李國章先生在2016年1月28日記者會上的言論紀錄
Transcript of Professor Arthur Li’s Remarks at the Press Conference dated 28th January, 2016
(In Original Languages)
Opening:
First of all, I would like to thank all of you for being here. We intended to hold the press meeting immediately after our last Council meeting on Tuesday, but unfortunately due to some circumstances we could not do that but we nevertheless issued the simple press statement about our Council meeting. But today we think we should come and see you and explain any query that you may have.
But first of all, I would really like to give Hong Kong society, our Hong Kong citizens our sincere apology for the behaviour of a very small minority of students at our University. And I stress that this is a very small minority of students whose behaviour we deplored. The vast majority of students are excellent, well-behaved and are responsible members of our University.
Sadly, this small number of students are rather like someone who’s taking drugs and who has been poisoned by drugs. They have been manipulated and once you’ve taken poisons or drugs, your behaviour can become very irrational and so those circumstances explain why they behaved the way they behaved.
I know that many people are very angry with these students. I’d like to stress very strongly that don’t put the blame on our students, just don’t put the blame entirely on our students. We should also reflect as to who are the people behind that give the poison to our young people and take advantage of them. Young people are very idealistic and they can be easily misled. Let me give an example, for instance, at our Council meeting, we decided unanimously to set up a review panel to look at the governance of the University. Our student representative then sent out a message from the report that we turned down the review panel. This is a blatant lie. And yet, the students believed that and took radical actions. So you can see, some people misrepresent the truth, mislead our students and make them do irrational things. And I hope that our society could look at these students more favourably and not just purely condemn them. The people we need to condemn are the people who give them false information, false representation and falsehood.
Q&A section:
1. 問：學生提出要求要有時間表，委員組成及職權範圍，想問會否回應這些訴求？另外為何當晚不能即時成立專責小組？若兩個月後教資會報告還未完成，會否主動提出成立專責小組去啟動議程？
現在校委會架構是由二零零二年 Sutherland Report (宋達能報告書) 關於高等教育的範圍應該是如何，然後馮國經博士作為校委會主席時做 Fit for Purpose 報告說明校委會要更改。然後Professor Niland 及 Professor Rudenstine the President of Harvard University及首席法官李國能三人組成小組再檢討大學運作及管治，即是現時的大學架構是由一段時間及一班人做一連串研究才產生。
如果你話要改變，是需要改變的，因為Niland Report最後都提議大學每五年要檢討一次，所以現在已經過了五年，應該是時候檢討，所以我們無論如何都會作檢討。剛剛UGC Professor Newby 會有一個詳細報告關於每間院校的制度及管治是如何，而大學一定都要有回應，所以一定要有個小組去看看報告跟現在的運行有什麼分別，大家可以配合。
學生有張紙拿入來要改變，我們非常歡迎不同意見。但如果他們想有改變都要做少少功課，要向我們解釋從他們的立場想改變，要如何改變及理由，跟世界其他大學的分別，Benchmark（基準）在哪，我們會接受的。所以當晚提出來時，校委會全部認同要做一個 Review Panel（專責小組），但專責小組要等到Newby Report出後。而我所知道Newby Report好快就會出，一、兩個月內就會出。
我們亦認同要做Review Panel，但做Review Panel是不可以校內自己睇校內，一定要有校外人監管，過去幾次都是校外人睇。所以我們要物色適合的校外委員，可能是國際上的知名學者來跟我們一齊研究，如果要改要如何去改變。若要請到校外知名學者，不是你叫他就即刻會來，他們是忙人，或者有些肯答應，有些未必會答應，但我們一定會去物色現在有什麼人。所以若你話現在要成立要甲乙丙立即來，是不可以這樣做。
