Academics writing about curbs to academic freedom are likely to have a bias. However, the paper highlighted this week from Carole J. Peterson of the University of Hawaii and Alvin Y. H. Cheung from the NYU is reasonably balanced.
They detail the way in which academic freedom has been compromised in Hong Kong since the handover and trace the root cause to the fact the Chief Executive is also automatically the Chancellor of all Hong Kong universities.This is a hangover from colonial times when the position was understood to be largely titular.
What this means today though, in reality, is that Beijing is in charge of academic appointments in Hong Kong; and, naturally, many academics are ticked.
Why does this matter? The authors believe if the situation deteriorates further it will undermine the standing* of Hong Kong’s universities, deter talent from coming to Hong Kong and fundamentally undermine the One Country Two Systems principle. They highlight the snatch operation [Allegedly, we still have no proof] by mainland security forces with booksellers in Hong Kong recently as the most flagrant breach of this arrangement.
[* Interesting recent article highlights how HK universities are doing AND how well mainland institutions are faring HK and Chinese University ranking]
It’s a long-ish piece and if you only have time for the conclusion you’ll find that begins on P.58. It’s a useful primer if you’re not up to speed with some of the issues beneath the dissent that colors much political discourse here now [More from a post a few weeks ago on Hong Kong’s disaffected youth at Angry Youth].
As an aside, you might want to come back to this when the discussion on Article-23* heats up again; which I’m sure it will. The continuation of anti-mainland snark from parts of academia, idiots booing the National Anthem at recent soccer games, elected representatives deliberately and offensively fluffing oaths (the “People’s Refucking of Chee-na”, seriously?!) and fat-heads turning out draped in and waving colonial era flags have made revisiting this, as yet un-enacted, legislation an inevitability.
Not what most want but where a petulant minority are corralling an increasingly impatient administration towards. It’s a bitter irony those agitating for greater ‘freedom’ are likely to provoke a reaction 180-degrees at odds with their aims. Smart people sometimes do the dumbest things, agitating-classes seem not to have understood one of the most important and basic of Hong Kong’s laws (unwritten, natch); don’t mess with Beijing. That’s a fight that can only be lost. The security of a nation depends on such an outcome.
You can access the paper in full via the following link Academic Freedom and Critical Speech in Hong Kong.
Happy Sunday.
[* To remind, Article-23 is the one about ‘sedition’ (among other things) that got people fired up (among other things) in 2003. Then, 500,000 souls took to the streets and the protest led to the downfall of Hong Kong’s first post-handover Chief Executive Mr. Tung Chee Hwa. Here’s Article-23 in its entirety; “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies.” Coming soon? I fear so 🙁 ]