The 39-day hearing before the Commission of Inquiry on Allegations relating to the Hong Kong Institute of Education was an ordeal one would not want to go through more than once. Being the first witness on the stand and staying there for seven days was very stressful indeed. Afterwards it was tough sitting on an uncomfortable bench for several hours each day, following the proceedings with intense concentration. It was also galling to have to sit and listen to outrageous things being said without being able to correct them immediately.

The hearing went on a lot longer and cost a lot more than ever anticipated – so the money aspect added to the pressure. The support and daily presence of my wife, Esther, and so many colleagues, especially my secretary Doreen Cheng, made all the difference. The moral and financial support of many other people is also deeply appreciated. My real concern now is how those who supported us and those who gave evidence to the Inquiry and continue to work at HKIEd will be personally affected in the future.

The legal team representing Bernard Luk and myself did a superb job. Colin Cohen and Yvette Lam (the solicitors), Martin Lee SC, Hectar Pun, Jocelyn Leung (the barristers) and their support teams gave us sage advice and countless hours of their sleeping time. It has been a great privilege to work with such a committed and friendly group of people.

The legal process was very unlike the academic processes I am used to – with different styles of working and writing. I was impressed by the meticulous attention to fairness, particularly in the role of the Counsel for the Commission, Benjamin Yu SC. He was first class: independent and quick to pick up things not noticed by others. He had a great technique of being reasonable and penetrating, not aggressive like some of the other counsel. He established great credibility, as did his colleague.

I am somewhat surprised by the Report of the Commission as it contains inconsistencies between the findings of facts and the conclusions. For example, in the Summary of Testimonies [paragraph 396] it is noted: “Professor Li told the Commission that he did not use the word ‘rape’”. However, the Commission found – through the testimony of two reliable witnesses – that Professor Li did use the “rape” word and that it was “was improper and offensive” [15.9]. Similarly, the Commission accepted that Mrs Fanny Law “did ask Professor Mok to ‘fire’ Mr Ip” [8.85] despite her denial [8.84].

Terms of Reference (b) states: “To ascertain, on the facts as found, if there has been any improper interference by SEM or other Government Officials with the academic freedom or the institutional autonomy of the Institute”. Yet the Commission concludes that there was insufficient evidence to show any improper interference. [16.1 (6)]

The report also seems to pick Yu’s analysis and somehow reinterpret it and come to a different conclusion. For example, according to Yu’s analysis, “…as a ‘straight’ and outspoken person, Professor Li was likely to have said the offending sentences related by Professor Luk, in which case Professor Li would have made an improper threat” [7.92 of the Report]. But the Commission concludes that the third allegation was not established. Commissioner Lee Jark-pui’s dissenting view on this was closer to Counsel’s analysis [12.25 - 12.33], but the Commission Chairman had the casting vote.

It was gratifying that the Commission found that I was “generally an honest witness” [8.45]; “a truthful witness” [9.31]; that my “invidious and unenviable situation was further aggravated by Professor Li’s faith in merger, his overpowering personality and position” [9.45]; and that “given the circumstances, Professors Morris and Luk could legitimately conclude that there was a concerted effort by Professor Li, Mrs Law and EMB to undermine HKIEd” [8.33].

Despite all this the Commission makes many references to Bernard Luk and myself as “prejudiced”, “oversensitive”, “suspicious” and having a “siege mentality”, though in its analysis and conclusions it notes that “the parties had a strained and sensitive relationship marred by mutual suspicion and distrust” [8.1 (5)]. I think most people would be sensitive and suspicious if they knew that there institution was being undermined and under threat of “rape”.

On the other hand, the central allegation – relating to Fanny Law and academic freedom – is found to be established on two counts and that her complaints were “improper” [16.1 (4)]. This is of great significance and reconciles me to the whole outcome. In the final analysis, the allegation relating to interference in the academic freedom of staff is the most important issue.

People ask whether it was worth spending so much money on the Inquiry, and whether, with hindsight, I would rather Bernard Luk had not brought up the whole matter up by sending his open letter to colleagues. I believe that what he did was a principled action and very brave. Of course, I did not know about the letter beforehand, or I would have added to it some of the things I disclosed later.

Looking back, I have come to the view that the whole exercise sends some strong messages: that government officials in Hong Kong are not above the law; that there are processes here for putting things right and they should be strengthened and used; and that freedom of speech and academic freedom are important to this community.

Despite the absence of a democratic system, Hong Kong does have core values that are distinctive and ensure it is an open and pluralistic society. Whatever people do in other Asian societies, you still cannot do certain things in Hong Kong. This Inquiry was a powerful demonstration of how we defend our basic values.

The Report notes that “…it is doubtful if the Commission had been presented with the whole truth” [8.1 (1)]. I agree, but it is now up to other people to continue to ensure that the truth prevails.