Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong.

In modern civil societies, any person purposes to twist the facts to trade for his own selfish interests is likely to invite condemnation.

However, if this principle were applied to academics only, it would be unfair to non-academics. Hence, it would be unwise to suggest that only academics have dignity and to imply that non-academics do not. (See Dr Robert Ting-Yiu Chung's article entitled "Intellectuality Not For Sale" in Hong Kong Economic Journal, the Chinese daily newspaper, dated 12 March 2003.)

I would suggest that, other than academics, all kind of people, whether they are taxi-drivers, caf's waiters, Macdonald's cashiers, employed or waiting for employment, should not twist the facts.

Dr Chung seems to suggest that academics have "special" dignity and should not "humiliate themselves by obsequiously bowing and scraping simply for some petty paychecks", as he describes in his article.

Can we describe academics' paychecks in Hong Kong as "petty"? You must be joking. Depending on which survey or figure you use, a professor in Hong Kong receives remuneration at least 40% more than a professor in US top university such as Harvard. (Note: Apart from academics, it has also been suggested that senior civil servants in Hong Kong receive "exceedingly" generous remuneration over and above the rate received by equivalent officials in leading industrial societies. For example, in July 2003, the head of the Health Department in Hong Kong announced that she would join the World Health Organization in Geneva as a Director - at one quarter of her existing remuneration.)

Of course, if academics in Hong Kong compromise their dignity in order to acquire a bigger and faster yacht, it is inevitable that criticisms would flow in.

Dr Chung cites the motto of the University of Hong Kong and argues that the responsibilities of the intellectuals lie in "virtus" and "sapientia". He says intellectuals have to adhere to "the high-minded and illustrious virtue" and insist upon "the authentic truth". This argument derives from traditional Chinese concept "Everything is inferior to studying". I would suggest that such a concept is antiquated and out-dated. I would also say that the intellectuals have no monopoly on the ability to tell the differences between the right and the wrong; or to separate the truth from the untruth. Why ordinary citizens without the benefits of higher education must be incapable of telling the differences between the right and the wrong and separating the truth from the untruth?

Perhaps Dr Chung mixes up what he wants to happen with what will definitely happen and then turn the latter into an exclusive property.

The University of Hong Kong probably wants its students to be able to uphold the responsibilities of "virtus" and "sapientia". Whether the students can meet this expectation is another matter. What is important is that "virtus" and "sapientia" are not the exclusive property of the University of Hong Kong or any intellectuals.

Professor Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, says that the mission of Harvard is "to advance new ideas and promote enduring knowledge". This mission seems more practicable than the University of Hong Kong's "virtus" and "sapientia" for Harvard has no need to impose any moral concept or requirement on its students. Is "students with good academic results and good conduct" a product of the Chinese culture? How do traditional Chinese teachers assess their students' conduct? For example, how do they assess the conduct of homosexuals? Are homosexuals classified as "good" or "bad"? How about students who dyed their hair or tattooed their bodies? Why can't the "bad" study? Harvard does not find the need to define "right", "wrong", "truth", and "untruth" for its aim is to promote knowledge, not to promote morality, the latter being the responsibility of the church.

It can be seen from the above that high-ranking academics (or indeed other so-called high-ranking people) do not necessarily have high moral standards.

At a student party in a British university, a male said to a female, "If I gave you 20 pounds, would you sleep with me?"

"Do you think I'm worth 20 pounds only? Do you think 20 pounds can make me sleep with you?" she said angrily.

In response, he said, "Since you have agreed the principle and it is only a question of the amount to be agreed, why are you so angry?"

Indeed, why is Dr Chung so angry?