籲請中大校管恪守愛國以及教育原則善待學子

支持撤銷關靖豐同學學籍 以維持校園秩序及公信力

Appeal to CUHK’s governance to uphold patriotism and educational principles in treating its students with goodwill

Supporting the revocation of the student status of Miles Kwan Ching‑fung in order to maintain campus order and institutional credibility.

（本簽名運動將持續一段時間。發起人將把此信件及所集得簽名名單，電郵至香港中文大學校校長盧煜明教授、香港中文大學教務長余蕙卿女士）

(This signature campaign will continue for a period of time. The initiators will email this letter, together with the list of collected signatures, to The CUHK Vice-Chancellor / President Professor Dennis Lo Yuk-ming, The CUHK Academic Registrar Ms. Kitty Yu.)

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

(For English, please scroll downwards.)

聯署聲明

支持香港中文大學依法依章處理「違紀學生」關靖豐 維護大學紀律與制度尊嚴

致

香港中文大學校長 及 香港中文大學教務會學生紀律委員會：

我們是一群關心香港高等教育發展、法治精神及校園秩序的中大舊生。就近日社會上有人要求 貴校推翻學生紀律委員會開除「違紀學生」關靖豐學籍之決定，我們經審慎考慮後，特此表達明確立場：支持中大依章辦事，維護紀律制度之權威與尊嚴。理由如下：

一、刑事程序與校內紀律屬不同範疇

有意見指出，「違紀學生」關靖豐尚未被起訴或定罪，因此不應被開除學籍。然而，刑事責任與校內紀律責任本屬兩個不同制度。大學作為獨立自治的高等教育機構，有權依據既定章程與行為守則，對違規行為作出紀律處分，而毋須以刑事定罪為前提。據公開資料顯示，紀律委員會並未就「違紀學生」關靖豐被拘捕一事直接作出懲罰，而是根據其他違規事項及累積紀錄作出裁決。此乃制度運作結果，屬校內自治範圍，並無程序不當之處。

二、公共訴求與違規行為不可混為一談

有關言論強調「違紀學生」關靖豐就火災發起聯署的內容其後獲政府跟進，因而推論其行為「正確」。然而，即使某些政策訴求與政府後續措施存在重疊，亦不代表相關行為方式必然符合校規或法律要求。法治社會的基本原則在於：目的並不能豁免違規行為之責任。大學必須以規則為依歸，而非以政治立場或社會輿論作為裁決標準。

三、累積違紀達標屬制度既定安排

根據公開資料，「違紀學生」關靖豐過往已有兩次記過紀錄，今次再被記過後達到開除門檻。紀律制度之設計，正是為處理屢次違規且未見改善之情況。若累積違規仍無後果，則紀律制度將形同虛設。對遵守校規之學生而言，亦屬不公。

四、維護校園秩序與制度尊嚴至為重要

紀律程序的保密原則、對校方人員之基本尊重、對正式聆訊的嚴肅態度，均屬高等教育機構不可或缺之核心價值。若相關行為構成違規，校方依法依章處理，乃履行管治責任之表現。教育講求包容與引導，但並不等同對屢次違規行為無限容忍。制度必須一致、公平地執行，方能維持校園秩序及公信力。

五、維護制度穩定有利香港高教發展

香港正積極發展為國際教育樞紐。真正具國際競爭力的大學，必然具備清晰透明的紀律制度與堅定執行標準。若因外界壓力而推翻既定程序，反而會削弱制度穩定性與外界信心。我們認為，尊重大學依法依章作出的專業判斷，才符合香港高等教育的長遠利益。

基於上述理由，我們支持香港中文大學學生紀律委員會依法依章處理「違紀學生」關靖豐，支持維護大學自治與紀律制度之權威，反對將校內紀律問題政治化或情緒化處理。

期望社會各界理性看待事件，尊重制度運作，聯署支持中大開除「違紀學生」關靖豐學籍之決定，維護大學紀律與制度尊嚴。

謹此聯署

發起人及聯署人
李國強
（電郵：kwokkeunglee53@gmail.com）
_________________

 

 

