Posted by Magnus Fiskesjö, nf42@cornell.edu
[HKSAAF] Invitation for Signing a Statement on the sudden dismissal of Shiu Ka-chun of the Hong Kong Baptist University and Benny Tai of the University of Hong Kong
Dear all,
We would like to invite you to kindly consider being a co-signatory of the following statement regarding the dismissals of Mr. Benny Tai of the University of Hong Kong and Mr. Shiu Ka-chun of the Hong Kong Baptist University. The Chinese version will be placed at the top, followed by the English one. The statement will be sent to the press. If you want to sign, please click the links below. Thanks for your time.
* Chinese Version: https://sites.google.com/site/hksaaf/sudden-dismissal-jul-2020-chi
* English Version: https://sites.google.com/site/hksaaf/sudden-dismissal-jul-2020-eng
Best regards,
—
學術自由學者聯盟
Scholars’ Alliance for Academic Freedom
就浸大邵家臻和港大戴耀廷突然被解僱聯署聲明
(For English version of the statement, please scroll down)
解僱邵家臻和戴耀廷違反程序公義
邵家臻擔任浸會大學社工系講師，由於 2014年參與佔中運動,被校方於今年年初解除教務並展開內部調查。邵家臻涉及的佔中示威是和平及旨在爭取普選, 他亦正在就該案向法庭提出上訴。雖然浸大內部調查及法庭上訴仍未有結果，邵家臻已在本月27日收到不獲續約的通知，郵件當中沒有任何解釋和理由。邵家臻在職期間一直表現良好，沒有收過警告或投訴。校方在內部調查及法庭上訴未有結論前解僱邵家臻而未有給予邵解釋的機會,明顯違反了程序公義, 整個解僱程序並不合理。
在港大法律學院任職的戴耀廷,因2014年佔領運動被控煽惑公眾妨擾罪，其後保釋等候上訴。港大校長張翔未待上訴完結，便啟動研究是否解僱戴耀廷的程序。由校內教授及學生代表組成的教務會經長時間調查, 今年7月初認為沒有充分理由解僱戴耀廷。但以李國章為首,包括不少政府委任的校外人士所組成的校委會, 否定教務會的建議，堅持炒戴。在戴教授的案件正在上訴期間作出解僱，亦明顯違反了程序公義。
解僱決定違反了聯合國建議
聯合國教科文組織（UNESCO）（1997）《關於高等教育教學人員地位的建議》第50段指出：「只有在有正當的和充分的理由說明違反職業道德時，才能採取解僱這紀律措施。這些理由包括：經常玩忽職守、嚴重的不稱職、捏造或偽造科研成果，經濟上嚴重違法亂紀，與學生、同事或本單位其他成員在性愛或其他方面有不端行為或由此造成的嚴重威脅，或為了獲得金錢、性愛或其他好處，採取偽造成績、文憑或學位等舞弊行為，或向下屬或同事提出性愛、經濟或其他物質方面的要求，作為續聘的條件。」明顯地，邵講師和戴教授的案件與上述理由無關，兩所院校的決定違反了聯合國教科文組織建議的解僱原則。
本港學術自由岌岌可危
2015年初，《泰晤士高等教育》（Times Higher Education, THE）公佈大學聲譽排名, 排名一向穩佔首50位的香港大學，首次跌出50大；據悉原因是因為雨傘運動期間警方不當鎮壓，令學者憂慮香港院校的學術自由將受到威脅，院校自主不保。
及至2020年,香港在反送中運動下面對人權自由不斷受到打壓，學術自由連同利比亞、土耳其等地方被列為過去5年學術自由最嚴重倒退的地方。全球公共政策研究所（Global Public Policy Institute）調查顯示，香港的學術自由指數只有0.442分，與埃塞俄比亞相若。最新全球學術自由指數以5個指標作為計算學術自由的單位，包括研究及教學自由、學術交流自由、院校自主、校園完善度以及學術和文化表達自由。結果顯示香港自2000年起，以上5方面的分數持續下跌。以4分為滿分，本應最高分的「學術交流自由」由2000年的3.5分跌至現時低於3分；「研究及教學自由」和「學術和文化表達自由」現時均少於2.5分，「校園完善度」更跌穿2分大關。在香港各公營專上院校均奉行的特首校監必然制下，「院校自主」一欄更只有約1.3分。
學術自由乃高等教育的基石
學術自由和院校自主與教育權攸關，受國際人權公約保障。聯合國負責監察公約的經濟及社會理事會指出「只有在教員和學生有學術自由的情況下，才有可能享受到受教育的權利」。而要落實學術自由，必須實現院校自主，包括對「涉及其學術工作、標準、管理和相關活動決策有必要的自治程度」。同時，國際人權公約亦保障了所有人的言論自由及不受政治歧視；因此，任何學者在學術研究、院校職務或人事任命等，不應因其言論和政治取向等而獲不合理待遇。公約按《基本法》第39條適用於香港。此外，《基本法》第27、34及137條亦強調保障學術自由。
負責監察《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》的聯合國人權事務委員會早在2013年審議結論中，強烈關注香港學術自由的惡化, 港府卻未有任何行動保障學術自由，反而與之背道而馳。
