Annual Report, July 1991 to June 1992

Abstract

[evdate 1992-06-15] CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD . . . III This is the fourth Annual Report of the University, covering the period from 1 July 199 1 to 30 June 1992. During the period under review we have seen the admission of the first batch of some 800 undergraduate and postgraduate students. The concept of this technological University in Hong Kong, approved by the Executive Council in March 1986 and subsequently worked out in detail by the Planning Committee since October 1986, has now become a reality. The construction of the Phase I buildings, comprising academic and administrative accommodation together with residential buildings for both staff and students, was completed in time for the commencement of classes on 2 October 199 1. The fact that it only took three and a half years to design and build this campus is to a large extent attributable to the great support of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. The Club has not only provided a massive donation of almost $2 billion towards the construction cost, but has also acted as the project manager in overseeing the design, construction and financial control. In addition, we have had excellent support from both the Government and the community, as well as from the thousands of people who worked directly on the project rn one way or another. Consequently, it has been possible to plan, design and build the campus, equip it with the latest teaching and research facilities, and staff it with top quality academics and administrators in

a record time of five years. The formal opening of this technological University on 10 October 199 1 was a proud moment not only for all those involved with it but also for the people of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the year under review was marred by the adverse publicity surrounding the Director of Audit's Report and the subse- quent public hearings of the Public Accounts Committee over the so-called "cost overrun" in the building of the University campus. Much damage was done by a misguided public perception that the campus construc- S/r Sze-yuen CHUNG, GBE, JP tion cost was unreasonably high due to its BSc(Eng)(Hons), PhD, DSc(Hon), perceived lavishness and an alleged lack of LLD(Hon), DEng(Hon). DBA(Hon), FEng, HonFlMechE, control over the project. This was, of course, HonFHKIE, FlMfgE, CBIM, not true, as it turned out that the budget unit Order of t.he Sacred Treasure (Japan) Chairman of the Hospital Authority costs between the University campus and the Former Senior Member of the Executive and Legislatwe Counck Phase II campus of the City Polytechnic, which Chwman. lJnwers/ty Counol

iv were being built simultaneously, were comparable and within 4%. Such adverse and unjustified publicity has been particularly disheartening for the staff and students of the University alike. Despite this, the past year has

been a period of great activity, and considerable progress has been achieved in a wide diversity of areas. In this context, I wish to express my appreciation to all

my colleagues on the Council for their unfailing support and my thanks to all staff of the University, under the leadership of the Vice-Chancellor and Presi- dent, for their outstanding contributrons during the most challenging and eventful year so far. I have confidence that the University will grow from strength to strength.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S OVERVIEW V T he year covered by this Annual Report has been, and will always remain, one of the most important in the history of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. It was the year that saw the culmination of several years of dreams, plans, hard work, and solid achievements along the path to eventual fulfilment. It was the year in which the doors of the University were opened to its first class of students. In the summer of 199 1, two great resources of the University came together at last. The faculty and staff, our human resources, moved from temporary quarters in Harbour City to the physical resources provided by our campus on its dramatic site by the sea. Simultaneously with the move, we wrapped up the task of recruiting our first intake of students and were able to bring prospective

students to their future campus to see it for themselves. Looking back on the year, it is fair to report that we recruited some of the best and brightest young

men and women Hong Kong has to offer. On 2 October, exactly as planned, these students sat down in their classrooms, opened their notebooks, and waited in anticipation as their teachers collected their thoughts in preparation

for delivering their inaugural lectures. On 10 October, the University showed itself to the world at its official Opening Ceremony. It has been not only an historic year, but an eventful one. Of the 10,229 applicants for undergraduate places, 595 were accepted and enrolled. There were 1,734 applicants to our postgraduate programmes; eventually 100 full- time and I36 part-time postgraduates were enrolled. Student achievement during the year was heartening. Although there was close adherence to a rigorous set of grading guidelines adopted by the University's Senate, only a small handful of students ended the year in academic difficulty. The University's distinguished academics reached out to the community in a series of public lectures hosted by the Hong Kong Science Museum. The University's Re- search Centre sponsored an International Workshop on Technology for Hong Kong's Infrastructure Development, which brought together some 80 researchers and interna- tional experts to drscuss technical issues sur- rounding the Government's massive Port and Airport Development Strategy. These are merely two examples of the University's interest in providing direct services to the public. The year was not without certain stresses Prof Chia-We/ WOO BS, MA, PhD and disappointments. Misunderstandings about Ice-Chance//or & President

vi the cost of the campus construction were seized upon by some to create unfavourable public perceptions of the new institution, thus diverting attention

from the Jockey Club's successful management of a monumental construction project and from the University's academic strength, which, after all, must stand

as the first order of business for any educational institution. Government and community support for the new University remained strong. By mid-year, we were informed that nearly 95% of our budget request for the 1992-95 triennium had been approved. In a display of confidence in the University's ability to manage its affairs, this funding was awarded as a block grant. Also, large donations to enrich the University's research programmes came in from the private sector. Building on what has been an excellent start in this our frrst year of operation, I am confident that we will move vigorously ahead to achteve our objectives and meet the expectations of the people of Hong Kong.

CONTENTS Chairman's Foreword Vice-Chancellor's Overview I.. 111 V Campus Construction and Development University Staff Teaching 7 Research 15 Students 23 Academic Support Services 29 Finance 35 Council, Senate, Advisory Board and Committees 39 Calendar of Major Events 47 DIrector of Audit's Report on Design and Construction of the Campus 57 Appendices CAMPUS CONSTRUCTJON AND DEVELOPMENT COMPLETION OF PHASE I The University's occupation of its campus in Clear Water Bay began on 10 August 199 1, only 48 hours after the architect certified completion of the building works and 6 weeks later than originally programmed. The construction of 152,424 square metres of academic and residential space in a short period of 23 months was a truly remarkable achievement on the part of the project manager: the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. During the weeks that followed, critical areas of the buildings were fur- bished, furnished, and equipped so as to be ready for the commencement of the first semester on 2 October. Apart from the academic areas, such as teaching laboratories, lecture theatres, classrooms, and the library, other facili-

ties-including administrative offices, student canteen, staff restaurant, and student and staff residential accommodation-all had to be made ready. Even the large multi-purpose hall, used initially as a temporary warehouse, was vacated in time to permit the commencement of athletic activities early in the academic year. The final testing and commissioning of building services was an on-going operation throughout much of the year.

2 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT Completion of Phase II of the campus will allow the University to accommo- date a student population of 7,000. A substantial quantity of laboratory space will be provided in this phase together with additional lecture theatres and offices for faculty and staff. Residences for 1,402 students will be added, which

together with the 674 residences completed in Phase I will accommodate some 30% of the student body. Outdoor sports facilities and additional staff housing will also be added. Construction of this phase has proceeded well throughout the year, and completion is expected at the end of 1992 as planned. A major procurement exercise is being undertaken in parallel to ensure that the furnishing and equipping of the buildings is sufficiently advanced by the time they are ready to

be occupied. CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT BEYOND PHASE II Facilities planned for Phase III will allow the University to increase the student population from 7,000 to 10,000. Funding for this phase of campus development was held over pending the Government's review of Hong Kong's continuing expansion of tertiary enrolment. In order to avoid the pitfalls of fast-track construction, the University has resubmitted its previous application to the UPGC for funding to permit early commencement of the Phase III design process. UNJVERSWY STAFF 5 the measure of a university's success depends overwhelmingly on the quality of its staff; hence staff recruitment is of prime importance. In this respect, the

University has sought faculty members who are established or promising scholars, who have demonstrated a high degree of professional competence, who have broad intellectual interests, and who care about the people of Hong Kong. The senior academic staff including Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Deans, Directors, Department Heads, and Professors are distinguished scholars in one or more fields who would be qualified as full professors in any major university in the First

World. Indeed, practically all have held such posts before joining HKUST. All academic positions at the rank of Lecturer and above have been filled by scholars who have earned doctoral degrees in their respective fields from reputable universities all over the world. About two-thirds of the full-time teaching staff received their PhDs in the United States, with the top seven institutions in terms of numbers of PhDs on the faculty being (in order): University of California at Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, Princeton University, University of Illinois,

University of Toronto, and University of British Columbia. It is also noteworthy

that about half of the academic staff are originally from Hong Kong. In contrast with the University's academic administrators and staff, adminis- trative and support personnel have been mostly recruited locally. First-rate people have joined the University from Government, other tertiary institutions in Hong Kong, and a variety of other organisations in the public and private sectors. The University's staff establishment for the period under review was 767. As at 30 June 1992, 750 posts had been filled, representing 98% of the staff establishment. A list of faculty in post as at 30 June 1992 appears as Appendix A. TEACHING 7 The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology comprises the School of Science, the School of Engineering, the School of Business and Management, and the School of Humanities and Social Science. Undergraduate and post- graduate programmes are offered in each of the Schools except for Humanities and Social Science, which only offers postgraduate degree programmes while supporting undergraduate specialisations in the other Schools. Details of the implementation of the first year's teaching programme and plans for subsequent development follow. It should be noted that postgraduate enrolment figures include part-time students, whose programmes are recorded in full-time equivalents (FTE). Enrolment figures for 199 1-92 reflect actual enrolments as at 3 1 December 199 1. In its first year of operation, the School of Sci- ence has been able to inaugurate a comprehen- sive series of undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes in both basic and applied science. The three-year Bachelor of Science (BSc) programmes in Biochemistry, Biology, Chemis- try, Mathematics, and Physics provide basic edu- cation in these disciplines through coursework, laboratory/field studies, and seminars. A total of 189 students were enrolled in the School's first undergraduate classes. These students have not only been encouraged to engage in laboratory research, but have been given the opportunity to meet prominent scientists from around the world through the School's active lecture and seminar programmes. A full-range of postgraduate programmes in Science and Mathematics leading to the Master of Philosophy (MPhil) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees by research and thesis, and the Master of Science (MSc) degree by coursework and project, have also been offered. In addition, a multi-disciplinary

programme leading to the Master of Science (MSc) degree in Biotechnology is being jointly developed by the participating Departments-namely, Biochemis- try, Biology, Chemistry, and Chemical Engineering-and is expected to be offered in the 1993-94 academic year. The School's postgraduate programmes have proved to be highly popular for students who wish to continue research and advanced study. 43 FTE students, which exceeded the target enrolment figure of 30, were enrolled as the School's first group of postgraduate students. Some, including non-Chinese,

8 had actually earned their first and second degrees in leading research universi-

ties in the U.K. and U.S. before coming to HKUST. The School of Science has also developed courses that allow students in other Schools to acquire a solid grounding in the fundamentals of Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics. In this way the School of Science helps meet the service teaching requirements of the University. With respect to the start-up of teaching and research laboratories, signifi- cant progress has been made. Most of the laboratory facilities in the biological,

chemical, and physical sciences are now in satisfactory operational condition. Research work goes forward, and research findings have been published and presented at many important international scientific conferences. The School has been very successful in the recruitment of academic staff for 1992-93. Over 95% of the teaching positions allocated to the School have been filled by high-calibre scholars and academics from around the world. Sponsored by the School of Science, a series of Distinguished Lectures in Science was launched to celebrate the Opening of the University. Eight lectures in the series have already been delivered by world renowned scholars and research scientists. Well received by professionals in the field as well as the public, the lectures have become major scholarly events in Hong Kong. In general, the year under review has proven to be a most challenging and rewarding experience for both the students and the faculty of the School of Science. The actual and planned enrolment in the School are given in the following table: Actual and Planned Enrolment (FTE), School of Science Biochemistry Biology Chemistry Mathematics Physics Total 24 58 104 143 41 92 161 215 42 94 163 216 40 97 190 278 42 94 168 231 189 435 786 1083 8 16 24 35 6 14 25 36 7 16 26 38 13 23 32 50 9 18 26 40 43 87 133 199

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING The School of Engineering offers undergradu- ate and postgraduate programmes in a number of important fields of engineering and computer science. In a technological society, engineering disciplines form the critical interface between technical knowledge and practical applications. This fact places the School of Engineering at the heart of the mission of the University. In .keeprng with this mission, students in the School of Engineering include in their studies

courses from the School of Business and Management and are expected to acquire a solid grounding in related scientific disciplines and mathematics. In common with all other undergraduates, they are also required to take courses in the humanities and social sciences in order to gain a broad generalist outlook.

Because of the University's emphasis on applied science and the manage- ment of technological enterprises, students in other Schools also take courses offered by the School of Engineering. The services provided by the Department of Computer Science and the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineer- ing are particularly significant in this regard. Development of the School is being phased over the first three years. Four Departments-Civil & Structural Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering-began offering under- graduate and/or postgraduate programmes in I99 1. The Departments of Chemical Engineering and Industrial Engineering are scheduled for inaugura- tion in 1993. This phased, although still rapid, development allows time for careful implementation of the School's organisation and academic programmes so that they can both meet the needs of Hong Kong's developing industries and, at the same time, be consistent with the requirements for professional certification of graduates. Each Department offers an undergraduate programme leading to the Bachelor of Engineering (BEng) degree, and postgraduate programmes lead- ing to the MSc, MPhil, and PhD degrees. Undergraduate programmes in the School of Engineering share a common group of Engineering Core Courses and emphasise the use of specially designed facilities to allow hands-on participa- tion. In addition, industrial training offers the structured practical experience

required for professional certification.

10 The actual and planned enrolment in the School are given in the follow- ing table: Actual and Planned Enrolment (FTE), School of Engineering Chemical Engineering Civil & Structural Engineering Computer Science Electrical & Electronic Engineering Jndustrial Engineering Mechanical Engineering SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT During 1990, the foundation was laid for the successful founding of the School of Business and Management through the negotiation of a co-operative agreement with the Anderson Graduate School of Management (AGSM) of the University of Calffornia at Los Angeles (UCLA), one of the top management schools in the United States. Under the agreement, AGSM assists the University by seconding key leadership and academic personnel, advising on programme developme. It, participating in efforts to recruit permanent aca- demic staff, and co-sponsoring joint Executive Education Programmes. In turn, HKUST serves as headquarters for AGSM/UCLA's Asia-Pacific endeavours. Each Department in the School of Business and Management offers the Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degree, and these undergraduate programmes are generalist in nature. Although there is no first-degree "major",

11 each student chooses an area of concentration in which particular professional skills are to be acquired. Thus, graduates will be able to enter the job market with specific skills while retaining sufficient flexibility and adaptability for future

career growth. Each Department in the School offers one or more concentra- tions. In addition to the BBA degree, the Department of Economics offers a major in Economics leading to the BSc degree. The approach adopted by the Master of Business Administration (MBA) programme, and by the MSc in Management and Technology programme currently under consideration, is designed to meet Hong Kong's needs in her transition from a labour-intensive to a technology-based economy. Both pro- grammes take full advantage of the Universrty's technological capabilities, Students receive extensive course instruction and, at the same time, are required to conduct studies of the operations and business opportunities for local organisations and multinational corporations. Up to 70% of these post- graduate students will be part-time, most with practical management experi- ence. The University's Part-time MBA Programme, available at times convenient for employed students, has been specially developed for these students. At present few students in Hong Kong, especially in business and manage- ment, go on to the doctorate. In the fields of economics and business informa- tion systems, the doctorate is believed to be very important for Hong Kong's future needs. In all fields, the PhD as a research degree is crucial to a tertiary

teaching career. With Hong Kong's planned rapid expansion of tertiary education coinciding with a worldwide shortage of academic staff in these fields, the University recognises the importance of accelerating the supply of local aca- demic staff. PhD students will study in individual Departments, and their number is likely to be small during the first few years. The much larger number of MBA students will take a broadly based curriculum that includes components from all manage- ment fields. Non-degree Executive Education Programmes have been offered in part- nership with UCLA to practising executives and middle management. Some have the purpose of broadening knowledge, but most are tailored to meet urgent needs of the private sector, relating to new management methods, new business environments, and new technologies. Hong Kong's companies and financial institutions regularly send a large number of employees overseas to such programmes, as does the Government. It should not be difficult to establish programmes of similar or better content and quality here in Hong Kong.

12 The following table outlines the actual and planned enrolment in the degree programmes of the School: Actual and Planned Enrolment (FTE) School of Business and Management Accounting Business Information Systems Economics Finance Management Marketing Total SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE The role of the School of Humanities and Social Science is twofold. Frrst, it supports undergradu- ate specialisations in the other Schools by illumi- nating the social, regional, and international contexts of science, technology, and business enterprise. This appreciation of the sociai con- texts of human endeavour is crucial to the educa- tion of the region's future leaders in commerce, industry, the professions, and public services. Second, the School offers studies

in the Chinese cultural heritage and other fields, with the aim of extending students' experience and enlarging their field of vision. The School also offers

postgraduate work, by means of a taught master's course leading to the award of the Master ofArts (MA) degree, and the enrolment of MPhil and PhD research students. The School of Humanities and Social Science enrols no first-degree students, but undergraduates in all the other Schoois take at least four courses in the humanities and social sciences. Its postgraduate students will eventually make

13 The following table gives the postgraduate enrolment for the period 119 l-95: Actual and Planned Postgraduate Enrolment (FTE) School of Humanities and Social Science up about 10% of the University's total postgraduate enrolment. Like all other academic staff tn the University, the staff of the School of Humanities and Social

Science, comprising a Division of Humanities and a Division of Social Science, are expected to engage in active research and development work, and a number of innovative projects are already underway. Division of Humanities During the 1991-92 academic year, the Division of Humanities offered undergraduate courses in history, literature, philosophy, poetry, and anthropol-

ogy, and also postgraduate courses in the areas of comparative literature, the history of the Pearl Rover Deita, and social and economrc history. In addrtion, a

total of sixteen seminars were conducted on a variety of topics, mostly by visiting

scholars. Division of Social Science During the 199 1-92 academic year, the Division of Social Science recruited nine academic staff and one visiting member of staff. The new staff include four

sociologists, two geographers, an economist, a political scientist, and a political

psychologist. Since interdisciplinary skills were emphasised during the search, these new faculty members will be able to offer a wide range of courses covering topics such as the family, ageing, social welfare, population, social movements, social/economic development, international trade and finance, international relations, Chinese politics, cross-cultural psychology, economic and cultural geography, and social science theories and methodologies. On the whole, their research interests are focused on the Asia-Pacific region, including

Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, and Japan. This group of scholars will provide a firm foundation for teaching and research in the social sciences.

RESEARCH 15 T he University's commitment to research provides for the intellectual devel- opment of its faculty and students while also stimulating the transfer of the most

effective technology to meet the economic, industrial, commercial, envrron- mental, and social needs of Hong Kong. Academic research forms the heart of the University's creative endeavours. Other, more applied programmes provide systematic interaction with local commercial and industrial organisations to encourage new and expanded enterprises. Worldwide co-operation with universities, government laboratories, and industries encourages exchanges of people, knowledge, expertise, and techniques. These partnerships in research extend the research capability of the University far beyond the resources immediately at hand. Even though research activities are in an early stage of development, significant achievement is already evident. Scholarly publications abound. Many applications-oriented projects have been inrtiated, and necessary elements of an

organisational infrastructure have been established to facilitate research, devel-

opment, and technology transfer in the years ahead. Through the Senate's Research Committee, the University's academic staff has formulated policies and procedures and helped to allocate resources. CHALLENGES Research is actively undertaken by individuals and groups within the academic Departments and across departmental boundaries. Since moving to the Clear Water Bay campus, a major priority in all Departments has been the establishment of research activities. For some faculty members-those in the humanities and social sciences, for example-thts effort has focused mainly on library resources. Others-those working in computer science certainly, but many others as well-have also had to acquire and install suitable computer software. The University's early commitment to a state-of-the-art computing system has greatly facilitated the initiation of their work. However, the greatest challenge has been faced by those faculty members in science and engineering who require extensive physical facilities for their research. In addition to library and computing resources, those Departments where experimental work is the basis of most research have had to deal with the always demanding task of building their laboratories from the ground up. Acquiring budgets, personnel, equipment and supplies, and then assembling working systems has been an immense task. This has had to be carried out, of course, at the same time that teaching laboratories were being set up, academic programmes established, the first year of students taught, research grant proposals prepared, and publications submitted.

