香港大學六月二十日的聲明
關於香港大學醫學院冠名，近日報章及傳媒意見紛紜。大學為理性殿堂，命名涉及文化轉移，辯論熱烈，是意料中事。反對命名的意見，相信已經表達得相當充分。惟某些言論，與事實并不符合。大學覺得有需要作以下聲明，以正視聽。
一、
香港大學按照法理立校，一切命名事宜有校務委員會全權決定。此次冠名決定，完全按照章程及既定程序進行。
二、
學院命名，涉及大學發展的長遠策略（包括醫學院的使命和發展）、大學資源的長期籌劃（有利於籌款的不斷增長）、國際上的命名慣例（捐贈的表彰形式及規格）等等。校務委員會在決策之前，這些方面都作了詳盡的研究。
三、
由於命名事宜的敏感性，不可能事先張揚作廣泛的諮詢。但是為慎重起見，校務委員會在五月十八日作出決策之前，在可能範圍之內，作了最大程度的諮詢。
四、
在冠名決定公佈之後，社會上討論頗多。學院冠名乃新生事物，引起討論乃意料中事。在社會輿論而言，贊成者的較多，反對的較少。在醫學院校友之中，則意見比較分歧。隨著討論的深化，在醫學院校友之中，雖然對於命名有不同的意見和看法，但是大多同意支持大學的決定。
五、
必須澄清有傳媒報導謂，醫學院內曾經舉行“非正式”意見調查，並謂80％同事反對云云。據此傳聞，本校作了徹底之調查，証明此項報導全屬流言，醫學院從未進行此項調查。而冠名的決定，是得到醫學院院務會議的正式認同。
六、
曾經有四十一資深校友，簽名發表聲明表示，雖然對於命名有正面與反面之意見，校友應該支持校務委員會決定。近日有傳媒傳達消息，謂簽名乃校方壓力之結果。此項消息純屬虛構。此群校友均在醫學界獨當一面，旁人難以左右。他們也包括對於命名抱有保留態度者，但仍然認為應該以大局為重，呼籲校友們支持大學的決定。
七、
同時，校長在過去數周，收到很多有關命名的來信，來自校友（包括醫學院校友）、家長、社會人士、海外及內地院校及學者，其中雖然有不少表示保留，但贊成者居多。
八、
在正反意見都存在之情況下，難以僅以一方意見為依據而要求校務委員會改變決定。
九、
有個別校友稱命名為“交易”或“出賣”，這是對於捐贈與命名之徹底誤解。對於大學捐贈，保護學術自由是道德底線，因此捐贈與命名不含收購或者商業結盟的意思。另一方面，此類捐贈之任何協議，都必然公開透明，不可能附帶任何秘密交易。作為社會監督底下之公共學術機構，不允許有任何秘密交易。大學也在此再次向校友及社會人士保證，醫學院命名後，不論在使命、管理、法定地位及日常運作上，與命名前完全一樣，命名也絕對不容許涉及任何利益衝突。
十、
學院命名，雙方得益。命名讓捐贈者和學術界結成長期(非商業性)的夥伴關係；命名雙方，一方以資源，另一方以學術實力，共同為社會作出貢獻，也共同維護和發揚學院的優勢。正如李嘉誠先生在接受命名時說：“這只是一個開始，而絕非終結。”在醫學院而言，這種夥伴關係正是此次冠名的真正意義。
反複辯論，是香港大學引以為榮的傳統，因此大學尊重對於命名的不同看法。在命名的討論當中，大學一直只作最必要的回應，從未有怪責持反對意見的校友。并希望持反對意見的校友，能一如以往，發揮港大的團結精神，繼續支持母校。
過去數個星期，對命名的不同意見都表達了，大學也重複地作出解釋和澄清，所謂“命名風波”，到此應當告一段落了。
二零零五年六月二十日
A
Statement from the University of Hong Kong on June 20, 2005
The naming
of the Faculty of Medicine after Mr Li Ka Shing has attracted considerable
discussions, and a heated debate is not totally unexpected, because faculty
naming by itself represents a paradigm shift for many in Hong Kong.
Academia
presents a forum for debate and exchange of ideas, and the University certainly
will continue to respect this tradition. While we embrace a rich diversity of
opinions at the University, we believe that facts that have been distorted or
misunderstood must be rectified. The following are a number of the key ones:
1.
Naming falls under the remit of the Council of the
University, who made the decision on the naming of the Faculty of Medicine
according to the proper University procedures and rules.
2.
The Council, when making its decision, took into
consideration the strategic development of the University (including the
mission of the Faculty of Medicine), the long term goals of institutional
advancement (i.e. growth in fundraising), and the international norm for naming
to recognize donations at a similar level.
3.