所以現在我們在物色委員，同時亦在等UGC Report，所以你問我們會否做檢討，我可以答應你（記者）我一定會做檢討（大學管治），學生有否要求都不要緊，而我們亦歡迎其他人覺得我們大學有什麼做得不好的地方或要改變的地方，我們亦歡迎不同人的意見。
2. 問：請教李教授的發言提及當日學生好似take drugs般 (吃了藥)，並話有人 poisoned (毒害) 他們，可否解釋為何你會有此睇法？你亦有話一些激進行為，這些指控是否指向馮敬恩？
我講得好清楚，我覺得我們的學生是非常有理念有理想，對年青人是一件好事。但是如果有些政黨在後面，嗱！我亦都講埋啦！當晚余若薇在場，「梁麗君」女士是梁家傑的intern（實習生），全部都是公民黨。長毛助理在場，還有好多泛民的人在場，那麼這些人來是不是干預我們大學？這是不是政治干預？我們現在就是受到政治干預。
3. 問：有學生批評你其實同學生傾對話條件，但未傾完你已經於後門離開，而質疑你是聲東擊西，可否回應指控？再者可否再解釋你剛才所指的荼毒學生，是否指公民黨？而你講學生好似食藥，可否再 elaborate（闡述）你的講法？
好簡單，當日我已經講得好清楚，何時都好高興見學生見教職員見同事，但日常大學運作不是由校委會管，是由校長兼他的Senior Management Team（中央管理小組）去管理。所以學生要見我，我好樂意去，但一定要經校長。現在校長都話安排，你（學生）不可以在這暴動，而強迫你（李自己）一定要即刻出來見我（學生），我（李自己）就要即刻出來見你（學生），我們做事要有秩序要有規矩。所以學生話要見我，我是樂意去。
至於你所講的背後的政治干預，好簡單，你現在學生是非常有理念有理想，是想有民主有自由，不想有人干預。但你想想，誰在在背後干預？陳文敏事件亦都是一種干預，你要反對大學一個正式、合法通過的決定，這個不是一種干預嗎？你可以看到他們（學生）背後是什麼人，一個是梁家傑的intern，出來話要我們學生罷課。上次全部都是公民黨，所以你可以見到，我亦都講過，是公民黨在後面搞事，因為事關陳文敏做不到他們想擺入來的那個位。
4. 問：在你未上任前，有不少學生及校友都反對你出任校委會主席。你覺不覺得是次梁振英委任你是一種政治干預？
這個（梁振英委任我）完全不是政治干預，因為校監有權在法律上委任校委會主席。這是依法做事，不是什麼問題。
至於你話有好多校友，有兩次公投，有九成七人反對我。但是校友有十七萬人，有四千人去投票，即是有三成人（應是3%）反對我。但係如果倒轉來看，有九成七人對我是無意見，無問題的。
5. 問：你會何時見學生，因為有話十日內見？學校會否事後追究學生圍堵行動？而成立的檢討大學條例小組會不會研究特首必然校監制？
第一，我何時會見學生呢，我何時都好樂意去見學生。但校委會是不會直接去見學生或教職員，要經過校長聯絡。我們要跟規矩做事。至於會否追究學生，要視乎我而不關校委會事。學生或教職員的問題要由學校管理層去處理。
至於review panel 會做什麼，我相信視乎我們給他們什麽，再看他們做什麼，要看Newby Report 寫什麼。我們要什麼人選去研究什麼都要等 Newby Report。這不是指我們現在不去物色人選。
6. 問：李教授用「暴動」形容當晚情況，是不是代表你認為學生就好似「暴民」？當日警察進入校園時亮出胡椒噴霧對付學生，這是否合適做法？你上任時講過將港大更上一層樓，第一次主持會議就令場面變成如此，你有沒有信心繼續帶領大學？
我對大學非常有信心，如果我無信心就不會做這個位。第二，你所提及人生安全方面，校長都講他覺得自己人生安全有問題，大家都睇到好多學生用膠索帶鎖門。如果建築物生火，人走不到可以燒死人，所以非常危險。你話這個不是一種暴動，就不知是什麼。
警察有權執行他們的責任，就是保障個人與物業的安全。所以，警察用什麼手段，應由警察自己做判斷。
1. Q: You have mentioned about the political interference from the pan-democratic parties, but people also see some pro-Beijing newspapers such as Wenweipov (文匯報), Dagongpaov (大公報), as well as Global Times, criticising Professor Johannes Chan and criticising HKU students. Do you agree that that is also political interference? Also, what do you think about Professor Peter Mathieson handling of student protest and his nomination of Professor Johannes Chan as the PVC (Pro-Vice-Chancellors)? Do you support Professor Mathieson seeking for second term?
I think you have asked a lot of question. First of all, I have to thank Wenweipo since my last statement was leaked in a radio and Wenweipo has very kindly given me a three-year subscription. I have been reading Wenweipo as a result of that. I do appreciate their Chinese is extremely good. Now, as to is it a political interference? Well, Apple Daily everyday criticises everybody; any pro-government, any pro-establishment, any pro-Beijing, and any spectrum. Is that political interference? In Hong Kong, we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom for all. So anyone could write to any newspaper including the South China Morning Post, to express their wishes. Whether you believe it or not, it’s entirely up to you. I don’t see that (criticisms from pro-Beijing newspapers) is political interference.