16 All academic Departments have made good progress. Since they were not all established at the same time and their growth patterns have differed, at this

time some research laboratories are much further developed than others. The progress achieved In Biochemistry, Biology, and Chemistry deserves special note. RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Frnancral support for direct costs is vital to the growth of the University's basic and mission-or-rented research activities. A total of 140 proposals for grants

and contracts supporting research projects were initiated during the review period. Many, although not all, were successful, while others await a final decision. In July 199 1, the Research Grants Council (RGC) announced the funding of 18 projects, which were awarded $8.825 million, from proposals submitted by HI<UST in November 1990. The RGC also provided a $3 million grant to the University for internal distribution as direct allocation grants to support research

projects of a more modest scope. In addition, following a UPGC suggestion that 2% of the University's operating budget be allocated to research infrastructure support, 10 projects were funded to a total of $5.9 million. An eleventh proposal was referred to the Hong Kong Telecom Institute of Information Technology. Eleven other research projects were supported by $3.75 million in funds received from private organisations. Of the quota of 20 proposals that the University was allowed to submit to the RGC's 199 1 competition, 18 were successful. These 18 were selected in

17 competition with proposals from all UPGC institutions by the appropriate RGC panel. The three panels are Physical Sciences and Engineering, Biology and Medicine, and Humanittes and Social Sciences. Averaging almost $500,000 each, the projects included eight in the area of biology, chemistry, and biochemistry; three in computer science; and others in mathematics, mechanical engineering, finance, and electronics. Participation was not limited to researchers in academic Departments. The Research Centre received a grant for damage assessment technology for large structures, and the Language Centre for a study of the comprehension of the academic English of science and technology. The internally allocated RGC funds, which totaled $3 million, were distrib- uted in two rounds. In the first, 27 grants ranging from $49,000 to $140,000 were awarded. Research topics ranged from "computer simulation of discon- tinuous flow" to "the detection of drugs in human plasma and urine" to "architectures for metropolitan area networks" to "international taxation and endogenous growth" to "the augmenting metaphor: imagination and reason- ing in Chinese poetry". The second round of 3 1 awards of similar size exhibited

an equally broad distribution of topics, representing all the major disciplines of

the University. In some cases these modest awards are sufficient to support the research proposed; in others they will suffice only to initiate the projects and will

lead to proposals for external funding. The Research Infrastructure programme has the goal of building a founda- tion for research activities at Hong Kong's tertiary institutions by the allocation

of 2% of operating budgets to appropriate research activities. In the period under review, an internal competition within the University led to the allocation

of a total of $5.9 million to three projects from the School of Science, four from

the School of Engineering, one from the School of Humanities and Social Science, and two from the Research Centre. Only two projects, however, were initiated by principal investigators from a single academic Department or discipline. More typical is the research on robotic materials transport systems,

whose principal investigators are in three Departments. Two projects involve collaborators from institutions outside Hong Kong, two others involve person- nel from HKUST service departments, and both Research Centre projects involve participants from academic Departments. These projects illustrate well the multi-

disciplinary nature of much present-day research. RESEARCH INSTITUTES AND CENTRES Large research programmes that involve complex mixtures of academic staff and students from different disciplines are administered in Research Institutes or

18 Centres, which are interdisciplinary units that cut across Department and School

boundaries to co-ordinate both basic and mission-oriented research activities. Three criteria are required for their establishment. Each Research Institute or Centre must uphold academic integrity, meet the needs of Hong Kong's development, and be fundable. Research Institutes and Centres in biotechnol- ogy, information technology, materials characterisation and preparation, mi- croelectronic fabrication, and software development have already been estab- lished. Further efforts are underway, and are likely to lead to Research Institutes

and Centres in fields such as advanced materials, energy, environment, finance, infrastructure development, international business, manufacturing, and scien- tific computation. Important additional financial resources for academic research are received and dispersed through the University's Research Institutes and Centres. The Biotechnology Research lnstrtute was funded by a $130 million gift from the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. The Hong Kong Telecom Institute of Information Technology was funded by a donation of $100 million from Hong Kong Telecom. The Joyce M. Kuok Foundation supplied a gift of $10 million to found the Joyce M. Kuok Laser and Photonics Laboratory, and the Zheng Ge Ru Foundation provided $10 million to establish the Zheng Ge Ru Thin Film Physics Laboratory. Sino Land Co. Ltd donated $20 million to fund the Sino Software Research Centre. Biotechnology Research Institute Under the direction of Professor Jeffrey Tze-Fei WONG, programmes of the

19 Institute are organised and managed according to the initial plan, and continu- ally reviewed by an international Advisory Committee. $13.5 million has been committed by the Institute for equipment purchase; part of the equipment has been ordered and part has been placed for tender. Of the $35 million committed for research support from 199 1 to 1995, $5.95 million was commit- ted in 199 1-92 to support nine research projects by faculty at HKUST and several

sister institutions. Applications for new projects in 1992-93 were invited in May

for submission by 3 1 August 1992. Targeted research topics include immunol- ogy, biosensors, and molecular genetics of plants. Hong Kong Telecom Institute of Information Technology Five faculty members serve as Senior Fellows and one serves as a Fellow. Programme activities involving grants for research projects, scholarships for undergraduate students, and postgraduate research assistantships have all been initiated. Almost all funds received to this point have been allocated to the

endowment fund for fellowships, scholarships, and assistantships. All activities

are reviewed by an internal Academic Committee and an external Advisory Committee. Professor Donald A. GEORGE serves as Interim Director. A search for a full-time Director is progressing. Sino Software Research Centre Centre activities will be initiated in July 1992. Professor Vincent Y. SHEN serves as Interim Director. The Centre sees its role as primarily that of a catalyst,

assisting software projects in reaching the critical phases of development where

ideas become prototypes and are subjected to large-scale trials. A budget of $5 million has been established for 1992-93. An internal Academic Committee and an external Advisory Committee are being formed. Materials Research Laboratories Two initial Laboratories have been established: the Zheng Ge Ru Thin Film Physics Laboratory, with Dr. lam Keong SOU serving as Interim Director, and the Joyce M. Kuok Laser and Photonics Laboratory, with Professor George K. WONG serving as Director. These Laboratories are in an early stage of development and

will serve as components of a future Advanced Materials Research Institute. Materials Characterisation and Preparation Centre A complex of advanced equipment is being collected and installed to provide an unusual new resource in Hong Kong for the evaluation of electronic, polymeric, ceramic, magnetic, biological, and engineering materials. These

20 new services will be available to industry, government, and other Institutions in

Hong I<ong in the overall support of improved technology. Professor David J. BARBER serves as Director. Microelectronics Fabrication Centre This Centre, under the direction of Dr Tai-chin LO, provrdes a new capability rn Hong I<ong to fabricate electronic microstructures and Integrated circuits. Phase I consrsts of a research facilrty and a training facrlity for students. Phase II,

now under planning, will provide services to faculty, other rnstltutions, and rndustrral users. RESEARCH ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS During 199 1-92 several difficult and important policy developments were implemented that are essential to the future growth and management of research, development, and technology transfer. Policres regarding rntellectual property rights were deveioped and approved. A new faculty and staff consult- rng policy was adopted. Procedures for developing and reviewing proposals for sponsored research were established. Objectives and plans for a University- owned non-profit-taking corporation were formulated.

21 SERVICE ACTIVITIES In addition to education and research, the University is committed to providing service that supports the economic and social development of Hong I<ong. The Research and Development Branch has initiated a number of projects to strengthen the infrastructure and technology base of Hong Kong, several of which are proceeding in collaboration with institutional and governmental partners both here in Hong Kong and in the People's Republic of China. Following the International Workshop on Technology for Hong Kong's Infrastructure Development, held on 19-20 December 199 1 and jointly organ- ised by HKUST's Research Centre, the California Institute of Technology, and the

University of Southern California, the University has entered into a three-year joint project with the Government's Geotechnical Engineering Office to evalu- ate aspects of the landfill to be undertaken at the Chek Lap Kok site. Researchers

are investigating the characteristics of the various materials to be used, as well

as reviewing the guidelines that regulate how the imported material is filled and

compacted. Two projects related to protection and use of the natural environment are underway. These projects are investigating the contamination of the Pearl River Delta by toxic sediment, and the possibility of using subtropical saltwater marshes and wetlands, known as mangroves, as wastewater treatment facili- ties. Both of these projects rely on the co-operation of institutes and foundations

in the People's Republic of China. Several other projects aim at alleviating the problem of air pollution in Hong Kong. These projects approach the problem from different angles: by reducing the sulphur emissions of fossil-fuel combustion engines, by improving the combustion process so that complete combustion can be achieved, and by generating a micrometeorological database for Hong Kong that can lead to more accurate environmental impact assessments. Another related project seeks to develop an effective dust abatement system to reduce the exposure of construction workers to toxic respirable dust.

STUDENTS 23 _ PROFILE OF STUDENTS In 199 1, the University received a total of over 1 1,000 applmtions for full- time first degree and full-time and part-time postgraduate studies at the University. Using final enrolment figures established at 3 1 December 199 1, the

ratio of applications to places is summarised in the table below: Science Engineering Business & Management Humanities & Social Science Overall The total number of students enrolled at the University at 3 1 December 199 1 was 826. The distribution of this total is given below: F Science Engineering Business & Management Humanities & Social Science Joint Degree Programme Of the 826 students enrolled, 635 were male and 19 1 were female, broducing a ratio of 3.3 : 1. Some 68% of undergraduate students selected their present course of study because of interest in the subject, and 95% have chosen a future career which corresponds well with their courses of study at the University. It is interesting to

note that about 85% of the undergraduates represent the first generation of

24 "Academ,ca//y. my experience here has been very challenging and rigorous because we are expected to put a lot

of effort Into our work But even tnough /t has been hard work I thank It w//l pay off II-J the future " --Hean Tat Keh.

MBA candidate their families to recetve a tertiary education, with 50% of the fathers and 70% of

the mothers being educated only up to primary level. Using the median monthly household Income of $9,964 in Hong Kong for the year 199 I, it is also evident that the majority of students come from middle-income groups when compared with the Hong Kong population as a whole. When asked for personal assessments, the students gave themselves high ratings in analytical ability, adaptability, self-confidence, and creativity; average

ratings in leadership and organisational qualities, general knowledge, and social and communication skills, and IOLY ratings in language ability. SERVICES FOR STUDENTS Because of budget constraints during the review period, the range of services provided to students was not as extensive as originally planned. However, an out-patient medical consultation service was provided to students free of charge at the Student Health Centre. A dental service will be introduced

in 1992-93. A study is being undertaken to allow a more comprehensive health care service for students in 1993-94. During the first year, counseling was provided to students only on a limited scale, but a fuller counseling service, for both general counseling and career counseling, will be Introduced in 1992-93. Students with financial difficulties were well covered by the Government Financial Assistance Scheme, as well as through bursaries and loans made available by several well-established educa- tion trust funds rn Hong Kong.

25 STUDENT AMENITIES AND FACILITIES Halls of Residence The Phase I IJndergr lduate Hall, with a capacity of 554 students, and the Postgraduate Hall, with a capacILr :\I of 120 students-sufficient to accommodate

all students vvlshtng to reqicie on campus-were readyjust before occupation at the beglnnrng of the academir year. Although It took about two months for all the fittings and equipment to be ooerational in the halls, the students were not

deterred from making good use of the residential envrronment to facilitate their

studies and social Interaction Catering Facilities Contracted out to a major commercial catering chain, the Staff Restaurant, with a seating capacity of 250, and a Student Canteen, with a seating capacity of 650, were in setvIce for th? beginning of the academic year. The small campus populatl~~n and customer turnover made it difftcult to provide an adequate level of servtce within an acceptable price range. As the population grows, an Increased level of service and a wider choice of menu selections will become available. Sports and Recreational Facilities The Phase I sports and recreational facilities, including the Multi-purpose

26 / have complete conhdence /n our future All !he need IS me " -Gma Yemg. undergraduate m Accountmg

Sports Hall with facilities for basketball, indoor soccer, handball, badminton, and volleyball, an exercise room, and a table-tennis room, were available for use

from November I991 and have proved popular with students, staff, and dependants. To satisfy the needs of outdoor sports enthusiasts, a temporary basketball court and a temporary tennis court were set up in the outdoor car- park area. Other Student Amenities Facilities have been provided for both the administrative functions of student organisations and general student use. Several rooms have been allocated as office space for the embryo Students' Union. Each student group or society has been allocated a desk, a cabinet, and a letter box. Other facilities

Include meeting rooms, work rooms, and a communication centre. General amenities include common rooms, games rooms, and music rooms, each equipped for its intended purpose. EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES AND CAMPUS LIFE Students have been encouraged to organise extra-curricular activities of their own choice. As a whole, they have been highly motivated and active in forming themselves into various interest groups, as well as in taking part in a wide range of extra-curricular activities. By the end of the academic year, some

23 student societies were formed. Competitive sports and cultural activities

were organised by these groups, and attendance in all activities was very high. In general, the students have well tolerated difficult situations caused by the temporary lack of certain facilities on campus. They have been co-operative in following guidelines issued by the University, and well motivated and involved in extra-curricular activities aimed at enriching their learning experience on campus. It is already apparent that they will serve as role models for the next batch of students to be admitted in September 1992.

ACADEMIC SUPPORT SERVICES 29 T he academic support services impact daily life on campus. Each is commit- ted to supporting the University's teaching and research programmes. The reports that follow demonstrate the considerable progress that has been made during the review period. LIBRARY While 2 October 199 1 marked the beginning of the first HKUST semester, it also marked, for the Library, the beginning of full reference and interlibrary loan

activities, an orientation and bibliographic instruction program, and circulation

and reserve services. By this time the integrated library system, operational before the move to campus in August 199 1, contained all bibliographical records of the library's books and journals as well as one journal citation database (INSPEC); it was also equipped to handle Chinese in vernacular form, a feature the software vendor had developed in co-operation with the Library. There were one full-text image database (ABVBPO) and several stand-alone CD- ROM databases available for library users. A hypercard "tour" of the Library was

designed by the library staff and is available to patrons on two Macintosh computers near the entrance. Committed to supporting the University's teaching and research programmes, the Library adopted the philosophical approach of "access over ownership". Indeed, the advent of information technology affords the Library the opportu- nity to build an "electronic library". Therefore, the Library was able to expand its

resources in an unprecedented manner. During the first year the Library installed a CD-ROM network on the campus LAN; its 70 drives currently provide access to 24 different databases. Five full-text image databases are also now available, as is a stand-alone CD-ROM workstation for those databases not running on the CD-NET. In addition, AWlnform, Current Contents, Periodical Abstracts, and an art database have been loaded onto the library's online system. Altogether, these databases provide patrons access to indices and abstracts of more than 35,000 journals, while the Library itself currently houses

a modest physical collection of 2,100 journal subscriptions, 1,550 full-text imagejournals, and 130,000 books. Furthermore, via a gateway to the Internet which has been facilitated by Hong Kong Telecom, our users can browse the holdings of many other libraries in Hong Kong and abroad, including those of the University of California system and the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy. The Library has provided instruction classes in the use of the library collections and services, and developed quick guides to assist library patrons in

the use of electronic databases. Photocopy and document delivery services

30 have been started. In our effort to maximise access to materials beyond our own holdings, interlibrary loan plays a major role. The statistics gathered through the

first year from electronic database use, circulation, and interlibrary loan will be

used to refine the approval plan for acquiring books, develop a serials collection,

and evaluate electronic access. An ongoing challenge is to provide an optimal balance of locally owned and globally acquired materials to serve HKUST library users' many and varied needs. COMPUTER CENTRE The University has built one of the largest high speed Fibre Distributed Data Interface networks in the world. The network extends to every room in the academic building as well as all rooms in the staff quarters and student dormitories. A workstation is provided for each member of the academic staff and senior administrative staff. Based on such advanced facilities, an "electronic

office" environment, where most of the information flows through the network instead of paper, is being built. Communication through electronic mail and electronic bulletin boards, access to information on CD-ROMs, Library catalog and University administrative systems are now available from the office desktop through the network. To support advanced teaching and research, three laboratories-one for high-end personal computers, one for Macintosh's, and one for super high speed workstations -have been built, and various software packages in the areas of statistics, CAD/CAM, and data management have been installed.

31 On the information systems side, the Computer Centre has successfully developed and implemented the basic core of computer facilities which support the operation of the University's administration. There are now systems in place

in the areas of finance, budgeting, purchasing, personnel, estates manage- ment, admission, and student registration and records. Consideration is cur- rently being given to refining these systems -that is, to providing more functions

and flexibility, more management information, and to making that information more easily accessible to authorised users. A Chinese system has also been developed to support both simplified and traditional characters. To meet the increasing computing needs of the Universi- .

ty's teaching and research programmes, the Computer Centre is looking into such areas as distributed computing and transmitting voice and images over the network. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE The Educational Technology Centre (ETC) provides and maintains a compre- hensive range of audio-visual resources for academic purposes. It provides dedicated equipment to support teaching in classrooms, lecture theatres, and teaching laboratories, as well as an equipment loan pool. It produces teaching and learning materials, including those based on computer technology, as well as video tapes, overhead transparencies, and slide presentations. In conjunc- tion with these, technical services workshops and seminars on presentation techniques, teaching formats, and methods of evaluation are presented by the Centre to academic staff and teaching, tutorial, and laboratory assistants. Although mainly serving academic staff, the Centre also supports administrative and other non-teaching needs as resources allow. During the past year, units within ETC have been involved in numerous activities. The Audio-Visual unit co-ordinated the installation of equipment in all

rooms used for teaching. Loan pool items were used heavily by teaching staff from all Schools and Departments. The video classroom, which can be used for a variety of purposes, including simple video production, became operational in early spring and has been used by the Language Centre. The Graphics unit has contributed its talents to producing a myriad of learning and presentation materials for academic staff from all Schools. The Centre also assisted in design and production of posters and publication covers, including the University Calendar and Prospectus, which were subse- quently translated into Chinese by the Centre's Translation unit. Work done in collaboration with the University's Public Affairs Office included the design of

the souvenir book Building A University. The Centre's instructional Design unit

32 held four academic staff development seminars in September 199 I and pro- vrded training sessions for teaching and tutorial assistants from the Schools of

Business and Management and Humanities and Socral Science. LABORATORY SERVICES The University's Office of Laboratory Services co-ordinates central support faclltties supplying some of the basic services Departments and Centres need to carry out their dally teaching and research activttres. Specrfrcally, tnese facilities

Include an instrumentation maintenance and reparr facility, a machrne shop, a central warehouse system, a chemical and dangerous goods storage facility, and a glassblowing workshop. One of the initial tasks of the Office was the commrssronrng of Phase I teaching and research laboratories on behalf of the Universrty. Commissioning of the laboratories in the Phase II development of the campus WIII continue to be a major task of the Office. Once laboratories are commrssioned and turned over to the Departments, a continuing service function of the Office IS to ensure

the continuous operation of ancillary utilities and laboratory facilities. A Facilities

Maintenance unit has recently been established for this purpose. Working closely with the Estates Management Office, this specralised unr: tests and maintains existing utilities such as the fume cupboard system, and assists in the

Installation or conversion of other utilities and services as required by the tntroduction of new equipment into the laboratorres. Perhaps the most important initial task of the Office of Laboratory Services

. 33 was the co-ordination of the procurement of teaching and research equipment for all Departments, which was undertaken in parallel with the construction operation. This ensured that the furnishing and equipping G: the buildings matched the University's requirement. As Departments become more fully staffed, equipment end-users will gradually assume more of these functions. However, services relating to various components of the procurement process, such as the writing of equipment specifications, equipmen: receiving, and installation, will continue to be available to Departments LANGUAGE CENTRE The Language Centre, _. whose primary role is to offer remediation in English lan- guage skills, registered 454 students in its English language enhancement programme. Teaching began on 2 Octo- ber with the first undergradu- ate classes to be offered in the University. In addition to courses in general English for academic purposes. the Language Centre offered a one-semester course in Business CommunicXion for students in the School of Business and Management. In accordance with a desire to offer a programme of subjects in modern world languages, a supervised self-access facili+ -I bdvas opened in the language

laboratories for staff and students, with learni ~ rx materials available initially in

French and Japanese. Facilities are also availabie for Cantonese and Putonghua. A grant of Y9 million, now under negoiia;ion, will enable the Language Centre to begin the establishment of a Japanese language learning centre, while plans for an expansion of the seif-access programmes. as well as the inauguration of a writing clinic, await a majo r srant from the Government's ~ Language Enhancement Fund.

