Let us turn back the pages of history: In April 1986, The Chinese University of Hong Kong started a seven-month hunt for a new vice-chancellor. Meanwhile, the student unions asked for greater say in the process.
According to a survey done by the unions then, more than 80 percent of the students favoured more student participation in the selection of their own chief. Yet, the only concession was student notification of the chosen candidate a few hours earlier than the media. In fact, the "interviews with the candidates" promised to the student union were virtually turned into a meeting with the then one-and-only-one candidate, Professor Charles K. Kao.
In 1993, the authorities in Shaw College at the Chinese University avoided potential conflicts with students by simply finishing all the nominating and selection procedures in deep silence. It was not until January of the next year that its students learnt that a new chief had been selected for them.
This is totally ridiculous. Students are the ones the universities are created for, but they do not even have the right to know what is going on during the selection process. The vice-chancellor is the most prominent figure in a university. His values and aspirations are translated into policies, and, thus, he affects the students directly. Yet, the authorities hold the whole process in "strictest confidence" as stated in the job advertisement, keeping the 11,500 students uninformed.
The farce continues. As our former one-and-only-one candidate Professor Charles K. Kao's term of office expires, a new hunting process is already on center stage. Again, more than 80 percent of the 806 students asked favour disclosure of the whole procedure and candidates' information, as found in a research done by the Student Press in 1994. But, whether we will learn who the new chief is through the media is still unknown.