Official's angry phone call not improper
Updated: 2009-03-14 07:35
By Teddy Ng(HK Edition)
|
|||||||||
HONG KONG: Confrontation between government officials and academics will not necessarily constitute violation of academic freedom, the Court of First Instance has ruled. However, the court cautioned, in a judicial ruling favoring the government, the dialogue must not bear any threat of sanction.
The petition for the judicial review was brought by the government after publication of a report by a commission of inquiry into allegations leveled against the government by the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd).
The government feared the commission ruling would create an impediment to open consultation between authorities and members of the academic community.
The commission of inquiry was constituted by Chief Executive Donald Tsang, after Permanent Secretary for Education and Manpower Fanny Law called a faculty member of HKIEd and angrily stated her disapproval of the faculty member's published views on education policy.
The institution complained that the Secretary had violated provisions guaranteeing academic freedom.
Law resigned her post after the commission of inquiry found that heated objections by senior government officials to academics through direct contact would constitute improper interference with academic freedom even though there was no proof that Law had threatened sanction or reprisal.
Friday's ruling by the Court of First Instance, however, found no impropriety on the part of Mrs Law.
Justice Michael Hartmann and Justice Poon Shiu-chor said in the written judgment that officials engaging academics through direct contact should be considered as "part of the ebb and flow of free debate".
"We do not see that it would be improper for a senior official to privately engage an academic in order to state government's views, even to the extent of arguing that the academic should in the result change his or her views," the judgment said.
Violation of academic freedom only exists when the confrontation contains either direct or indirect threats of sanction.
The judges said academics are more inclined to believe they are more vulnerable when involved in conflict with officials, who play a key role to tertiary institutions development, but such fear is insufficient to establish proof of interference with academic freedom.
Senior civil servants may feel constrained from dealing directly with academics, fearful of undermining academic freedom, under the findings of the commission report, the judges said.
The Education Bureau welcomed the court's judgment.
A spokesman for the Bureau said the judgment clarified uncertainty relating to the communications between officials and academics.
The spokesman said the government respects academic freedom.
However, the lecturer who was the recipient of Law's angry call, Ip Kin-yuen, expressed concern that academic freedom could be infringed.
"The judgment does not clearly define what should be considered a proper approach from government officials, and what constitutes a threat," said Ip, who now is principal of a secondary school. "There should be clear definition to avoid confusion in the future."
City University political scientist James Sung said officials will be more confident in consulting academics for formulation of policies with the court judgment.
(HK Edition 03/14/2009 page1)