AC3 Opening Ceremony Review Group submits report to the President
Dear colleagues, students and alumni,
The AC3 Opening Ceremony Review Group submitted its report to Professor Way Kuo, CityU President, on 12 July and advised that the University should make the full report public.
The Review Group reviewed the logistics, security and other arrangements for the opening ceremony, and made the following judgments regarding a number of incidents of public interest:
(a) The decision to remove people outside the lecture theater on 5/F
We were of the view that the action of removing people under the circumstances was neither the most appropriate nor necessary. The protesters had been sitting on the floor peacefully and did not cause any serious nuisance to the ceremony. It was lucky that the action did not lead to more serious conflicts and cause more injuries. It was also inappropriate for the security guards to tell the protesters that they would remove them just a few seconds before they took the action.
(b) The conflict at the glass door at 3/F podium
The protesters had adopted a rather violent approach during the conflict. Not only did they try to force their way into the building, they also pushed and dragged the guests, and banged on the glass door a number of times. These actions were undesirable and may be dangerous to the protesters and others at the scene.
(c) On the question that “police undertook enforcement action on campus”
The security unit of CityU has deployed 90 security guards on the day to maintain order, and they wore three different types of uniform. They included staff deployed specifically for this event from other locations by Sino Security Services Ltd., the outsourcing company that has been contracted by CityU to provide security services. These staff members wore black suit, which was similar to that worn by the security personnel of the Office of the Chief Executive, thus giving rise to the unnecessary misunderstanding that “police undertook enforcement action on campus”. On the day of the ceremony, the Campus Development and Facilities Office of CityU issued seven working staff badges to security personnel of the Office of the Chief Executive, while the Communications and Public Relations Office issued 20 guest badges to Shamshuipo Police. Nevertheless, looking at all the information, the security unit of the Campus Development and Facilities Office was responsible for all decisions and operational matters of the security arrangement on the day, and that the police did not intervene directly.
(d) Locking the door of the lecture theatre
During the ceremony, several protesters came to the foyer just outside the lecture theatre again and staged a demonstration by speaking through the loud-speakers. Security guards inside the lecture theatre were worried that someone might force their way into the venue and affect the proceeding of the ceremony, and thus locked the doors temporarily. It is difficult to lay blame on the security guards who closed the doors given that there was limited information (noise from the outside and blocked sight) and only a short time to make the decision. Also, they allowed people to go in and out of the venue immediately afterwards when things had calmed down. The whole process lasted no more than a couple of minutes and the inconvenience caused was relatively mild.
(e) Media interview after the ceremony
When something unexpected happens, colleagues from the Communications and Public Relations Office should advise the management of the University to make comments only after they have gained a thorough understanding of what has happened. Also, before accepting interviews from the media, relevant personnel should first seek the professional advice from the Communications and Public Relations Office.
The report listed a number of recommendations with key points outlined below:
- The University should reiterate its emphasis on safeguarding the tradition of a free and open campus environment, and recognise the civic-mindedness and pursuance of justice of the students involved in this incident.
- The University should communicate with students in advance when organising large-scale activities in future by, for example, inviting student representatives to join the organising committees, or by other means, to consult thoroughly with the students.
- The University should contact the guests who are expected to be the targets the protesters want to reach in advance to understand the guests’ level of acceptance of various kinds of petition activities.
- The establishment of a protest area should enable protesters to deliver their messages clearly to their targets by voices, texts (e.g. banners) or other appropriate means.
- When there is a need to control access to individual areas of the campus for security reasons, the University should avoid making a wide range of access control to minimise inconvenience to staff and students. The University should also assess whether there is adequate manpower to execute such a plan.
- The University should examine any possible legal disputes arising from various mandatory actions (e.g. moving protesters away) in order to show its respect for the rule of law and civil rights and to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings.
Professor Ray K M Yep
Chairman
AC3 Opening Ceremony Review Group
12 July 2013
學術樓(三) 啟用典禮檢討小組向校長提交報告
各位同事、同學及校友：
學術樓（三）啟用典禮檢討小組於七月十二日正式向校長郭位教授提交報告，並建議校方盡快公開報告全文以供公眾參閱。
檢討小組檢討了啟用典禮的籌備工作及保安安排等事項，並對若干引起公眾關注的事件，作出以下研判:
(a) 五樓演講廳外的抬人決定
我們認為，在當時情況下抬人行動並非最恰當的做法，亦沒有必要。示威者一直和平地坐在地上，並沒有對典禮構成嚴重滋擾。行動沒有造成更大的衝突和引致更多人受傷，實屬僥倖。保安只在採取行動前數秒，才向示威者表示會抬人，做法有欠妥善。
(b) 三樓平台大樓門外的衝突
在這次衝突中，示威者採取的手法較為激烈，不但試圖強行衝入大樓，拉扯嘉賓，並多次拍打玻璃大門，行為並不可取，有可能對示威者及在場人士構成危險。
(c) 有關「警員到校園執法」的質疑
當天城大保安組一共調動了九十名保安員維持秩序，分別穿著三種不同制服。一直為城大提供外判保安服務的信和護衛公司為該次活動專門從其他地方抽調過來的員工，則身穿黑色西裝，與特首辦保安人員的衣著極為相似，引來「警員到校園執法」的不必要的誤會。典禮當天，城大校園發展及設施管理處共發出七張工作證予特首辦保安人員，而傳訊及公關處亦發出另外二十張嘉賓證予深水埗警署人員。但綜合各種資料，當天所有保安工作的執勤決定及具體操作，完全由城大校園發展及設施管理處保安組負責，警方並無直接介入。
(d) 演講廳「鎖門事件」
在典禮進行中，有數名示威者再度走到演講廳門外範圍並以揚聲器示威時，演講廳內保安唯恐有人會衝入會場影響活動進行，曾一度把大門鎖上。以當時的情況，決定關門的保安只能在有限資訊（外面傳來的聲音及被阻擋的視線）及極短的時間作出決定，難以苛責。同時，保安亦在場面平靜下來後，馬上容許在場人士外出，整個過程只在一兩分鐘之內，故引起的不便亦相對較輕。
(e) 會後採訪
發生突發事件後，傳訊及公關處同事應該建議校方管理層在充分了解情況後才作評論，較為恰當。而有關人仕在事後接受傳媒訪問要求前，亦應先尋求傳訊及公關處的專業意見。
報告提出了多項改善建議，主要內容如下：
• 大學應該重申對校園自由開放的傳統的重視，及肯定該次事件中學生對社會的關顧和公義的追求。
• 日後籌辦大型活動時，應致力與學生事前溝通，如邀請學生會代表加入活動籌委會或以其他方式充分諮詢學生。
• 校方應與預期會成為示威活動的主要申訴對象的嘉賓接觸，了解其對各種可能出現的請願活動的接受程度。
• 示威區的設置，必須能讓示威者可以利用聲音、文字（如橫額）或其它適切的表達方式，清晰地向主要申訴對象傳達其訊息。
• 如因保安需要管制校園個別地方，應盡量避免作出大範圍的管制，以免對師生構成不便，同時亦要考慮是否有足夠人手去落實這種部署。
• 大學應研究各種強制性行動 (例如「抬人」) 可能引起的法律爭議，以體現對法治和公民權利的尊重和避免不必要的法律訴訟。
學術樓（三）啟用典禮檢討小組主席
葉健民教授
2013年7月12日