Exclusive: University of Hong Kong council pushes back against head over bombshell claims

Tensions between the top governing body of Hong Kong’s leading university and its president have shown no signs of easing as the council has pushed back against his complaint about calling meetings with little advance warning, while its chair has vowed to handle the matter “seriously and properly”.

Priscilla Wong Pui-sze, council chairwoman at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), told the Post on Wednesday that the body would follow due process in light of a string of anonymous emails that put HKU president and vice-chancellor Xiang Zhang at the centre of misconduct allegations.

Citing the university’s Chinese motto, she said: “We stand for ‘mingde’ and ‘gewu’. We will deal with it seriously and properly.”

The two phrases, taken from the Confucian literature, respectively mean “to manifest virtue” and “to investigate things”, according to the university’s website.

She declined to comment further, citing the council’s confidentiality rule.

Her remarks came after the council responded to a letter issued by a law firm representing Zhang, who asked to delay the meeting by four to six weeks to “enable representations to be made effectively by our client” in a letter seen by the Post.

Dated October 2, the letter also demanded his lawyer be allowed to sit in the proposed special meeting in response to what he called “extremely serious” misconduct accusations against him.

The anonymous emails accused Zhang of mishandling donations from a mainland Chinese company, using a headhunter from the United States without bidding to hire a pro-vice-chancellor for institutional advancement and a medical dean, and the procurement of a HK$2 million (US$255,370) BMW sedan for his own use.

The Post learned the council told Zhang’s lawyers in a response on Tuesday the president, who also received the same emails on Wednesday as a council member, that he could have made representations in the following days “if he wished to do so”.

University of Hong Kong chief requests lawyer at council talks over ‘allegations’

The council singled out the car procurement claim as an example, noting that once the news story about it appeared on September 12, a media release was prepared the same evening to deny Zhang’s involvement in the process.

The council noted the president, as stated in the law firm’s letter in light of the plan to call a special meeting, was now asking for weeks to make an effective representation while saying he was “always free” to make any defence.

Zhang was also reminded that he “must” disclose any direct interest in any matter under the council’s consideration prior to the special meeting, and the chairman would decide how the person concerned could take part in the meeting or at all.

The council made clear to Zhang’s legal team that no views about the complaints had been formed and no disciplinary action would be taken without giving the person concerned a proper opportunity to be heard.

4 universities in Hong Kong fall in global ranking of top 100 institutions

The response did not address the president’s request to have a lawyer sit in the coming meeting.

In a statement issued on Wednesday evening, council chair Wong confirmed Zhang had received the accusatory emails since September 27, alongside other members of the governing body, but stopped short of naming him as the target of the complaints.

She stressed that the body would handle the complaints fairly and rigorously “based on the facts and not the person”, in accordance with the university’s established policies and procedures, which allow a person subject to a complaint to exercise their rights to respond or seek legal advice.

“The HKU has a long history and has received support and love from all walks of life for more than 100 years,” Wong said. “The university council is the highest governing body of the University of Hong Kong. It will surely handle all matters seriously, with the most responsible attitude and live up to everyone’s expectations.”

HKU’s whistle-blowing procedures stated that recipients of the accusatory reports would have to decide whether the claims were made in good faith and whether there was prima facie evidence, and establish they were not made for personal gain.

The procedures stated that the council chairman takes over the president’s responsibilities if the allegations involved the latter, and one of four options available to the chair was to set up an inquiry panel to investigate the matter reported.

The person under probe must also be given an opportunity to respond to the allegation to ensure “a fair and due process”, according to the document.