To a law student of City University, nothing is more heartrending than seeing my Law School being subjected to showers of criticism by the press on its recent staffing issue. Had the school authority handled this problem decisively, this "storm in a teacup" would never have become a scandal in town as it is now.

Several weeks ago, I was asked by a reporter from Ming Pao, of whether the Law School's reputation and that of the university as a whole had already been undermined by this infamous incident. Infamy or not, depends entirely on how the university is going to cope with the matter. In fact, wide coverage by the local press alone, may not necessarily cast stigma on the City University. Has the University of Hong Kong been submerged to be an academic institution with bad name as a result of the Robert Chung Incident? I think not. It avoided notoriety by forming an independent panel immediately to investigate the alleged suppression of freedom of speech and deposed Cheung Yiu-chung and Wong Siu-lun. Notoriety was borne solely by Cheung and Wong but not the HKU. Same attitude should be adopted by our school this time. Applause, instead of despise, would be won if the university could form an investigation panel with credible members to hunt down the real culprit. After all, why should the entire City University shoulder the guilt of one single wrongdoer? Why should we allow one person's imprudence to spoil the reputation that our Law School has earned with toil and effort throughout the previous years? Rome was not built in one day but was burnt down into ashes by fire in one night.

Those flaws are no longer a flaw

Regarding to those "flaws" mentioned in the written report prepared by the Appeal Committee, the decision-maker Prof. Michael McConville should be held responsible when nobody in the School Staffing Committee, but himself, had the "statutory power" to make and approve those erred decisions. Make one flaw, is accident; two is coincident; but three may be deliberate. The way he evaluated the eligibility of the staff members was not merely incomprehensive as pointed out in the report, but was exceedingly improper as well. It is therefore quite inexplicable for the Appeal Committee to hold there were flaws in McConville's administrative decision, but was silent on his liability.

Some headstrong members of the School Authority responded to the Legislative Council's intervention on this matter with violent objection, thinking it would deprive their autonomy and open a floodgate to government intrusion on university's administration. Autonomy in tertiary institutions, is undeniably indispensable but it should never shelter autocracy. Legco's intervention is not the first port of call but only the last resort, especially when the institution in question disregards the voice of discontent and all possible means of settling it internally are exploited but of no avail.

Moved by our conscience and commitment, my classmates and I choose to be outspoken aiming at defending our Law School. Our wrath is provoked if not instigated by nobody, save McConville's maladministration. I totally agree with Prof. HK Chang, our president that we should put a full stop to this scandal, provided justice is seen to be done and the wrongdoer is removed from office.