
What is disappointing is, however, over the past week or so, the general public has not seen the vice-chancellors of the universities, except for one or two, clearly make their positions known to curb "independence for Hong Kong, let alone take substantial moves to check the influence of "independence for Hong Kong". Worse, some colourable words keep coming out. For example, some vice-chancellor said freedom of speech should be respected so there was no need to interfere in the freedom of the student union; another said that he did not agree with "independence for Hong Kong" but "there was no reason" why "independence for Hong Kong" should not be discusses on the "democracy wall", and that school authorities would not on their own initiative tear away such banners and posters. More choose to stay quiet for self-protection.
The argument [about freedom of speech] made is an absurd excuse. In the first place, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in the world. Any freedom is restricted by conditions on the same basis. This is rudimental political and legal commonsense, which has been expounded repeatedly by personages of insight in society and principal officials of the SAR government. So how could it be convincing by arguing in this way? Not to mention that "independence for Hong Kong" is prosecutable, which seriously threatens national sovereignty and territorial integrity, violates the constitution of the nation, the Basic Law for the Hong Kong SAR and local crimes ordinance. In face of such a serious incident, how can a school leader duck out of his due responsibility to curb it under the excuse of freedom of speech?
Secondly, "discussion" and "support" are different in nature. Are the banners and posters seen on campuses nowadays simply "discussions"? Openly declaring one's stand on "independence for Hong Kong", venomously cursing compatriots and violently threatening any voice of opposition, these are far from "discussions" but are real words and deeds to undisguisedly propagandise, advocate and instigate "independence for Hong Kong". Taking the United States for example, openly discussing about the IS is allowed on school campuses, but if some students make it known their support of IS, what would happen? How can one be the vice-chancellor of a university if he could not even tell the difference between these two.
Last weekend, a bunch of extremist students besieged a deputy vice-chancellor of the Chinese University for five hours, eventually forcing him to "come to terms"; yesterday, there also happened a besiegement in Polytech University by an extremist student group called Polyupavillion and it was later exposed that there was some sinister plot by political elements outside the school behind the incident. Obviously, university campuses have already become an "exercise and testing ground" for "independence for Hong Kong" with efforts made to suppress, step by step, the "bottom line" acceptable to the universities.
As long as the vice-chancellors of the eight universities do not clearly make known their positions, extremist radical behaviour will never stop, and "independence for Hong Kong" will reach out for a yard after taking an inch. So don't think this is to "show solicitude for and take care of" students, indecision invariably leads to trouble, and covering up is tantamount to connivance. Damages on school reputation and teaching quality is secondary, once "independence for Hong Kong" takes roots in campuses, students will ultimately become the biggest victims. Can the vice-chancellors bear such a heavy responsibility then?
14 September 2017
