How CuHK will get a new chief

For more than 10 years, the same criticism has been made on the way The Chinese University of Hong Kong selects its vice- chancellor.

Since 1989, when Prof. Charles K. Kao was appointed as the vice-chancellor, the university was criticized for excluding students from the selection process and disclosing too little information about the candidates. Similar criticisms arose in 1996 when Prof. Arthur Li Kwok Cheung took the seat.

When Prof. Li resigned on 1 August to assume office as secretary for the Education and Manpower Bureau, Prof. Ambrose King succeeded him during the transition while the university selects a new vice-chancellor. Prof. King is going to retire at the end of this year, so the pace of selection has been quickened.

The first step in the selection process was setting up a search committee. There are seven members of the committee. The chairman is Dr. Lee Hon Chiu, who chairs the University Council. Three more committe members were elected from the council, which is composed of the vice-chancellor, the pro-vice-chancellor, heads of colleges, deans of faculties, alumni and non-academic lay members like businessmen.

The remaining three committee members were elected from the senate, which is composed of academic staff and student representatives.

Cheung Yiu Kuen, president of the Student Union of the Chinese University, failed to win a seat on the committee. With 48 votes, he lost by fewer than 20 votes to Prof. Daniel Law, dean of the Faculty of Arts, for the last seat.

Justin Chau, vice-president of the Student Union, said, “There are only eight student representatives among more than 100 Senate members. Our chance of winning was very small.”

Prof. Law disagreed that the election results correlate with the number of representatives because only five senate members come from the Faculty of Arts, and he still won the election.

Justin said they did not win the election also because professors tend to vote for professors.

Prof. King said he did not think professors choosing their colleagues was a result of categorical thinking. He said that although
Mr. Cheung of the Student Union lost the election, he still got 48 votes. Even if the eight student representatives all voted for him, there were still 40 votes from the teaching staff.

Under the present system of vice-chancellor selection, any scholar who applies for or is nominated will become a potential candidate. The committee hires an executive recruiting firm, known as a head hunter, to gather information on scholars all over
the world and sorts out several suitable candidates. The committee provides the firm with criteria for sorting candidates.

Prof. Law said there are some general criteria, like well-recognized academic achievements, experience in executive work and the ability to negotiate with the government.

The committee also wants the new vice- chancellor to be willing to listen to different opinions, communicate well with staff and students and stay in the position for at least five years.

According to Prof. Law, these criteria are changeable because nobody is perfect. There may not be one person who fulfills all of the criteria. The committee may change some of them if they find a really suitable one.

As for the list of candidates, it is kept secret.

Prof. King said the reason for not disclosing the list is to avoid embarrassing the candidates.

“All candidates have well-paid jobs. What would their bosses think if they failed the selection or planned to leave?” said he.

After several candidates are sorted out, the committee will approach them and ask if they are willing to take the job. Those who answer positively will be interviewed. The committee will recommend an appropriate candidate to the Council.

Prof. King said the committee is open to opinions of staff and students. He said although there are no student committee members, students could give suggestions to the committee.

The Student Union tried to participate in the selection process through various channels.

It collected a set of questions from students’ emails and tried to send it to the candidates through the committee, so that candidates could answer these questions anonymously.

The committee did take the request into consideration, but said it was not compulsory for candidates to answer the questions.

The Student Union then asked the committee to survey student opinions by designing questionnaires. The suggestion was turned down.

The Student Union was disappointed to find students’ opinions not valued, said Justin.

Prof. Law explained that the committee does not really interview the candidates, but negotiates with them. Therefore, they cannot just “throw a list of questions” at them. Instead, they choose some representative questions to ask.

Prof. Law said, “Our ultimate goal is to come up with an agreement in managing the university.”

The committee has also been criticized for its inefficiency in disclosing their work progress.

The Student Union requested to have a meeting with the committee once it was set up. The meeting was held six weeks later.
After three months of persistent requests, a general consultation meeting open to all students was held.

With a total of two meetings held with students, Prof. King said, “The committee holds regular meetings with students, but not many of them attend.”

Prof. Law said this was because the committee needed time to prepare before meeting with students.

Justin said that this reflected their insincere attitude in collecting student opinions. Besides the late arrangements for the meetings, the Student Union was also not allowed to record its meetings with the committee.

The Student Union asked the selection committee to share some basic information concerning the selection process, such as the latest date to come up with the chosen candidate. The request was again denied.

Since the appointment of Prof. Kao in 1989, the Student Union has been trying to get an ex officio student member into the committee. Justin explained the need for such mandatory membership was due to differences in the focus of professors and students.

He said professors look for someone who has well-recognized academic achievements and good management skills, whereas students want someone who can protect their interests and bargain with the government.

Prof. King said the matter is under consideration. However, Justin is dissatisfied with the progress.

“The Student Union has been asking for it since 1989,” he said.

Prof. King said that the system has its own rationale and is not a “black box operation”.

Next