CUHK President Rocky Tuan is stepping down in January next year. During his tenure, the prestigious and historically significant Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) was transformed into a hub for anti-China and destabilizing activities, tarnishing its reputation. For example, on November 11, 2019, a group of rioters occupied CUHK's Bridge No. 2, throwing large quantities of debris onto Tolo Highway, causing severe traffic disruption and attacking law enforcement officers with petrol bombs, bricks, and other objects. The following morning, they erected barricades of umbrellas, trash cans, and other debris in front of police lines and used laser pointers to disrupt and provoke officers.
In a recent interview, President Tuan admitted that his seven-year term was challenging but that he had no regrets. He cited "external interference" as one of the reasons for his departure. His performance during his tenure, particularly his perceived bias towards students during the 2019 unrest, drew widespread criticism from various sectors of society. The Police Complaints Council, for instance, strongly criticized Tuan for using biased arguments to excuse the students' actions. In reality, everyone must abide by the law. However, many individuals with ulterior motives exploit concepts of human rights, democracy, and freedom, using slogans like "academic freedom" and "freedom of the press," or the excuse of "external interference," to justify or even glorify their challenges to, and violations of, the law.
Earlier this month, Luo Huining, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), stated at a university presidents' summit that the HKSAR government, with the support of the central government, is upholding the "bottom line of safety and stability" in universities and firmly safeguarding "academic autonomy" and "academic freedom." Naturally, the standards of "academic autonomy" and "academic freedom" upheld by the central and HKSAR governments are based on the law. Although Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) stipulates that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the exercise of these rights is subject to specific responsibilities and obligations and is limited by law. These limitations include respecting the rights and reputation of others and not overriding the protection of national security, public order, public health, or public morals. This provision is based on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance incorporates into Hong Kong law the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applicable to Hong Kong and makes provisions for ancillary and related matters. Therefore, the provisions of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance are aligned with internationally recognized standards. The stipulation that freedom of expression cannot override national security is entirely consistent with the legal provisions of all Western democracies. From a legal perspective, no beautiful slogans such as "academic freedom" or "freedom of the press" grant anyone the right to challenge national security through speech.
Professor Mok Ka-ho, Vice-President and Dean of Graduate School of Hang Seng University, recently offered a balanced perspective, stating that the National Security Law and Article 23 of the Basic Law have not placed any pressure on teaching and research. Regarding the "bottom line of safety and stability," Mok correctly pointed out that when choosing a place to live or develop their careers, people prioritize social stability. A stable social environment facilitates the study and research of talents from all over the world in Hong Kong. In reality, no one would choose to live in war-torn Ukraine if they had a choice. If Hong Kong were still experiencing widespread riots daily like during the 2019 unrest, how could Hong Kong people continue to live and work here peacefully? Furthermore, as Professor Mok stated, an open and diverse society should allow students to express different opinions, but they need to consider how to express them peacefully and rationally. Even as university students, they have no right to express their opinions or demands through non-peaceful or violent means, or to make any illegal statements.