近年香港的大學極力爭取發展碩士及博士課程，學生人數比學士更多。質量有沒有足夠的保證呢？大量生產學位的政策下，大學會不會把學術要求的尺度放寬，以鞏固客源呢？早前閱報看到中文大學敬文書院的于宏碩教授(Yu Hung Hsua Julie)提出司法覆核，今天高院頒布判辭判她敗訴，不禁使人唏噓。近日不少政治及教學人士給抖出糊裡糊塗獲取的學位，一時之間，菲博士學位貶價十倍。五十笑百之餘，香港的大學其實又有沒有半賣半送去迎合學生呢？
于教授申請司法覆核，源於她對4個修讀核心課程的碩士生評分過低引起。據她的評分，這4個碩士生不符MBA的最低學術要求，而不會獲頒碩士學位，這4名學生因此向中大考試委員會(examination panel)(EP)上訴，分數獲EP調整至合格畢業。于教授不服這決定， 向商學院長及校長投訴，但兩者皆不肯介入。于教授於是入稟提出司法覆核。理據如下：
11. In this application, the applicant submits that the following matters are reasonably arguable:
(a) the subject decisions were decisions falling within the public law domain, and hence amenable to judicial review;
(b) the Dec 2014 decision (a reasoned decision) was illogical, irrational, inconsistent and/or arbitrary;
(c) further, the EP decisions were made without regard to the proper procedure (remitting the cases back to the applicant for grading);
(d) the subject decisions were an infringement of the applicant’s academic judgment as an educator.
于教授申請司法覆核，源於她對4個修讀核心課程的碩士生評分過低引起。據她的評分，這4個碩士生不符MBA的最低學術要求，而不會獲頒碩士學位，這4名學生因此向中大考試委員會(examination panel)(EP)上訴，分數獲EP調整至合格畢業。于教授不服這決定， 向商學院長及校長投訴，但兩者皆不肯介入。于教授於是入稟提出司法覆核。理據如下：
11. In this application, the applicant submits that the following matters are reasonably arguable:
(a) the subject decisions were decisions falling within the public law domain, and hence amenable to judicial review;
(b) the Dec 2014 decision (a reasoned decision) was illogical, irrational, inconsistent and/or arbitrary;
(c) further, the EP decisions were made without regard to the proper procedure (remitting the cases back to the applicant for grading);
(d) the subject decisions were an infringement of the applicant’s academic judgment as an educator.
法庭最後不批出司法覆核許可，駁回申請，詳情可隨下面連結自己閱讀。于教授輸了官司，也要自掏腰包，賠訟費給中大，雙方都聘用資深大律師，費用不菲，我對于教授深感同情。于教授這次為了個人原則，知識份子的堅持才提出訴訟。她的教學經驗豐富，自1988年起在中大任教，也明顯是個受學生愛戴的好教授，她獲商學院頒授2011-2012年度學院傑出教學奬。于教授以前一位學生慷慨捐款，于教授成立了于宏碩教授奬學金。這些資料都是我在敬文書院的電子通訊找到的。從不同角度去看這件事，我相信于教授為捍衛評分自主才會提出司法覆核，對於考試委員會的干預，不禁使人聯想這是不想得失「客仔」的決定。大學的生意味不太重了點嗎？
判辭連結：
YU HUNG HSUA JULIE and THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG HCAL 47/2015
判辭連結：
YU HUNG HSUA JULIE and THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG HCAL 47/2015
The reasons given in the judgment are so brief that they seem to be the conclusion itself rather than the reasons for it. I believe that you are aware of Litton's comments on judges writing too much, perhaps he should likewise criticise judges who are writing too little, which seems to be the more common case and has a even more detrimental effect on public confidence in the rule of law.
回覆刪除Para. 28 is most unconvincing and circular. Contentious points that are not irrelevant and thoroughly considered is omitted because of "the need to balance between the length of the decision and its comprehension"?? Sounds like 此地無銀 to me.
The decision itself is also regrettable in defeating an otherwise meritorious claim by technicality, with no discussion on the substantive merits. And how on earth did the applicant's SC agree on cost follow the event when the default position at leave stage is no order as to cost, especially when this is a public interest case?
I agree mostly with what CF has said. I just add 1 more observation - Para. 28 is a personal characteristic catchphrase, as if "I remind myself that the prosecution bears the burden of proof up to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt."
刪除feeling an urge to support Prof. Yu,
PHLI
I wrote an email to Prof Yu to show my support of her stern attitude as an educator. Unfortunately, the email bounced back. I have tried very hard to search for her email address but it looks like it is a restricted communication domain within the university.
刪除It is very likely that she is not with the CUHK anymore.
刪除I checked the up to date staff list. Her name is still there. I hope someone can tell her that there are people unknown to her supporting her action.
