（圖：DBC）
【 香港大學校務委員會本科生代表馮敬恩就九．二九校委會會議之個人聲明｜Personal Statement of Billy Jing-En Fung, Elected Representative of Undergraduate Students, on Meeting of the HKU Council on 29 September 】
各位港大師生校友，本人身為香港大學校務委員會本科生代表，將就今日校務委員會所處理的事宜有所交代。
今日校務委員會違反以往慣例，未有尊重物色委員會建議，最終以八票贊成、十二票反對否決副校長﹙人力資源﹚的任命，而該人選則為陳文敏教授。
會上，李國章質疑陳文敏沒有博士學位，故沒有資格擔任副校長，更質疑為何部份政黨會如此支持陳文敏。李國章又指陳文敏當年出任法律學院院長只因他是好人﹙Nice Guy﹚，並非靠其學術成就。另外，紀文鳳、梁高美懿及洪丕正又因陳文敏在未任命前就公開提及自己是唯一侯候選人，故認為陳文敏的操守﹙Integrity﹚有問題。紀文鳳及梁高美懿更指從大公司高層招聘的角度，指若有應徵者在獲聘前如此高調表露身份，必不會錄用。陳坤耀又引述自己的資料搜集，指陳文敏鮮有在學術期刊發表文章，或成為學術文章的主要作者，又質疑其資歷不及其他副校長，又指陳文敏本人連博士學位亦沒有，怎會有資格處理有博士學位人士的應徵。盧寵茂指陳文敏學術水平不合乎標準，又指其研究成績連助理教授亦不如，又指責陳文敏沒有在其跌到後致以慰問﹙show sympathy﹚。廖長江引述在Google Scholar搜尋結果，指陳文敏的文章在過去五年只被搜尋過四次。王䓪鳴指陳文敏擔任副校長會令香港大學進一步分裂。
根據席間不同校務委員的發言，很有理由相信除了馬斐森校長、郭新教授、袁國勇醫生、張祺忠博士、吳國恩先生及研究生代表Mr. Aloysius Wilfred Raj Arokiaraj、本人，以及另外一名校務委員投贊成票之外，其他都是投反對票，而歷史必會記住他們。
各位港大師生校友，校委會在組成上以校外人士為主，當中少數具民意授權，致使「等埋首副」荒誕理據橫行。我校現正處於危機之中，校內人士於校委會中，根本無法作出改變。我懇請同學與我們在校委會主席換屆，以及長遠修改香港大學條例等議題上，與我們並肩而行。
最後，在過去半載，校委會屢次以「保密慣例」及「集體決定」為由，封鎖資訊，以致眾多真正關心香港大學的師生校友猶如蒙在鼓裡。為確保師生校友的知情權，我不得不如此行。如果此舉被認為違反「保密慣例」，我願意接受批評，並感到抱歉。不過，我由衷希望校委會能開誠佈公，接受師生校友之監察，以致未來不必再訴諸同樣的行為，以確保各位的知情權。謝謝。
Teachers, students and alumni of HKU, as the representative of undergraduate students to the Council of the University of Hong Kong, I shall now explain about the issue administered today during the Council meeting.
Breaching the usual practice, the Council did not respect the recommendation from the search committee and rejected the appointment of the Vice-President and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Staffing and Resources) with 8 votes cast for and 12 against, with the candidate being no other but Professor Johannes Chan.
During the meeting, Arthur K.C. Li criticised Professor Chan’s lack of a doctoral degree and thus his inability to serve as the Vice-President. He also furthered his criticism on the support from various political parties on Professor Chan. He also claimed that Professor Chan could only become the dean of the Faculty of Law as he was a ‘nice guy’, but nothing related to his academic achievement. Besides, Leonie M.F. Ki, Margaret M.Y. Leung Ko and Benjamin P.C. Hung denounced Professor Chan’s integrity, who long announced himself to be the one and only candidate for the position before the appointment. Leonie M.F. Ki and Margaret M.Y. Leung Ko, from the perspective of a senior manager from an enterprise, even claimed that any applicant with such high profile shall never be hired. Edward K.Y. Chan also cited from his own research that Professor Chan rarely published his writings in any academic journals or was scarcely major authors of academic writings. He also doubted that Professor Chan’s experience can hardly match the other Vice-Presidents and further questioned his ability in handling applications from candidates with doctoral degrees when he does not even have one. C.M. Lo claimed that Professor Chan fails to meet the rightful academic standard which cannot even match that of an associate professor. C.M. Lo also accused Professor Chan for not showing sympathy even when he fell. Martin C.K. Liao cited the searching result from Google Scholar, claiming that Professor Chan’s writings were only googled for four times in the past five years. Rosanna Y.M. Wong claimed that appointing Professor Chan to the position of Vice President would only cause a further division of the University.
According to the speeches made by the various council members, we can strongly believe that only Professor Peter Mathieson, Professor S. Kwok, Professor K.Y. Yuen, Professor K.C. Cheung, Mr Felix K.Y. Ng, Mr Aloysius Wilfred Raj Arokiaraj, the representative of the postgraduate students, myself and one other Council members voted for the appointment. With all other casting a vote against, history shall surely remember them.
Teachers, students and alumni of HKU, external personnel dominate the composition of the Council with only a few of them truly representing us, which is the clear reason for the absurd pretext of delaying the appointment ‘until the post of provost is filled’. While our university may be in such a jeopardy, university members in the Council can do nothing in making a change. We sincerely hope that students can stand along with us in the change of the Chairperson of the Council and the long term review of the Hong Kong University Ordinance.
Teachers, students and alumni of HKU, external personnel dominate the composition of the Council with only a few of them truly representing us, which is the clear reason for the absurd pretext of delaying the appointment ‘until the post of provost is filled’. While our university may be in such a jeopardy, university members in the Council can do nothing in making a change. We sincerely hope that students can stand along with us in the change of the Chairperson of the Council and the long term review of the Hong Kong University Ordinance.