FINANCE 35' T he financial year from 1 July 199 1 to 30 June 1992 was the first year the University was funded through the UPGC. The University's expenditure is financed under a number of separate categories of funding sources: Construction Budget Capital Funding - Furniture and General Equipment - Basic Teaching Equipment - Specialist Equipment and Facilities . Recurrent Budget Research Grants from the Research Grants Council Donations and Non-Government Funds CONSTRUCTION BUDGET The Construction Budget for Phases I and II of the campus development, excluding furniture and general equipment, is $3,548 million at the June 1990 price level. $1,926 million of this amount was donated by the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. The balance, a subvention of $1,622 million from the Hong Kong Government, was approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council on 1 June 1990. The budget was, and is, controlled by the Jockey Club's project management team, in consultation with the Government. Construction work on Phase I was completed in August 199 1, and Phase II construction is expected to be completed at the end of 1992. CAPITAL FUNDING Capital funding for Phases I and II of the campus consists of three elements: furniture and general equipment, basic teaching equipment, and specialist equipment and facilities. Furniture and General Equipment A total sum of $453 million for furniture and general equipment was approved by the Government in July 1990 for Phases I and II. It is believed the amount will be adequate. $156.63 million had been expended by the end of the report period, 30 June 1992. Basic Teaching Equipment Out of $194 million, approved for Phase I by the Government in July 1990

36 to meet basic teaching equipment requirements, $73.88 million had been expended by 30 June 1992. Funds for Phase II have been sought from the Government through the UPGC. Specialist Equipment and Facilities A provision of $700 million has been approved and is being released in stages by the Government over a four-year period. As at 30 June 1992, $86.10 million had been expended as part of a six-year equipment acquisition plan being developed by the University. RECURRENT BUDGET In this transitional year during which the responsibility for funding the University has moved from the Government's Educational and Manpower Branch to the UPGC, a recurrent earmarked grant was received. Recurrent Account for the Period 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1992 As shown in Appendix B, the total recurrent income amounted to $3 12.62 million, of which $279.20 million was provided by the UPGC. The other items of income include $ I 1.78 million of surplus brought forward from the three- month period ending 30 June 199 I, $8.40 million of tuition fees, $6.4 1 million

of bank interest, $6.10 million of rent recovered from staff, and $0.73 million from miscellaneous sources. Total expenditure was $308.8 1 million broken down into: Salaries and Gratuities - Senior Staff 5 1 17.18 million Salaries and Gratuities - Support Staff 6 1 .09 million General Expenses 123.76 million General Office Equipment 0.88 million Research 5.90 million The $5.90 million was in addition to funds separately received from the Research Grants Council. There was a surplus of $3.8 1 million, which will be returned to the Government through the UPGC. Supplementary Provisions for Salaries In addition to the recurrent earmarked grant, the UPGC also provided $2 1.27 million during the year so that the University could revise salaries for its

staff in accordance with the annual revision approved for the Civil Service.

37 RESEARCH GRANTS FROM THE RESEARCH GRANTS COUNCIL During 199 1-92, the University received $1 1.95 million from the Research Grants Council to fund academic research projects. Of the total, $8.95 million (including $0.12 million of unspent balances for two research projects carried over to the University when the principal investigatorsjoined the University from

another institution) was obtained on a competitive bid basis for individual projects. The remaining $3 million was given to the University to distribute to individual research projects in the form of direct allocation grants. DONATIONS AND NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDS Generous donations from private foundations, corporations, and individu- als help the University to meet its immediate needs and to fulfill its mission. These

donations provide support in various areas, including seed funding for research units, scholarship assistance for students, library and equipment acquisitions, and faculty projects. At the heart of the University's mission is research, and a number of Research Institutes, Centres, and Laboratories have been established through the gener- osity of private foundations and corporations. These research units will enable the University to become a leader in critical fields such as biotechnology, telecommunications, advanced materials, software engineering, and micro- electronics fabrication. Since the inception of the University, external funding

donated and pledged for these and other research projects has totaled more than $272 million. In other areas, the University has similarly benefited from the generosity of donors. Support for library acquisitions has totaled more than $ I 1 million. $2.5

million has been donated for student scholarships, bursaries, prizes, and emergency loans, while equipment valued at $28.5 million has been received from supportive vendors. In the arts, more than $1 million was raised by a concert celebrating the Opening of the University, and the net proceeds after expenses are being used to enrich campus life by bringing the arts to the University. $23.75 million has also been donated to assist the University in meeting its general academic needs. During the year under review, a total of $15.63 million was received by the University. A further $29.45 million, donated by the Royal Jockey Club (Charity)

Ltd for the Biotechnology Research Institute, was received by the HKUST Educational Trust. Appendix C lists all donations which have been pledged to the University from its inception to 30 June 1992. COUNCIL, SENATE, ADVISORY BOARD 39 AND COMMll-TEES THE UNIVERSITY COUNCIL The University Council is the supreme governing body of the Univer- sity. Established by the University Ordinance, the Council comprises 18 mem- bers: all are appointed by the Chancellor; nine are appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Council. In addition, there are a number of ex officio members and public officers. The Council met in plenary session twice during the period under review, on 1 l- 12 October 199 1 and 1-3 April 1992. During this period there were also several changes in the membership of the Council. Mr Kenneth W.K. KWOK, a public officer, retired from the Council on 15 September I99 I and was succeeded by Mr R. James BLAKE, the new Secretary for Works. Ex officio member Professor Chih-Yung CHIEN retired on 29 February 1992, and Profes- sor Din-Yu HSIEH joined the Council on 1 March 1992. The contribution made to the University by these retiring members is gratefully acknowledged. The current membership of the Council is as follows: Chairman: Sir Sze-yuen CHUNG, GBE, JP Vice-Chairman: Mr CHENG Hon-kwan, OBE, JP Treasurer: The Honourable LAU Wah-sum, OBE, JP Members: Professor Akito ARIMA Professor L.M. BIRT, AO, CBE Mr R. James BLAKE Mrs Anson CHAN, CBE, JP Or CHAN Nai-keong, CBE, JP Professor H.K. CHANG ex officio Mr T.H. CHAU, JP The Honourable Stephen CHEONG Kam-chuen, CBE, JP Professor Maurice CRAFT ex officio Mr Michael G. GALE Professor David P. GARDNER Sir Gordon R. HIGGINSON Professor Din-Yu HSIEH ex officio The Honourable Simon IP Sik-on, JP Professor Shain-Dow KUNG ex officio Professor J. Clayburn LA FORCE, Jr ex officio

40 Mrs Alice K.Y.L. LAM, JP Mr LEE Hon-chiu Mr Ian F.C. MACPHERSON, CBE ex officio Sir Gordon M. MACWHINNIE, CBE, JP The Honourable Steven K.L. POON Professor Thomas E. STELSON ex officio Mr Jack C. TANG, CBE Professor Chia-Wei WOO ex officio COUNCIL COMMI-ITEES The Standing Committee of the Council acts for the Council between plenary sessions on all matters requiring policy and executive decisions. It includes both chairmen and vice-chairmen of all committees of the Council and is chaired by the Council's Chairman. The committees of the Council, and their chairmen and vice-chairmen (if appointed), are listed below: Standing Committee of the Council Chairman, Sir Sze-yuen CHUNG; Vice-Chairman, Mr CHENG Hon-kwan Appointments Committee Chairman, the Honourable Stephen CHEONG Kam-chuen Campus Planning and Estates Management Committee Chairman, Or CHAN Nai-keong; Vice-Chairman, Mr Michael G. GALE (until 2 April 1992) Campus Project Management Committee Chairman, Sir Gordon M. MACWHINNIE Conditions of Service Committee Chairman, the Honourable Steven K.L. POON; Vice-Chairman, the Hon- ourable Simon IP Sik-on Finance Committee Chairman, the Honourable /AU Wah-sum; Vice-Chairman, Mrs Alice K.Y.L. LAM Inaugural Campaign Committee Chairman, Mrs Alice K.Y.L. LAM Resource Development Committee Chairman, the Honourable Stephen CHEONG Kam-chuen; Vice-Chair- man, Mrs Alice K.Y.L. LAM

THE UNIVERSITY SENATE The University Senate, which is the supreme academic body of the Univer- sity, met seven times during the period under review. The membership of the Senate is given below. Professor Donald C. CHANG, Professor, Department of Biology Professor H.K. CHANG, Dean of School of Engineering; Professor, Depart- ment of Chemical Engineering Mrs Min-Min CHANG, Director of Library Professor Jay-Chung CHEN, Director of Research Centre; Professor, Depart- ment of Mechanical Engineering Professor Nai-Fu CHEN, Head and Professor, Department of Finance and Economics Professor Peter W. CHEUNG, Head and Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Professor Hsi-sheng CH'I, Head, Division of Social Science; Professor of Political Science Professor Ernest Hsiao Ying CHU, Head (Acting) and Professor, Department of Biology Professor Maurice CRAFT, Dean of School of Humanities and Social Science; Professor of Sociology Professor Nelson CUE, Head and Professor, Department of Physics Professor Peter N. DOBSON, Director of Planning and Co-ordination; Professor, Department of Physics Professor Wu-chung HSIANG, Professor, Department of Mathematics Professor Din-Yu HSIEH, Dean of School of Science (Acting); Head and Professor, Department of Mathematics Professor Hong HSU, Head, Division of Humanities; Professor of History Professor Grafton W.H. HUI, Department of Mathematics Dr W. Max IVEY, Director of Centre of Computing Services and Telecommu- nications Dr See-Chun KOT, Senior Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering Professor Shain-Dow KUNG, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Act- ing); Professor, Department of Biology Professor Ruey-Wen LIU, Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Professor Frederick H. LOCHOVSKY, Professor, Department of Computer Science Dr Francis T. LUI, Senior Lecturer, Department of Finance and Economics

42 Mr Ian F.C. MACPHERSON, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Administration and Busi- ness Dr Ernest SCALBERG, Pro-Dean of School of Business and Management Professor C.K. SHEN, Head and Professor, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering Professor Vincent Y. SHEN, Head and Professor, Department of Computer Science Professor Thomas E. STELSON, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and De- velopment; Professor, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering Professor Pin TONG, Head and Professor, Department of Mechanical En- gineering Professor Ching-Hsien WANG, Professor of Literature, Division of Humani- ties Dr Danny S.N. WONG, Reader, Department of Accounting Professor Jeffrey Tze-Fei WONG, Head and Professor, Department of Bio- chemistry Mr Luke WONG, Director of Student Affairs Dr Yuk-Shan WONG, Senior Lecturer, Department of Biology Professor Chia-Wei WOO, Vice-Chancellor and President; Professor, Depart- ment of Physics Professor Nai-Teng YU, Head and Professor, Department of Chemistry PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY BOARD Comprising prestigious leaders of science, technology, industry, and com- merce from around the world, the President's Advisory Board, which convenes annually in Hong Kong, counsels the Vice-Chancellor and President. Its goal is to keep the University at the leading edge of global developments in academia as well as in technology and management. The membership of the Board is given below. Dr Morris CHANG, Chairman, Industrial Technology Research Institute (Taiwan) Professor Paolo Maria FASELLA, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Science, Research and Development, and of the Joint Research Centre, Commission of the European Communities (Europe) Lord FLOWERS, FRS, Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology in the House of Lords; Governor (Member of Council) of Middlesex Univer- sity; former Vice-Chancellor of the University of London (United Kingdom) Professor Donald KENNEDY, President and Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University (United States)

Mr Fumio HASHIMOTO, President, BOTAsset Management Ltd, The Bank of Tokyo, Ltd (Japan) The Honourable Allen LEE, CBE, JP, Member of the Executive Council; Member of the Legislative Council (Hong Kong) Professor Yuan T. LEE, University Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley; Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (United States) Or K.T. LI, Senior Advisor to the President (Taiwan) Or Walter E. MASSEY, Director, U.S. National Science Foundation (United States) Or Helmut SOHMEN, OBE, Chairman, World-Wide Shipping Agency Ltd (Hong Kong) Professor Chang-Lin TIEN, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley (United States) Lord TOMBS of Brailes, Chancellor, University of Strathclyde; former Chair- man, Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Science and Technology; Chairman, Rolls-Royce (United Kingdom) Professor ZHOU Guangzhao, President, Chinese Academy of Sciences (People's Republic of China) ACADEMIC ADVISORY COMMIJTEES Academic Advisory Committees consist of renowned scholars and experi- enced academic administrators who can guide the development of the Schools according to the highest international standards, and advise the faculty on academic issues ranging from curricula and research programmes to resource and staffing requirements. The Committees shown below meet annually on campus. School of Science Advisory Committee Due to scheduling difficulties for members, this Committee divided into four subcommittees which met separately during the period under review, as follows: Physics, 3 April 1992; Mathematics, 28-29 May 1992; Biology/Biochem- istry, 22-23 June 1992; Chemistry, scheduled to meet on 14-l 5 July 1992. The membership of the entire Committee is given below. Professor Jack E. BALDWIN, The Dyson Perrins Laboratory, University of Oxford; Fellow of Royal Society Professor Donald 0. BROWN (Chairman), Department of Embryology, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Member of U.S. National Academy of Science

Professor Sunney I. CHAN, Department of Chemistry, California Institute of Technology; Member of Academia Sinica Or Leroy L. CHANG, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, IBM; Member of U.S. National Academy of Engineering Professor Edward C.D. COCKING, Department of Botany, University of Nottingham; Fellow of Royal Society Professor Yuen-Ron SHEN, Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley; Member of Academia Sinica Professor Yum-Tong SIU, Department of Mathematics, Harvard University Professor John T. STUART, Department of Mathematics, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine; Fellow of Royal Society Professor Ray J. WU, Department of Biochemistry, Cornell University; Mem- ber of Academia Sinica Professor Shang-Fa YANG, Mann Laboratory, University of California, Davis; Recipient of Wolf Prize; Member of U.S. National Academy of Science School of Engineering Academic Advisory Committee This Committee met once during the period under review, on 9-1 1 Decem- ber 199 1. The membership of the Committee is given below. Sir Eric A. ASH, CBE (Chairman), Rector, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine; Fellow of Royal Society Professor J. Ray BOWEN, Dean, College of Engineering, University of Washington Professor G. W. HEINKE, Dean, Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, University of Toronto Professor P. C. JENNINGS, Vice-President & Provost, California Institute of Technology; Member of U.S. National Academy of Engineering Professor Ernest 5. KUH, Electronics Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley; Member ofAcademia Sinica; Member of U.S. National Academy of Engineering Professor Alan W. PENSE, Provost & Vice-President, Lehigh University Professor Winfred M. PHILLIPS, Dean, College of Engineering, University of Florida Professor Karl S. PISTER, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz; Member of U.S. National Academy of Engineering Professor Leonard M. SILVERMAN, Dean, School of Engineering, University of Southern California; Member of U.S. National Academy of Engineering Professor Henry T. YANG, Dean, School of Engineering, Purdue University; Member of U.S. National Academy of Engineering Professor H. YOSHIKAWA, Vice-President, University of Tokyo

45 School of Humanities and Social Science Advisory Committee This Committee met once during the period under review, on 2 1-22 August 199 1. The membership of the Committee is given below. Sir Christopher BALL, former Master of Keble College, University of Oxford Professor Robert BENNETT, Head, Department of Geography, London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London Professor Hao CHANG, Director, Department of History, Ohio State Univer- sity Professor Albert FEUERWERKER, Department of History, University of Michi- gan Professor Ambrose KING, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Chinese University of Hong Kong Professor Leo Ou-Fan LEE (Chairman), Department of East Asian Languages & Cultures, University of California, Los Angeles Professor Shu Hsien LIU, Chairman, Department of Philosophy, Chinese University of Hong Kong Professor Willem VANDERBERG, Director, Centre for Technology and Social Development, University of Toronto Professor Ezra F. VOGEL, Department of Sociology and Committee on the A.B. Degree in East Asian Studies, Harvard University

CALENDAR OF MAJOR EVENTS 47 1991 28 July. The Popular Science Lecture Series, jointly sponsored by HKUST and the Hong Kong Science Museum, was inaugurated with a talk on "Conservation and Renewable Energy Resources" by Professor Thomas E. STELSON. This very successful series consisted of six lectures, all by HKUST faculty, presented from

July to December of 199 1. Other lectures in the series were "Development of Microelectronics" by Professor Peter CHEUNG; "Electronic Communication" by Professor Fred LOCHOVSKY; "What Is Applied Mathematics?" by Professor Din- Yu HSIEH; "Basic Understanding of Integrated Circuits and Their Fabrication" by Or Tai-chin LO; and "Potentials of Biotechnology" by Or Wan Keung R. Wong. 2 1-22 August. The School of Humanities and Social Science Advisory Commit- tee held its first meeting on campus, chaired by Professor Leo Ou-fan LEE of the

University of California at Los Angeles. Seven members were in attendance, of which five were from overseas. The Committee members met with academic and administrative staff of the University and subsequently submitted a report. 30 August. Members of the University of Science and Technology Subcommit- tee of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC) toured the campus and met with senior staff to discuss current developments at the University. 14 September. Lady THATCHER, former Prime Minister of the U.K., visited the campus and toured the Library, several research and teaching laboratories, and the Computer Centre. She also met informally with faculty and postgraduate students of the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. 26 September. Hong Kong Telecommunications Limited issued a special collectors' telephone card in honour of the University's Opening. 2 October. Classes began for the first time on the HKUST campus as the University welcomed its inaugural class of 595 undergraduate and 236 postgraduate students. Newness in every respect challenged fac- ulty and students both at the outset and in the ensuing months. Faculty, absorbed in writing and delivering lectures, preparing labs, and teaching tutorials, had to cope with the inevitable difficulties of setting up new equipment in new buildings, while students learned to adjust to the rigours of university life. 7 October. Professor John POLANYI of the University of Manchester inaugu- rated a series of Distinguished Lectures in Science sponsored by the School of Science in honour of the Opening of the University. Professor Polanyi spoke on "The Molecular Dance in Chemical Reactions".

48 8-9 October. The President's Advisory Board, an international body of aca- demic, government, business, and industrial leaders, met for the first time on campus. Following reports on various aspects of the new University, discussion turned to topics such as Hong Kong's future and her relations with the PRC, HKUST's research capabilities and ambitions, new academic directions, and worldwide trends in technology and management. 10 October. The University held its official Opening Ceremony. Staged in the Atrium, the Ceremony was attended by some 500 guests from Hong Kong and abroad and by HKUST's inaugural class of some 800 students. Hong Kong's Governor and the University's Chancellor, Lord WILSON, addressed the gather- ing, as did Professor L.M. BIRT, Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of

New South Wales and the most senior member of the University Planning Committee (now Council), and HKUST's Vice-Chancellor and President, Profes- sor Chia-Wei WOO. A commemorative plaque was unveiled, which is now on permanent display in the Atrium. A number of other events both at HKUST and in the community celebrated the opening of Hong Kong's newest university. Members of the University Council hosted a banquet for 280 community leaders and those most closely involved in planning and building the University. Also, an exhibit of memorabilia

reflecting the University's history since its establishment was mounted in the Library. In the community, newspaper supplements about the University were published in both English and Chinese, photographic exhibitions were staged, and the Music Society of Hong Kong Professionals gave a concert in the University's honour. 10 October. The Mass Transit Railway Corporation issued a special stored-value card in honour of the Opening of the University. 10 October. The Hong Kong Post Office issued a special commemorative postcard to celebrate the Opening of the University. 1 l-l 2 October. The University Council met in plenary session, during which progress reports from Council committees were received on a variety of issues, details of the University Superannuation Scheme were finalised, and views on the University's future direction were exchanged. 19 October. A large group of Careers Masters and Guidance Masters toured the campus and had informative discussions with representatives from each of the University's four Schools.

