【買車位注意／上】內政部拿車道試刀 減少無買車位者分配到不合理公設
房市升溫、房價居高不下，民眾買房當然要計較有無虛坪，有不少民眾質疑房子坪數被灌水，讓建案「公設比」過高問題再受關注。內政部開始研究如何降低虛坪，將先從「車道面積」試刀，要減少「沒買停車位者」分配到不合理的地下室公設，預計下半年推動。

先前瓏山林建設在大台北地區的不少建案，就因在預售屋買賣契約中，並未揭露「車道」屬公共設施的資訊，直到交屋時才把車道面積分給住戶，並要求補交價款，讓沒購買停車位的住戶也要多付錢買公設，後經住戶檢舉，被公平交易委員會裁罰上千萬元。

車道由買車位人還是全體共同分擔？ 買賣契約寫清楚
業界人士說，一般建案的停車場車道，有些由買車位的人共同分擔，也有些由所有住戶共同分擔，重點是看買賣契約有無寫清楚，不能隱匿重要交易資訊。

內政部營建署長吳欣修說，建案公設比過高問題再受關注，民眾最常反映的就是「我又沒買車位，怎還分攤到這麼多車道面積公設」。他認為，地下室兼具防空避難與停車空間，現行多數建商的作法是，扣除掉所有停車位之後，剩下的車道公設面積，就由全體住戶分擔，但依照「使用者付費」原則，有買車位的人，當然要多負擔一些車道面積公設。

建案「公設比」過高問題不斷受關注，有的建案在廣告看板上都會載明公設比，尤以「低公設」的推案更會詳列數字。

不過，內政部地政司則說，雖有人沒車位，但也會用到地下一樓的垃圾間、機電設備室等，怎樣的登記規定比較合理，將繼續研究，但有車位者，確實應多分攤一點公設。吳欣修也說，現已著手檢討「建築技術規則」，會在上半年與業界充分討論，預計下半年推動此制度。

此外，另一個常被詬病的浮濫公設就是「管委會空間」，也是建商最容易作怪之處，常被建商變成圖書室、健身房、KTV、遊戲室等。吳欣修說，管委會使用空間、機電設備空間、安全梯的梯間、緊急升降機的機道、特別安全梯與緊急升降機的排煙室，這五項雖不計入容積，但其面積的總和，也不得超過該基地容積的15%。吳說，現研議兩種「適度限縮」作法，一種是整體降低這15%，另一種是限制管委會空間的比率，像是最多只能有5%。

住展雜誌研發長何世昌指出，車道面積最常被建商灌水，只要地下室車位的面積設定愈少時，地下室其他部分，分攤為全體公設的面積就會愈大。

房市作家SWAY則提醒，地下室車位是最容易動手腳之處，一些看不到的角落、閒置空間，都常遭建商擅自挪用，如當成湯屋或健身房，最終還被檢舉而拆除。他建議官方應表列清楚，哪些設備屬於全體可分攤的公設。

【買車位注意／下】買房被讓價別開心太早 小心是漲在車位
聯合報 ／ 記者何醒邦
大台北地區不只房價貴，車位價格也令人咋舌，自有實價登錄以來，最貴的停車位落在北市信義區豪宅皇翔御琚，一個要價870萬元，近期車位價格也有持續拉高趨勢。專家表示，其實車位一直是用來「喬房價」的好工具，有的銷售人員會故意不漲房價，卻在車位動手腳，消費者一定要留意。

此外，內政部地政司說，為了解決停車位過小的問題，曾在6年前建議建築業界，停車位空間至少要8點多坪才屬正常合理，所以若小於8坪，有可能是被灌入到公設中；而為配合民法規定，今年起預售屋買賣契約中的共有部分停車位，已經無土地持分。

車位價格不太會因屋齡而減損 近年有拉高趨勢

房市作家SWAY說，一般停車位的價格都是固定的，不太會因建物屋齡而減損，但最近車位價格漲價很多，有持續拉高的趨勢。住展雜誌研發長何世昌表示，很多人會殺房價，但停車位鮮少有人殺，常常是「不二價」，現在卻有不少預售建案邊賣邊調高停車位價格，新北市郊區甚至已開出200萬元一格的行情；桃園青埔重劃區竟出現一格要價220萬元，直追雙北市。

何世昌說，車位是調節房價的好工具，尤其是在眾多建案競爭激烈的重劃區，有的銷售人員會故意不漲房價甚至讓價，卻默默在車位上動手腳，消費者要留意；而先前房市大多頭時，很多豪宅的單坪價格不敢超越每坪300萬元的「彭總裁防線」（指央行前總裁彭淮南對房價的最高容許限度為300萬元／坪），就刻意將車位價錢拉高，使每坪房價落在290多萬元、不超過300萬元。

停車位小於8坪 恐是車道被算在公設中

房產專家SWAY表示，最常被建商灌水的公設就是「車道面積」，一般平面停車位約8到15坪，機械則為5到8坪，若登記的車位坪數過小、在8坪以下，很可能是車道被灌入到公設中，等於被扒了兩層皮。

目前停車位大致有三種類型，分別是法定車位、增設車位與獎勵車位；法定車位原本就多計入共有部分內，沒有獨立權狀，必須跟隨房屋買賣而移轉。增設車位與容積獎勵停車位則有獨立權狀，可以登記為專有部份，可以單獨買賣。

修法將車位列入「共有部分」 無土地持分
內政部地政司表示，依現行民法規定，土地持分以「專有部分」，像是客廳、廚房、臥室等主建物，及附屬建物如陽台等面積去計算比例；但修正後、已在今年上路的預售屋買賣契約中，停車位是屬於「約定專用」，並非「專有部分」，所以此次修法將車位列入「共有部分」，未來不管買多少車位，都不會分配到土地持分。

內政部也表示，本次契約修正僅是配合民法規定辦理，不會影響已完成產權登記的原有建物。但業界人士指出，因修法到上路較為倉促，許多賣到一半的預售建案，就出現去年的買方適用舊制、配有土地持分，而今年的買方適用新制、沒有土地持分，這種「一樓兩制」的怪象。

「香港大學將是言論自由的堡壘」
同學們沒有破壞校園的一磚一瓦
倒是有人在不斷的打壓學術自由
欲見每間院校的自主都崩塌瓦解

當年剛剛註冊入學
不久就發生了八一八事件
即使身處八月下旬的十日迎新營
籌委們每天都會匯報最新的事態進展
對我而言
舍堂教育的第一課
就是大學生的社會責任

去年九月
補習學生突然向我問起陳文敏事件
我就跟她說了一遍否決副校的前因後果
時代逼使
現在的中學生好像比以往成熟
將來到她升讀大學時
我真的不希望見到
民主牆已被染成一片紅
國殤之柱或民主女神像都被失蹤

「大學師生是校園的主人」
身為這所學府的學生
我們不能接受警方大肆進駐校園
亦絕不容忍任何形式的政治干預

//二零一一年，港大發生八一八戒嚴事件，其後港大校長徐立之向公眾道歉，誓言「大學師生是校園的主人」、「香港大學將是言論自由的堡壘」，更承諾刻立碑文於校園。話音未落，港大校內再掀起連番風波。

院校自主，不單指學術研究應免受政治干預，亦指校園空間不應受政權蠶食。警方是政權機器，當警察可以隨意進入校園，即意味政權可隨意介入大學的事務；若然政權可以隨意介入大學事務，大學尚有何自主可言？學術自由又能得到甚麼保障？港大之日常研究及運作已屢遭外力干預，而廿六號晚一隊隊警察操進校園，更已達喪心病狂的地步！若我們容忍此事發生，政權只會更肆無忌憚侵凌港大！//

Please scroll down for the English version

【粉身碎骨渾不怕 但留清白在人間】
回應校方指控 ── 港大同學衛校宣言

本月二十日，港大同學發起罷課，要求立即審視大學管理架構之積弊，又詳列改革方向，惟校方一直未有正面回應。及至廿六日校委會會議，校方表示同意檢討，卻拒絕確立改革時間表及檢討委員會之細則。去年，陳文敏之副校長任命遭校委會以「等埋首副」等荒旦理由拖延，最終被粗暴否決。前車可鑑，難保校委會又藉詞要「等埋教資會報告」，重施故技以拖延戰術敷衍同學。

廿六日校委會會議後，學生要求李國章公開交代改革藍圖及時間表，以免拖延任命副校之事重演，惟李國章拒絕解釋任何事項，龜縮於大樓之內。在校方聲稱安排對話期間，大批警察突然衝擊示威場地，多番以胡椒噴霧指嚇同學。同學負隅頑抗之際，李國章卻乘亂在保安與警方的保護下循小徑遁走，令同學質疑有人藉安排對話為名，拖延時間趁機逃走為實。其後，校方再次稱將於日內安排談判，今日卻先發制人，以聲明、記招等方式抹黑學生。原本已經薄弱的互信基礎，今已蕩然無存。

校長馬斐森早前發信代表大學高層譴責學生，指學生的行為是暴民統治（Mob rule），斥責同學危害其人身安全，反指應以對話建設成果。同學圍堵沙宣，目的正是要求李國章直接與學生對話，卻遭暴力對待。警察與保安執行職務期間，多次混入學生群中尋釁滋事，有保安以粗言穢語辱罵同學，學生會會長馮敬恩更遭襲擊下陰。當梁振英漠視師生意見強行委任李國章；當警察保安粗暴傷害同學；當政治淩駕學術，挑動紛爭，同學在寒風冷雨中苦候六、七小時，始終只是克制地要求校委親身給予一個解釋、一個交代，不過是如此簡單。權貴與學生之間，究竟誰更像「暴民」？無權無勢的同學，與「統治」風馬牛不相及，但若果這樣就是所謂「暴民」，我們又何懼承認？若果有校委認為，與同學親身對話竟會對其造成生命威脅，何不立即請辭，由有德有能者代之？

昨日（廿八日）記者會上，李國章指同學之舉動如同受到毒品影響，又多番暗示泛民有份煽動學生。港大社會科學學院強制實習（GCSI），每年都會安排同學往新民黨工作，敢問是否校方刻意安排政黨干預港大？工黨立法會議員張超雄曾稱，若年輕人少罵泛民兩句，他們已要感到高興，足證泛民政黨根本無力煽動年輕人。每位大學生都有獨立思想，都是有自由意志的自由人。若同學真有如李國章所言，如此輕易遭人荼毒，李國章大可「以毒攻毒」，要年輕人向錢看，要年輕人攀附權貴。

昔日臺灣，軍警因「四六事件」闖入大學，臺大校長傅斯年極力保全涉案師生，親自與國民黨最高當局交涉，聲言「若有學生流血，我要跟你拚命」。今日香港，惡名昭彰的警察竟可毫無顧忌地進入沙宣道校園，協助無恥校委離開，我校更主動提出合作，把有關片段交給警方，出賣但憑一顆赤誠之心衛校的同學。廿六號晚，警方多次以「接獲刑事毀壞報告」此等藉口進入校園，先不論警方於無證無據之情況下指控學生刑事毀壞，何以李國章遁走後警察隨即撤離？究竟警方是否已淪為李國章的私人衛隊？

二零一一年，港大發生八一八戒嚴事件，其後港大校長徐立之向公眾道歉，誓言「大學師生是校園的主人」、「香港大學將是言論自由的堡壘」，更承諾刻立碑文於校園。話音未落，港大校內再掀起連番風波。院校自主，不單指學術研究應免受政治干預，亦指校園空間不應受政權蠶食。警方是政權機器，當警察可以隨意進入校園，即意味政權可隨意介入大學的事務；若然政權可以隨意介入大學事務，大學尚有何自主可言？學術自由又能得到甚麼保障？港大之日常研究及運作已屢遭外力干預，而廿六號晚一隊隊警察操進校園，更已達喪心病狂的地步！若我們容忍此事發生，政權只會更肆無忌憚侵凌港大！

我們在此重申：

一）香港大學校務委員會必須清晰交代成立「香港大學檢討及改革專責小組」的時間；

二）參照港大過往的檢討慣例，「香港大學檢討及改革專責小組」必須就提交改革報告訂立期限；

三）香港大學校方必須清晰交代容許警察大規模進入校園範圍之決定及原因。

校長馬斐森稱，他不熟悉香港政局，未能作出判斷，卻相信李國章之連篇大話，容讓李氏肆意抹黑學生。對此，同學深感痛心。縱然師生間之策略有所不同，但面對各種有違事實的無理抹黑，我們呼籲教職員不要再保持緘密，請與我們並肩作戰，攜手衛校。

香港大學罷課委員會

二零一六年一月廿九日

（原圖： Andy Chau Photography）

Respond to University accusation
Declaration of students in defending our University of Hong Kong

On 20th January, students of the University launched a class boycott demanding an immediate review to deficiencies in the University governance structure with detailed reform directions. Direct reply was yet recieved from the University. It was only until the HKU Council meeting on 26th did the University show its agreement to a review. It yet established neither a reform schedule nor details for the review committee. Last year, the appointment of Prof. Johannes Chan to the position of Vice-President was absurdly delayed ‘until the post of provost is filled’, which only ended with a rough objection. With such precedence on hand, it was hard not to believe that the Council would once again play the same trick and delay the establishment ‘until the report of the University Grant Committe (UGC)is issued’.

After the meeting, students demanded an open explanation from Arthur Li, the Council Chairperson, on the reform blueprint and the schedule for the review committee in order not to let a delay take place once again. Arthu Li yet refused to explain anything and huddled up back into the building. When the University alleged to arrange a dialogue, a huge number of police barged into the building and threatened protesting students with pepper sprays. While students resisted with persistence, Arthur Li fled along a passage under the escort of police. It only induces doubt over someone delayed and fled with the sham of a dialogue. Though the University latterly claimed that it would arrange dialogue momentarily, it struck first today and smeared students with statement and press conference. The mutual trust and respect, that has only been feeble, shall no longer exist hitherto.

Prof. Peter Mathieson, the President of the University, condemned students on behalf of the Senior Management Team (SMT) this afternoon, claiming that students’ behaviour was a mob rule, denouncing students of putting his safety at serious risk and in turn advising students to achieve their aims through dialogue. Students’ siege of Sassoon Road had a clear aim to demand a direct coversation with Arthur Li, which only ended in violent treatment. Various times did the police and security blend into students in attempt to instigate and stir up troubles. Security guards insulted and offended students with indecent language; Billy Fung, the President of HKUSU, even got hit at his groin. When politics overriding academia and instigating conflicts, students only stayed and waited under the gale and downpour in the winter for seven hours. We composedly demanded nothing but an explanation, an answer from the Council members in person. It is as simple as that. Students who have neither authority nor power are simply nothing comparable to any ‘rule’. But should what we did really make us deserve such a claim, what is our fear in admitting that? Should Council members find it life threatening to have a dialogue with students in person, why do not you resign and let the more qualified to take your position?

During the press conference yesterday (28th), Arthur Li lambasted students’ behaviour to be under the influence of drugs and repeatedly suggested that Pan-democrats had been instigating the students. The compulsory internship programme ‘Global Citizenship/ Social Innovation‘ under the Faculty of Social Sciences of HKU has been arranging students to work in the New People’s Party every single year. Is this a deliberate arrangement of the University for political party to intervene in HKU? Fernando Cheung, Legislative Councillor from the Labour Party, once claimed that he would be delighted if youngsters cut a little bit of their criticisms to the Pan-Dem. Such is already an evident proof of the inability of Pan-Dem political parties in instigating any youngsters. All university students have their own indepedent thinking, are free men with free will. Should students be really susceptible to such sway as claimed by Arthur Li, he can simply ‘pay us back in our own coin’, making youngsters put money over everything, making youngsters play up to dignitaries.

In retrospect in Taiwan, when police barged into the university during the April Sixth Incident, Fu Sinian, the President of the National Taiwan University, tried his very best to protect students and teachers, negotiating with the high officials from Kuomintang in person, claiming that ‘I shall put myself, my life on the line when any students is bleeding’. Today, notorious police in Hong Kong whimsically entered our Sasson Road campus, assisting the escape of the shameless Council Members. Our University even offered a chance of cooperation with the police and makes video footage available to them, betraying any students who defend this University with innocence and loyalty. At the night of 26th, the police entered our campus with the excuse of ‘receiving report of criminal damage’ at various occasions. Even when putting police accusation of criminal damage to students without any evidence aside, why did the police instantly retreat right after Arthur Li had fled? Is the Police Force subordinated to be his private battalion?

In 2011, after the 818 Lock-down in the University, Prof. Lap-chee Chui, the President of the University, openly apologized to the general public, resolutely stating that ‘Students and teachers are the masters of the campus’ and ‘The University of Hong Kong should always be the fortress of freedom of speech’, who further promised to inscribe these claims on tablets on campus. While such scandal had not been fully resolved, series of scandals were stirred up once again. Institutional autonomy not only means that academic research shall never be politically intervened, it also states that our campus shall never be encroached by the regime. Police are indeed accomplices of the regime. Institutional autonomy shall no longer exist when the regime can peremptorily intervene in our affairs, let alone any protection to our academic freedom. The University daily research and operation has already been externally manipulated, but the troops of police marching and trampling onto our campus on 26th night only brings the situation to lunacy. Should we allow such happening, the regime will only further manipulate and exploit our University of Hong Kong by whim and its own will.

We hereby reiterate:

The Council of the University of Hong Kong must clearly state the time of establishment of the ‘Review Committee on the Hong Kong University Ordinance’

With reference to previous reviews conducted by the University, the ‘Review Committee on the Hong Kong University Ordinance’ must set a deadline for the submission of the report on the reform

The University of Hong Kong must clearly explain the decision of and reasons for the large-scale entrance of the Police Force onto the campus

Prof. Peter Mathieson claimed that he is not acquainted with Hong Kong politics and thus fails to make judgement. But he believes in the bunch of lies told by Arthur Li, letting him smear students arbitrarily. For this we are much disappointed and disheartened. Students and teachers may have different strategies, but in face of the ill-founded smear that goes against the truth, we hereby call on teaching staff and employees not to remain silent. Please fight together with us, and together shall we defend our University.

HKU Student’s Strike Organizing Committee

28th January 2016

Please scroll down for the English version

【粉身碎骨渾不怕 但留清白在人間】
回應校方指控 ── 港大同學衛校宣言

本月二十日，港大同學發起罷課，要求立即審視大學管理架構之積弊，又詳列改革方向，惟校方一直未有正面回應。及至廿六日校委會會議，校方表示同意檢討，卻拒絕確立改革時間表及檢討委員會之細則。去年，陳文敏之副校長任命遭校委會以「等埋首副」等荒旦理由拖延，最終被粗暴否決。前車可鑑，難保校委會又藉詞要「等埋教資會報告」，重施故技以拖延戰術敷衍同學。

廿六日校委會會議後，學生要求李國章公開交代改革藍圖及時間表，以免拖延任命副校之事重演，惟李國章拒絕解釋任何事項，龜縮於大樓之內。在校方聲稱安排對話期間，大批警察突然衝擊示威場地，多番以胡椒噴霧指嚇同學。同學負隅頑抗之際，李國章卻乘亂在保安與警方的保護下循小徑遁走，令同學質疑有人藉安排對話為名，拖延時間趁機逃走為實。其後，校方再次稱將於日內安排談判，今日卻先發制人，以聲明、記招等方式抹黑學生。原本已經薄弱的互信基礎，今已蕩然無存。

校長馬斐森早前發信代表大學高層譴責學生，指學生的行為是暴民統治（Mob rule），斥責同學危害其人身安全，反指應以對話建設成果。同學圍堵沙宣，目的正是要求李國章直接與學生對話，卻遭暴力對待。警察與保安執行職務期間，多次混入學生群中尋釁滋事，有保安以粗言穢語辱罵同學，學生會會長馮敬恩更遭襲擊下陰。當梁振英漠視師生意見強行委任李國章；當警察保安粗暴傷害同學；當政治淩駕學術，挑動紛爭，同學在寒風冷雨中苦候六、七小時，始終只是克制地要求校委親身給予一個解釋、一個交代，不過是如此簡單。權貴與學生之間，究竟誰更像「暴民」？無權無勢的同學，與「統治」風馬牛不相及，但若果這樣就是所謂「暴民」，我們又何懼承認？若果有校委認為，與同學親身對話竟會對其造成生命威脅，何不立即請辭，由有德有能者代之？

昨日（廿八日）記者會上，李國章指同學之舉動如同受到毒品影響，又多番暗示泛民有份煽動學生。港大社會科學學院強制實習（GCSI），每年都會安排同學往新民黨工作，敢問是否校方刻意安排政黨干預港大？工黨立法會議員張超雄曾稱，若年輕人少罵泛民兩句，他們已要感到高興，足證泛民政黨根本無力煽動年輕人。每位大學生都有獨立思想，都是有自由意志的自由人。若同學真有如李國章所言，如此輕易遭人荼毒，李國章大可「以毒攻毒」，要年輕人向錢看，要年輕人攀附權貴。

昔日臺灣，軍警因「四六事件」闖入大學，臺大校長傅斯年極力保全涉案師生，親自與國民黨最高當局交涉，聲言「若有學生流血，我要跟你拚命」。今日香港，惡名昭彰的警察竟可毫無顧忌地進入沙宣道校園，協助無恥校委離開，我校更主動提出合作，把有關片段交給警方，出賣但憑一顆赤誠之心衛校的同學。廿六號晚，警方多次以「接獲刑事毀壞報告」此等藉口進入校園，先不論警方於無證無據之情況下指控學生刑事毀壞，何以李國章遁走後警察隨即撤離？究竟警方是否已淪為李國章的私人衛隊？

二零一一年，港大發生八一八戒嚴事件，其後港大校長徐立之向公眾道歉，誓言「大學師生是校園的主人」、「香港大學將是言論自由的堡壘」，更承諾刻立碑文於校園。話音未落，港大校內再掀起連番風波。院校自主，不單指學術研究應免受政治干預，亦指校園空間不應受政權蠶食。警方是政權機器，當警察可以隨意進入校園，即意味政權可隨意介入大學的事務；若然政權可以隨意介入大學事務，大學尚有何自主可言？學術自由又能得到甚麼保障？港大之日常研究及運作已屢遭外力干預，而廿六號晚一隊隊警察操進校園，更已達喪心病狂的地步！若我們容忍此事發生，政權只會更肆無忌憚侵凌港大！

我們在此重申：

一）香港大學校務委員會必須清晰交代成立「香港大學檢討及改革專責小組」的時間；

二）參照港大過往的檢討慣例，「香港大學檢討及改革專責小組」必須就提交改革報告訂立期限；

三）香港大學校方必須清晰交代容許警察大規模進入校園範圍之決定及原因。

校長馬斐森稱，他不熟悉香港政局，未能作出判斷，卻相信李國章之連篇大話，容讓李氏肆意抹黑學生。對此，同學深感痛心。縱然師生間之策略有所不同，但面對各種有違事實的無理抹黑，我們呼籲教職員不要再保持緘密，請與我們並肩作戰，攜手衛校。

香港大學罷課委員會

二零一六年一月廿九日

（原圖： Andy Chau Photography）

Respond to University accusation
Declaration of students in defending our University of Hong Kong

On 20th January, students of the University launched a class boycott demanding an immediate review to deficiencies in the University governance structure with detailed reform directions. Direct reply was yet recieved from the University. It was only until the HKU Council meeting on 26th did the University show its agreement to a review. It yet established neither a reform schedule nor details for the review committee. Last year, the appointment of Prof. Johannes Chan to the position of Vice-President was absurdly delayed ‘until the post of provost is filled’, which only ended with a rough objection. With such precedence on hand, it was hard not to believe that the Council would once again play the same trick and delay the establishment ‘until the report of the University Grant Committe (UGC)is issued’.

After the meeting, students demanded an open explanation from Arthur Li, the Council Chairperson, on the reform blueprint and the schedule for the review committee in order not to let a delay take place once again. Arthu Li yet refused to explain anything and huddled up back into the building. When the University alleged to arrange a dialogue, a huge number of police barged into the building and threatened protesting students with pepper sprays. While students resisted with persistence, Arthur Li fled along a passage under the escort of police. It only induces doubt over someone delayed and fled with the sham of a dialogue. Though the University latterly claimed that it would arrange dialogue momentarily, it struck first today and smeared students with statement and press conference. The mutual trust and respect, that has only been feeble, shall no longer exist hitherto.

