tim's experiment

I apologise for returning again to the topic of Ms Alpais Lam, now referred to for headline purposes as “rude teacher” but the continuing proceedings provide  insights into the way things are going generally round here.
Thursday’s papers reported that, as the Post put it, “School issues formal penalty to rude teacher”. Apparently the school management committee (or possibly the school board, the Post gets less reliable on these important details every week) had met. Its verdict on the matter was couched in terms strikingly similar to a quote attributed to the Secretary for Education three days earlier. Moreover the Education Bureau had also “met”, said the Post, and issued Ms Lam with an official penalty notice. Nobody was saying what the penalty was. Still…

If there was an official penalty at the end of the process then the meeting at the school, whatever its constitutional title, takes on the guise of a disciplinary hearing. The law is reluctant to interfere in disciplinary hearings held by semi-private bodies, but there are some minimum standards which must be observed. These are technically described as the rules of “natural justice” and are designed to ensure basic fairness. The person against whom a penalty may be imposed should be informed of the charge against him or her, the evidence supporting it, and be given the opportunity to confront accusers, address the tribunal, board or whatever hearing the case, and usually to be assisted by a lawyer or friend of his or her choice. It appears that none of these formalities was observed.

So here we have justice with mainland characteristics. The result is announced before the trial by a political figure. The proceedings are in private and the accused plays no part in them. Questions of law and procedure are not so much overlooked as ignored.

Next up, according to the Post, is that a “source close to the government” (readers will gather that I am rather pleased the person who wrote this story was not one of my students) said “the bureau would summarise and analyse the documents handed to them by the school and … the report could be submitted to (CY) Leung by the end of the month”. And the question this raises is: What documents? The school is in no position – and has not given itself time – to do any meaningful investigation of what happened or why. The only source of information it has apart from access to Youtube, which Mr Leung can watch for himself, is a fistful of emails and letters from  Caring Hong Kong nutcases. The only meaningful part of the school’s report can be summarised very easily: “in accordance with your instructions we have punished this troublesome lady”.

Meanwhile further evidence of the selectiveness of this outrage – apparently the Hong Kong Lovers are going to continue to bombard the school  with rubbish until the lady is sacked – in Sunday’s paper which recorded the case of a teacher fired from one school for ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour” who simply got a job in another school. No complaints or recriminations from Hong Kong’s Carers or Lovers when he was eventually caught at it again and convicted. Now if he had sworn at a policeman …