The establishment of donor relationship is a very
sensitive process, and does not allow for wide consultation before a decision
is made. However, the University did
try its best to reach the different stakeholders, as far as the circumstances
permitted.
4.
Although there is notable opposition to the naming
among Medical alumni, most members of the University family and the majority of
the public seem to support the University’s position. Over time, there has also been a growing tendency among those
Medical alumni who initially objected to the naming but now lend support to their
alma mater in moving forward,
regardless of their opinions on the naming.
5.
There was a rumour about an “informal” survey
conducted within the Faculty of Medicine, and that 80% of the members objected
to the naming. The University cannot find anything of the sort ever took place in
the Faculty, and that in fact, the naming has had the endorsement of the Medical
Faculty Board.
6.
Some 41 senior alumni issued a signed statement
which called for the support of University endeavours. There have been reports that the signatories
were put under pressure to lend their name.
This is totally unfounded and fictitious; these 41 persons are very senior
alumni and leaders in the medical fields who would not be subject to anybody’s
pressure.
7.
The Vice-Chancellor has received a flood of letters
from people expressing their views about the naming. They have come from alumni (including medical alumni), parents,
members of the general public, as well as institutions and individual academics
from overseas and the Mainland. There
are objections to the naming among the letters, as expected, but the majority is
supportive.
8.
In view of the diverse views, there is no reason to
request the Council to reconsider the issue.
9.
There are allegations that the Medical Faculty was “sold”
by the University or that there was a “deal” between the University and the
donor. This is totally unfounded. First, donations to higher education always respect
the principle of academic autonomy.
Donations and naming should not be, in effect, commercial deals. Second, as the HKU is under constant public scrutiny, there is no room for secrecy
in any agreement between the institution and the donor. The University wishes
to again assure the public and its alumni that the naming will not change the
governance, operation, status, and nature of the Faculty and will not result in
any “commercial deals” with the donor.
10.
Naming is a way to establish a long term
relationship between the donor and the University. This is not the same as a commercial partnership. The donor-university partnership brings
resources and academic excellence together in joint forces, in the endeavour of
making significant contributions to society.
This is the spirit in which the Medical Faculty has been named. As Mr Li declared in his acceptance of the
naming: “This is just the beginning.”
Arguments and
debates are traditions of HKU. The University respects different opinions and has
always regarded opponents of the naming with respect and sincerity. We
earnestly call upon all alumni, regardless of their feelings towards naming the
Faculty, to support the University and show the community the united spirit of
HKU graduates.
Indeed, there
have been a lot of debates on the naming and the University has repeatedly
attempted to explain and clarify the issue in the past weeks. Perhaps it is now time for the episode to
end.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
貼上港大高層的所謂聲明，讓我們看看這些校方官僚的思考邏輯及其漏洞
一、
香港大學按照法理立校，一切命名事宜有校務委員會全權決定。此次冠名決定，完全按照章程及既定程序進行。
－－＞呢種係最常聽見的官腔，我地一切依法辦事。不過，佢就無提到2003年過了fit for purpose，剝奪了學生代表在校務委員會的權力。大學高層一早已經set到D rule係任佢講，還在抵賴。
校務委員會在決策之前，這些方面都作了詳盡的研究。
-->大學開會出名快快脆搞掂，而且會有一班在外找回來的人，佢地貴人事忙，咩真係有時間作出詳盡的研究嗎？
由於命名事宜的敏感性，不可能事先張揚作廣泛的諮詢。但是為慎重起見，校務委員會在五月十八日作出決策之前，在可能範圍之內，作了最大程度的諮詢。
－－＞連學生會會長都被拒諸門外，呢ｄ都叫最大程度的諮詢
在醫學院校友之中，則意見比較分歧。隨著討論的深化，在醫學院校友之中，雖然對於命名有不同的意見和看法，但是大多同意支持大學的決定。
－－＞我真係有興趣知到你個大多係點樣計。我只係知道現在Medi錢多到唔識點使，個Dean走去同班學生講：你地都係諗下１０億點使啦
而冠名的決定，是得到醫學院院務會議的正式認同
－－＞我唔知你個院務會議係唔係指院務委員會的會議。不過我就知道在HKU院務委員會(Board of Faculty)的權力就自從2003年過了Fit For Purpose之後呢細到不得了，好多時都係個Dean以Fac. Board名義已經做左野在先，之後先circulate畀Fac. Board Member。Circulation過的，即係無得嘈。
曾經有四十一資深校友，簽名發表聲明表示，雖然對於命名有正面與反面之意見，校友應該支持校務委員會決定。
－－＞呢個講法，即係話我地已經決定左，所以你地應該要支持
學院命名，雙方得益。命名讓捐贈者和學術界結成長期(非商業性)的夥伴關係
-->我都好想知道一下點解非商業性係in bracket，係唔係有所暗示呢