When a University says to a student you cannot view the marking trace of teachers, it is highly probably the marking has some problems.
When a University insists the deletion of marking trace of relevant teachers on unconvincing reason of privacy, there is a clear picture there is some cover up on erroneous marking.
When a University confirms its decision to terminate study of a complainant, we may find the rule of law has been breached seriously.
When a University insists holding from student's inspection of the examination answer scripts and claimed that "you have no evidence proving erroneous markings of teachers", and again ,drag on the matter by excuses like they have to wait for the Privacy commission's reply on whether they could legally continue their criminal acts of upholding and destroying evidence, we may find the illogicality of the answer, and a breach of statutory duty of the University officials to be honest, open and fair in administration.
When a Univerisity can only confirm one year after the release of exam. results the weighing of each course, there is a reasonable suspicious the weighing has been changed.
When a University declined to let student know the marks of each assessment, there is almost obvious the calculation of the marks has some problems.
When a University officially approved the criminal act after received complaint on cheating of students regarding joint work of take home exam.,it is indeed an authorization of criminal act that should call for the action of disciplinary board. However, the appeal board ignored the matters. In this way,big issues become small, and small issues become nothing then. It is called administrative collusion. It's a big cover-up story every citizens, the Chinese authority and the international world would like to know.
The City University of Hong Kong has breached the statutory duty to be open and honest in dealing with the marking process. While the EDB refused to tackle the above matters on the ground that the City University of Hong Kong is the one to supervise themselves by virtue of the City University Ordinance, we may find it illogical to get a resolution from CityU how it deal with its cover-up-matters.
Indeed, there is no time for sarcasm. If Hong Kong is to become a city free of corruptive acts, it is time to face it. The above matters have been raised to Legco's concern. From Legco's website, they are putting on agenda the autonomy of University. Yet who is to deal with the problem this moment. The snowball won't just stop until a decent answer comes along!