Unifinished lessons from HKU case

An internal probe led by the University of Hong Kong's audit committee chairman has cleared vice-chancellor Zhang Xiang of misconduct.

But has the investigation answered all the questions related to accusations in the whistle-blower e-mails?

The investigation panel probably has done so, but the statement issued by the university's council threw very limited light on the matter.

With the exception of the crucial sentence that "on the evidence available to the panel, allegations made in the whistle-blower e-mails regarding misconduct by the vice-chancellor were not substantiated."

That is plain enough, but the rest of the statement could be read in a number of ways.

HKU has an official set of "whistle-blowing" policy and procedures. The saga began with whistle-blower e-mails reached council members last October alleging that, among other things, HKU under Zhang's leadership had accepted a donation from a Chinese company sanctioned by the US over alleged forced Uyghur labour violation.

It was also alleged that a headhunter was hired without following procurement procedures.

The council's statement was very concise, having only four paragraphs and with the most important information in the first two.

The first paragraph said the council accepted the investigation report and allegations regarding misconduct by the vice-chancellor were not substantiated, based on the available evidence.

While it is clear that Zhang had his named cleared, the statement was too brief to allow the public, including taxpayers, to understand the matter, or matters, fully as there could be a number of probable scenarios.

Scenario one: all the information about the donation and procurement was fabricated - materially non-factual. If that were the case, the whistle-blower would have acted maliciously and should be held responsible for the irresponsible act.

Scenario two: part, or all, the information as provided was factual but the panel was of the view that it did not constitute misconduct. In that situation, the whistle-blower could be sincere, with honest intent.

So which is true? Regrettably, the statement did not provide clarity. It went on to say in the second paragraph that, at the same meeting, a further resolution was made to direct that "the human resource policy committee, the finance committee and other committees will review the findings in the report and thereafter report to council regarding measures taken and/or to take with a view to addressing and preventing recurrence of identified issues and enhancing governance in keeping with the university's mission."

If only the human resources committee were involved, it may signal disciplinary action for some staff, not excluding the whistle-blower.

However, the finance and other committees are also involved. Does this suggest that the internal probe has discovered something not only about human resources but also HKU's finance and other aspects that warrant attention?

What are they? Regrettably, the statement did not elaborate. Unless the report is made public, taxpayers may never be any the wiser.

Meanwhile, a major milestone to monitor next is whether council chairwoman Priscilla Wong Pui-sze will have her term renewed at the end of the year.

Nonetheless, Zhang is vindicated for now.