OCTOBER 2, 2015 11:40 AM October 2, 2015 11:40 am
Johannes Chan, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, was rejected this week for a promotion, raising fears over Beijing’s influence.Credit Fai Lo/The Initium Media
The governing council of the University of Hong Kong rejected this week the nomination of Johannes Chan, a professor and former dean at the university’s law school, as one of five pro-vice chancellors, a post with influence over how Hong Kong’s most prestigious academic institution attracts and hires talent.
For almost a year, Mr. Chan’s candidacy for the post had been under attack by local newspapers sympathetic to China’s central government. It drew considerable attention in Hong Kong because many saw opposition to his appointment as a sign that the former British colony’s institutions were slowly losing their independence — a fear that was part of the foundation of student-led protests that paralyzed much of the city last year. Those protests were set off by a decision by the Communist Party-controlled National People’s Congress, or N.P.C., in mainland China to set guidelines for the election of Hong Kong’s top leader that effectively ensured that only candidates acceptable to Beijing could appear on the ballot.
Many of the top leaders of that movement, including Benny Tai, a law professor, and Yvonne Leung, a law student, were in Mr. Chan’s department. Communist Party newspapers accused Mr. Chan of being a ringleader of the so-called Occupy Central protests. But in a telephone interview Friday, Mr. Chan outlined a position at odds with those of Mr. Tai and Ms. Leung, saying that he was willing to work within the N.P.C.’s guidelines to improve Hong Kong’s electoral system. He also discussed his case, his concerns about academic freedom in Hong Kong and his plans for the future. The interview has been edited for length.
Q.
What are your plans now? I hear there was talk of a possible judicial review of the decision?
A.
At the moment, I don’t have any intention to judicial review the decision. I think probably the matter has dragged on for long enough, and it is time to come to an end about it. Yes, there are grievances, there are things that I think are quite unfair to me, but taking the matter further to court would only further hurt the university, which is the last thing I want. From what has already been revealed, the public can make a judgment on what’s going on. So that’s my own plan at the moment. I am not really after the appointment, as such. I think the more important thing is not about whether or not I’m appointed, but about what sorts of issues it gives rise to about academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Whatever the position, I always believe there are ways to contribute, and the reason I come to the university is not to do this senior administrative job, the reason is to do teaching and research.
Q.
What is going on at Hong Kong University? The people with the most to lose, the students, seem to be the most vocal, and the people with the least to lose, the tenured professors, haven’t seemed to have been as vocal about this issue.
A.
In private discussions, there are a lot of discussions about that. You can always hear that anywhere on the campus. Academics tend to be less outspoken than the students, understandably in this climate. But then, I received numerous email support from colleagues, and almost invariably, the words colleagues used are “saddened,” “disappointed,” “loss of respect for the council,” “ridiculous.” That kind of sentiment is quite prevalent among academics, from junior to senior, which is worrying in a way, if the council is the highest governing body and it’s now so far away from the people here. When the academics lose respect and support for the council, that is a serious issue by itself.
Q.
You mentioned “this climate.” What is the political climate on campus?
A.
There are people who are worried about how far they can still comment on public affairs, particularly those who work in humanities. Inevitably, we come across these. These days, even on the most technical things, it could easily become political, like the issue. [Mr. Chan was referring to a recent scandal over high levels of lead found in public housing.] It could be an engineering issue, but it could easily become a social accountability, public accountability issue as well. I have junior colleagues coming to me saying, ‘I don’t know really know whether I can still write about this or not.’ They might worry about their career, and so on. Other people are disillusioned about it. Academics by nature are not radical. It is still early to assess the undercurrent of what is going on at the moment.
Q.
Why would junior colleagues be afraid of writing something?
A.
Tenure. Promotion. They haven’t got the tenure and they are all on contract terms. That sort of general atmosphere in a way, I think it is a big loss.
Q.
But the council doesn’t make tenure decisions, does it?
A.
No, but I think it is the impression. Impression and perception are the most difficult to correct. I’m sure most people, at the end of the day, will discharge their duties conscientiously. I don’t believe any academics will judge people simply because of their political views. The difficulty is, you have to pass that measure, and if people rightly or wrongly think the top end is taking political considerations into account, [that] you are judging people on the basis of their political beliefs, then I would try to avoid expressing my political belief in public, in case it would jeopardize me. It is the perception even more than what actually happens.
Q.
How would you characterize your political philosophy?
A.
I think I am just a moderate. I believe in democracy, freedom, rule of law. I am a human rights lawyer, a constitutional lawyer. So by nature, in a way, I am more sympathetic with the protection of human rights and personal liberty. In a way, I am a rather moderate, liberal person — even on political reform. I support greater democracy, but in the nomination committee, I don’t support civic nomination. [Civic nomination, under which Hong Kong voters could nominate candidates for the city’s top job, was demanded by many of the protesters last year but ruled out emphatically by Beijing and the Hong Kong government.] I think we can still work within the [National People’s Congress] parameters and try to make the best, make [the committee that nominates candidates for the top job] more representative. All these years I have tried to be a rational and moderate liberal type. Generally, the political circles and political community perceive me as basically a moderate liberal academic.
Q.
Why such strong opposition to your proposed appointment?
A.
That’s puzzled me as well. Indeed, all along these years I have had a very good relationship with mainland institutions. I’ve done quite a lot in training judges and lawyers in the mainland. I would like to think that I am also held in reasonable esteem in the mainland as well. So I was a bit surprised. One theory is that this is related to Occupy Central, and indeed a lot of attacks say that I condoned my colleagues in Occupy Central, even that I supported it. The reality is, when it broke out I was on sabbatical for the whole year. I stepped down from the deanship and I was not in Hong Kong at all. I taught in UPenn last year when Occupy Central broke out, and then I was at Cambridge earlier in the year.
It is possibly unsound, but then the target, or at least one way of saying it is, one of the reviews of what has happened in Occupy Central is, “The tertiary institutions are out of control and the tertiary institutions seem to be supportive of the movement, and we haven’t kept the students in control, we haven’t stopped them, etc. Some teachers even go down and hold classes in the occupation area. Someone will be responsible, and we have to do more to make sure that academic institutions align with the dominant political thinking.” This would be a lesson to those who support or take a liberal view in supporting, directly or indirectly, the Occupy Central movement. So that would be the worrying part then.