If, however, Beijing phones me up ask me to do something for the University or against the University or for the appointment of Professor Chan or not to appoint Professor Chan, I would see this as interference. But time and again, every council member said that there has been no outside person or people or organisation or association or office has contacted them about the appointment. The only thing that has come up is from the Civic Party. Okay?
I have every confidence as far as student discipline and handling of the University affairs is entirely up to Professor Mathieson and the Senior Management Team. I have every confidence in Professor Mathieson and the Senior Management Team to deal with the day-to-day matters of the University and I have no hesitation in supporting Professor Mathieson and agreeing with Professor Mathieson.
I don’t know if Professor Mathieson want to stay or not to desire.
7. 問：學生當晚只是想你出來對話交代校委會的決定，但你最後都是沒有出來。你會否認為當晚的亂局自己都有責任呢？
當晚的混亂完全與校委會無關，是馮同學自己放假消息給同學，跟住公民黨泛民於出面慫恿學生去暴動，現在你卻倒轉指他們暴動事關我們沒有出來。我亦都說得很清楚，我幾時都歡迎見學生，但不是你拿住支鬼槍，我就要出來見你。你用這些手段來要脅我們威嚇我們，對我們來說是不正確。如果你想見我，不如你現在RTHK要見我，你都要經過渠道先來接觸我，大家約個時間大家方便大家先見。
續問：但其實上次有警察進入大學就已經有國家領導人到訪港大，那今次有示威有警察入到大學校園，的，會否覺得這作法並不是那麼恰當呢？還有......
警察在香港是維持香港的治安及秩序。你不可以話我間屋不可以給警察進來，可不可以？不可以！警察是有權有法可以入內執行。如果有賊入屋，警察可不可以話不關我事，這個是你私人地方，是不可以嘛？所以你現譴責警察是不對的，麻煩你真的反省一下自己所講的事，真的好不合理！香港的警察，大家都看到，crime rate （犯罪率）節節下降。這些是我們香港警察非常好的事，但是不要責怪他們，亦都有很多地方大家未必完全認同，但是他們警隊大部分都是非常之好。
8. 問：你話公民黨在背後，其實你有什麼證據？因為就如你有話陳文敏是公民黨，你都是沒有證據。
上一次七月的時候，圍住我們校委會那次，梁家傑帶住大聲公指揮市民，「去那個門口、那個人行出來」。黃先生出來，他（梁家傑）即刻就話「這個人是校委，快點圍住他，快點圍住他」。這些是給人看到，電視攝影到。余若薇站在後面，當劉太被人指住，「想走啊？你跪低認錯先走得」，她（余若薇）在場，葉建源亦都在場，有好多這些人。如果不是外面的人，是什麼人？如果不是泛民，他們可以話係校友有權利，但他們欺騙得香港人幾耐呀？你遲早都騙不到香港人，大家都睇得到。
續問：在場指揮是指？
你（泛民）在場拿著手機，是不是講股市？
9. 問：你第一次主持會議，今次的場面就如此對立。那麼......
我今次主持會議，會議是非常之成功，受到好多委員讚我，話我做得非常之好。會議是完全沒問題，是會議之後，有人用假消息傳出去話我們不做那個review panel先激發到學生。
續問：但現在與學生的關係處於比較對立？
這是小部分學生。
續問：那你會否覺得這與你的行事作風及性格有關，而導致這樣的情況？
有兩樣東西要説得好清楚，每一個人都希望和平和諧。大家都希望這個社會是和平和諧，但要雙方面才成。你不可以單方面講和諧，你就不和諧，所以我講得好清楚要有條界線。這個（校委會）主席位，我好多朋友，差不多所有朋友同親戚都叫我不要做。因為這是沒有薪金，是要放時間上去，是給人罵的工作。但為何我最後要出來做這個位呢？好簡單，就是我們香港人應該企出來講enough is enough，夠了，我們要stand up for decency，要企出來說什麼是公道、公平、公正、光明正大、行得正、企得正。
續問：但是以前好少有這樣的情況發生，但你第一次主持會議就有這情況，你覺得......