49 50 24 October. The Topping Out Cer- emony for Phase II, presided over by Hong Kong's Financial Secretary, the Honourable N. W. H. MACLEOD, CBE, JP, was held on the roof of the new exten- sion to the academic building. In addi- tion to more laboratory, lecture, and office space, Phase II includes staff and student residences and a sports complex along the Port Shelter waterfront. 7 November. Merton H. MILLER, the Robert R. McCormick Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago and winner of the 1990 Nobel Prize for Economics, inaugurated a series of Distinguished Lectures in Business,

sponsored by the School of Business and Management, with a talk on "Some Reflections on Stock Index Arbitrage". 12 November. Mr Robert NG, Chairman of Sino Land Company Ltd, spoke at a ceremony announcing Sino Land's dona- tion of $20 million to establish the Sino Software Research Centre, a research and development facility that seeks to support software research that has practical po- tential and subsequently to develop that potential into actual products. 12 November. Agricultural biochemist Shang-Fa YANG of the University of California at Davis delivered a lecture on the research that won him the 199 1 Wolf Prize, considered the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in the field of agricul-

ture. Professor Yang's lecture, entitled "Biosynthesis of the Gaseous Plant Hormone Ethylene and Its Regulation", was the second in the series of Distin- guished Lectures in Science. 9-1 1 December. The School of Engineering Academic Advisory Committee met on campus under the chairmanship of Sir Eric ASH, Rector of the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. Members of the Committee are drawn from the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Canada. Its report resulted from intensive

meetings with HKUST personnel. 10 December. Professor Leo Ou-fan LEE of the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of California at Los Angeles delivered

51 the first of four Distinguished Lectures in Humanities on the topic "Modernity and Its Discontents: Rethinking the May Fourth Tradition in Chinese Literature and Thought". Professor Lee's series of lectures extended through the next week and ended on 8 January with a talk on "'Multiculturalism' and 'Cultural Studies':

Recent Debates on the Study of Humanities and Social Sciences". 1 1 December. Mr CHEN Ziying, Deputy Director of the Hong Kong-Macau Affairs Office of the Chinese Government, visited the campus. 16 December. The Division of Humanities sponsored a "Symposium on Mod- ern Chinese Literature" which brought together a number of distinguished scholars and writers, both local and international. 19-20 December. The Research Centre, in collaboration with the California Institute of Technology and the University of Southern California, organised the

International Workshop on Technology for Hong Kong's Infrastructure Develop- ment. Some 80 researchers and international experts from 10 countries con- vened to discuss technical issues relating to Hong Kong's Port and Airport Development Scheme. As a result, the University's Research Centre has begun work on establishing an Infrastructure Development Research Programme, incorporating the suggestions put forward during the conference. 1992 6 January. Mr. LU Ping, Director of the Hong Kong-Macao Affairs Office of the Chinese Government, visited the campus and spoke to reporters on the importance of education and technology, and thus the new University, to Hong Kong's continued prosperity. 14 January. A 14-member delegation from the Science, Space, and Technol- ogy Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives visited the campus. Four Congressmen, including the Committee Chairman, Mr George Brown, were part of the delegation. 17 January. Professor Chen-Ning YANG, Director of the Institute for Theoreti- cal Physics at the State University of New York and 1957 Nobel laureate in physics, delivered the third of the Distinguished Lectures in Science. Entitled "Physics in the 20th Century", the lecture provided an overview of the concep- tual revolutions and technological advances that have transformed the world over the past century. 29 January. Yuet-wai KAN, the Louis K. Diamond Professor of Hematology at the University of California at San Francisco and winner of the 199 1 Lasker

52 Award in clinical medical research, delivered a lecture entitled "Newer Insights

in the Control of Globin Gene Expression". The fourth of the Distinguished Lectures in Science, the lecture summarized progress in developing treatments for thalassemia, a major genetic disease affecting Southeast Asian populations. 10 March. Mr Nigel FRENCH, Secretary-General of the UPGC, visited the campus and toured teaching and research facilities. He also met with senior staff

during his visit. 10 March. Renowned mathematician Wu-chung HSIANG, Professor of Math- ematics at HKUST, delivered the fifth of the Distinguished Lectures in Science. Entitled "What Is Geometry?" the lecture discussed progress in modern geom- etry and topology. 16 March. Roman L. WEIL, Professor of Accounting at the University of Chicago, delivered a Distinguished Lecture in Business on the topic of "Accounting

Applications in Consulting: Using the Methods ofAccounting and Microeconomics to Solve Problems Facing Business Consultants". 20 March. The University opened its first art exhibition, "Recent Works by HUANG Miaozi and YU Feng", with a reception in the Library Gallery. Huang and Yu are husband and wife, calligra- pher and painter, who have collaborated in exhi- bitions in Hong Kong, Sydney, Taipei, and Seoul since 1988. This exhibition was the first of many which the University will present in seeking to promote a climate of cultural appreciation and creativity on a technology-oriented campus. 20 March. The Research Centre hosted a symposium of oceanographers from Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan as prelude to a research expedition conducted jointly by vessels from the National Taiwan University Institute of Oceanography

and the South China Sea Institute of Oceanography. 24 March. Lord MACLEHOSE, the former Governor of Hong Kong, ,accompa- nied by Lord GEDDES and Lord MARLESFORD, visited the campus and toured several research laboratories, the Materials Characterisation and Preparation Centre, and the Library. 1-3 April. The University Council met in plenary session to receive progress reports from Council committees. Consideration was also given to the policy of the University regarding intellectual property rights, and a revised role for, and

membership of, the Campus Planning and Estates Management Committee.

53 3 April. The subcommittee for Physics was the first of the four subcommittees of the School of Science Advisory Committee to meet on campus during the period under review. The subcommittee for Mathematics met on 28-29 May, and the subcommittee for the Biological Sciences met on 22-23 June. 6 April. Ruth KUOK and Chye KUOK of the Zheng Ge Ru Foundation and Joyce M. Kuok Foundation appeared at a ceremony announcing the establishment of the Joyce M. Kuok Laser and Photonics Laboratory and the Zheng Ge Ru Thin Film Physics Laboratory, both made possible by a joint $20 million donation from the two Foundations. 9 April. Chih-Yung CHIEN, Professor of Physics at HKUST, delivered the sixth in the series of Distinguished Lectures in Science. Entitled "The World Is Our Playpen: Fun with Physics", the lecture included a description of the large electron positron accelerator which Professor Chien has been involved with designing and building in Geneva. 14 April. Theodor DIENER, Distinguished Professor of Botany at the University of Maryland and winner of the Wolf Prize, delivered the seventh Distinguished Lecture in Science on the topic of viroids-particles even smaller than viruses. Entitled 'The Frontier of Life: Viroids and Satellites", the lecture discussed the

evolutionary relationship of viroids to other elements of living cells. Princeton University, delivered a Distinguished Lecture in Business on the topic

of "Rights to Assets and Economic Behaviour under Chinese Socialism". 25 May. An eight-member delegation from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching visited the campus and met in seminars with senior faculty members. The delegation was en route to China, where they had been invited to make recommendations for the reform of China's educational system. 28 May. Professor Chia-chao LIN, one of the first practitioners of applied mathematics in the U.S. and, until his retirement, leader of a world-renowned

54 programme in applied mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy, delivered the eighth Distinguished Lecture in Science. Entitled "The Scope and Development of Applied Math: My Experience in MIT and the U.S the lecture afforded a rare opportunity to hear one of the world's leading applied mathematicians reflect on the relationship of mathematics to the real world. 5 June. A team of HKUST stu- dents won the post-sec- ondary divi- sion race in the annual Sai Kung dragon boat races. 9 June. Representatives of the Sai Kung District Board, led by its Chairman, Mr William WAN Hon-cheung, toured the campus. 1 1 June. Professor Gary A. KOCHENBERGER, Dean of the College of Business Administration of the University of Colorado at Denver, delivered a Distin- guished Lecture in Business on the topic of "Innovations in Business Education in the U.S.". 16-l 7 June. Six eminent scientists from the People's Republic of China, led by Professor ZHANG Cun-hao, Director of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, visited the University after an unprecedented eight-day visit to Taiwan.

During their tour of the campus they shared their experiences in Taiwan with University faculty and staff and looked forward to opportunities for co-operation

between HKUST and their respective institutions. Distinguished Visitors. The University received visits from a number of heads of tertiary institutions during the period under review. They were (in chronologi-

cal order): , Professor K.J. MORGAN, Vice-Chancellor, University of Newcastle Chancellor Theodore Lee HULLAR, University of California at Davis Professor Charles M. VEST, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Sun CHEN, President, National Taiwan University Sir John BURGH, President, Trinity College, Oxford University Professor C.M. CAMPBELL, Vice-Chancellor, University of Nottingham

55 Professor Alastair NORTH, President, accompanied by Or THANAT Khoman, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Asian Institute of Technology (Bang- kok) Professor R.D. GIBSON, Vice-Chancellor, Queensland University of Technol- EIY Professor GU Chaohao, President, University of Science and Technology of China Or Steven BEERING, President, Purdue University Professor P.L. WATSON, Vice-Chancellor (Atg), University of Buckingham Professor YE Jia Kang, President, Wuyi University Or CHAM Tao Soon, President, Nanyang Technological University Professor LIM Pin, Vice-Chancellor, National University of Singapore Professor CHEN Juewan, President, Hua Qiao University

DIRECTOR OF AUDIT'S REPORT ON DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAMPUS 57 f T he Report of the Director 01 Government for the year ended Audit on the accounts of the Hong Kong 3 1 March 1991 was published in October 199 1. A section of the Report related to the Government's planning and financial control of the building of the University. It traced the history of the

project, including financial provisions, and referred to an increase in the project

estimate from $1,930 million in May 1988 to $3,548 million in June 1990. It described this increase as a cost overrun, resulting in an increase in Govern- ment's contribution from $430 million to $1,622 million. An audit review pointed to three main reasons for the cost increase, namely: - inadequate Government planning and financial control; - advancement of the University's opening date without proper evaluation and policy approval; - deviations from design standards and norms. In response to the Report, the Legislative Council's Public Accounts Commit- tee held a number of public hearings. The University was first involved and represented by the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Administra- tion and Business at the hearing on 19 December 199 1, which was also attended by representatives from the Government and the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. Although the University was not involved in the project manage- ment or responsible for financial control of the project, the hearing nonetheless

generated a great deal of criticism in the media. In an effort to counter the adverse publicity and dispel the myth of the University's cost overrun, the Chairman of Council delivered a speech to the Peninsula Rotary Club on 2 1 January 1992. He gave a full account of the inception, planning, design, financing, and building of the University. He also compared the capital con- struction budgets of the University and the Phase II construction of the City Polytechnic, which were being built at the same time, and demonstrated that the capital construction budget unit costs of the two institutions were within 4%

of each other. He concluded that both the University and the Jockey Club were innocent victims condemned by misguided public opinion. First, since November 1987 when the selected design model was handed over to the Jockey Club, the Club had been the sole project and financial controlling authority, and the University

had been involved only as the end user of the campus. Despite this, the University had been, by association, held responsible for circumstances that were beyond its control. Second, the Jockey Club had made an unprecedented donation of almost $2 billion and had been managing a large and complex turnkey project in a rapidly inflationary period and under a fast-track construc-

tion programme. The Club had produced an excellent campus for the 2 1st century on time and at a unit cost comparable to that of the City Polytechnic. Yet

the Club had been seriously criticised for overspending and mismanaging public funds. (A copy of the Chairman's speech appears as Appendix 0.) Further public hearings of the Public Accounts Committee were held on 24 February and 2 March, and were attended by the Chief Secretary of the Government, the Chairman of the Jockey Club, and the Chairman of the University Council. The Council Chairman in his statement before the Commit- tee made a number of important points. He explained that the responsibility for selecting the design for the University campus rested solely with the Planning Committee itself and not with the Assessment Panel, whose job was confined to picking the winner of the design competition. It was clear from the rules of the

competition that the winner of the competition would not necessarily be appointed as the project architects. After deliberating for three meetings, the Planning Committee arrived at its decision by the very prudent method of a secret ballot, and all 15 members present voted unanimously for the design that was adopted. The Chairman pointed out that there had been no commitment of any public funds prior to approval of the budget by the Finance Committee of the Legislature, and that the increase in project cost from $1,930 million in May 1988 to $3,548 million in June 1990 had been clearly explained to and accepted without any opposition by the Finance Committee. The Chairman stated that as long as this approved budget was not exceeded, it was not justified to allege that there had been a cost overrun. The Chairman also referred to the deviations from design standards and norms that had been alleged by the Director of Audit. He drew the attention of Members of the Public Accounts Committee to a directive issued by the Chief Secretary in December 1989 to screen all deviations in the campus design before the Government recommended the budget of $3,548 million to the Legislature. Therefore all of the so-called non-standard provisions included in the $3,548 million budget clearly had the prior approval of the Government. He expressed regret that the Director of Audit had not made a more thorough investigation into the Government's process of approval before making such allegations. (The Chairman's speaking notes for the public hearings of the Public

Accounts Committee appear as Appendices E and F.) On 16 April 1992, the Chairman of Council and former members of the Planning Committee for the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, including the Vice-Chancellor and President, were invited to provide written replies to a number of questions relating to the architectural competition and

i i the selection of the design as the blueprint for the new University. The replies

made by the Chairman of Council and the Vice-Chancellor and President, in their capacity as former members of the Planning Committee, appear in Appendix G. The University was not asked to be represented at the final public hearing of the Public Accounts Committee held on 1 June 1992. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee is awaited.

Appendix A 61 THE FACULTY (As at 30 June 1992) SCHOOL OF SCIENCE Department of Biochemistry Head and Professor WONG, Jeffrey Tze-Fei, PhD, University of Toronto (Enzymology), 1963. Professor of

Biochemistry, University of Toronto, 1976-90. Senior Lecturer WONG, Raymond Sze Chung, PhD, South Dakota State University (Biochemistry), 1975.

Chief Biochemist, New Product Development, Allelix Crop Technologies, 1990. Lecturers KO, Kam-Ming Robert, PhD, University of British Columbia [Pharmacology & Therapeutics),

1990. Research Associate, Department of Biochemistry, Chinese University of Hong Kong,

1990-9 1. LAM, Hing-Yat Peter, PhD, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Biochemistry), 1974. Senior

Investigator and Assistant Professor, Manitoba Institute of Cell Biology and Department of

Medicine, University of Manitoba, 1979-9 1. WONG, Wan Keung Raymond, PhD, University of British Columbia [Microbiology), 1986.

Research Scientist, Allelix Biopharmaceuticals Inc., 1987-90. Department of Biology Acting Head and Professor CHU, Ernest Hsiao-Ying, PhD, University of California, Berkeley (Genetics), 1954. Professor

of Human Genetics, Medical School, University of Michigan, 1972-90. Professors CHANG, Donald C., PhD, Rice University (Physics), 1970. Associate Professor of Physiology

and Molecular Biophysics, Baylor College of Medicine, 1985-9 1. KUNG, Shain-Dow, PhD, University of Toronto (Plant Physiology), 1968. Acting Provost,

Maryland Biotechnology Institute, University of Maryland, 1989-9 1. Dean of Science (to 29

February 1992); Acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (from 1 March 1992).

WU, Madeline Chang Sun, PhD, University of Texas at Austin (Botany-Biochemistry). 1966.

Senior Scientist, Centre of Marine Biotechnology, Maryland Biotechnology Institute, 1988-92.

Senior Lecturers NI, I-Hsun, PhD, University of British Columbia (Fisheries Biology and Management), 1978.

Research Scientist and Section Head for Marine Mammals, Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Newfoundland, Government of Canada, 1985-90. WONG, Yuk-Shari,, PhD, McGill University [Plant Biochemistry/Plant Physiology), 1979.

Principal Lecturer in Applied Biology and Chemical Technology, Hong Kong Polytechnic,

1988-90. Lecturers HOLDEFER, Robert N., PhD, Southern Illinois University (Psychology), 1985. Research staff,

Department of Psychology, Princeton University, 1988-9 I

62 LEUNG, Mun-Fai, PhD, Boston University (Microbiology), 1989. Postdoctoral Associate, School of Medicine, Yale University, 1989-9 1. LUNG, Maria Li, PhD, Stanford University (Medical Microbiology), 1978. Lecturer in Microbi-

ology, University of Hong Kong, 1980-9 1. WAN, Kwong-Kee, PhD, Queen's University (Pharmacology), 1982. Assistant Professor of

Pharmacology, Northwestern University, 1987-9 1. Department of Chemistry Head and Professor YU, Nai-Teng, PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Biophysical Chemistry), 1969.

Professor of Chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1980-90. Professor HIRAOKA, Hiroyuki, PhD, Kyoto University (Physical Chemistry), 1959. Visiting Professor,

Universite de Bordeaux I (on leave of absence from IBM Research), 1990. Lecturers CARLIER, Paul R., PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Organic Chemistry), 1988.

Scientist, Polaroid Corporation, 1988-9 1. CHE, Chun-Tao, PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago (Pharmacognosy), 1982. Research

Assistant Professor, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1986-9 I.

LEUNG, Wa-Hung, PhD, University of Hong Kong (Chemistry), 1989. Postdoctoral Fellow,

Department of Chemistry, Imperial College, I 989-9 1. LI, Xiao-Yuan, PhD, Princeton University (Biophysical Chemistry), 1988. Research Associate,

National Research Council, Canada, 1989-9 1. WAN, Terence Seeming, PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Organic Chemistry),

198 1. Chemist, Forensic Science Division, Government Laboratory, Hong Kong, I 984-9 1.

Department of Mathematics Head and Professor HSIEH, Din-Yu, PhD, California Institute of Technology (Engineering Science), 1960.

Professor of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, 1978-90. Acting Dean of Science (from

1 March 1992). Professors HSIANG, Wu-Chung, PhD, Princeton University (Mathematics), 1962. Professor of Math-

ematics, Princeton University, 1972-9 1. HUI, Grafton Wai-How, PhD, University of Southampton (Aeronautics and Astronautics),

1969. Professor of Applied Mathematics and Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo,

I 984-9 I . Yang, Chung-Chun, PhD, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Mathematics), 1969. Research

Mathematician, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, 1970-90. Reader YU, Kunrui, Dr.rer.nat., Universitat Bonn (Mathematics), 1987. Visiting Professor of Math-

ematics, Kansas State University, 1990-9 1.

63 Lecturers FUNG, Jimmy Chi-Hung, PhD, University of Cambridge (Mathematics), 199 I. Postdoctoral

Research Fellow, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of

Cambridge, 199 l-92. KWOK, Yue-Kuen, PhD, Brown University (Applied Mathematics), 1985. Assistant Professor

of Mathematics, San Jose State University, 1987-90. Ll, Kin-Yin, PhD, University of California, Berkeley (Mathematics), 1989. Postdoctoral Re-

search Instructor, Department of Mathematics, University of Virginia, 1989-9 I. LUI, Shiu-Hong, PhD, California Institute of Technology (Applied Mathematics 199 I.

MAO, Jian-Min, PhD, UniversQ of Houston (Mathematical Physics), 1985. Research Assist-

ant Professor, Department of Physics, College of William & Mary, 1989-9 I . TSOI, Allanus Hak-Man, PhD, University of Alberta (Statistics and Applied Probability), I 990.

Research Associate, Department of Statistics and Applied Probability, University of Alberta,

1990. XU, Xiao-Ping, PhD, Rutgers University (Mathematics), 1992. Department of Physics Head and Professor CUE, Nelson, PhD, University of Washington (Physics), 1967. Chairman and Professor of

Physics, State University of New York at Albany, 1984-90. Professors BARBER, David J., PhD, University of Bristol (Physics), 1960. Head of Physics and Director of

Industrial Physics Group, University of Essex, 1989-9 I. Director of Materials Characterisation

and Preparation Centre. CHIEN, Chih-Yung, PhD, Yale University (Physics), 1966. Professor of Physics, Johns Hopkins

University, 1977-88. Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (to 29 February 1992).

DOBSON, Peter Norman Jr, PhD, University of Maryland (Physics), 1965, Provost, Leeward Community College, University of Hawaii, 1987-89. Director of Planning and Co-ordination.