世界各地學者於1988年制定《學術自由和高等教育機構自主宣言》(《利馬宣言》)，亦闡明學術自由與院校自主：《利馬宣言》第5條亦訂明人事任命應公平公正，即「人人有權不受歧視，按其能力而成為諸如教師、研究員、工作者或管理者的學術群體一部分」；而且，第15條更指出大學有責任監察社會，並應致力維護自主，抵抗政治干預：「高等教育機構應對他們社會所發生的政治迫害及侵犯人權的情況提出批判」。《利馬宣言》提到「教育應為正面社會變革的工具」；如果連學者表達意見後都要受到秋後算帳，受到政治歧視，影響到其升遷，甚至影響其教席，那市民的言論和表達自由又如何能得到保障呢？
事實上，不少贏得了諾貝爾獎的學者都學以致用，扮演公共知識分子的角色，就政治和社會敏感問題發言。學術自由一旦倒下，敢言批判時弊和權貴的學者不再發聲，香港便更容易淪為一個充斥謊言、向權貴歌功頌德的社會，對新聞界的整體素質，新聞和言論自由將產生重大負面影響。
邵家臻和戴耀廷突被解僱,我們認為這不只是兩位學者個人的事，更反映了香港異見者與「學術自由」所面對的政治打壓，當權者意圖藉此大力打壓人權和民主運動。港大浸大在兩位教授的案件正在等候法庭的上訴期間作出解僱，不單違反了程序公義，違反了聯合國建議的解僱原則, 亦無視佔中示威是和平及旨在爭取真普選, 以落實《基本法》的承諾, 我們對於兩所大學所作出的解僱決定予以強烈讉責。我們促請大學撤回解僱戴教授和邵講師的決定，恢復正規合理的人事管理政策。最後，我們認為必須廢除特首出任校監、及由特首委任大學校董/校委主席及其他委員這個惡習，使政權不能繼續輕易操控教育。
聯署發起人 Initiators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* 學術自由學者聯盟
* 香港教育專業人員協會
* 香港浸會大學教職員工會
* 丁南僑 (香港大學數學系客席副教授)
* 何芝君 (明愛專上學院客座教授)
* 吳惠貞 (香港中文大學講師)
* 呂秉權 (香港浸會大學高級講師)
* 周博賢 (香港藝術發展局民選委員)
* 張楚勇 (香港城市大學高級特任講師)
* 成 名 (香港科技大學副教授)
* 李俊亮 (香港藝術發展局民選委員)
* 杜耀明 (香港浸會大學退休助理教授)
* 梁志遠 (香港理工大學專任導師)
* 梁恩榮 (香港教育大學客藉副教授)
* 梁旭明 (嶺南大學副教授)
* 梁漢柱 (香港浸會大學首席講師)
* 楊慧儀 (香港浸會大學副教授)
* 潘 毅 (香港大學教授)
* 甄拔濤 (香港藝術發展局民選委員)
* 盧偉力 (香港浸會大學榮譽院士)
* 盧湘婷 (澳門大學前助理教授)
* 羅淑玲 (明愛專上學院高級講師)
* 胡俊謙 (香港藝術發展局民選委員)
* 舒 琪 (前香港演藝學院電影電視學院院長)
* 莊耀洸 (香港教育大學高級講師)
* 蔡寶琼 (香港中文大學客席副教授)
* 許漢榮 (香港教育大學講師)
* 邱祖淇 (香港浸會大學講師)
* 鍾劍華 (香港民意研究所副行政總裁)
* 陳家洛 (香港浸會大學副教授)
* 陳效能 (嶺南大學副教授)
* 陳清僑 (嶺南大學教授)
* 陳燕遐 (香港中文大學高級講師)
* 陳詠燊 (香港藝術發展局民選委員)
* 陳錦成 (香港藝術發展局民選委員)
* 馮偉華 (香港城市大學高級講師)
* 黃偉國 (香港浸會大學前助理教授)
* 黃志偉 (香港伍倫貢學院講師)
* 黃慧賢 (香港中文大學助理教授)
Statement on the sudden dismissal of
Shiu Ka-chun of the Hong Kong Baptist University and
Benny Tai of the University of Hong Kong
The dismissal of Shiu Ka-chun and Benny Tai breached procedural justice
Shiu Ka-chun was a lecturer in the Baptist University’s Department of Social Work. As a result of his involvement in the 2014 Occupy Central movement, he was released of his teaching duties early this year and put under an internal investigation. The Occupy Central movement that Shiu partook in was a peaceful movement in pursuit of popular elections. Shiu is appealing to the court on his case. While the results of both the internal investigation and the court appeal are pending, Shiu however was informed on July 27 that his contract would not be renewed. No explanation or reason was given in the related mail. Shiu’s performance on the job had always been good and had never been the subject of any warning or complaint. Sacking Shiu before results of the internal investigation and court appeal were out and also not affording Shiu an opportunity to explain himself was apparently an infringement of procedural justice; the whole process of the dismissal was not reasonable.
