At the moment, there is quite a bit of heat. Still, little light is being shed on various stories swirling in the whistleblowing wind around potentially serious events at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) affecting senior management.
Sadly, this does not surprise me. These so-called whistleblowers have already led to the premature departure of our previous excellent vice-chancellor, Professor Peter Mathieson — a truly great leader snapped up by another world-leading university soon after. They appear to want to do the same again with, in my view, another exceptional leader who donated six months’ of his salary back to HKU. Action speaks louder than words.
What is their supposed issue? Professor Zhang Xiang, our current president and vice-chancellor, is an agent of positive change. He is striving to take HKU to the next level of international achievement and effectively managing the emergence of excellence everywhere across the university as much as possible in a robust, challenging, but efficient way. There is no time to lose.
If the smearing and accusations are proved beyond reasonable doubt to be without foundation or blown out of all proportion to the actual mildness of an activity that could be negatively misinterpreted if seen through a jaundiced eye, then there needs to be some robust and swift sanction taken against those throwing the mud, if they can be identified
However, such change is being resisted in many sectors in Hong Kong, and I have seen it attempted and failed on numerous occasions and in various domains at HKU. This is whether it was the “smarter at HKU initiative” under the previous executive vice-president or research divisions in certain faculties and many other failed examples. The problem is not with the essence or even worthiness of most of these ideas; they become unimplementable when confronted with the reality on the ground because of the staunch and sometimes extreme resistance to changing the status quo. With little buy-in, despite the best attempts to do so, they tend to wither on the vine of unfulfilled promises. It seems an intractable and deeply entrenched issue, often promulgated by an active, vociferous, but likely numerically insignificant cohort of mischief makers, recalcitrants, ultraconservatives and died-in-the-wool luddites.
In Australia, we describe what is happening as the “tall poppy syndrome”. It is a term that refers to successful people being unduly criticized. This occurs when their peers believe they are too successful or deemed to be basking too much in their success. The intense scrutiny and often unjust criticism of such a person is described as “cutting down the tall poppy”. It is often motivated by jealousy, fear of being found out for their dodgy practices, worries about vested interests being uncovered, and simple resistance to new ideas and ways of doing things. It is often universally destructive but also too often seems to work.
I do not know how the current controversy will be resolved, though we need to trust in fair and due process at the highest levels. But I also see it for what it is. I know of more junior colleagues who have been through similar attacks — some close to home, so this process can occur at various levels. The common thread for much of this seems to be in terms of attacking success or fighting efforts made to implement change for good — not done for change’s sake. These attacks are insidious and must be tackled … but how?
First and foremost, if the smearing and accusations are proved beyond reasonable doubt to be without foundation or blown out of all proportion to the actual mildness of an activity that could be negatively misinterpreted if seen through a jaundiced eye, then there needs to be some robust and swift sanction taken against those throwing the mud, if they can be identified. Without consequences for unsubstantiated accusations, there is no disincentive to cause unnecessary trouble and keep doing so until their end is achieved.
When something emerges like this with multiple attack threads, it smacks of deliberate orchestration with an agenda. None of this is good, of course, whichever way you look at it, and some mud may regrettably stick, regardless of the veracity of the slings and arrows launched. This is unfair and unjust and must be resisted. Once the dust settles and the truth emerges, I believe Zhang Xiang will be exonerated as the vice-chancellor. In my modest dealings with him as a previous senate member, he is a man of integrity. He has vision, is in a hurry, and is driven to excel. This is to make HKU excel further and bring HKU into the 21st century as a more agile, forward-looking, international, and less risk-averse institution than before. One that is ready, willing and able to make short-term hard decisions for the longer-term benefit of HKU and, by extension, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The author is a professor in the Faculty of Science at the University of Hong Kong, the director of its Laboratory for Space Research, and vice-chairman of the Orion Astropreneur Space Academy.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