WONG, George K., PhD, University of California, Berkeley (Physics), 1974. Professor of

Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, I 989-9 I . WOO, Chia-Wei, PhD, Washington University (Physics), 1966. President and Professor of

Physics, San Francisco State University, 1983-88. Vice-Chancellor and President.

Senior Lecturer FUNG, Kwok-Kwong, PhD, University of Bristol (Electron Microscopy), 1979. Deputy

Director, BeiJing Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, I 985-9 I ;

Research Professor, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, I 986-9 I .

Lecturers ALTMAN, Michael S., PhD, Brown University (Physics), 1988. Research Fellow, Technische

Universitat Clausthal/Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation, 1988-90. NC, Tai-Kai, PhD, Northwestern University (Physics), 1987. Postdoctoral Associate, Theoreti-

cal Physics Research Department, AT&T Bell Labs, 1989-9 I.

64 SOU, Philip lam-Keong, PhD, University of Illinois at Chicago (Physics), 1990. Research

Associate, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1990-9 1. SZETO, Kwok-Yip, PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Physics), 1985. Assistant

Professor of Physics and University Research Fellow, York University, 1987-9 I. WONG, Kam-Sing, PhD, University of Oxford (Solid State Physics), 1987. Auxiliary Research

Faculty Member, Department of Physics, University of Utah, 1989-9 1. WONG, Michael Kwok-Yee, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles (Physics), 1986.

Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Theoretical Physics, Oxford University, 1989-

91. SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Chemical Engineering Professor CHANG, H.K., PhD, Northwestern University (Fluid Mechanics/Biomedical Engineering),

1969. Chairman of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, 1985-90. Dean

of Engineering. Lecturer KO, Tze-Man, PhD, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Chemical Engineering), I99 I.

Department af CiviL and Structural Engineering Head and Professor SHEN, Chih-Kang, PhD, University of California, Berkeley [Civil Engineering), 1965. Chair-

man of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, 1988-9 I . Professor STELSON, Thomas E., DSc, Carnegie Institute of Technology (Civil Engineering 1952.

Executive Vice-President, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1988-90. Pro-Vice-Chancellor for

Research and Development. Senior Lecturer MICKLEBOROUGH, Neil Colin, PhD, University of Tasmania (Structural Engineering),

1979. Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of New South Wales, 1986-92.

Lecturers LEE, Kin-Man, PhD, University of Western Ontario (Geotechnical Engineering), 1989.

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western Ontario, 1989-9 I.

WAREHAM, Dave Geraint, PhD, University of British Columbia (Environmental Engineer-

ing), 1992. Department of Computer Science Head and Professor SHEN, Vincent Yun, PhD, Princeton University (Electrical Engineering), 1969. Acting

Program Director and Manager, Software Technology Program, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, 1989-90.

Professor LOCHOVSKY, Frederick H., PhD, University of Toronto (Computer Science), 1978. Profes-

sor of Computer Science and of Management, University of Toronto, 1988-90. Senior Lecturers FONG LOCHOVSKY, Amelia, PhD, Princeton University (Electrical Engineering & Computer

Science), 1977. Associate Professor of Computer & Information Science, University of Guelph,

1988-90. KAMINSKI, Michael, PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Computer Science), 1982.

Senior Lecturer, Department of Computer Science, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology,

1988-9 I . PONG, Ting-Chuen, PhD, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Computer

Science), 1984. Associate Professor of Computer Science, University of Minnesota, 1990-9 I.

Lecturers CHENG, Siu-Wing, PhD, University of Minnesota (Computer Science), 1992. DEERWESTER, Scott C., PhD, Purdue University (Information Science), 1984. Research

Associate, Center for Information and Language Studies, University of Chicago, 1990-9 I

HAMDI, Mounir, PhD, University of Pittsburgh (Electrical Engineering), I99 I. LI, Qing, PhD, University of Southern California (Computer Science), 1988. Lecturer in

Computer Science, Australian National University, 1989-9 1. PONG, Man-Chi, PhD, University of Kent at Canterbury (Computer Science), 1985. Project

Manager, Technology and Automation Group, Citibank (Hong Kong), 1990-9 1. YEUNG, Dit-Yan, PhD, University of Southern California (Computer Science), 1989. Assistant

Professor of Computer Science, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1989-90. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Head and Professor CHEUNG, Peter W., PhD, University of Washington (Electrical Engineering), 1973. Professor

of Electrical Engineering and of Bio-engineering, University of Washington, 1985-90.

Professors GEORGE, Donald Arthur, ScD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Electrical Engineer-

ing), 1959. Dean of Applied Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 1985-9 I. Associate Pro-Vice-

Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Programme). LIU, Ruey-Wen, PhD, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (Electrical Engineering),

1960. Frank M. Freiman Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, l988-

92. Reader CHAN, Philip C.H., PhD, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (Electrical Engineering),

1978. Principal Engineer, Intel Corporation, 1986-9 1. Senior Lecturer LO, Tai-chin, PhD, University of Illinois (Physics), 1982. General Manager, Manufacturing

Bipolarics Inc., 1988-90.

66 Lecturers CHEUNG, Kwan-fai, PhD, University of Washington (Electrical Engineering), 1988. Lecturer

in Information Engineering, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1989-9 1. HUANG, Ho-chi, PhD, University of Washington (Electrical Engineering), 199 I MURCH, Ross David, PhD, University of Canterbury (Electrical and Electronic Engineering),

1990. Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Dundee

University, 1990-92. POON, Vincent Ming-Cheong, PhD, Chinese University of Hong Kong (Electronics), 1989.

Lecturer, Department of Electronic Engineering, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, 1988-9 1.

SIN, Johnny K.O., PhD, University of Toronto (Electrical Engineering), 1988. Senior Mem-

ber of Research Staff, Philips Laboratories, 1988-9 I. TSANG, Danny HimKwok, PhD, University of Pennsylvania (Electrical Engineering), 1989.

Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics & Computing Science, Dalhousie

University, 1989-92. YAU, Mark Sze-Fong, PhD, University of Illinois (Electrical Engineering), 1992. Assistant Lecturer IAU, Jack Ka-Chun, MS, University of California, Berkeley (Electrical Engineering and

Computer Sciences), 1990. CPU Design Engineer, Integrated Information Technology, 1990-

91. Department of Mechanical Engineering Head and Professor TONG, Pin, PhD, California Institute of Technology (Aeronautics and Mathematics), 1966.

Chief, Structures and Dynamics Division, Transportation Systems Centre, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 1983-90. Professor CHEN, Jay-Chung, PhD, California Institute of Technology (Aeronautics), 1972. Member of

Technical Staff, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 1966-89.

Director of Research Centre. Senior Let turers HSU, Chin-Tsau, PhD, Stanford University (Hydrodynamics), 1977. Research Scientist, Space

& Technology Group, TRW Inc., 1978-9 1. KOT, See-Chun, PhD, Cornell University (Aerospace Engineering), 197 1. Senior Lecturer in

Mechanical Engineering, University of Hong Kong, 1990. YUEN, Matthew Ming-Fai, PhD, University of Bristol [Mechanical Engineering), Senior Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, University of Hong Kong, 1988-9 1. 1977. Lecturer LENG, Yang, PhD, University of Virginia (Materials Science), 1989. Research Associate,

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, 1989-92.

67 SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT Department of Accounting Reader WONG, Danny S. N., PhD, Pennsylvania State University (Business Administration), 1978.

Senior Lecturer and Chairman, Department of Accountancy, Chinese University of Hong

Kong, 1987-9 1. Lecturer CHIA, Yew Ming, PhD (expected), Griffith University (Management Accounting Systems).

Accounting Consultant, Department of Employment, Education & Training, Griffith University.

Department of Business Information Systems Lecturers AU, Grace, PhD, London School of Economics & Political Science (Information Systems),

1990. Systems Consultant, Callhaven Plc., 199 l-92. TAM, I<ar Yan, PhD, Purdue University (Management Information Systems), 1988. hsistant

Professor of Information Systems, University of Texas at Austin, 1987-9 1. Department of Economics Senior Lecturer LUI, Francis Tingming, PhD, University of Minnesota (Economics), 1985. Associate Profes-

sor of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo, 199 1. Lecturers HUITIN, Christine, PhD, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Economics), 1986.

Associate Professor, Department of Business Policy, University of Paris X, Nanterre, 1988-9 1.

WU, Changqi, PhD, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium (Applied Economic Science),

1990. Research Fellow, Department of Applied Economic Science, Catholic University of

Leuven, 1990-9 1. YUEN, Chi-Wa, PhD, University of Chicago (Economics), 199 1. ZHU, Li Jing, PhD, University of Western Ontario (Economics), 199 1. Assistant Professor of

Economics, University of Windsor, 1990-9 1. Department of Finance Head and Professor CHEN, Nai-fu, PhD, University of California, Berkeley (Numerical Analysis), 1975. Professor

of Finance, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Irvine, 1989-9 I.

Deputy Head and Professor CHAN, Yuk-Shee, PhD, University of California, Berkeley (Finance and Economics), 1982.

Justin Dart Term Professor of Finance, University of Southern California, 1990-9 1.

Lecturer CARVERHILL, Andrew P., PhD, University of Warwick (Mathematics), 1983. Senior Re-

search Fellow in Finance, Warwick Business School, Warwick University, 1987-9 1.

68 Assistant Lecturer LAM, Hong-leung, MM University of Chicago (Finance), 1990. Department of Management Reader JEFFERSON, Thomas R., PhD, Northwestern University (Management Science), 1972. Visiting Associate Professor, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Irvine,

1990-9 1 SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE Division of Humanities Head and Professor of History HSU, Hong, PhD, National Taiwan University (History), 1973. Chairman, Department of

History, National Taiwan University, 1985-9 1. Professor of History CH'IEN, Edward T., PhD, Columbia University (History), 1978. Professor of Chinese Intellec-

tual History, National Taiwan University, 1988-9 1. Professor of Literature WANG, Ching-Hsien, PhD, University of California, Berkeley (Comparative Literature), 197 1.

Professor of Chinese and Comparative Literature, University of Washington, I 98 I-9 I.

Lecturer in History CHOI, Chi-Cheung, DLitt, Tokyo University (Oriental History), 1988. Assistant Professor,

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of East Asia, 1989-9 I. Lecturer in Philosophy BUCHANAN, James Porter Jr, PhD, University of Chicago (Comparative Philosophies and

Religions), 1986. Senior Fellow, Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion, University of

Chicago, 1989-9 I. Division of Social Science Head and Professor of Political Science CH'I, Hsi-sheng, PhD, University of Chicago (Political Science), 1969. Professor of Political

Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1984-9 1. Professor of Sociology CRAFT, Maurice, PhD, University of Liverpool (Sociology of Education), 1972. Chairman,

School of Education, University of Nottingham, 1988-89. Dean of Humanities and Social

Science. Lecturer in Geography BALL, Rochelle E., PhD, University of Sydney (Human Geography), 1990. Visiting Fellow,

Institute for Planning and International Development, Cornell University, 1990.

69 Lecturer in Sociology YOUNG, Yi-Rong, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles (Comparative and International

Education), 1985. Associate Professor, Graduate Institute of Social Education, National

Taiwan Normal University, 1986-9 1. Assistant Lecturer in Political Science CHEUNG, Peter Tsan-yin, MA, Indiana University (Political Science), 1983. Lecturer in

Political Science, University of Washington, 1990-9 1. Assistant Lecturer in Social Science TANG, De-piao, MPhil, Columbia University (Economics), 1986. Associate Professor of

Economics, National Chengchi University, 199 1.

Appendix B 70 BALANCE SHEET AS AT 30 JUNE 1992 30 June 1991 30 June 1992 FIXED ASSETS Buildings Construction-in-progress Other Fixed Assets INVESTMENTS CURRENT ASSETS Prepayments and Deposits Sundry Receivables Cash and Bank Balances LESS: CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts Payable and Accruals Government Holding Account UPGC Holding Account 139.347 2 12.3 I3 2'99 I.286 BUILDING FUND CAPITAL FUND LONG-TERM LIABILITIES PROVISIONS AND RESERVES GOVERNMENT FUNDS Capital Account Capital Works Reserve Fund Academic Exchanges with Institutions of Higher Education in China UNIVERSITY FUNDS General Funds Designated Funds 19,237 28. I33 47,370 DESIGNATED ENDOWMENT FUNDS Capital Accounts Recurrent Accounts TOTAL FUNDS 19,819 51 I 20,330 2,99 1,286

71 INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT GOVERNMENT FUND (RECURRENT ACCOUNT) FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 1992 1 April 1990 1 April 1991 to to 31 March 1991 30June 1991 HKf'OOO HK$'OOO HK$'OOO 204,700 103,230 0 0 13,560 4,837 2,538 1,057 1.801 216 222.599 109,340 INCOME Government Subventions Tuition Fees Bank Interest Rent Recovered from Staff Miscellaneous 290,980 8,402 6,405 6,096 733 Total Income 312,616 56,030 22,379 23,977 11,758 124,007 60,082 1,384 0 3.922 3,015 EXPENDITURE Salaries and Gratuities -Senior Staff Salaries and Gratuities -Support Staff General Expenses General Office Equipment Research 117,177 61,092 123,761 876 5.903 209,320 97,234 Total Expenditure 308.809 13,279 12,106 SURPLUS FOR THE PERIODS/YEAR 3,807 1 July1991 to 30June 1992

Appendix C DONATIONS AND PLEDGES TO THE UNWERSITY (From inception to 30 June 1992) 72 RESEARCH FUNDS $272,094,000 Chrontel Inc $23,000 Battery Monitoring Project Croucher Foundation Research Traming Support Fund Epstem Barr Virus Role of Oncogence 5 1,957,ooo Grants for Visrtorships Wastewater Treatment Exxon Research & Engineering Company Hong Kong Telecom Foundation Hong Kong Telecom Institute of InformatIon Technology Joyce M. Kuok Foundation Joyce M. Kuok Laser and Photonlcs Laboratory, lnstltute of Advanced Materials NEC Corporation Sino Land Co. Ltd $83,000 5 100,000,000 5 1 o,ooo,ooo $31,000 $20,000,000 Sino Software Research Centre The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club Biotechnology Research lnstltute Zheng Ge Ru Foundation Zheng Ge Ru Thin Film Physics Laboratory, lnstltute of Advanced Materials $130.000.000 5 IO, 000,000 LIBRARY FUNDS Longman Group (Far East) Ltd Simon & Schuster (hia) PTE Ltd Sir SK. Tang Library Fund $11,012,021 5 1,500 5 10,000 $1 1,000,521 SCHOLARSHIP, BURSARY & LOAN FUNDS $2,518,947 over $99,999 The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce (Foundation) Ltd Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd The Incorporated Trustees of Chiap Hua Cheng's Foundation Joyce M. Kuok Foundation Providence Foundation 5 100,000 $800,000 $255,000 $130,000 5 I 00,000 $50,000 - $99,999 The Incorporated Trustees of Hsin Chong K.N. Godfrey Yeh Education Fund Miss Leung Pui Han Li PO Chun Charitable Trust Fund Sir Edward Youde Memorial Fellowship Zonta Club of Hong Kong East $85,000 $50,000 $50,000 590,000 $80,000

73 $10,000 - $49,999 AST Research (Far East) Ltd Citicorp International Ltd Digital Equipment Hong Kong Ltd Du Pont China Ltd Duty Free Shoppers Charitable Trust Epson Foundation Hong Kong Two/Ten Int'l Footwear Foundation lntercham Jardine Pacific Ltd Leslie Fay International (S.E.A.) Ltd Manulife Financial Parfums Christian Dior Division Shell Hong Kong Ltd up to HK$9,999 The American Chamber of Commerce Asea Brown Boveri Ltd Ernst & Young Hong Kong Association of University Women Hong Kong Society of Accountants Sumitomo Electric Asia Ltd Elizabeth (Libby) Fuhriman Gardner Scholarship The Hon. Mrs Anson Chan Mr Simon Ip Sik-on Prof. Akito Arima Mr Kenneth W.K. Kwok Prof. Lindsay M. Bit-t Mrs Alice K.Y.L. Lam Dr Chan Nai-keong The Honourable Lau Wah-sum Prof. H.K. Chang Mr Lee Hon-chu The Hon. Cheng Hon-kwan Mr Ian F.C. Macpherson The Hon. Stephen Cheong Kam-chuen Mr Gordon M Macwhinnie Sir Sze-yuen Chung Mr Steven K.L. Poon Mr Michael G. Gale Mr Jack C. Tang Prof. David P. Gardner Prof. Thomas E. Stelson Dr Gordon R. Higginson Prof. Chia-Wei Woo Yoshie Hiraoka Memorial Fund Prof. David J.\ Barber Prof. Jay-Chung Chen Prof. Chih-Yung Chien Prof. Ernest H.Y. Chu Dr Priscilla Ching Chung Mr J. Edraki Mr Takaaki Fukushima Mr K. Harada Mr Fumio Hashimoto Prof. Hiroyuki Hiraoka Mrs Catherine Lai Miss Frances Lee Mrs Atsuko Oohyama Mr Hajime Seki Mrs Yuriko Seki Mr Shen Chih Kang Mr Daizaburo Shinoda Prof. Thomas E. Stelson Prof. Katsumi Tokumaru Dr Constant Tse $145,048

74 Prof. Hong Hsu Mrs Lucilla Vessa Mr H. Hunziker Or KS. Wong Mr Natsuko lkegami Mrs Chia-Wei Woo Mr Hiroshi Ito Mr Yip Chi-Ying Or H. Kaneko Mr K. Yoshida Prof. Shain-Dow Kung Prof. Nai-Teng Yu Student Loans The American Women's Association of Hong Kong Ltd Kiangsu & Chekiang Residents (Hong Kong) Association Education Fund s I 0,000 5 70,000 Rotary Club Students' Loan Fund S3.000 Sing Tao Foundation Students' Loan Fund $70,000 Winsor Education Foundation $100,000 EOUIPMENT DONATIONS Hewlett-Packard $28.5 16.026 $2,730,000 High Performance Workstations Providence Foundation Chinese Language Software Tektronix Inc $247,104 $500,000 Osctlloscopes and Software Valid Logic Systems Incorporated Electronic Design Automatron Software Wyse Technology Terminals for Computer Centre $25.000.000 $38,922 HKUST ARTS ENDOWMENT FUND $1,025,000 Amtrac Furnishings International Ltd Analogue Technical Agencies Ltd Boag Building Supplies Ltd Chun Lee Engineering Co. Ltd Claridge House Ltd Davis Langdon & Seah Hong Kong Ltd Dynacome Ltd EBC (HK) JRP Services Ltd Kenworth Engineering Ltd Lamex Trading Co. Ltd Logic Office Supplies Ltd Ove Arup & Partners HK Ltd Parks Supplies Co. Ltd Percy Thomas Partnership (HK) Salotto Ltd Fai Tak Engineering Co. Ltd Far East Aluminium Works Co. Ltd Fed-Supremetech Ltd Golden Phoenix Artistic Furniture Hip Hing Construction Co. Ltd Hsin Chong Aster Bldg Services Ltd Hsin Chong Construction Co. Ltd Hunter Douglas (HK) Ltd Shun Hing Education & Charity Fund Simon Kwan & Association Ltd Sung Foo Kee Ltd Swire Engineering (1988) Ltd Tridant Engineering Co. Ltd Wai Ming Contracting Co. Ltd William Jacks & Co. (HK) Ltd Yearfull Interior Contracting Co. Ltd

75 GENERAL FUNDS Arthur Andersen & Co. S.H. Ho Foundation Ltd Hong Kong Management Association Lam Woo Foundation Leung Yat Sing Fund Mr Lo Chi Park'n Shop MISCELLANEOUS The British Council Fund Grants for Brltlsh Academics to Visit Hong Kong Mrs Y.S. Cheong Memorial Fund Salary Top-up Croucher Foundation Infrastructure '9 I Workshop The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce Environment '90 and Infrastructure '9 I Workshops Intercurrent Program - Biology Society Fund Professor Nieh Hwa-Tung Student Assoclatlon Related Actrvrtres Radian Corporation Environment '90 Workshop Wei Lun Loundation Salary Top-up Mr Raymond K.C. Wong General Academic Purposes

Appendix D 76 THE MYTH OF THE HKUST "COST OVERRUN" Sir S. Y. Chung Speech to the Peninsula Rotary Club 2 1 January 1992 I am grateful to the Chairman of the Peninsula Rotary Club for giving me this opportunity to

speak to his Members on a subject which has attracted great attention in the media and has

caused much concern in the community. Since the publication of the Director of Audits Report and the subsequent public hearing of

the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on the so-called "cost overrun" in the building of the

University campus, much damage is being done to the University by the public perception that

the construction cost is unreasonably high due to its lavishness and a lack of control over the

project. This speech, it is hoped, will answer the widespread criticism and set the record straight.

