【轉載】港大同學衛校宣言

陳柱民

【粉身碎骨渾不怕  但留清白在人間】  
回應校方指控 ── 港大同學衛校宣言

本月二十日，港大同學發起罷課，要求立即審視大學管理架構之積弊，又詳列改革方向，惟校方一直未有正面回應。及至廿六日校委會會議，校方表示同意檢討，卻拒絕確立改革時間表及檢討委員會之細則。去年，陳文敏之副校長任命遭校委會以「等埋首副」等荒旦理由拖延，最終被粗暴否決。前車可鑑，難保校委會又藉詞要「等埋教資會報告」，重施故技以拖延戰術敷衍同學。

廿六日校委會會議後，學生要求李國章公開交代改革藍圖及時間表，以免拖延任命副校之事重演，惟李國章拒絕解釋任何事項，龜縮於大樓之內。在校方聲稱安排對話期間，大批警察突然衝擊示威場地，多番以胡椒噴霧指嚇同學。同學負隅頑抗之際，李國章卻乘亂在保安與警方的保護下循小徑遁走，令同學質疑有人藉安排對話為名，拖延時間趁機逃走為實。其後，校方再次稱將於日內安排談判，今日卻先發制人，以聲明、記招等方式抹黑學生。原本已經薄弱的互信基礎，今已蕩然無存。

校長馬斐森早前發信代表大學高層譴責學生，指學生的行為是暴民統治（Mob rule），斥責同學危害其人身安全，反指應以對話建設成果。同學圍堵沙宣，目的正是要求李國章直接與學生對話，卻遭暴力對待。警察與保安執行職務期間，多次混入學生群中尋釁滋事，有保安以粗言穢語辱罵同學，學生會會長馮敬恩更遭襲擊下陰。當梁振英漠視師生意見強行委任李國章；當警察保安粗暴傷害同學；當政治淩駕學術，挑動紛爭，同學在寒風冷雨中苦候六、七小時，始終只是克制地要求校委親身給予一個解釋、一個交代，不過是如此簡單。權貴與學生之間，究竟誰更像「暴民」？無權無勢的同學，與「統治」風馬牛不相及，但若果這樣就是所謂「暴民」，我們又何懼承認？若果有校委認為，與同學親身對話竟會對其造成生命威脅，何不立即請辭，由有德有能者代之？

  昨日（廿八日）記者會上，李國章指同學之舉動如同受到毒品影響，又多番暗示泛民有份煽動學生。港大社會科學學院強制實習（GCSI），每年都會安排同學往新民黨工作，敢問是否校方刻意安排政黨干預港大？工黨立法會議員張超雄曾稱，若年輕人少罵泛民兩句，他們已要感到高興，足證泛民政黨根本無力煽動年輕人。每位大學生都有獨立思想，都是有自由意志的自由人。若同學真有如李國章所言，如此輕易遭人荼毒，李國章大可「以毒攻毒」，要年輕人向錢看，要年輕人攀附權貴。

昔日臺灣，軍警因「四六事件」闖入大學，臺大校長傅斯年極力保全涉案師生，親自與國民黨最高當局交涉，聲言「若有學生流血，我要跟你拚命」。今日香港，惡名昭彰的警察竟可毫無顧忌地進入沙宣道校園，協助無恥校委離開，我校更主動提出合作，把有關片段交給警方，出賣但憑一顆赤誠之心衛校的同學。廿六號晚，警方多次以「接獲刑事毀壞報告」此等藉口進入校園，先不論警方於無證無據之情況下指控學生刑事毀壞，何以李國章遁走後警察隨即撤離？究竟警方是否已淪為李國章的私人衛隊？

二零一一年，港大發生八一八戒嚴事件，其後港大校長徐立之向公眾道歉，誓言「大學師生是校園的主人」、「香港大學將是言論自由的堡壘」，更承諾刻立碑文於校園。話音未落，港大校內再掀起連番風波。院校自主，不單指學術研究應免受政治干預，亦指校園空間不應受政權蠶食。警方是政權機器，當警察可以隨意進入校園，即意味政權可隨意介入大學的事務；若然政權可以隨意介入大學事務，大學尚有何自主可言？學術自由又能得到甚麼保障？港大之日常研究及運作已屢遭外力干預，而廿六號晚一隊隊警察操進校園，更已達喪心病狂的地步！若我們容忍此事發生，政權只會更肆無忌憚侵凌港大！

我們在此重申：

一）香港大學校務委員會必須清晰交代成立「香港大學檢討及改革專責小組」的時間；

二）參照港大過往的檢討慣例，「香港大學檢討及改革專責小組」必須就提交改革報告訂立期限；

三）香港大學校方必須清晰交代容許警察大規模進入校園範圍之決定及原因。

校長馬斐森稱，他不熟悉香港政局，未能作出判斷，卻相信李國章之連篇大話，容讓李氏肆意抹黑學生。對此，同學深感痛心。縱然師生間之策略有所不同，但面對各種有違事實的無理抹黑，我們呼籲教職員不要再保持緘密，請與我們並肩作戰，攜手衛校。

香港大學罷課委員會

二零一六年一月廿九日

（原圖： Andy Chau Photography）

Respond to University accusation
Declaration of students in defending our University of Hong Kong

On 20th January, students of the University launched a class boycott demanding an immediate review to deficiencies in the University governance structure with detailed reform directions. Direct reply was yet recieved from the University. It was only until the HKU Council meeting on 26th did the University show its agreement to a review. It yet established neither a reform schedule nor details for the review committee. Last year, the appointment of Prof. Johannes Chan to the position of Vice-President was absurdly delayed ‘until the post of provost is filled’, which only ended with a rough objection. With such precedence on hand, it was hard not to believe that the Council would once again play the same trick and delay the  establishment ‘until the report of the University Grant Committe (UGC)is issued’.

