Chinese University would be better off without Rocky Tuan

When the same mistake is made over and over again, it is fair to say that not only has it become a habit, it is evidence of a fundamental character flaw. Such is the shocking case of the vicechancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Rocky Tuan Sung-chi, who has repeatedly and openly condoned acts of violence and illegal acts carried out by some CU students.

Welcoming back the second term of the 2019-20 academic year recently, he sent an open letter to students, colleagues and alumni. In it, he mentioned how wonderful it was for the campus to spring back to life, and for its members to continue their academic and intellectual pursuits, following the early termination of their first term in November.

Strangely, Tuan failed to acknowledge why that first term had come to such an abrupt end. He seems to have forgotten the battles and chaos that took place on the CU campus in November, and more importantly, the mob mentality exhibited by some of his students.

Tuan has little, if any, integrity left as the head of a university. He even dared suggest the university should pick up the cost — amounting to about HK$70 million ($9 million) — to fix campus facilities and the buses vandalized by radical protesters during the November riots.

This fund does not come from some bottomless

The author is president of Wisdom Hong Kong, a local think tank.

university purse, but from donations made by individuals and members of the public. The university is accountable to these donors for how their cash is spent. It must come clean and bring those responsible for the damage to account. The perpetrators were largely rioters, including some CU students among them.

In his open letter, Tuan claimed: “That the new term can start as scheduled should not be taken for granted, and all credit must go to those colleagues in various functional capacities who have gone many extra miles in enabling the continuation of our activities, … and most importantly, in building great rapport and radiating positive energy as we weathered the storm.”

Trust is established from the top of an organization down. How can “great rapport” be built, then, if the head of the university himself indulges in such irresponsible behavior? To date, Tuan has failed to make any report to the police concerning the damage done to 75 school buses. Neither

has he condemned nor reprimanded any of the students involved in the campus vandalism, despite the fact that some of those acts are punishable by imprisonment. Tuan has clearly sided with his students. During the November campus chaos, he even attempted to stop the police from carrying out their law enforcement duties. This is unbecoming of a university president, particularly at a time when moral leadership is sorely needed.

His actions speak volumes. Instead of condemning violence and criminal activities on his watch, he turned a blind eye to the illegal activities of the rioters and some of his students. The perpetrators should have been dealt with by the police and by the criminal legal system, including the Correctional Services Department.

Tuan’s inaction and his tacit condonation of student violence amount to a gross dereliction of duty, one severe enough to warrant a call for his resignation or dismissal. Nowhere in his open letter, for example, did he mention the campus being used to manufacture hundreds of homemade gasoline bombs, and then being used as a practice area for their deployment, which he must surely have witnessed firsthand. The campus suffered a great deal of fire damage as a result of these rudimentary incendiary devices. Instead, he chose to do and say nothing, then and now. His inaction makes him shamefully complicit in the violence himself. If nothing else, he should be asked to make statements as an eyewitness in the Sha Tin police station.

It could be argued that Tuan’s inaction is tantamount to a cover-up for the crimes committed by his students; that he is, in effect, helping them avoid charges of criminal misconduct, instead of facing the normal processes that could lead to arrest or prosecution. In his open letter, Tuan asked for the public’s trust to help rebuild the university community. Under normal circumstances, this would be a fair enough request. But in light of the November campus outrage and the way he conducted himself, does the university — or, more pointedly, Tuan as its head — deserve our continued trust and support?

Tuan has urged the university community for their patience and understanding, and to allow time for the campus to ease back into its former state of vibrant diversity. It sounds as though he would like to gloss over the recent season of extreme violence and avoid tackling its root causes. But you can’t hope to heal a wound without proper diagnosis and treatment.

I fear the alumni, sponsors, partners, and various CU stakeholders and friends are increasingly troubled by Tuan’s attempts to pull the wool over their eyes regarding the extent of the problems revealed by the riots in November. Not only does the university need to overhaul its management and moral compass — the conduct of its president must be examined,

too. Tuan will have to be removed if he is found to have neglected his duties. The institution deserves and badly needs a fresh start.

Tuan hasn’t totally misread the situation. In his open letter, he mentioned how the “university needs the collective wisdom, effort and action of every member of its community to tell the world what CUHK stands for, our treasured core values that have guided us over the past 57 years.” In order to realize this cherished goal, however, he will need to step aside and let the work be done by someone else.

Tuan’s mandate is now toxic. The longer he stays, the more damage will be done to the reputation of the university. Some now jokingly refer to CU as the “Rioters University”. Following the November chaos, there have been serious and understandable concerns about the ability of the university to attract quality teaching staff, students from overseas, and donors.

Besides his incompetence as a university head, Tuan lacks integrity and courage. He has chosen to bow to the pressure exerted by his more-violent students. Can Tuan really justify his huge HK$7 million annual salary? I would advise him to return to his career in medical research and bioengineering — the university and its students would all be better off if he stopped conducting his “experiments” with their futures and that of the institution.

For the sake of CU’s future, I say to Tuan — “Goodbye, and good riddance!”

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.