I have been engaged in public service in Hong Kong for over 30 years, and the greater part

of this time has been devoted to the development of high-level technological education. I have

been personally involved with the establishment of three major tertiary educational institutions,

namely, the Hong Kong Polytechnic in 1972, the City Polytechnic in 1982, and the University of

Science and Technology in 199 1. I was firstly responsible for their planning and subsequently

have been the first Chairman of their respective Councils. At present, I am Chairman of the HKUST Council. I like to think that all three of them are my

children, in various stages of development. When fully matured, the three together will provide

advanced technological education to a combined student population of about 80,000 persons

in various modes of study. It will be a major contributing factor in the continuing economic

prosperity of Hong Kong and its neighbouring territories such as the Pearl River Delta.

The HKUST story begins with the late Governor, Sir Edward YOUDE. In a recent publication,

Lady Pamela Youde recalled the thoughts of the late Governor and said, "He felt Hong Kong was

lacking in the area ofadvanced science and technology, and that kind of expertise was necessary

to make Hong Kong more of a powerhouse and more of a leader for China". This was the very

inception of the idea of a technological university in Hong Kong. The building of a modern technological research university in Hong Kong was therefore seen

as a way to provide new scientific concepts, advanced technologies and modern management

to develop and support a technology-based economy and to bring ideas out of the laboratories

into the marketplace as innovative products, processes and services. It is a long-term investment

for the continuing economic prosperity of this community. Having considered the advice of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC),

the Executive Council on 18 March I986 approved &he establishment of the Third University

specializing in science, technology and management studies with an ultimate student target of

10,000. The Governor-in-Council appointed a Planning Committee in mid-l 986 and ordered

that the University should have its first student intake no later than the 1994-97 triennium.

It was the wish of the Executive Council that the University should be open to students as early

as possible and in a tribute to the late Governor in the Legislative Council on 10 December 1986,

the Acting Governor, Sir David Akers-Jones, said, "He gave wholehearted support to the concept

of building a third university . . . and that it should be built as quickly as possible We have that

legacy to carry out". The Planning Committee paid serious attention to the Government's wish and accepted the

challenge to bring forward the opening date by three years, to October 199 1. This new opening

77 date, endorsed by the UPGC, would shorten the lead time to five years for the Planning

Committee to design and build the campus, to recruit the Vice-Chancellor and his supporting

academic and administrative staff, and to decide, procureand instal complicated and sophisticated

teaching and research equipment. At one stage it had looked as if it were a mission impossible.

In early 1987, the Planning Committee was informed that the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club

(RHKJC) was considering making a substantial donation to, and acting as project manager for,

the campus construction on a turnkey basis. The Club's track record in managing large scale

capital projects was well recognised. This development gave the Planning Committee a fresh

impetus to move forward. It was the best means to ensure that the HKUST project would be

completed in time and within budget. I do not see that the Executive Council, at that time or even

today, had any better choice. You may not agree with me now but I am certain that after hearing

my full speech, you will be convinced. Following the recent successful pattern of the City Polytechnic, the HKUST Planning

Committee sponsored an architectural competition for the overall design of the campus.

Unfortunately, the Assessment Panel of five members could not come to a unanimous decision

on the winner, with only the three local members voting for the winner. Neither the famous

architectural professor from Japan nor the former president of a technological university from

Australia voted for the winner. As a result, the Panel through its chairman recommended to the Planning Committee both

the winner and the runner-up for its consideration as to which design it would use for the campus

development. May I mention in passing that there was no significant difference in the total three-

phase cost between the two. To be exact, one of the designs was estimated at $4,500 per square

metre and the other at $4,564, showing a difference in unit cost of less than 2%.

It is necessary to point out, at this stage, that the rules of the competition did not commit the

sponsor to using the winner or, indeed, any of the designs entered in the competition. The

Planning Committee spent three long meetings within a week to discuss the matter, and at the

end a secret ballot was taken in which representatives from four other local tertiary institutions

took part. In the one and only ballot taken, all the 15 members present (including 4 from local

tertiary institutions, 7 community leaders, 2 from overseas tertiary institutions, 1 from the Jockey

Club, and 1 from the Secretariat of the HKUST Planning Committee) voted unanimously for the

runner-up design presented by Simon Kwan and Associates in association with Percy Thomas

Partnership. It is a pity that the selection of the runner-up design has attracted some unfavourable

comments from certain quarters. I must emphasize, however, that the decision was taken in

accordance with the published rules for the competition and was made in good faith. Judging

from the praises heard on the design of the campus since the opening of the University in October

199 1, there is no doubt that the 15 members who voted unanimously had picked the right

design. After the Planning Committee selected the design model in November 1987, the whole

campus project was transferred to the Jockey Club as a turnkey project. The Jockey Club, then,

based on this selected model conducted a very preliminary review of the initial capital cost and

78 presented it to the Government. In May 1988, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council

took note of this estimate of $1,930 million, which consisted of $1,620 million base cost at 1987

prices (at TPI 430 and BSI 239) plus $3 IO million for inflation at 7% per annum. It should be

emphasized here that this figure of $1,930 million was an estimate, not a budget.

Since 1987, Hong Kong has experienced an unprecedented rate of inflation in building costs

and, in particular, the building services cost, which rose by more than I 50% in three years. Take

for example the three-year period immediately after the foregoing estimate was made. The

building services cost index compiled by the Government rose from 239 in the fourth quarter of

I987 to 6 12 in the fourth quarter of 1990, a rise of 156%. The Jockey Club discovered this rapid inflation from the tender prices received for Phase I and

promptly notified the Government. In June 1990, the Finance Committee of the Legislative

Council accepted the now famous budget of $3,548 million, which comprised a base cost at

1987 prices (at TPI 430 and BSI 239) of $2,340 million and an allowance of $1,208 million for

inflation. Since then, this 1990 budget has not changed. Comparing the estimate of $1,930 million and the budget of $3,548 million, there has been

an increase of 84% and this has been branded as a huge "cost overrun" resulting from

mismanagement and lack of Government control. The case is being emotionally judged and

condemned in isolation, as if the rapid cost inflation in building construction never occurred or,

even if so, occurred in the HKUST project alone. The tertiary institutions in Hong Kong have many common memberships. Until the end of

199 1, the Deputy Chairman of the HKUST Council was the Chairman of the City Polytechnic

Council. We now have obtained from the Government's Architectural Services Department some

useful information concerning the current construction of the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong

(CPHK) campus. As a result, it has been discovered that the budget unit construction cost for the

CPHK campus had drastically increased from $4,592 per square metre Gross Floor Area (sqm

GFA) for its phase I, in the first quarter of 1987, to 5 1 1.00 I per sqm GFA for its phase II in the first

quarter of 199 1, giving an increase of 140% in four years. This result confirms that there was indeed rapid inflation in building construction cost during

those years and that such high inflation was not confined to HKUST in isolation. It should be noted

that, contrary to the way and speed with which the HKUST campus is being built, the construction

of the CPHK campus is being carried out in accordance with normal UPGC procedures and under

the control of both the UPGC and the Governments Architectural Services Department. Why then

is the HKUST condemned for its so-called "cost overrun"? Let me go a step further to compare the overall unit cost for the HKUST campus with that for

the CPHK campus phase II, which is being built concurrently with HKUST. The total budget for

the construction of the HKUST campus, phases I and II, as approved by the Legco Finance

Committee, is $3,548 million for 279,266 square metres Gross Floor Area (sqm GFA), giving a

budget unit cost of 5 12,705 per sqm GFA. According to the list of adjustment factors published by the Governments Architectural

Services Department for tender price comparison at different site locations, prices for construction

79 contracts in the Sai Kung area, because of its remoteness and inaccessibility, are to be discounted

by 10%. Hence the adjusted budget unit cost for the HKUST campus in accordance with the

Government's own formula and practice is $1 1,434 per sqm GFA. The Universitys unit cost is

merely 4% higher than that of CPHK phase II. For a more detailed analysis and reasons for this

higher unit cost, you may wish to study the handout titled "It Is Cost Underestimate, Not Cost

Overrun". It is likely that some people might comment that the CPHK phase II and HKUSTcampuses could

have different proportions of academic building and senior staff housing, and therefore we are

not comparing like with like. Well, it is a good point. We have also received from the Architectural Services Department information on the unit

costs compiled from actual tender prices on the two major types of building at CPHK and HKUST.

The result is that, as far as academic building is concerned, HKUST is about I 1% more expensive;

but in the case of senior staff housing, even when all the lodges and town houses are included

in the calculation, HKUST is still some 10% cheaper than CPHK. It is now very clear that HKUST is not being built lavishly. The University certainly does not

agree with the allegation that a "Rolls-Royce" campus is being built. Nonetheless, if it is still

believed that it is, then we would say that we are acquiring a Rolls-Royce for the price of a Ford.

To conclude, may I say that in this unfortunate incident, there have been two innocent victims

condemned by misguided public opinion. First, since November 1987 when the selected design

model was handed over to the Jockey Club, the Club has been the sole project and financial

controlling authority, and HKUST has only been involved as the end user of the campus.

Nevertheless, HKUST has been, by association, held responsible for circumstances not within its

control. Secondly, theJockey Club has made an unprecedented donation of almost $2 billion and has

been doing its best to manage a large and complex turnkey project in a rapidly inflationary period

and under a fast track construction programme. In return, the Club has been seriously criticized

for overspending and mismanaging public funds to the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Yet it has now been proven that the Club has produced an excellent campus for the 2 I st Century,

at a unit cost which is 4% more expensive than that of the City Polytechnic phase II.

In my humble view, both HKUST and RHIUC have been wronglyjudged and condemned in

isolation by misguided public opinion. It is high time indeed that this miscarriage ofjustice for

these two organisations be overturned, so that they can concentrate fully on the more productive

business of strengthening Hong Kong's technology base and economic development. As a person who has long been in public service, I can fully understand the public's desire for

more accountability in spending public funds. We are now in a period of transition -transition

to a more democratic and open society that we all hope will be better. Let us all work towards

that goal constructively.

Appendix E 80 HKUST CAMPUS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTlON Sir t. Y. Chung'r Speaking Note Public Accounts Committee Public Herring 24 February 1992 The establishment of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) is a major

milestone in the long-term economic development of this territory. As an institution of higher

learning for teaching and conducting research in science and technology, the University must

be able to reflect in its campus the characteristics of advanced science and technology. Building

a university of this nature and scale is a major undertaking that is not happening often, not only

in Hong Kong but even in the world. It is the third university in the I SO-year history of Hong Kong

and the first one established exclusively for science and technology. The University is built not for

one year, or one decade, or even one century but for generations and generations. I therefore

welcome this opportunity to clarify a number of misconceptions about the campus design and

construction. In responding to all the questions related to the decision of the HKUST Planning Committee

in choosing the runner-up design instead of the winner, it is necessary to point out at the outset

that the responsibility of selecting the design for the HKUST campus rested solely on the Planning

Committee itself and not, as widely misunderstood, on the Assessment Panel. The Planning

Committee had never delegated this responsibility to the Assessment Panel, whose job was

confined to picking the winner of the architectural competition, and nbthing else. Therefore, the

picking of the winner in the competition and the selection of the project architect for the campus

are two different issues. Unfortunately, Professor MAKI, like many other people, had mixed up

these two different issues. The Planning Committee as the sponsor for the competition readily accepted the recommen-

dation of the Assessment Panel, announced the result of the competition, and awarded the prize

to the winner in full compliance with the rules of the competition. As far as the competition is

concerned, this was the end of it. There was no reason to seek the view of the Assessment Panel

regarding its professional opinion, as suggested in a questron of the Public Accounts Committee

(PAC), because the Planning Committee itself had a team ofTechnical Advisers representing eight

specialist areas. According to the legal opinion from the Attorney General's Chambers, it is quite clear from

the terms of the competition that no warranty was given that the group producing the winning

design would be appointed the project architects. Clause 2.27 of the rules for the competition

explicitly states that the promoter shall not be held liable in the event that the winning architect

is not appointed. There can therefore be no reason for any complaint on legal grounds. Contrary

to the view expressed by Professor Maki, the Crown Solicitor has furthermore remarked that it was

surely well known that the winners of architectural competitions were often not awarded

contracts as a result. As to the reasons why the Planning Committee did not select the winning design, the answer

begins with the Report to the Planning Committee by the Chairman of theAssessment Panel. The

responsibility for the written report of the Panel's decision was left by the Members with its

Chairman. The Report concluded with the following paragraphs:

81 The ranking of the three submissions J, K and L by the members of the Panel were as follows:

First Second Third Dr Chan (Chairman) Professor Maki Dr Werner Mr Chung Mr Lei As a result of the foregoing (that is, three out of the five judges voted for design J), the

Assessment Panel has selected submission J by Design Consultants and Lotus in association with

Wong & Ouyang (HK) Ltd as the winner. However, in the light of the fact this decision was not

unanimous, it is considered that submission L by Simon Kwan & Associates in association with

Percy Thomas Partnership (HK) should be regarded as the runner-up. Members of the Planning

Committee are invited to consider, in the light of the foregoing, whether the master plan

proposed by the winner of the competition or by the runner-up should become the blueprint for

the University. It therefore can be seen that the naming of submission Las the runner-up in the competition

was made by the Chairman of the Assessment Panel in his Report and not, as alleged by Professor

Maki, by the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee was not aware of the disagreement

within the Assessment Panel at that time. In this connection, Members of the Public Accounts

Committee may find it of interest to note that Professor Maki did not vote for the winner, nor for

the runner-up. He himself voted for submission K, which, in the opinion of the team of Technical

Advisers, was the most expensive to build, costing about 20% higher than both the winner and

the runner-up. The rest of the story is public knowledge and forms part of the two Reports of the HKUST

Planning Committee published in September 1987 and April 1988 respectively. In short, the

Planning Committee first spent a long meeting on 15 November 1987 in considering the semi-

finalist six designs with the assistance of the Chief Professional Adviser, who was seconded from

the Government's Architectural Services Department. After receiving the Assessment Panel

Chairman's Report on 20 November 1987, the Planning Committee then spent two more

meetings to consider the two designs recommended by the Panel Chairman. At the end, a most

prudent method of secret ballot was taken in view of the fact that, no matter what the result

would be, the decision made could be controversial. In the one and only ballot taken, all the 15

members voted unanimously for the runner-up design. These 15 members included four prominent local academics and administrators from the

Hong Kong University, the Chinese University, the Hong Kong Polytechnic and the City

Polytechnic, as well as a respected barrister who has since become Chairman of the University

and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC). Among these 15 members there were also four

82 distinguished persons, who either were at that time Honourable Legislative Councillors or are

now Honourable Members of the Legislature. Furthermore, within this group there were a

prominent professor and Head of a Department of Cavil and Structural Engineering, a consulting

civil and structural engineer, and five very senior professors and professional engineers

specialising in electrical, electronic, mechanical and computer engineering. Clearly, it was the

opinion of each and every one of these 15 members that the runner-up was a more suitable

design for a university of science and technology. This was the unanimous decision of the

Planning Committee in carrying out its responsibility as a collective body. Some Members of the Public Accounts Committee have asked through the media that why

was it that when the Planning Committee discussed the designs on the first day views were

mixed, and on the second day they were unanimous. I was only one of the 15 persons voting

for the runner-up and can only speak for myself. In my view, both designs were not perfect and

therefore attracted mixed views during the discussions, but when it came to the final voting

design Lwas definitely the better design from the standpoint of the end user. It is unfair for anyone

to cast any doubt on the integrity of the members of the Planning Committee, and I would

strongly suggest that the PAC should give these members an opportunity to declare their

independence and competence in this exercise. For this purpose, I am submitting to the PAC a

full list of the names of the 15 members who unanimously voted for the runner-up design in

November 1987. The PAC has also asked that why did the Planning Committee choose the runner-up design,

which, when compared with the winner, was more expensive in terms of cost and more difficult

and took a longer time to build. It should be noted that each submission to the competition was

required to provide a cost estimate, and these cost estimates were then checked and revised by

a team of Technical Advisers representing eight specialised areas, including Quantity Surveyors,

who are experts in cost estimation, in order to confirm their reliability and enable comparison on

a common basis. COST COMPARISON Lotus (J) SM Simon Kwan (L) SM PSI* (K) SM Competitor's est. 1.389.99 I,43 1.20 2,125.08 98% 100% 148% Quantity Surveyor's est. 1,517.28 1.559.67 1,829.lO 98% 100% 118% *PSI=Planning Services International Members of the Public Accounts Committee should know that, contrary to what has been

84 interest, namely, exclusionary interests and declaratory interest. This classification is parallel to the

foregoing two types of conflicts. A declaratory interest is therefore equivalent to a conflict of roles.

Current EXCO guidelines indicate that membership of boards and committees such as the

University and Polytechnic Councils is not, strictly speaking, a declaratory interest. However, it is

normal that such a position be made known and noted. According to my memory, when the Executive Council discussed the donation of the Royal .

Hong Kong Jockey Club (RHIUC) on 2 June 1987, I did ask the Council at the outset of the

discussion to take note of my position as Chairman of the Planning Committee and also did not

take part in the decision. It is understood that the Clerk of the Executive Council, at the request

of the Public Accounts Committee, has recently confirmed the proper action which I had taken

at the EXCO meeting on 2 June 1987 when the HKUST campus building and funding arrangement was discussed. As quoted in a question of the Public Accounts Committee, the Executive Council, in

accepting the $1.5 billion donation from the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club and appointing the

Club to manage the HKUST campus project on a turnkey basis on 2 June 1987, considered two

major directives. One directive was that, in line with current practice, the project design and

construction of HKUST was to conform with the standards and norms acceptable to the University

and Polytechnic Grants Committee and the Government. It should be noted, however, that this

directive was only applicable to this particular donation of $1.5 billion and to the expenditure of

Government funds, but would not apply to any additional donations to HKUST from non-

Government sources at any time. The other directive was that the award of contracts and the approval of contract variations

by the Project Manager (that is, the RHIUC) shall be subject to the approval of the Finance

Committee of the Legislative Council for any commitment above the sum of $1,500 million

pledged by the Jockey Club. The same question of the PAC has asked that, as Senior Member of EXCO, did I then ever seek

to ensure the two directives were carried out and to see how they were carried out? According

to my understanding, decisions and directives of the Executive Council of this nature are to be

implemented by and are the responsibility of the Administration in the Government. The job of

an Unofficial Member of the Executive Council is to assist the Government in the formulation of

policies and not in the execution of these policies. In this case, it is up to the Administration, and not any Unofficial Member of the Executive

Council, to report progress to the Executive Council and, if thought fit, to apply for additional

funding from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. In a similar manner, Members

of the Legislature are to make laws and authorize the use of public funds, but they are not to

enforce laws and administer the use of Government money. Another question of the PAC asked that, as Chairman of the HKUST Planning Committee (and

later Council), did I know long before that there would be a massive increase in the cost of the

project? Ifyes, did I as Senior Member of the Executive Council reflect the situation to the Council?

If not, why did I fail to have an overall understanding of the construction progress of HKUST?

