Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong. The bilingual version is published concurrently by Tai Hok Tao, while the Chinese version is published concurrently by Hong Kong Economic Journal.

"The best gentry rules" had been the dream of many Chinese literati for ages, since the introduction of the civil examination system in the Sui and Tang Dynasties. It has helped to perpetuate China's feudalistic system.

Around late-Qing and the early years of the Republican era, the civil examination system was officially put to an end, giving way to the emergence of the western university system. In 1898, the first state university in China was established. It was first called the Metropolitan University, and subsequently renamed as Peking University. In Hong Kong, the Hong Kong College of Medicine was opened in 1887, soon to become the University of Hong Kong, the foundation stone of which was laid in 1910.

Along with the introduction of the university system, scientific ideas and democratic beliefs from the West were also brought into China. The New Culture Movement and the May Fourth Movement, which tailed soon after, have fostered the birth of brand-new concepts of patriotism and nationalism. The Chinese gentry began to collapse, soon to be replaced by a new class of modern intellectuals. The definition of "intellectuals", however, varies from time to time and across different cultures.

Around the Revolution of 1911, many Chinese intellectuals took it to be their mission to save their nation and liberate their fellow compatriots. They even dedicated their lives to organize, and even lead, the revolution. Recently, some western commentators have classified "intellectuals" into academic scholars who teach and work in universities, experts working in policy think tanks, and "public intellectuals" who specialize in swaying public opinion. Using this typology, Chinese literati like Hu Shi, Lu Hsun and Liang Chi Chao may well be regarded as China's pioneer "public intellectuals".

Under the colonial rule of Hong Kong, local elites were constantly being absorbed by the government administration through its civil service and consultative bodies. Coupled with the lack of opportunities for scientific research, the absence of democratic institutions, and the government's discouragement of patriotic development, "officialdom" once again became the ideal of many Hong Kong literati. Then came 1997, when Beijing decided to form its own pool of associates. Many literati turned their hope to the new system, and before long, many reputable scholars were appointed as Hong Kong Affairs Advisor, members of the Preliminary Working Committee for the Preparatory Committee for the HKSAR, and then members of the Preparatory Committee itself. A new round of absorption politics has begun, its objective and strategy highly reminiscent of those in the colonial era.

In a way, "the best gentry rules" may well be taken in a positive sense to reflect literati's urge to serve the community with all they have learned, rather than their inclination to play up to the powerful bigwigs, or sticking at the doctrinaire and antiquated beliefs. Are the think-tank experts and public intellectuals in the western society not doing the same? One close-at-hand example is Nobel Prize laureate Lee Yuan-tseh, who has been appointed by Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian as head of his most important think-tank, Academia Sinica. Lee was responsible for crucial tasks like the organization of a multi-party advisory panel on cross-strait affairs, the post-September-21 earthquake reconstruction project, and the reform of Taiwan's education system. Another example close-at-hand is Hong Kong's veteran sociology professor Lau Siu-kai, who was last year appointed by the Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa as the Head of Central Policy Unit.

In Taiwan, it is not unusual that many academics and experts would take side with the candidates during general elections, and if they made the right choice, they would soar aloft. Lee Yuan-tseh has long been a household name in Taiwan. In the final countdown of the 2000 Taiwan presidential election, Lee surprised the public by backing Chen Shui-bian with a written declaration. His sudden move helped the Democratic Progressive Party to oust the old party to set up a new regime. A scholar-turn-politician, Lee has repeatedly emphasized his genuine wish to serve the society with science and technology, guided purely by his sense of intellectual integrity. Even though the popularity of Chen Shui-bian has plummeted, Lee's prestigious status was never shaken.

In my humble opinion, there may not be any "yes" or "no" answer to whether scholars should comment on, or participate in, politics. As long as they stick to their conscience, and always speak the truth, their demeanor as scholars would remain unscathed. Scholars are only humans, and humans make mistakes.

What makes scholars or intellectuals so respectable is their assertion in the truth and their erudite knowledge. Citing the motto of the University of Hong Kong, the responsibility of intellectuals lies in "virtus" and "sapientia". "Virtus" refers to the adherence to the high-minded and illustrious virtue, while "sapientia" means the endless pursuit of every reason and upholding the authentic truth behind.

To the author, whoever uses the title of "professor", "lecturer", "doctor", or "honourable doctor" should be an intellectual who stands fast by the truth with profound scholarship. Unless they choose to relieve themselves from these titles such that they are no longer an intellectual, they should in no way fawn on the ordinary people by twisting the facts just to trade for their own selfish interests. If they are just some "officer", "director", "head", "principal" or "advisor", they can be treated as mere executives. But if they would also use their academic title, they bear the responsibility of protecting the dignity of the intelligentsia, no matter what they write, comment, study, or just advise.

What's more, the concept of "intellectuality" goes way beyond the conventional boundary of being a professor or scholar. "Philistines are usually those with honourable gallantry", so the proverb goes. If even the riff-raff were able to uphold their own faith and virtue, how could the well-educated scholars humiliate themselves by obsequiously bowing and scraping simply for some petty paychecks?