After the meeting, students demanded an open explanation from Arthur Li, the Council Chairperson, on the reform blueprint and the schedule for the review committee in order not to let a delay take place once again. Arthu Li yet refused to explain anything and huddled up back into the building. When the University alleged to arrange a dialogue, a huge number of police barged into the building and threatened protesting students with pepper sprays. While students resisted with persistence, Arthur Li fled along a passage under the escort of police. It only induces doubt over someone delayed and fled with the sham of a dialogue. Though the University latterly claimed that it would arrange dialogue momentarily, it struck first today and smeared students with statement and press conference.  The mutual trust and respect, that has only been feeble, shall no longer exist hitherto.

Prof. Peter Mathieson, the President of the University, condemned students on behalf of the Senior Management Team (SMT) this afternoon, claiming that students’ behaviour was a mob rule, denouncing students of putting his safety at serious risk and in turn advising students to achieve their aims through dialogue. Students’ siege of Sassoon Road had a clear aim to demand a direct coversation with Arthur Li, which only ended in violent treatment. Various times did the police and security blend into students in attempt to instigate and stir up troubles. Security guards insulted and offended students with indecent language; Billy Fung, the President of HKUSU, even got hit at his groin. When politics overriding academia and instigating conflicts, students only stayed and waited under the gale and downpour in the winter for seven hours. We composedly demanded nothing but an explanation, an answer from the Council members in person. It is as simple as that. Students who have neither authority nor power are simply nothing comparable to any ‘rule’. But should what we did really make us deserve such a claim, what is our fear in admitting that? Should Council members find it life threatening to have a dialogue with students in person, why do not you resign and let the more qualified to take your position?

During the press conference yesterday (28th), Arthur Li lambasted students’ behaviour to be under the influence of drugs and repeatedly suggested that Pan-democrats had been instigating the students. The compulsory internship programme ‘Global Citizenship/ Social Innovation‘ under the Faculty of Social Sciences of HKU has been arranging students to work in the New People’s Party every single year. Is this a deliberate arrangement of the University for political party to intervene in HKU? Fernando Cheung, Legislative Councillor from the Labour Party, once claimed that he would be delighted if youngsters cut a little bit of their criticisms to the Pan-Dem. Such is already an evident proof of the inability of Pan-Dem political parties in instigating any youngsters. All university students have their own indepedent thinking, are free men with free will. Should students be really susceptible to such sway as claimed by Arthur Li, he can simply ‘pay us back in our own coin’, making youngsters put money over everything, making youngsters play up to dignitaries.

In retrospect in Taiwan, when police barged into the university during the April Sixth Incident, Fu Sinian, the President of the National Taiwan University, tried his very best to protect students and teachers, negotiating with the high officials from Kuomintang in person, claiming that ‘I shall put myself, my life on the line when any students is bleeding’. Today, notorious police in Hong Kong whimsically entered our Sasson Road campus, assisting the escape of the shameless Council Members. Our University even offered a chance of cooperation with the police and makes video footage available to them, betraying any students who defend this University with innocence and loyalty. At the night of 26th, the police entered our campus with the excuse of ‘receiving report of criminal damage’ at various occasions. Even when putting police accusation of criminal damage to students without any evidence aside, why did the police instantly retreat right after Arthur Li had fled? Is the Police Force subordinated to be his private battalion?

In 2011, after the 818 Lock-down in the University, Prof. Lap-chee Chui, the President of the University, openly apologized to the general public, resolutely stating that ‘Students and teachers are the masters of the campus’ and ‘The University of Hong Kong should always be the fortress of freedom of speech’, who further promised to inscribe these claims on tablets on campus.  While such scandal had not been fully resolved, series of scandals were stirred up once again. Institutional autonomy not only means that academic research shall never be politically intervened, it also states that our campus shall never be encroached by the regime. Police are indeed accomplices of the regime. Institutional autonomy shall no longer exist when the regime can peremptorily intervene in our affairs, let alone any protection to our academic freedom. The University daily research and operation has already been externally manipulated, but the troops of police marching and trampling onto our campus on 26th night only brings the situation to lunacy. Should we allow such happening, the regime will only further manipulate and exploit our University of Hong Kong by whim and its own will.

We hereby reiterate:

The Council of the University of Hong Kong must clearly state the time of establishment of the ‘Review Committee on the Hong Kong University Ordinance’

With reference to previous reviews conducted by the University, the ‘Review Committee on the Hong Kong University Ordinance’ must set a deadline for the submission of the report on the reform

The University of Hong Kong must clearly explain the decision of and reasons for the large-scale entrance of the Police Force onto the campus

Prof. Peter Mathieson claimed that he is not acquainted with Hong Kong politics and thus fails to make judgement. But he believes in the bunch of lies told by Arthur Li, letting him smear students arbitrarily. For this we are much disappointed and disheartened. Students and teachers may have different strategies, but in face of the ill-founded smear that goes against the truth, we hereby call on teaching staff and employees not to remain silent. Please fight together with us, and together shall we defend our University.

HKU Student’s Strike Organizing Committee

28th January 2016

來源：
https://www.facebook.com/hkustudentstrike/photos/a.905691522859833.1073741828.904870499608602/912654922163493/?type=3&fref=nf