我第一次主持會議是沒有問題，大家講好清楚，會議是好順利。你可以問校長會議是否很順利。
10. 問：學生現在是不信任校委會因為經過陳文敏事件。剛剛你都承認那些（錄音）是事實。即是他們覺得委員否決陳文敏原因好不合理好荒謬，不相信校委會內作了rational discussion（理性討論）。請問你有什麼回應？你會否主動做些事去重建他們對校委會的信心呢？
好，多謝你。大家講得好清楚，如果有個人去申請一份工，請你們去申請一份報章（工作），得不到那份工，你想不想那份報章講理由為何你得不到工作？你人格問題呀、你工作問題、你態度問題所以你得不到這份工。全世界沒人這樣做。你申請一份工，得就最好，你不成功就算。但既然有那麼多人出來話要解釋解釋解釋，我們是保護陳文敏教授的聲譽，保護他的privacy（私隱），所以我們不可以公開我們（否決）理由。但如陳文敏教授肯給我們一封信，話他不介意不會告我們洩漏他的私隱，我們可以公開討論。而討論，大家都知，已經全漏出去。你如果真的有時間，可以聽整個錄音的理由在哪。
你如何才信？講得好清楚，這已經出街了。陳文敏用兩年時間讀博士學位不成功，現在他是否坐在一個位可以決定一個人升級不升級，如果那人已經有博士學位？那我們一定要有一個規則，一定要有meritocracy（任人唯才）先可以做得到，就這麼簡單。
2. Q: What is your comment on student leader, Billy Fung’s betrayal? He actually voted for the motion in the meeting but later he joined back the students in a more radical protest?
I don’t really want to comment on an individual student, but you can see from his behaviour that he is someone who does not respect confidentiality that means his integrity is in question. He is a liar because he gave an undertaking to Council that he would keep confidentiality and immediately broke it. He is the liar because he voted for the Council to establish a review committee and immediately went out and said we hadn't established a review committee. So if such a person, if you believe him rather than believe the Council, then I think you are sadly mistaken.
11. 問：請以中文描述當晚情況，又擔不擔心經過今日會與學生的分歧越來越大呢？
首先我想向香港市民做個道歉，就是因為事關我們有好小部分好小部分的學生前晚做一些社會不認同的行為，而影響到人身安全各方面。但我要再講清楚，我們大部分大部分的學生是非常之好的，所以大家希望一竹竿打一船人。小部分學生，我亦都好明白他們的動機是什麼。他們是有理念，是想做好。但是，我亦有講過，好似中毒。而一個人吸毒，做不理性的事，你當然要譴責他。但我們亦都要想清楚，是誰供這些毒給學生呢？所以我希望社會再想清楚，這樣的人我們社會可以接受嗎？
12. 問：今次又再衝擊的時候，其實七月已經發生過，學生有否受處分？Council（校委會）有沒有想過要正視這問題去避免再發生這些情況呢？
我講得好清楚，學校處理學生及教職員的問題，這些問題不是由校委會管理，這是由校長跟Senior Management Team 他們高層管治去看此事。我們亦都不應該、不會去干預校長去做他的工作。
3. Q: The students on Tuesday night, they have been repeating their demand on dialogue with you. Under what conditions that you would agree to have dialogue with them and if the dialogue really takes place so what would you tell the students? And my second question is what roles of political interference had played provoking the sentiments of students
I think the question should be directed to the Civic Party rather than to me. What I can say is that every time we have a riot on campus. The Civic Party seems to be very active. Members of the Civic Party seems to be very active there. Alright?
As to the dialogue with students, I am very happy to talk to staffs, students, alumni anytime provided they follow the proper procedures they would have to go through the vice-chancellor to meet up with me and I am happy to make time available to meet them.
As to what I would say to the students, I think it’s they who want to see me, so I would listen to what they have to say.
13. 問：請問主席如何評價馮敬恩的為人及當晚的行為，是否如你所說的是個「大話精」及原因為何？
我為什麼話他是「大話精」？如果我不認為他是「大話精」，我又為何話他是「大話精」呢？而我為何叫他「大話精」的理由好簡單。他於校委會上答應保密，但一出去就立即開記者會全洩漏出來，這不是對校委會「講大話」？第二，前日我們開會大家全體一致通過 review panel 的成立，而他亦都可以告訴學生我們不成立這個 review panel ，這也不是「大話」是什麼？這樣的一個人，你給香港市民看看是否「大話精」？
4. Q: Mr Li, you specifically named that the Civic Party as the people who are so-called feeding the students poison. Can you elaborate on how they are doing that and why would they do that? How does it benefit them?