Before answering this question, I would like to ask Members of the PAC first to take note of

85 the fact that the Planning Committee, after deciding on the campus model in November 1987,

immediately handed over the whole project to the Jockey Club on a turnkey basis as directed by

the Executive Council. From then on, as Members of the Finance Committee were informed on

I 7 June 1987 and on 1 June I 990, ( 1) all architects, contractors and consultants working on the

project are to be employed directly by the Jockey Club, and (2) the construction of the HKUST

campus is being undertaken by the RHKJC and all aspects of the management of the project are

the responsibility of the RHKJC. As soon as the selected design was passed to the Jockey Club, a meeting was held with the

Financial Secretary and his deputies on 9 January 1988, at which the Secretary-General of the'

Planning Committee warned that the cost estimates provided to the Chief Secretary were made

without consultation with the HKUST Planning Committee and were likely to be grossly

underestimated. Subsequently, another meeting was held on 13 January 1988, in which the Finance Branch

(FB), the Education and Manpower Branch, the Architectural Services Department (ASD), the

University and Polytechnic Grants Committee, and the HKUST Planning Committeewere present.

The Planning Committee was represented by the Secretary-General under the direction of its

Chairman. The following two resolutions recorded are relevant to the question asked by the PAC:

(I) The Secretary for Education and Manpower (SEM) is the Controlling Officer of the

HKUST project and is to convene regular meetings with representatives from HKUST,

ASD, UPGC and FB with a view to monitoring the progress of construction work in order to ensure that expenditure is within cash limits. (2) When it is apparent that the limit of funding will be reached, the HKUST will have

the choice of finding additional funds from non-Government sources, modifying the scheme to effect savings, or to approach Government for further funds. From the record of the University, as early as October/November 1988 and long before

building contracts were awarded, the Controlling Officer of the HKUST project (the SEM) was fully

aware that the preliminary estimate made by the RHKJC would be inadequate. In December

1988, the Chairman of the Jockey Club and I, as Chairman of the HKUST Council, discussed how

the inadequacy of the cost estimate could be rectified in accordance with the resolution (2) made

at a meeting in the Government Secretariat on 13 January 1988, as mentioned above.

Consequently, a meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary with both RHKJC and HKUST

represented was held on I February I989 to discuss, among other things, the reasons for the

cost underestimate, the ways for additional financing, and a package for assigning responsibility

for cost increases in future. It is important to note that at this stage the campus construction work had not yet begun.

In fact, tenders for the major works in Phase I did not begin to come in until June 1989 (FC Paper

of l/06/90), and actual building construction work did not commence until August/September

1989. Now, referring to the PAC's question whether or not, as Chairman of the HKUST Planning

86 Committee, I knew long before that there would be a massive increase in the cost of the project.

The answer is definitely yes. I did know that the estimated cost would be inadequate. As Chairman

of the HKUST Council, I also had reflected the situation to the Government. However, it was not the responsibility of any Unofficial Member of EXCO to act as a watchdog

for EXCO, and so I did not reflect the situation to the Executive Council. Further, when the first

sign of a possible cost underestimate was noted in October 1988, I had already retired from the

Executive Council. Procedural matters apart, the important point was that there was basically no breach of the

two directives from the Executive Council. First, the Administration did seek and obtain the

approval of the Finance Committee of the Legislature on 1 June 1990 for commitment of

additional public funds before the exhaustion of the sum of $ I, 500 million pledged by the Jockey

Club. In other words, there was no commitment of additional public funds prior to approval by

the Finance Committee. Thus the second directive has been fulfilled. As a matter of fact, in the paper submitted to the Finance Committee of the Legislature on

1 June 1990 when the budget of $3,548 million was approved, Members of the Finance

Committee were informed by Government that in early 1989 it was brought to the attention of

Government that the original estimate of the base cost of $1,620 million would be inadequate.

Contrary to what has been widely and consistently rumoured, the reasons for the increases in

the base cost were clearly explained to the Finance Committee. They were due to the original

estimates having been based on very preliminary designs which had not taken into account a

number of site and infrastructural factors, the particular requirements of a high technology

university, the tight construction time-table, and the additional work necessary to anticipate a

future Phase Ill. The precise magnitude of the increase could not be firmly established until the

tenders for the major works in Phase I were received from June 1989 onwards. Estimate Budget Increase May 1988 June 1990 SM SM SM Base Cost TPI 430 BSI 239 1,620 2,340 720 Inflation 310 1,208 898 Total 1,930 3,548 1,618 At that time the Finance Committee had the option either to reduce the scope of the project

to effect savings or to vote for additional public funds without changing the scope. It was not a

Hobsons choice. Members should take note that even at that stage no additional Government

money had been committed. However, these explanations of theAdministration for the increase

of the base cost from $1,620 million in the preliminary estimate to $2,340 million in this budget

87 were accepted without opposition vote by the Members of the Finance Committee when they

approved the budget of $3,548 million on 1 June 1990. By approving this budget the Finance Committee assumed responsibility to be accountable

to the public for the spending of funds on Phases I and II of the HKUST campus up to the level

of $3,548 million. As long as this budget is not exceeded, it is notjustified nor right to say that

there is a cost overrun. If the Members of the PAC today do not agree with the decision of the

Finance Committee of 1990, explanation should besought from the Finance Committee of 1990.

Any suggestion that the Finance Committee made its decision 20 months ago without a full and

complete understanding of the facts and implications of this issue is an insult to the competence

of its Members. Now, coming to the other directive of the Executive Council that the project design and

construction of HKUST should conform with the standards and norms of the UPGC and the

Government, the Director of Audit's comments are contained in the two paragraphs I 3.17 and

13.18 of his Report. Paragraph 13.17 deals with the so-called additional building areas (totalling

20,508 square metres) for general infrastructural and external works included in the project. The

University and Polytechnic Grants Committee has advised the Director of Audit that such areas

are not covered by the normal space norms, and that they would be approved on the basis of

individual merits. During the public hearing on 19 December 199 1, the Chief Executive of the Jockey Club

responded that all the areas mentioned had been included in the brief for the architectural

competition and became part of the original master plan with the full knowledge and agreement

of the Government and the UPGC. This explanation is very clear indeed. Gross floor area (square metres) Multi-storey carpark 12,048 Northern entrance canopy 1,037 East west transport link bridge 2,523 East west transport link areas in housing 2.37 1 Others Furthermore, Members should take note of a directive given by the Chief Secretary to the

Chairman of the Jockey Club in December 1989 before the Administration decided to recom-

mend the budget of $3,548 million to the Finance Committee of the Legislature. The Chairman

of the Jockey Club was asked that his Project Manager get together with the Government's

Director OfArchitectural Services to examine the detailed aspects in a Paper titled "Points requiring

clarification on the budget submission", in which all items having any bearing on a cost increase

were included. Items such as reconciliation of areas, non-funded accommodation and car

parking were included in this Paper. Since all those items were finally included in the $3,548

88 million budget, they clearly had the approval of the Government. Paragraph I 3.18 of the Director ofAudit's Report draws attention to the provision of five items

which appear to lie outside UPGC norms or the scope originally approved by the Government.

Two of these five items (air-conditioning for postgraduate hostels and a swimming pool for the

Distinguished Visitors Lodge) have been dealt with by the Chief Executive of the Jockey Club at

the public hearing on 19 December 199 I. I shall therefore confine myself to the remaining three

items. Taking, first, the item on the infrastructure to allow provision of quarters for 75% of eligible

staff and 72% of students, it is true that the original approved scope was for 50% of eligible staff

and 30% of students only. The original intention was to have 50% of the University staff living

outside the campus in order to mix with the community and enhance town and gown relationships. However, in view of the fast-rising property prices and rentals in recent years, the University

Council took a prudent step to maximise the potential of housing sites on campus with a view

to saving staff housing costs and hence public money in future years. The additional capital cost

of $30.2 million for expanding the infrastructure could bring a net saving of about $400 million,

if the University were to acquire properties off campus for its staff housing at a later date.

Alternatively, the saving would be approximately $380 million at 1992 prices over a period of 20

years, should the University continue to rent off campus staff housing. The University believes strongly that a very important part of tertiary education lies in the

student life on campus. In a technological university where students have to spend much more

time during the day to attend laboratories and workshops, active participation in university

community life can only be possible by residence on campus. For this reason, the University

Council has had many discussions with the Government and eventually received its consent to

build a greater number of student quarters than the original 30% limit, provided that private

funding is available for capital costs and recurrent costs are met from hostel fees. The additional

infrastructure is to make this future development possible and had to be carried out at this stage.

Turning to the eight town houses for senior academic staff, it is correct that the original

approved scope was for apartments, which were intended for less senior staff. It was discovered

later that the original plan overlooked the requirements of very senior staff. Instead of buying or

renting housing for the very senior staff off campus, the University considered that it would be

more economical in providing eight town houses on campus for very senior staff instead of eight

apartments for less senior staff. It should be noted that there are already over 30 town houses

at the University of Hong Kong. With regard to the comment by the Director of Audit concerning the provision of I,1 16 car

parking spaces instead of the original scope for 700 spaces, it should be noted that there are no

UPGC norms governing the number of car parking spaces and that the number depends on

factors relevant to the institution and site concerned. The way used in the original master plan

was to provide 1 space for every 10 full time equivalent (FTE) students. The 7,000 FTE students

planned for Phase II equated therefore with 700 car parking spaces. Another way, as the

University learned at a later stage, is the formula that works satisfactorily at the University of Hong

89 Kong. This method is that all Assistant Lecturers or equivalent and above are eligible for parking

labels, and I .5 labels are provided per spa,& Nonetheless, in view of the sub-urban location of

HKUST causing greater car usage, 1 space is provided for every 1.25 parking labels. If experience

at a later date shows signs of over-provision, an adjustment can be made at Phase Ill.

Members of the PAC have seen that there were good reasons for all these so-called non-

standard provisions. Again, contrary to the erroneous impression created, these so-called non-

standard provisions cost a total of about $50 million, or I .5% of the total budget of $3,548 million.

The University Council conveyed its wish to make these changes for the above items to the

Chairman of the Project Management Committee, who then directed the RHKJC Project Manager

to include these revised requirements in the papers attached to the $3,548 million budget

submission. It is understood that all these changes have been reviewed by the Director of Architectural

Services together with the RHKJC Project Manager, as directed by the Chief Secretary in

December 1989. Accordingly, their continued inclusion in the HKUST project was clear evidence

that they all have had the full knowledge and agreement of the Government. The Director of Audit in making the comment that these provisions and facilities, in his own

word, "appear" -and I repeat, "appear to lie outside the scope originally approved by the

Government without taking a more thorough investigation into the subsequent process of

approval by the Government is, to say the least, misleading and, more unfortunately, causing

much damage to both the University and the Jockey Club. Finally, with regard to the last question directed to me concerning a meeting on I I April 1990

between the Chief Secretary, the then Chairman of RHKJC and myself, as the Chairman of the

HKUST Council. Both Sir David FORD, as the Chairman at that meeting, and Sir Gordon

MACWHINNIE havealready responded to thevarious points queried by Members of the PAC. and

I have nothing more to add. Facilities provided Estimated cost Air-conditioning for 300 post-graduate hostel units Swimming pool for the Vice-Chancellor's Lodge (built for the adjoining Distinguished Visitors Lodge) Eight town houses for senior academic staff I I 16 car parking spaces provided up to Phase II Infrastructure to allow provision of quarters for 75% of eligible staff and 72% of students 54.6M $0.7M S3.9M Not known 530.2M

Appendix F 90 HKUST CAMPUS DESJGN AND CONSTRUCTION Sir S. Y. Chung's Speaking Note Public Accounts Committee Public Hearing 2 March 1992 I just want to make a brief statement. Last week, Mr Jose LEI used the metaphor of a taxi by

saying that the Government was a paying passenger in the back seat of a taxi and the driver was

the Jockey Club, who was told to go anywhere by the University. The taxi analogy involves the Jockey Club, the Hong Kong Government and the University

of Science and Technology. Speaking for the University, I will say that it is totally untrue that the

University was dictating to the Jockey Club, which then blindly followed our instructions, while

the Government, represented by Mr Jose Lei himself, was somehow unable or unwilling to

control the course taken by the taxi. Mr Leis implication that the University has been lavishly spending public funds to build a Rolls-

Royce campus is simply not supported by facts. First, with all the expertise and diligence of the

Audit Department, they could only identify what appeared to be the so-called deviations from

design standards and norms shown in paragraphs 13.17 and 13.18 of the Director of Audits

Report. Even then, all of these so-called deviations, which amounted to l-2% of the total budget,

have been explained and shown necessary and had the full knowledge and agreement of the

Government. As Mr Lei's accusation at the last hearing on 24 February is serious, I have asked the Pro-Vice-

Chancellor for Administration and Business to review in detail the minutes of all the 54 meetings

of the Campus Project Management Committee since it was set up in 1987. He is present here

this morning, and I would like to ask him the following question: How many requests did you find that were made by the University to the Jockey Club which

were outside the original scope of the project, or were in violation of the UPGC norms, and were

not approved by either authorizing party but were nevertheless included in the project?

/The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Administration and Business has reviewed all the minutes in

detail and has not found any University request carried out without the explicit approval of

Government or the UPGC.] It is therefore very clear that no request made by the University has been carried out without

the explicit approval of the Government or the UPGC. If Mr Lei can point to any instance when

the Jockey Club carried out any request from the University without Government or UPGC

approval, I would like to hear it. As for the charge that public funds were lavishly spent to build a Rolls-Royce campus, the most

telling evidence to refute this allegation is to compare HKUST's unit cost with that of another

campus of similar nature built during the same period. First, let us calculate the unit cost of the

HKUST campus. The total budget for the construction of the University campus, Phases I and II,

as approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislature on I June 1990, is $3,548 million,

inclusive of professional fees, for a total of 279,266 square metres GFA, giving a budget unit cost

of 5 12,705 per sqm GFA. According to the list of adjustment factors published by the Governments Architectural

Services Department for tender price comparison at different site locations, prices for construction

contracts in the Sai Kung area are to be discounted by 10%. Hence the adjusted budget unit cost

for the HKUST campus, in accordance with the Government's own formula and practice, is

5 1 1,434 per sqm GFA. -. -- -

91 It happens that the University campus, Phases I and II, and the City Polytechnic campus, Phase

II, are being built at the same time and both are expected to be completed by the end of 1992.

Strictly speaking, no two campuses are alike. Nonetheless, this comparison does serve an

important and useful purpose. The budget for the construction of the City Polytechnic campus, Phase II, is $542.6 million,

also inclusive of professional fees, and the total GFA is 49,324 sqm. The unit construction cost

works out to be $1 I,00 1 per sqm. As the City Polytechnic campus is in the urban area, the

discount factor is zero. Comparing the unit construction costs of the two campuses, the cost of the University campus

is about 4% higher than that of the City Polytechnic, Phase II, which is being constructed at the

same time as the University, under Government control. Much of this difference is accounted for by the fact that the University had to be built on a

steep slope, requiring substantial substructural works. In addition, again because of the large 60-

hectare site and remote location of the University campus, it was necessary to put in major surface

and underground installations both for distribution within the campus and for connecting the

campus to the outside infrastructure such as water, gas, electricity, and communication and

transport links. Moreover, a major sewage tunnel through a mountain to Junk Bay had to be

constructed specially for environmental reasons. While this comparison may not be precise, nonetheless it does give some indication of the

order of comparative costs. Certainly, a 4% difference in unit cost between the University and the

Polytechnic, if anything, is purely marginal and can hardly be called Rolls-Royce.

It does not matter how the University and the Jockey Club are being criticized, or how

dramatic and eloquent the taxi analogy appeals to the public, it is the bottom line that counts.

And the bottom line based on unit cost does not support the misguided and damaging publicity

that has discredited both the University and the Jockey Club. To conclude, the HKUST campus is neither a runaway taxi, nor a luxurious Rolls-Royce, but

rather a well-designed, well-made and hi-tech vehicle transporting Hong Kong's young people

into the 2 1 st century world of science, technology and management.

Appendix G 92 REPLIES TO THE WRiTTEN OUESTIONS ASKED BY THE PUBLlC ACCOUNTS COMMllTEE I. Sir S.Y. Chung Chairman of the University Council 8 May 1992 FIRST SET OF OUESTIONS 0 (a) (i) Who was ultimately responsible for the wording of the rules of the competition and

in particular clause 2.27? (ii) Was it drafted by a lawyer? If so, by whom? A The Capital Works and Building Projects (CWBP) Subcommittee, chaired by Dr N.K.

CHAN, was given the task of recommending to the HKUST Planning Committee (PC) the appointment of architects and professional consultants for the preparation and

execution of a master campus development plan. To carry out this task the CWBP Subcommittee decided to organise and run an architectural competition. The setting of the competition rules was done by the CWBP Subcommittee and was based on the Royal Institute of British Architects code of practice, the guidelines

for promoters ofarchitectural competitions by HMG Department of Environment, and

the competition rules used by City Polytechnic in I 983, as well as in consultation with

the Hong Kong Institute of Architects. However, legally speaking, it was presumed

that the HKUST PC, as the promoter of the competition, would be ultimately responsible for the competition rules. These competition rules, as I understand now, were not drafted by a lawyer. Q PI According to your understanding of the situation, if Dr N.K. Chan had not purportedly

on behalf of the Assessment Panel invited the Planning Committee to consider both

the winner of the competition and the runner-up for adoption as the blueprint for the

University, would you as chairman of the Planning Committee have invited the Committee to consider any submission other than the winner picked by the Assessment Panel? A It was well understood at the outset (i.e. the end of 1986). as recorded in the minutes

of the first meeting of the Capital Works and Building Projects Subcommittee, that it

was not necessary for the Subcommittee to confine its recommendations to the Planning Committee to the firm of architects submitting the winning design in the

competition. It was also the understanding of the PC that it had no obligation to adopt

the winner of the competition for the campus design, as recorded in the minutes of

its Second Plenary Session held in January 1987. Or N.K. Chan in his other capacity

as chairman of the CWBP Subcommittee could, if he wished, recommend to the PC both the winner and runner-up designs. Any member of the PC could also propose to consider the runner-up or indeed any of the six designs picked for the stage II

competition. As chairman of the PC, I too could have done so if I wished. In any way,

the question is a speculative one.

93 Q (c) (i) Do you know who is responsible for the drafting of the TUPC Paper 28187 dated 20

November 1987 entitled "HKUST Architectural Competition Stage II, the Assessment

Panels Recommendation"? (ii) Did you h ave any part to play in the preparation of that paper? I was informed by the former Secretary-General of the Planning Committee that the

TUPC Paper 28/87 of 20 November 1987 was drafted by the Chief Professional Adviser of the Secretariat under the direction of the Chairman of theAssessment Panel,

Or Chan. The Chief Professional Adviser was seconded from the Government's Architectural Services Department. Or Chan was concurrently the chairman of the Capital Worksand Building Projects Subcommittee, which was responsible for making

recommendations to the PC for the campus design. I did not play any part in the preparation of that paper. Q ((4 The Press Release dated 20 November 1987 states, 'The Assessment Panel set up by

the Planning Committee had selected a winner and runner-up". Or Chan has now gone on record, in his letter of 28 February 1992 to the PAC. that "the question of a

runner-up was not discussed". Professor MAKl's letter of 22 December 1987 con- firmed that "we have not specified a runner-up scheme following the winner scheme

J". Mr Jose LETS account in the 3rd Hearing of the PAC confirmed that. In the circumstances, do you not think that this statement in the Press Release was misleading? A I was informed by the former Secretary-General of the Planning Committee that on

the morning of 20 November 1987 a draft TUPC Paper 28/87 was faxed to Mr J. Lei,

as a local member of the Assessment Panel (AP), seeking his comments on the paper.

No comment was received from him and it was reasonable to assume that he did not

object to the draft. It should also be noted that Professor Maki stated in his letter of 22 December I 987

that members of the AP had delegated the full authority to their chairman, Or Chan,

to draft their report. It was therefore up to Or Chan to use the ranking of the design

submissions made by members of the AP and exercise his own judgement in drafting

the report. In the circumstances as described above, the statement in the Press Release

could not be considered misleading. SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS Q (a) (i) Why was it necessary to have the views of the Planning Committee made known to

the Assessment Panel (AP) if the AP was expected only to pick the winner of the competition and the Planning Committee was to have a free choice of the architect

for the project? (ii) Why was Or WERNER invited by the PC to attend the 15 November meeting7 Was a

similar invitation extended to the other members of the AP?