Benny Tai, who taught law at the University of Hong Kong, was convicted of incitement to commit public nuisance for his role in the 2014 Occupy movement. He is on bail pending appeal against his conviction. Before the conclusion of the appeal proceedings, HKU president Xiang Zhang started procedures to look into whether Tai should be dismissed from his job. HKU’s Senate, made up of representatives of teaching staff and students, concluded in July this year after prolonged investigation that there was no sufficient ground for dismissing Tai. But the University Council, headed by Arthur Li and including not a few government appointees who had no other association with the university, overrode the Senate’s recommendation and insisted on sacking Tai. Sacking Professor Tai in the midst of his appeal is apparently a breach of procedural justice.
The dismissal decisions contravene United Nations recommendations
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) stipulates in Paragraph 50 of its “Dismissal as a disciplinary measure should only be for just and sufficient cause related to professional conduct, for example: persistent neglect of duties, gross incompetence, fabrication or falsification of research results, serious financial irregularities, sexual or other misconduct with students, colleagues, or other members of the academic community or serious threats thereof, or corruption of the educational process such as by falsifying grades, diplomas or degrees in return for money, sexual or other favours or by demanding sexual, financial or other material favours from subordinate employees or colleagues in return for continuing employment.” Apparently, the cases of Mr. Shiu and Professor Tai have nothing to do with any of the above misconduct and the decisions of the two universities contravene UNESCO’s principles regarding dismissals.
The precariousness of academic freedom in Hong Kong
In early 2015, the Times Higher Education (THE) announced its World Reputation Rankings. The University of Hong Kong, which had consistently ranked among the top 50 institutions, lost its top 50 position for the first time. It was believed that the reason had to do with scholars’ worries about academic freedom and institutional autonomy in Hong Kong in view of police repression during the Umbrella Movement.
Entered 2020 and human rights and freedom in Hong Kong have come under increasing suppression in the anti-extradition movement; Hong Kong’s academic freedom is found to have most seriously regressed in the past five years, like that of Libya’s and Turkey’s. A study by the Global Public Policy Institute showed that the index for Hong Kong’s academic freedom was only 0.442, on par with that of Ethiopia’s. The most recent global Academic Freedom Index uses five indicators for measuring academic freedom. These include freedom to research and teach, freedom of academic exchange and dissemination, institutional autonomy, campus integrity, and freedom of academic and cultural expression. Results show that starting from 2000, Hong Kong’s score in the five areas above has been steadily declining. With 4 as the full score, “freedom of academic exchange and dissemination” has declined from 3.5 in 2000 to lower than 3 presently; “freedom to research and teach” and “freedom of academic and cultural expression” both score lower than 2.5 at present while “campus integrity” stands at lower than 2. Given the fact that all publicly funded tertiary institutions have to have the Chief Executive as their chancellor, the score for “institutional autonomy” is only about 1.3.
Academic freedom is the cornerstone of higher education
Academic freedom and institutional autonomy relate closely to education rights and are protected by international human rights covenants. The United Nations Economic and Social Council, which is responsible for monitoring the covenants opines that “the right to education can only be enjoyed if accompanied by the academic freedom of staff and students.” Institutional autonomy is necessary for realizing academic freedom, including “that degree of self-governance necessary for effective decision-making by institutions of higher education in relation to their academic work, standards, management and related activities.” At the same time, international human rights covenants also stress freedom of speech and freedom from political discrimination for all human beings. Hence, no academic should suffer unreasonable treatment whether concerning academic research, institutional responsibilities or personnel appointments as a result of his or her expressions and political inclinations. Such international human rights covenants, according to Article 39 of the Basic Law, are applicable to Hong Kong. Articles 27, 34 and 137 of the Basic Law also emphasize the protection of academic freedom.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee that is responsible for monitoring the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has as early as 2013 expressed deep concern in its Concluding Observations about the deterioration of academic freedom in Hong Kong. Not only has the Hong Kong government not taken any action to protect academic freedom but it is rather going in the opposite direction.