All I can say that in the two riots that we had on campus, the members or the senior members of the Civic Party were very prominent. Okay? I did not see 中聯辦 (Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR) there, I did not see anybody else there but the Civic Party members, senior members were all presented and you have to ask why.
5. Q: As you have mentioned, the Civic Party is behind them but what I have observed there are also some pan-democratic parties members but why are you pinpointing to the Civic party? And also I would like to ask there were some groups that are pro-Beijing groups for example the maybe the Treasure Group (珍惜群組) and maybe the Defend Hong Kong Campaign (保衛香港運動), they also have lots of support to you and they also, at the same time, urge Professor Mathieson to step down because you are the one who poisons the students and would you say these pro-Beijing groups are also political interference to the Council as well?
I think anyone is free to express their opinion in Hong Kong. We have a very free society in Hong Kong and we listen to various opinions. I have no problem with the Civic Party’s opinion. They are entitled their opinion and expressed it. What I object to is making use of the students to disrupt normal University functions that something I object to. Alright? Now you may say that it’s only the students but you say you were students once. Who was the Council Chairman when you was a student? Can you tell me? I don't think anybody would remember. Alright. Why does it suddenly come forward? Why has it become a political issue? Alright. Who has been running this campaign saying I should not be the Council Chairman even before I was offered the job? Alright. Who is out to say his first Council meeting is a shambles because it was a riot and has to be postponed. That was the intention, okay? Sadly for them, they did not succeed. We had a very successful Council meeting and it terminated and it finished. And the only thing that was disrupted was the press conference immediately afterwards.
14. 問：李教授不斷強調少數的學生唔support（支持）你，但其實香港大學學生會跟全部香港大學學生有一個公投，並投出兩條議案關於你本人及校委會structure（架構），有兩條motions（議案）通過了。第一號議案是「香港大學校務委員會主席必須由教師、職員及學生接受的人選出任」，有5119位真正的港大同學贊成，110人反對，87人棄權。第二號議案「李國章不適合在香港大學管治架構擔任任何職位。」，同樣贊成有4785票，反對178票，棄權353票。以下有三部分問題：1.到此刻你還覺得不支持你的學生是少數人？ 2.你本人是否支持校務委員會主席必須由教師、職員及學生接受的人選出任？ 3.根據你開頭講話，你為何認為自己有資格去代表學生道歉？
Let me answer your first question. Do you know how many students there in HKU? Total amount? And how many actually voted? It’s only a minority and the turnout rate is very low. Alright, so therefor if you look at a polling, it doesn't mean anything. Secondly as to the composition of the Council, fine, you can vote and you can let us know your opinion. We respect and we listen to your opinion but you are also going to give us reasons. I give you reason why the current structure is it is. We have the Sutherland Report, we have the Fit for Purpose report, we have the Niland Report and you just have one voting and tell us that we got to throw these onto the ground. Forget it because the students had voted, minority of student has voted. Now is that a reasonable thing for a reasonable Council to accept?
15. 問：是次事件你有五六小時於大樓內，可否講講你當時心情？校委會跟學生之間的信任越走越遠......
要講得好清楚，學生只是一少部分的學生，二三百人。整個大學一萬五千多個學生，二三百，不夠1%。不要整天話「學生」、「學生」。我真的不希望大家這樣説，即是我們要講得清清楚楚，不可以讓一小部分人牽著鼻子走。有小部分人意見，我們尊重他們的意見，他們亦都要認同他們是一小部分的人。大部分學生是完全不關注亦不認同他們的行為。
剛剛問我有什麼權同學生道歉，我不是跟學生道歉，我是向社會道歉，是代表大學向社會道歉。我們是做得不好，所以有一小部分的學生做成這樣，影響我們大學聲譽，影響其他學生聲譽。
16. 問：你話五千人是較少的數字。那你覺得幾多人先夠反映大學生意見？如果有天港大學生集合到這個人數，你可否承諾會答應學生要求？
我跟我們的校規做事。校規並沒寫一個公投，校委會就要跟公投做事。所以你有公投表達一種意見，我們聽到你的意見，是完全沒問題。如果你講意見出來，你一定要有根據、有道理，不是盲目叫口號，這是大家不可以接受。
Disclaimer: The transcript above is provided for general information purposes only. It makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this transcript, and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents.