The Vice-Chancellor and the Council Clash in Public — the 2024 Mr. Zhang Affair and the Battle over “Academic Autonomy”

# The Vice-Chancellor and the Council Clash in Public — the 2024 Mr. Zhang Affair and the Battle over “Academic Autonomy”

Unofficial History · Module 13. This chapter documents an open dispute between living, serving / recently serving parties. Official statements from all sides are presented side by side; no judgment of right or wrong is made. Allegations touching on sensitive personnel matters are attributed with “according to [source]”. The individuals are still living and have held public office in recent years. In line with this archive’s conventions, they are referred to throughout by surname + title (Mr. Zhang = Vice‑Chancellor and President of HKU / the serving Vice‑Chancellor; Ms. Wong = Chairman of the Council).

---

# What is this dispute actually about?

In one sentence: Between May and September 2024, the Vice‑Chancellor and President of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), Mr. Zhang, and the Chairman of the HKU Council, Ms. Wong, clashed in public over the appointment procedures for six acting vice‑presidents — with Mr. Zhang claiming the Council had bypassed consultation with the Vice‑Chancellor and “severely undermined the century‑old foundation of HKU’s academic autonomy,” while the Council accused him of distorting the facts and pointed to long‑standing vacancies in management positions. After the SAR government intervened, the Council “fully accepted” the recommendations of an investigation and study group, and Ms. Wong’s term ended without renewal.

This chapter presents each side’s public statements in chronological order, allowing readers to judge for themselves.

---

# How did the storm break? — Anonymous whistleblowing and investigation in 2023

The earliest documented source of the controversy is a batch of emails sent at the end of September 2023^※ by anonymous “whistle‑blowers” to all 24 members of the HKU Council, the Registrar, and the Vice‑Chancellor, Mr. Zhang, alleging management irregularities by Mr. Zhang, including misuse of funds and engagement of a headhunting firm without following procurement procedures.

According to a statement issued by Council Chairman Ms. Wong on 4 October 2023^※, the Council classified the matter as a “complaint,” pledged to “handle the matter in a fair, just and serious manner in accordance with the University’s established policies,” and, citing privacy concerns, stated that it “will not comment on specific personnel matters externally.”

After a six‑month investigation led by an independent panel, the process concluded on 13 April 2024^※ with the finding that “all allegations made by the anonymous ‘whistle‑blower(s)’ were not substantiated.” Mr. Zhang was fully exonerated.

---

# Why did the situation escalate so rapidly after Mr. Zhang’s exoneration? — The 28 May “personnel reshuffle”

Less than two months after Mr. Zhang was cleared, the situation deteriorated sharply. According to multiple reports^※, at its meeting on 28 May 2024, and without consulting the Vice‑Chancellor, the Council approved the appointment of six acting vice‑presidents and initiated a series of personnel changes:

According to relevant reporting^※, Richard Wong, who was perceived as close to Mr. Zhang, was demoted in this reshuffle. Furthermore, the announcement of the appointments came directly from the Council rather than the University administration — a move critics saw as breaking with established convention.

---

# What did Mr. Zhang say? — “Severely undermined the century‑old academic autonomy”

After the personnel reshuffle became public, Mr. Zhang sent an internal email to all staff and students in early June 2024, which was immediately picked up widely by the media.

As relayed by Dimsum Daily^※:

Mr. Zhang’s words as quoted by media: The Council’s actions had “severely undermined the century‑old academic autonomy upon which the University of Hong Kong is built”; the nominations for the relevant vice‑presidential posts were “neither recommended by myself nor was I consulted”; the approach had “violated established procedures and ignored the basic principles of good governance.”

Mr. Zhang also stressed that “it is my responsibility to safeguard the centuries‑old traditions, mechanisms and procedures that constitute the University’s smooth functioning.” He further stated that HKU was “plagued by infighting,” affecting the University’s normal operations and international reputation.

According to the same report^※, Mr. Zhang also criticised a proposal concerning the establishment of an office for Ms. Wong on campus, arguing it could further erode academic autonomy.

---

# How did the Council counter? — “Frequent management issues” and “distorting the facts”

On 10 June 2024, the Council issued an open letter to all staff, students, and alumni, directly rebutting Mr. Zhang’s accusations.

According to the Council’s letter as quoted by the South China Morning Post^※:

The Council’s core position: As the “supreme governing body of the University,” the Council possesses the statutory authority to appoint senior management; Mr. Zhang’s claim that he was “not notified” was inconsistent with the facts — he was aware of the decisions beforehand.

The Council’s criticisms: Since Mr. Zhang took office in 2018, multiple vice‑president positions had been left vacant for extended periods, resulting in an incomplete management team and triggering “frequent management issues.” The Council argued that this very situation necessitated its direct intervention on personnel matters.

Mr. Zhang’s response to the Council’s letter: That very evening, he countered that the Council’s statement contained “inaccuracies and unfair criticism,” and insisted that “no items concerning any vice‑president appointments” were on the meeting agenda he attended — a direct contradiction of the Council’s claim that he had been “informed.”

The two sides’ accounts contradict each other completely. This chapter records both statements side by side and makes no determination as to which account accords with the facts.

---

# What did alumni and observers make of it?

After the dispute became public, several former HKU Council members and prominent alumni voiced their opinions.

According to the South China Morning Post^※, eight former Council members and alumni, including former Secretary for Education Fanny Law, signed a joint petition addressed to the Chief Executive, John Lee, requesting his intervention and expressing no confidence in Ms. Wong’s leadership. They contended that the Council’s role is oversight, not direct intervention in administrative affairs, and that the conflation of these two roles had damaged HKU’s international standing.

At the campus level, according to Times Higher Education^※, student representative Casey Chik considered the short‑term direction of the government’s intervention appropriate but called for “more transparency.” HKU alumnus Patrick Poon, meanwhile, criticised the government’s handling as “doing their best to shut everyone up,” questioning the lack of transparency in the relevant accountability protocols.

---

# How did the government intervene? — The Chief Executive’s meetings and the investigation and study group

The dispute swiftly escalated to the SAR government level. According to the South China Morning Post^※, the Chief Executive, John Lee (who also serves as HKU’s Chancellor), met separately with both Mr. Zhang and Ms. Wong on 11 June 2024 “more than once,” stressing the need for “good communication.”

Composition of the Investigation and Study Group (per the Government press release, 3 September 2024^※):

Once established, the group held over 60 meetings^※ with the relevant parties, including Council members, the Vice‑Chancellor, and senior management, and reviewed pertinent documents.

The group’s focus: to make recommendations on senior‑level personnel arrangements, with the guiding principles of “taking the overall interests of HKU as the prime consideration, resolving disagreements to ensure smooth operation, facilitating communication among different stakeholders, and ensuring compliance with the University Accountability Agreement.” The group also noted the prolonged vacancies in many senior HKU positions (including the Provost, several Vice‑Presidents, the Registrar, and Deans) and urged the University to “complete the recruitment exercise as soon as possible.”

---

# The investigation findings and the conclusion of the affair

On 3 September 2024, the Investigation and Study Group formally submitted its recommendations to the Council. According to a government press release^※, the Council “fully accepted” the recommendations, deeming the measures “conducive to returning HKU to normal operations as soon as possible.”

According to a Times Higher Education report^※, sources indicated that the contents of the group’s recommendations suggested its stance was broadly in favour of Mr. Zhang rather than Ms. Wong. Richard Wong, who had been demoted earlier, returned to his previous role in an acting capacity after the affair.

Ms. Wong’s departure: Ms. Wong’s term as Council Chairman expired on 31 December 2024^※. The Chief Executive expressed “gratitude” for her service but did not reappoint her; six Council members from the same cohort also stepped down simultaneously. On 27 November 2024, the Chief Executive announced the appointment of Peter Wong as the new Council Chairman for a three‑year term commencing 1 January 2025.

---

# What deeper structural issues does this case expose?

This affair highlights the inherent tensions within HKU’s dual‑track governance structure:

According to Times Higher Education^※, noteworthy background: six Council members are appointed by the Chief Executive, including Martin Liao Cheung‑kong, a pro‑Beijing Legislative Council member who is Ms. Wong’s spouse. This personal connection was flagged by observers as a potential conflict of interest, though no party has formally addressed this publicly.

---

# What aspects of this case remain contested or unverified?

• The full text of the investigation group’s recommendations: Neither the government nor the Council has ever released the original recommendation document, merely announcing its “full acceptance.” Specific recommendation details come from media disclosures citing unnamed sources, and are not official documents.
• Whether Richard Wong was formally reinstated: Media reports state he “returned to his previous role in an acting capacity,” but this chapter was unable to confirm whether the title change received an official announcement.
• The identity and motives of the anonymous whistle‑blower(s): There is no publicly available information revealing whether the whistle‑blower(s) were connected to any Council members. Any such speculation is unsubstantiated.
• Mr. Zhang’s future term: As of this chapter’s last update date (20 June 2026), public information regarding the status of Mr. Zhang’s term as Vice‑Chancellor and his working relationship with the new Council Chairman remains limited. This chapter refrains from making any inferences for the time being.

---

# Timeline at a glance

---