The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), Peter Mathieson, lamented on Thursday the lack of respect for confidentiality after the university reported to the police the leaking to the media of a secret recording of a HKU Council meeting. The audio clip, broadcast on a radio talk show on Wednesday, related to a council meeting held on Sept 29, where the proposal to appoint the former HKU dean of law, Johannes Chan Man-mun, to the post of pro-vice-chancellor was rejected, much to the displeasure of the opposition camp.

Mathieson's remark was the latest in a wave of condemnation sparked by the leaking of the content of the council meeting, with those slamming it including council Chairman Leong Che-hung and the Education Bureau. While it is not yet certain whether the act violated any existing laws, including the privacy ordinance, it has certainly breached the confidentiality of the highest governing body of the university, which is crucial for its decision-making process as it allows members to speak freely.

The student representative on the HKU Council, Billy Fung Jing-en, was rightly expelled from the body for undermining the council's confidentiality, which he pledged to uphold when first appointed.

Hence the act of leaking, if not criminal, is at least a breach of the faith that the university had in Fung. While the verbal leaking of the proceedings of a closed-door council meeting concerns personal integrity and is a moral issue - the leaking of a secret recording is even worse. It has created an atmosphere of great anxiety inside the campus. Vice-Chancellor Mathieson said he was worried about the meeting venue being bugged. When council members have to keep looking over their shoulder to check if there is anybody barging into the meeting room, and dare not speak their mind for fear of being recorded, the council will not be able to function any more.

While the shocked public are lashing out at whoever made the recording and handed it to the media, opposition lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen, who represents the education constituency, refused to denounce the act. The rest of the opposition camp have either remained silent or are trying to defend the perpetrator. The opposition camp often say they are defending the university from outside interference, what they are doing or encouraging, however, is exactly what they claim to be opposing.

Somebody who sounded like council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung in the recording said some political parties attempted through various means - like intimidation, storming university council meetings, forming concern groups and applying for judicial review - to plant their proxy in the institution for political gains. Whoever said that sounded closer to the truth.

(HK Edition 10/30/2015 page10)