刪除http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20161012/55765443
刪除Her appeal was dismissed. She's retired now. You may try write to her solicitors to pass on your messsage.
Oh! Sad to know. Being righteous always has to pay a price.
刪除標少你好，這個網址有于教授的電郵地址? 可能你已經試過了。(http://www.cwchu.cuhk.edu.hk/en-gb/about-cw-chu-college/organization/college-team/teaching-staff-and-affiliated-administrative-staff/prof-yu-hung-hsua-julie)
回覆刪除試過，打回頭。
刪除http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/first/20151203/19397453
回覆刪除美大學查蔡思貝學歷 母瞞關係寫碩士推薦信 或涉虛假陳述
港姐蔡思貝被揭發極速完成菲律賓一所大學的學士學位，並以有關學歷申請美國大學的碩士課程，事件再有新進展。根據本報取得的文件，蔡思貝去年申請入讀美大學碩士學位時，為她撰寫推薦信的公司東主Tong Suet Ha，懷疑就是蔡的母親。信中未有申報二人親屬關係，蔡母更聲稱見證（witness）蔡思貝完成菲大學學位。法律界人士指，撰寫人或涉嫌作虛假陳述。
記者：張嘉雯 林偉聰 陳建平
蔡思貝就讀的美國威斯康辛州協和大學（Concordia University Wisconsin）成立於1881年，在今年《美國新聞與世界報導（U.S. News& World Report）》的大學排名榜，中西部組別排名第54位。本報早前就蔡思貝的可疑學歷向協和查詢，該校高級副校長（大學事務）Gretchen Jameson回覆本報時表示非常關注事件，指有關指控性質非常嚴重，正展開相關調查，強調任何人利用虛假學歷取得該校入學資格，最嚴重會被褫奪已頒發的學位。
再透過國力報讀碩士
本報早前揭發2013年港姐亞軍蔡思貝透過國力書院報讀菲律賓比立勤國立大學（Bulacan State University）的工商管理學士課程，僅兩個月就極速畢業，報名表上卻把申請日期提前（backdate）至2011年。去年4月，蔡憑比立勤學歷，再次透過國力入讀協和大學的工商管理碩士課程。
根據本報最新取得的資料，蔡去年申請美國大學時曾提交兩份推薦書，其中一份出自Tong Suet Ha手筆，Tong在信中自稱是Cheerful Media& Co.東主，見證蔡完成比立勤大學的學位；信中又指蔡非常有效率地完成功課，內容深入及經過深思熟慮。
本報調查發現，本港並沒有Cheerful Media& Co.的公司註冊，自稱是該公司東主的Tong Suet Ha，懷疑正是蔡的母親。蔡曾在過往訪問中表示與父母同住杏花邨，本報根據蔡思貝入學報住地址與選民登記名冊同一地址核對，該單位有兩名登記選民，其中一人正是Tong Suet Ha；本報記者早前曾就事件到蔡的杏花邨居所查問，應門的正是蔡的母親。
另一封推薦信則出自現時國力代校長Dong Valencia手筆，兩封信除署名不同外，內容幾近完全相同，惟Tong Suet Ha誤把Bulacan錯植為Bulacau，Dong Valencia則稱蔡為Mr./Ms. Choi。本報曾就事件聯絡蔡的經理人，但未獲回覆。
美大學或撤銷蔡學位
本身是律師的立法會議員涂謹申指，兩名撰寫推薦信的人均可能觸犯法例，「點都冇可能係咁短時間啦，點樣話見證佢完成呢，咁好有可能係作出虛假陳述」。至於是否涉嫌串謀行騙，則視乎美國大學認為有否影響他人的實質利益，若事件屬實，美國大學撤銷蔡的學位是最基本做法。
曾任中大政治與行政學系主任的榮休講座教授關信基指，任何推薦人均需在信中提到與報讀者的關係、關係維持多久，認為此做法是常識。他又質疑一間私人公司的東主有否資格評論申請人的學術能力，相信一般醒目的老師均不予重視。本身是理工大學講師的立法會議員黃碧雲指，一般學術推薦信均由曾任教自己的老師撰寫，「絕少會搵屋企人，搵老竇、搵阿媽、搵親戚寫嘅，因為寫咗都冇乜用」。
蔡思貝學歷醜聞
2013年10月
‧兩個月內極速完成菲律賓比立勤國立大學（Bulacan State University）的學士學位，涉嫌竄改學歷文件
2014年3月
‧以比立勤的學士學歷申請美國威斯康辛州協和大學（Concordia University Wisconsin）的碩士課程
‧蔡母以公司東主身份，替蔡思貝撰寫碩士課程入學推薦信，信中表明見證蔡完成比立勤的學位
~~~ Guilty of Conspiracy to Defraud? 串謀詐騙？
Conspiracy to defraud? Yes but lack of jurisdiction.
回覆刪除