Scholars around the world composed the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education in 1988 and explicated academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Clause 5 of the Lima Declaration stipulates that personnel appointments should be just and fair, that is, “on the basis of ability, every person has the right, without discrimination of any kind, to become part of the academic community, as a student, teacher, researcher, worker or administrator.” Clause 15 further points out that universities have the duty to monitor societal affairs and strive to safeguard autonomy and resist political interference: “institutions of higher education should be critical of conditions of political repression and violations of human rights within their own society.” The Declaration opines that “education shall be an instrument of positive social change.” If even scholars are subjected to persecution and suffer political discrimination, adverse decisions on promotions or lose their teaching posts, then what protection could there be for the freedoms of speech and expression of common citizens?
As a matter of fact, many Nobel Prize winners put their knowledge to practice, assume the role of public intellectuals and comment on sensitive political and social issues. Once academic freedom collapses and scholars critical of the powerful and the state of public affairs stop to speak up, then Hong Kong can easily degenerate into a society in which lies and praises of the powerful pervade. This will have immense negative effects on the overall quality of the media and on the freedoms of the press and of expression.
The sudden dismissal of Shiu Ka-chun and Benny Tai is not just the personal matter of the two scholars but is reflective of the political repression that Hong Kong dissidents and academic freedom are under, the-power-that-be using it to forcefully crack down on human rights and the democratic movement. Dismissing the two academics while their cases are still awaiting court appeals not only contravenes procedural justice but also infringes principles concerning dismissals recommended by the United Nations. The dismissals are further oblivious to the Occupy movement’s peaceful nature and its principal objective of demanding genuine popular elections in order to realize promises made in the Basic Law. We strongly condemn the two universities for their dismissal decisions. We urge them to revoke their dismissals of Professor Tai and Lecturer Shiu and restore standard and reasonable personnel management policies. Lastly, we deem it necessary to abolish the anachronistic practice of making the Chief Executive the Chancellor of universities with the power to appoint university Court/Council chairpersons and other Court/Council members so that the regime cannot continue to easily control and manipulate education.
聯署發起人 Initiators ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty and Staff Union
* Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union
* Scholars’ Alliance for Academic Freedom
* CHAN Annie (Associate Professor, Lingnan University)
* CHAN Ching Kiu (Professor, Lingnan University)
* CHAN Ka Lok (Associate Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University )
* CHAN Kam Shing (Elected Council Member, Hong Kong Arts Development Council)
* CHAN Yin Ha (Senior Lecturer, Chinese University of Hong Kong)
* CHAN, Sunny (Elected Council Member, Hong Kong Arts Development Council)
* CHEUNG Chor Yung (Senior Teaching Fellow, City University of Hong Kong)
* CHOI Po King (Adjunct Associate Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong)
* CHONG Yiu Kwong (Senior Lecturer, EdUHK)
* CHOW, Ardian (Elected Council Member, Hong Kong Arts Development Council)
* CHUNG Kim Wah (Deputy CEO, Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute)
* FUNG Wai Wah (Senior Lecturer, City University of Hong Kong)
* HO Chi Kwan (Research Professor, Caritas Institute of Higher Education)
* HUI Hon Wing (Lecturer, EdUHK)
* LEE Chun Leung Indy (Elected Council Member, Hong Kong Arts Development Council)
* LEUNG Chi Yuen (Teaching Fellow, Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
* LEUNG Hon Chu (Principal Lecturer, Hong Kong Baptist University)
* LEUNG Yan Wing (Adjunct Associate Professor, EdUHK)
* LEUNG Yuk Ming (Associate Professor, Lingnan University)
* LO Sheung Ting (Former Assistant Professor, University of Macau)
* LO Suk Ling (Senior Lecturer, Caritas Institute of Higher Education)
* LO Wai Luk (University Fellow, Hong Kong Baptist University)
* LUI, Bruce (Senior Lecturer, Hong Kong Baptist University)
* NG Wai Ching (Lecturer, Chinese University of Hong Kong)
* PUN Ngai (Professor, The University of Hong Kong)
* SHU Kei (Ex-Dean, School of Film & Television, The Hong Kong Acdemy for Performing Arts)
* SING Ming (Associate Professor, HKUST)
* TO Yiu Ming (Retired Assistant Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University)
* TSING Nam Kiu (Honourary Associate Professor, The University of Hong Kong)
* WONG Chi Wai (Lecturer, UOW College Hong Kong)
* WONG Wai Kwok (Former Assistant Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University)
* WONG Wai Yin Christina (Assistant Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong)
* WU Chun Him (Elected Council Member, Hong Kong Arts Development Council)
* YAN Pat To (Elected Council Member, Hong Kong Arts Development Council)
* YAU Cho Ki Joe (Lecturer, Hong Kong Baptist University)
* YEUNG, Jessica (Associate Professor, Hong Kong Baptist University)