A In clause 2.27 of the competition there IS a sentence: "The competition has been

designed in such a way that the chances of the winning architect being considered

suitable for appointing as the project architect are maximised". Making known to the

AP the views of the PC was a genuine attempt by the PC to maximise the chances of

appointing the winning architect as the project architect. Dr Werner was a member of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC) and additionally a member of the UPGC's Subcommittee on HKUST. Dr Werner was also the former president ofa technological university in Australia. He was

invited to assist Dr N.K. Chan in conveying the views of the PC to members of the

Assessment Panel. I do not recall other invitations. 0 (b) (i) Before the meeting on 20 and 2 1 November 1987, did you know any of the partners

of the Simon Kwan and Percy Thomas Partnership? (ii) Did you h ave any working, business, or social relationship with them or any of them?

A Hong Kong is a very small place and its social circles are also very small. With my

involvement in both business and community service for more than 30 years, it would

be difficult for me to say with certainty whether I had or had not known, or had or

not had any business or social relationship with, the partners of any of the architects

taking part in the competition. Nonetheless, I have known HKU Professor K. C. LYE, the winning architect, since 1983 when I was chairman of the City Polytechnic Planning Committee. Professor Lye

was an assessor for the City Polytechnic architectural competition. I believe most local

members of the AP know members of the many design submissions in the competi- tion. I am certain that all local members of the Assessment Panel know Professor Lye

of the winning design. I understand Professor Maki, another assessor, was at one time

the external examiner for HKU School of Architecture and therefore should know many of the HKU members serving on the winning design team. I also know the firm of Percy Thomas, which was a partner of Mr W.N. CHUNG, the architect of the winning design in the 1983 City Polytechnic competition. Mr

Chung was a local assessor of the HKUST competition. This question appears to imply that I would let my social contacts influence my judgement. I must strongly object to that implication. Q (c) (i) Was it unequivocally made known to the members of the Planning Committee on the

20 and 2 1 November 1987 meetings that they could legitimately under the rules ignore the expectations of the winner of the competition and choose submission 'I"

as the blueprint for the University? (ii) Was you tt t' r a en ion specifically drawn to clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition?

A Members of the Planning Committee should have known at the outset that the PC had

the right to use another design apart from the winner of the competition. This was

A based on the fact that at the Second Plenary Session of the Planning Committee held

on 5 and 6 January 1987, Or Chan in his capacity as Chairman of the Capital Works

and Building Projects Subcommittee reported that the Subcommittee had agreed that

the firm submitting the winning design should not automatically be awarded the architectural contract. Following the announcement on 2 1 November 1987 of the PC's decision to use the runner-up design, the winning architect lodged a protest to the PC. As a result,

the PC sought legal opinion from the Crown Counsel, who readily confirmed the right

of the PC to use the runner-up design. Yes, I was aware of clause 2.27 in the competition rules. Would you agree that Or WOO was the most vocal member against submission "J" and in favour of submission 'I"? Were you influenced by his advocacy? Or C.W. Woo was at that time the HKUST Vice-Chancellor (Designatej. He had been the President of San Francisco State University for a number ofyears and had valuable

experience in campus management and university administration. He was also the first Chinese to attain the high position of presidency of a state university in the USA.

The Vice-Chancellor is both the chief executive officer and the chief academic officer

of the University and, as such, Or Woo's views on the campus design would naturally

carry weight and command respect. As Chairman of the Planning Committee, I did expect a great deal of contribution from Or Woo on this subject. As the founding Vice-

Chancellor, Or Woo would have failed in his responsibility if he had not expressed a

strong opinion. In retrospect, Or Woo should have been made a member of the AP, as in the case of the City Polytechnic competition in which the Director (Designate)

was a member of the Assessment Panel. Anyone who has knowledge and experience in committee work would no doubt know that the prime objective in committee meetings is to hear other's opinions and

to persuade others to accept one's own views. On this particular subject, I found his

views, generally speaking, consistent with mine. At the meeting of the Planning Committee on 20 November, the views expressed were quite diverse. But there was a unanimous decision on the following day in rejecting submission "J", the winner of the competition, in favour of submission 'I".

Did you talk to any other member of the Planning Committee or any consultant or other persons between the two meetings? What were your reasons in rejecting the winner of the competition in spite of the clear

wording of clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition? I do protest strongly the imputation of this question. It is not uncommon in any

committee work that discussions continue informally outside meetings. However, I

did not talk to any member of the PC between the two meetings, except during a brief

period immediately after the first meeting and a few minutes just prior to the second

meeting as a part of normal social intercourse. As recorded in the minutes of the Fifth Plenary Session, the building of a university

campus would be a milestone in the history of Hong Kong and a major decision of this nature should not be taken too lightly. Members at the meeting agreed that they

should reflect on the matter overnight and I, as chairman of the PC, directed that the

submissions and drawings of both the winner and runner-up should be available for

inspection and study by members both in the evening and the next morning. All these

were properly documented. If some members did stay behind after the first meeting to make further study of

the two designs and in the course of doing so exchanged views informally between

the two meetings, I see nothing wrong with this. What we were trying to do was to

find the best campus design for the new university. Apart from those of my opinions recorded in the minutes of the meetings, I also shared many of the views of the Vice-Chancellor in rejecting the winner of the competition, 0 (f) (i) Was the summary of the meetings of the Planning Committee on 19, 20 and 2 1

November 1987 approved subsequently by the Planning Committee? (ii) Does this summary accurately reflect what you said? And what other people said?

(iii) Is there any particular detail in the summary that you believe to be inaccurate? If so,

what should it have been? A I believe the summary referred to in the question is the minutes of the Fifth Plenary

Session of the Planning Committee. These minutes were confirmed at the Sixth and

final Plenary Session ofthe Planning Committeeon 9April 1988. It has been more than

four years since the meeting that took place in November 1987, and I find it difficult

to answer your questions (ii) and (iii). Nonetheless, these minutes could be regarded

as accurate enough for the intended purpose of serving as a brief record of events

leading to the selection of the campus design.

97 II. Professor Chin-Wei Woo Vice-Chancellor and President g0 May 1992 QUESTIONS DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TO THE VICE-CHANCELLOR Q (a) (i) In what capacity were you present at all or some of the meetings of the Assessment

Panel in their deliberations on the choice of the winner of the competition? A I was a member of the University's Planning Committee since August 1986. In November 1987, I accepted an offer to become HKUST's founding Vice-Chancellor and to take up the post in September 1988. I believe it was in these two capacities that

I was invited in November 1987 to attend meetings of the Assessment Panel and the

Planning Committee in Hong Kong. 0 (ii) At these meetings did you express your views, your "philosophy", or your preference

to the members of the Assessment Panel? A My main role at the meetings of the Assessment Panel, as I understood it, was to

receive information - in the form of listening to presentations and asking questions.

Through the nature of the questions, members of the Assessment Panel and presenters of the architectural designs learned about my educational philosophy.

Some views and comments were provided by me-at the invitation of the Panel. I do

not recall having been asked explicitly to state my preference. Q (b) (i) Can the Public Accounts Committee be informed ofyour reasons for pushing so hard

for the selection of submission "L" by the Planning Committee during the meetings on

20th and 2 I st November 1987? A I found submission "J" unsuitable for a university of science and technology. (More on

this later.) My choice was then between submissions "K" and 'I". Please allow me to

reproduce all my comments on submissions "K" and 'I" from the Planning Commit- tee's minutes of 15, 20, and 2 1 November 1987. On Submission "K" 15 November 1987 'The Vice-Chancellor (Designate) commented this was one of the two submissions he preferred since more detail had been provided in the Design Report. He liked the concepts of the University Street, Academic Square and Academic Street since the campus would serve the dual purpose of university and college town. He considered the amenities facilities, amphi- theatre and pool area to be very attractive, and the scheme as a whole seemed to possess something of the charm that was lacking in others."

98 On Submission 'I" 15 November 1987 'The Vice-Chancellor (Designate) said this was his other preferred scheme, and he had been impressed by the detail contained within the Design Report. He considered a break to be necessary along the academic concourse, however, and he pointed out the need for changes in the Senior Staff Housing." 2 I November 1987 the Vice-Chancellor (Designate) advised that although he supported 'L and had stated his reasons for this at the previous day's meeting, the scheme would require modification. He had a number of modifications which could be suggested later, but in particular, he referred to the entrance which could be modified to provide a signature for the University; the circular shape could perhaps be changed to parabolic, like a satellite dish, to symbolise students coming into the entrance and on graduation radiating back to the community." It should be clear from the above minutes, which contained all my comments on submissions "K" and 'I", that at no time did I "push so hard" for the selection of

submission 'I". Having said the above, let me state in no uncertain terms that I did find submission

'I" conceptually sound and aesthetically pleasing, and its architects competent and

experienced. At the meetings of the Planning Committee, enough along these lines

had been said by the other members that I did not find it necessary to contribute

additional remarks. I was happy with the decision taken unanimously by the members

of the Planning Committee. Now that we have been on campus for eight months, I can report that the University's staff and students have been generally satisfied with the architectural and

engineering design of the buildings. Those familiar with the academic world would

know that such a statement is by no means an easy one to make. Academic, professional, and casual visitors alike have praised the design of the

campus and marvelled at the speed of its construction. Hong Kong has every reason

to be proud of her newest educational and research facility, and to be proud of the

members of the Planning Committee for the wisdom and courage they exhibited in selecting the right design. Q (ii) In pushing so hard to have model "J" rejected did you ever think of the other people

who would also be living and working in the University - members of the academic

staff and students; and that they may not agree with your philosophy? Did you that your successor(s) likewise may not agree with your philosophy?

A "Pushing so hard to have model 'J' rejected" was a very strange and unfortunate way

of describing frank discussions among members taking part in committee meetings.

Also, I object to the way in which the question was posed. On Submission "J" I was disappointed with many aspects of submission "J". As indicated in the minutes, I did not like the design for both conceptual and aesthetic reasons. More specifically, the concept proclaimed by the architects of submission "J" that

the University should be like the Kai Tak Airport was disturbing. While Kai Tak was, and

still is, most efficient as an airport, it could hardly be regarded as a suitable model for

a university. The concept betrayed a confused sense of identity. The building design lacked imagination. Ouoting what I said from the minutes: 'There was no entrance, no focus, no statement, nor any element of charm." At the time of the competition, I was surprised that some members of the Assessment Panel had described submission "J" as reflecting the spirit of science and

technology. Neither Or R L Werner, the only person familiar with science and technology on theAssessment Panel, nor I, a lifelong scientist, could recognisescience

and technology in the string of boxes featured in submission "J". As recorded in the

Planning Committee minutes, I thought it unlikely "that architects should impose their

interpretation of what a university of science and technology should look like on

scientists who could not recognise it." Hollywood's stereotyping of technology as a monotony of lines, squares, and cubes poses a far cry from real-life. Scientists and technologists always seek beauty,

and look for humanising environments in which to live and work. It was natural, then,

none of the many prominent scientists and technologists serving on the Planning Committee embraced the interpretation of technology offered by the Assessment Panel. The underlying "universal space concept" of submission "J" was questioned by a number of people including Professor Maki on the Assessment Panel and Professors

Higginson and Birt on the Planning Committee. I myself had felt that the concept was

unworkable. Answers to my questions during the Assessment Panel meetings had led

me to wonder whether the architects were familiar with some of the basic elements

of modern technological universities. However, at the Planning Committee meetings

I did not point them out, since there was no need to reiterate what others had already

expressed. As recorded in the minutes, I "alluded to the life style of academic staff and students, outlining a typical daily routine on campus", and wondered how many would enjoy living and working in an environment represented by submission "J". As the designated chief academic and executive officer of the new University, it

was no doubt my responsibility to help safeguard the working and living conditions

of all our future staff and students. As can be seen, I took that responsibility most

seriously.

100 Educational Philosophy Members of the PAC, many being experienced managers and professionals, must appreciate that each profession espouses a common basic philosophy. Views diverge

on finer points, but there is always a main theme which is common. Education is no

different. Did I understand that common philosophy? . I have lived my entire life as an academic and educator. From age 28 onwards, I taught and conducted research in physics, first as a postdoctoral researcher, then

an assistant professor for 2 years and associate professor for 3 years, becoming full

professor at 35. From age 36 to 4 I, I headed a large Department of Physics and Astronomy at a majorAmerican university (Northwestern Universin From age 4 1 to

45, I was a Provost and Professor of Physics at one of the world's leading technological

universities (University of California, San Diego) - as chief executive of its science-

oriented Revelle College and, for two years, as Chairman of the University's Space

Committee - during a period of rapid expansion. At 45, I became President of the only

comprehensive state university in San Francisco (San Francisco State University). For

5 years, it was myjob to direct the operation, planning, and further development of

that 27,000-student campus. I believe it was my hands-on academic and administrative experience which led HKUST's Planning Committee to think that I understood education, and subsequently

to appoint me as the founding Vice-Chancellor. That the University has been able to

attract so many top scholars in such a short time attests to the strength of its

educational philosophy, to which my colleagues and I adhere. As for my successors,

it is hoped that they believe as much as I do in sharing the governance of the institution

with the academic staff and, as a consequence, need deviate little from the commonly

held basic philosophy. On Reaching Consensus The minutes quoted me stating that reasonable people could disagree, and that I had the highest regard for Dr Chan and respected the differing views ofAssessment

Panel members. The minutes also quoted me stating that I would accede to the collective wisdom of the members of the Planning Committee, and I would do my best to make the design concept work if members decided in favour of submission "J". The minutes showed thatjust before the Planning Committee took its secret ballot,

again, "the Vice-Chancellor (Designate) wished to place on record his appreciation of

members' consideration in this matter and he urged each to express his own personal

opinion; as a good team player, he would abide by the decision of the majority."

I firmly believe this is how democracy should work. All participants should make

full use of their expertise, do their homework diligently, make their arguments well,

and listen to others' opinions respectfully. At the end, they should vote independently,

each in accordance with his or her individual conviction. The majority rules. I should think this is how the Legislative Council works. If so, perhaps this particular

question from the PAC could have been posed in a less contemptuous way. QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO ALL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Why was it necessary to have the views of the Planning Committee made known to the Assessment Panel if the Assessment Panel was expected only to pick the winner

of the competition and the Planning Committee was to have a free choice of the architect for the project? I do not know. I was then one of the overseas members of the Planning Committee.

The overseas members, naturally, did not take part in organising meetings for the

Planning Committee or the Assessment Panel. Why was Or Werner invited by the Planning Committee to attend the 15th Nov meeting? Was a similar invitation extended to the other members of the Assessment

Panel? I do not know. Before the meeting on 20 and 2 1 Nov 1987, did you know any of the partners of the

Simon Kwan and Percy Thomas Partnership? Prior to the meetings of the Assessment Panel, which preceded 20 and 2 1 November

by a few days: No. To my best recollection, I had never met any of them before coming to Hong Kong to attend a week of meetings commencing 15 November 1987. Did you have any working, business, or social relationship with them or any of them?

No. With due respect, I would like to suggest a more thorough investigation of this matter. Members of the PAC may wish to expand the scope of the inquiry to find out:

* whether any member of the Planning Committee know, or have any working, business, or social relationship with anyone involved in submission "J"; * whether any member of the Assessment Panel know, or have any working, business, or social relationship with anyone involved in submission "J" or I"; and

* whether any member of the PAC raising the question know, or have any working, business, or social relationship with anyone involved in submission "J" or "L". I believe the public may wish to learn the answers to all these questions -for the same

reason that the PAC wishes to know if the members of the Planning Committee had any relationship with "any of the partners of the Simon Kwan and Percy Thomas

Partnership". There is no reason to limit the scope of inquiry to submission 'I". Nor is

there any reason to limit the objects of the inquiry to members of the Planning Committee. I suggest that written responses to all these questions be forwarded to ICAC for

further analysis. Was it unequivocally made known to the members of the Planning Committee on the 20th and 2 1 st of November 1987 that they could legitimately under the rules ignore

the expectations of the winner of the competitron and choose submission 'I" as the

blueprint for the University? I cannot recall the exact wording. However, it was clear that the Planning Committee

would decide which design was to be adopted. Otherwise there would be no need for the Planning Committee to meet on the subject. Was your attention specifically drawn to Clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition?

I cannot recall the exact wording. However, it was clear that the Planning Committee

would decide which design was to be adopted. Otherwise there would be no need for the Planning Committee to meet on the subject. Would you agree that Dr. Woo was the most vocal member against submission "J" and in favour of submission 'I"? Were you influenced by his advocacy? I was invited to give my views, and I did so dutifully. As Vice-Chancellor (Designate),

it would have been grossly irresponsible for me to have said less, or to have given my

views less candidly. The minutes of the Planning Committee clearly recorded why I

did not favour submission "J". The minutes showed, also, that while I supported submission "L" I was hardly the most vocal. Quite a few members spoke more specifically and strongly in favour of submission 'I". I certainly hope that the arguments I made were sound enough to have been given due consideration by the other members of the Planning Committee. It would,

however, be an insult to the intelligence of the other members to suggest that they

were easily influenced. At the meeting of the Planning Committee on the ZOth, the views expressed were quite diverse. But there was a unanimous decision on the following day in rejecting

submission 'II", the winner of the competition in favour of submission 'I". With due respect, I must disabuse the members of the PAC of this distorted, but often

repeated, impression of the proceedings of the Planning Committee. Other than Dr Chan Nai-keong's replies to questions raised by the members, I cannot find anywhere in the 20 November minutes of the Planning Committea single

positive comment on submission "J". I do not know on what basis the PAC reached the conclusion that "the views expressed were quite diverse" regarding submissions

The Planning Committee met on 15, 20, and 21 November 1987. To be thorough, I reviewed the 15 November minutes as well. Those minutes recorded, in

the section Specific Comments, six members providing their views on submission "J".

Their comments were largely negative. On the other hand, views were offered by nine members on submission "L". Their comments were largely positive. This was consistent with the 20 November minutes, which recorded: "Professor Tedford's impression from discussion at the plenary session on 15 November 1987 was that most members had liked 'L' and, if there were no serious drawbacks, then

'L' should be accepted." The minutes showed clearly that no onedisputed ProfessorTedford's observation, on 20 November, of a consensus favouring submission "L". Thus, the unanimous decision by the Planning Committee to select submission 'I" on the following day, 2 I November, was not surprising. With due respect, I would like to suggest that the members of the PAC examine, first-hand, the Planning Committee's complete set of minutes on the matter of design

selection. I would also like to suggest that these minutes be published for the public

to read first-hand, and be appended to the PAC's final report. They were not very long,

and deserve to be read undistorted. Did you talk to any other member of the Planning Committee or any consultant or other persons between the two meetings? It has been four and a half years. I cannot remember. What were your reasons in rejecting the winner of the competition in spite of the clear

wording of Clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition? The Planning Committee was accountable to society for the planning of the new , University, including making the final decision on its design. Every member of the

Planning Committee had to exercise his or her individual judgment. The winner of the competition did collect the prize money. The wording of Clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition let the Planning Committee fulfil its responsibility by selecting the right design for the building of the

campus. For the reasons summarised in the minutes, and again earlier in this letter, I personally did not favour submission "J". Was the summary of the meetings of the Planning Committee on 15th. ZOth, and 2 1 st

November 1987 approved subsequently by the Planning Committee? I cannot recall but have no reason to believe otherwise, since my impression was that

the Secretariat of the Planning Committee had operated strictly by the rules. Does this summary accurately reflect what you said? And what other people said?

104 A I am generally satisfied with the accuracy of the minutes of the Planning Committee.

Q (iii) Is there any particular detail in the summary that you believe to be inaccurate? If so,

what should it have been? A A difference in the choice of wording may have occurred here and there. There may

have been a missing sentence or two. Minutes are never meant to be full transcripts.

I am generally satisfied. The minutes showed that much care and concern was given by the members of the Planning Committee to the matter at hand in order to reach a sound and responsible decision. These minutes deserve to be read with equal care and concern.

With due respect, I would like to suggest that an accurate Chinese translation of

the Planning Committee's minutes on the design selection, as well as all the responses

to the PAC's questions on this matter, be commissioned and printed in the press. Since

much taxpayers' money has been spent on examining this subject, it is only fair that

the public be given an opportunity to see the documents in full and read them first-

hand. I believe the press would cooperate. I am certain that the public would appreciate

full transparency.