Baptist University student union president Lau Tsz-kei and Andrew Chan Lok-hang, a Chinese medicine student, who both were given the penalty of suspension of studies for "occupying" the school's Language Centre last week, yesterday apologised face-to-face to teachers at the Language Centre. They have to wait for a disciplinary hearing before they could possibly resume their studies.
It is something these two students should do to deliver their apologies for their rude and offensive behaviour the other day. But the focal point of the incident is not whether Lau Tsz-kei had used foul language that day, nor even on the Putonghua proficiency requirement itself. Rather it lies in whether authorities of universities today are, in regard to carrying on the mission of education and safeguarding the rule of law in the SAR, still able to fulfil traditional universities' role as "a beacon light to society" to cultivates talents, to forsake evil and promote virtue and to foster high standard of social conduct; or do exactly the opposite by tolerating and winking at students' wrongdoings, and even by playing an ambiguous role and not daring to step forward bravely in face of matters of principle such as advocating "independence for Hong Kong" and splitting the nation. The latter is really a cause of concern and worrisome, in view of events in recent years.
As a matter of fact, taking the incident at the Baptist University's Language Centre for example, university president Roland Chin Tai-hong decided to temporarily suspend the two students of their studies in the aftermath. For one thing, authorities of the school needed time to conduct an investigation, and for another, the students concerned could be taught a lesson and calm down for a self-reflection. This was entirely necessary and exactly followed school rules. The next day, Lau Tsz-kei, suspended of his studies, attempted to walk into a classroom to attend a course but was stopped by the teacher of the course following the instruction of the school authorities. Then Lau Tsz-kei walked into another classroom, the teaching lecturer Chan Sze Chi from the Department of Religion and Philosophy not only did not stop him but asked students in the class to welcome him with applause.
This is really astonishing and unimaginable. It is duty bound for a member of the teaching staff to carry out a decision by the school authorities. Not to mention that Lau Tsz-kei did offend teachers with foul language, even if one has a different opinion on a certain decision one still must not behave in ways to run counter to the school authorities. The university president has plainly ordered to suspend Lau of his studies, but Chan Sze Chi welcomed him with applause to attend his class. By doing this, does he still have any respect to school rules and discipline? And in what position does he put Roland Chin Tai-hong, the university president? In light of Chan Sze Chi's brazenly "defying an order" of the school authorities, Lau Tsz-kei's move to storm into the Language Centre can be said as "like student like teacher".
This is indeed the fact. As a senior lecturer of a university, Chan Sze Chi has been active in the radical antagonist activities in recent years. During the 79-day law-breaking Occupy Central, he had gone to the "occupied zones" to open classes and teach. And he has long been attacking the Central and SAR Governments and supporting "civil disobedience" in online programmes. His radicalness is no less than youngsters.
Likewise, Lo Ping-cheung, a professor with the Baptist University's Department of Religion and Philosophy and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts, published an article on a newspaper days ago to publically "call for" the school authorities to revoke the Putonghua Proficiency Requirement for Graduation, his argument being that "students have a prejudice against Putonghua which originates from their dislike of the Central Government." Putting aside that Putonghua proficiency is of help to future careers of Hong Kong young students, Lo Ping-cheung does not refute at all the students' "reason" to dislike Putonghua, as if "China's Central Government" deserved to be hated so that "dislike" of Putonghua were "understandable and forgivable". It is really astonishing that such a fallacy without any national sense and going against the ideals of education could have come out of a university professor's mouth.
With the Hong Kong University's Faculty of Law being turned to be "law-breaking and trouble-making headquarters" by Johannes Chan Man-mun, Benny Tai Yiu-ting and their ilk as a precedent, now there erects the "mountain" hostile to Putonghua and school rules in Baptist University's Department of Religion and Philosophy. So to expect their students to positively recognise and study "one country two systems" and the Basic Law and to resist separatist activities such as radical "localism" and "independence for Hong Kong", it would be just like "to ask a tiger for its hide".