Prof. Peter Mathieson, the President of the University, condemned students on behalf of the Senior Management Team (SMT) this afternoon, claiming that students’ behaviour was a mob rule, denouncing students of putting his safety at serious risk and in turn advising students to achieve their aims through dialogue. Students’ siege of Sassoon Road had a clear aim to demand a direct coversation with Arthur Li, which only ended in violent treatment. Various times did the police and security blend into students in attempt to instigate and stir up troubles. Security guards insulted and offended students with indecent language; Billy Fung, the President of HKUSU, even got hit at his groin. When politics overriding academia and instigating conflicts, students only stayed and waited under the gale and downpour in the winter for seven hours. We composedly demanded nothing but an explanation, an answer from the Council members in person. It is as simple as that. Students who have neither authority nor power are simply nothing comparable to any ‘rule’. But should what we did really make us deserve such a claim, what is our fear in admitting that? Should Council members find it life threatening to have a dialogue with students in person, why do not you resign and let the more qualified to take your position?

During the press conference yesterday (28th), Arthur Li lambasted students’ behaviour to be under the influence of drugs and repeatedly suggested that Pan-democrats had been instigating the students. The compulsory internship programme ‘Global Citizenship/ Social Innovation‘ under the Faculty of Social Sciences of HKU has been arranging students to work in the New People’s Party every single year. Is this a deliberate arrangement of the University for political party to intervene in HKU? Fernando Cheung, Legislative Councillor from the Labour Party, once claimed that he would be delighted if youngsters cut a little bit of their criticisms to the Pan-Dem. Such is already an evident proof of the inability of Pan-Dem political parties in instigating any youngsters. All university students have their own indepedent thinking, are free men with free will. Should students be really susceptible to such sway as claimed by Arthur Li, he can simply ‘pay us back in our own coin’, making youngsters put money over everything, making youngsters play up to dignitaries.

In retrospect in Taiwan, when police barged into the university during the April Sixth Incident, Fu Sinian, the President of the National Taiwan University, tried his very best to protect students and teachers, negotiating with the high officials from Kuomintang in person, claiming that ‘I shall put myself, my life on the line when any students is bleeding’. Today, notorious police in Hong Kong whimsically entered our Sasson Road campus, assisting the escape of the shameless Council Members. Our University even offered a chance of cooperation with the police and makes video footage available to them, betraying any students who defend this University with innocence and loyalty. At the night of 26th, the police entered our campus with the excuse of ‘receiving report of criminal damage’ at various occasions. Even when putting police accusation of criminal damage to students without any evidence aside, why did the police instantly retreat right after Arthur Li had fled? Is the Police Force subordinated to be his private battalion?

In 2011, after the 818 Lock-down in the University, Prof. Lap-chee Chui, the President of the University, openly apologized to the general public, resolutely stating that ‘Students and teachers are the masters of the campus’ and ‘The University of Hong Kong should always be the fortress of freedom of speech’, who further promised to inscribe these claims on tablets on campus. While such scandal had not been fully resolved, series of scandals were stirred up once again. Institutional autonomy not only means that academic research shall never be politically intervened, it also states that our campus shall never be encroached by the regime. Police are indeed accomplices of the regime. Institutional autonomy shall no longer exist when the regime can peremptorily intervene in our affairs, let alone any protection to our academic freedom. The University daily research and operation has already been externally manipulated, but the troops of police marching and trampling onto our campus on 26th night only brings the situation to lunacy. Should we allow such happening, the regime will only further manipulate and exploit our University of Hong Kong by whim and its own will.

We hereby reiterate:

The Council of the University of Hong Kong must clearly state the time of establishment of the ‘Review Committee on the Hong Kong University Ordinance’

With reference to previous reviews conducted by the University, the ‘Review Committee on the Hong Kong University Ordinance’ must set a deadline for the submission of the report on the reform

The University of Hong Kong must clearly explain the decision of and reasons for the large-scale entrance of the Police Force onto the campus

Prof. Peter Mathieson claimed that he is not acquainted with Hong Kong politics and thus fails to make judgement. But he believes in the bunch of lies told by Arthur Li, letting him smear students arbitrarily. For this we are much disappointed and disheartened. Students and teachers may have different strategies, but in face of the ill-founded smear that goes against the truth, we hereby call on teaching staff and employees not to remain silent. Please fight together with us, and together shall we defend our University.

HKU Student’s Strike Organizing Committee

28th January 2016