*****************************************

Following is a speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, on "Motion on Proposing the Appointment of a Select Committee to Inquire into the Opinion Poll Incident and Related Matters" in the Legislative Council today (November 22):

Madam President,

I have listened most carefully to Members who have spoken. I believe that all Members who have spoken have done so because of a common desire ¡V to safeguard academic freedom. I hasten to add that this is also the goal of this Administration.

We are particularly zealous in protecting academic freedom for two simple reasons. First, academic freedom is guaranteed in the Basic Law. Article 34 states that Hong Kong residents shall have freedom to engage in academic research, literary and artistic creation, and other cultural activities. We are duty-bound to uphold the Basic Law. And our claim to upholding vigilantly the Basic Law includes upholding this pillar of our society. Secondly, academic freedom is part and parcel of Hong Kong's way of life, an essential element to our success. We need to maintain an environment where there is a free and frank exchange of ideas and views, and where academic activities, including research and surveys, range wide and uninhibited.

Of course, I am fully aware that concerns have recently been raised that academic freedom might have been undermined. It is therefore only right, in our open and pluralistic society, that such views should be given full vent. The prompt appointment of an Independent Investigation Panel by the University of Hong Kong to look into these concerns, with the most respectable membership; the debate within and outside of the academic community; and the general public's awareness of the issue all point to the importance our society attaches to this subject. The Independent Investigation Panel conducted a thorough investigation and did not make any finding of interference with academic freedom by any Government official. What more do we expect from a Select Committee appointed by this Council? How much further do we intend to pursue the issue? And, more importantly, to what end?

My view is that an endless pursuit of the matter is neither warranted nor in the interest of the academic community or the community at large. In the past months, distrust, hyper-sensitivity and over-anxiety have so intertwined with facts that many a time people are so consumed by such feelings that they have lost sight of the facts.

Madam President, allegations of government interference with academic freedom have haunted us all summer. Let me take up some of these misconceived allegations and dispel them once and for all.

First, we are sure Members would agree that constructive comments, or even criticisms, could only perfect propositions and, it is the intolerance of dissenting views that poses the greatest threat to academic freedom and freedom of expression. Communication and exchanges between the academic community and the rest of the community, including the government, should not be hampered or stifled just because of concerns over possible ¡§interference¡¨ with academic freedom.

Secondly, allegations that the truth has not been uncovered because the Chief Executive had not testified before the Panel appointed by the University are totally unfounded. The Chief Executive has made it quite clear that he fully respects academic freedom and will not tolerate any interference with such freedom. Furthermore, he has explained that he and the former Vice-Chancellor had not discussed the opinion polls conducted by the University during their meetings and that he, the Chief Executive, had not passed any messages directly or indirectly to the University of Hong Kong regarding its polling work. In short, the Chief Executive has denied categorically any attempt to stop polling activities at the University of Hong Kong. The former Vice-Chancellor who was alleged to have been his messenger also denied ever having received any such message. What more would a Select Committee to be appointed by this Council hope to elicit?

Thirdly, the suspicion that freedom in academic pursuits in the Chinese University of Hong Kong has been subject to interference is equally groundless. The Vice-Chancellor and various staff members of the Chinese University have publicly stated, on a number of occasions and in no uncertain terms, that they are not aware of, and do not have, any complaints of improper conduct or interference by the government with regard to their work. What else do we expect a Select Committee appointed by this Council to uncover when the allegedly affected parties do not think that there have been any meddlings by an outside party in their affairs?

Fourthly, the suspicion over possible interference in the appointment of a member of the governing council of the Chinese University is also unwarranted. Madam President, I would like to remind Members that the Chinese University of the Hong Kong Ordinance vests in the Chief Executive as the Chancellor of the University, the authority to appoint certain members of the University's Council. In exercising this power, the Chief Executive has, in accordance with the relevant Ordinance, had regard to, among other things, the strengths and service records of the individuals, the development needs of the institution and the need to maintain a reasonable turnover of members to provide for regular infusion of ideas and expertise, without causing disruption to the operation of the institution. We have not heard of any concern or complaint by the University over any appointment made by the Chief Executive. What would a Select Committee appointed by this Council hope to achieve when the University concerned does not perceive this as an issue?

The fact that an article published nearly six months ago has given rise to such lively debates even to this day should convince even our sceptics that academic freedom is highly valued and respected in Hong Kong. What is equally important is the autonomy of the Universities. They are the ones who know best what is in their best interest.

Madam President, the parties allegedly affected by the matters referred to in the motion have all spoken. A further enquiry will not lead anywhere. It is time that we put the matter to rest and let the Universities get on with their academic work. I hope we can draw a line after the conclusion of today's debate. I urge Members to vote against the motion.

Thank you.

End/Wednesday, November 22, 2000

NNNN