Joint Statement

Supporting The Chinese University of Hong Kong (‘CUHK’) in Handling “Disciplinary Student” Miles Kwan Ching‑fung in Accordance with Regulations and Safeguarding University Discipline and Institutional Dignity

To:

The Vice‑Chancellor of The Chinese University of Hong Kong and

The Senate Committee on Student Discipline of The Chinese University of Hong Kong

We are a group of ex-students of CUHK who care about the development of higher education in Hong Kong, the spirit of the rule of law, and order on campus. In view of recent calls in society for CUHK to overturn the decision of Senate Committee on Student Discipline to expel the “disciplinary student” Miles Kwan Ching‑fung, we have, after careful consideration, decided to state our clear position: we support CUHK in acting in accordance with its regulations and upholding the authority and dignity of its disciplinary system. Our reasons are as follows:

Criminal proceedings and internal discipline are different domains

Some have argued that, since the “disciplinary student” Miles Kwan Ching‑fung has not yet been prosecuted or convicted, he should not be expelled. However, criminal liability and internal disciplinary liability are two different systems. As an independent and self‑governing institution of higher education, the university has the right to impose disciplinary sanctions on misconduct in accordance with its established statutes and codes of conduct, without criminal conviction as a precondition. According to publicly available information, the Discipline Committee did not directly punish the “disciplinary student” Miles Kwan Ching‑fung on the basis of his arrest, but made its decision on the basis of other breaches and his accumulated record. This is the outcome of the operation of the system, falls within the scope of university autonomy, and involves no procedural impropriety.

Public demands must not be confused with breaches of rules

Some comments stress that the content of the petition initiated by the “disciplinary student” Kwan Ching‑fung regarding the fire was later followed up by the Government, and then infer that his actions were “correct”. However, even if certain policy demands overlap with subsequent governmental measures, this does not mean that the manner in which those demands were pursued necessarily complies with university regulations or legal requirements. A basic principle of a society governed by the rule of law is that ends do not exempt individuals from responsibility for breaches of rules. The university must take rules as its basis, rather than political positions or public opinion, as the standard for decisions.

Reaching the threshold through accumulated breaches is part of the established system

According to public information, the “disciplinary student” Miles Kwan Ching‑fung had previously received two demerits, and this latest demerit caused him to reach the threshold for expulsion. The very purpose of a disciplinary system is to deal with situations where repeated breaches occur without improvement. If cumulative violations carry no consequences, the disciplinary system will become an empty shell. This would also be unfair to students who comply with university regulations.

Maintaining campus order and institutional dignity is of paramount importance

The principle of confidentiality in disciplinary proceedings, basic respect for university personnel, and a serious attitude toward formal hearings are all core values indispensable to institutions of higher education. Where relevant conduct constitutes a breach of rules, the university’s handling of the matter in accordance with laws and regulations represents the fulfillment of its governance responsibilities. Education emphasizes tolerance and guidance, but this does not equate to unlimited indulgence toward repeated misconduct. Rules must be enforced consistently and fairly if campus order and public confidence are to be maintained.

Safeguarding institutional stability benefits the development of Hong Kong’s higher education

Hong Kong is actively developing itself into an international education hub. A truly internationally competitive university must have a clear and transparent disciplinary system and firm enforcement standards. If established procedures are overturned due to external pressure, this would undermine institutional stability and public confidence. We believe that respecting the university’s professional judgment made in accordance with laws and regulations is in the long‑term interests of higher education in Hong Kong.

For the above reasons, we support the Senate Committee on Student Discipline of The Chinese University of Hong Kong in handling the case of the “disciplinary student” Miles Kwan Ching‑fung in accordance with laws and regulations. We support the safeguarding of university autonomy and the authority of the disciplinary system, and we oppose the politicization or emotional handling of internal disciplinary matters.

We hope all sectors of society will view this incident rationally, respect the operation of the system, and jointly sign in support of CUHK’s decision to expel the “disciplinary student” Kwan Ching‑fung, in order to safeguard university discipline and institutional dignity.

Hereby jointly signed.

Initiator and Cosigner:

K.K. Lee

(Email: kwokkeunglee53@gmail.com)