Education University of Hong Kong

• Faculty of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
• Faculty of Education and Human Development
• Faculty of Humanities
• Graduate School

• Academy of Hong Kong Studies (AHKS)
• Assessment Research Centre (ARC)
• Centre for Governance and Citizenship (CGC)
• The Joseph Lau Luen Hung Charitable Trust Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change (APCLC)

The 5.3-hectare (13-acre) Sports Centre is located at 55 Yau King Lane, Tai Po Kau, facing Tolo Harbour. It houses a range of outdoor and indoor sports and recreational facilities including:

• grandstand with undercover seating for 1,200 spectators
• 400-metre all-weather track with facilities for field events
• natural grass soccer pitch
• artificial turf soccer / hockey pitch
• five tennis courts
• jogging path with six fitness stations
• fitness room
• parking spaces[14]

• 24 June 2002 – Shortly after Li's appointment as Education Secretary, Li had apparently invited Morris to dinner and proposed a merger of the institute with the Chinese University. Li also apparently offered Morris to head the "super education centre".[16]
• 19 July 2002 – Morris was allegedly told by Simon Ip Sik-on, a former chairman of the institute's council, during a lunch he shared with Li and two other senior institute officials that Li threatened to render the institute unviable if a merger could not be achieved.[16]
• 14 October 2002 – Fanny Law had met with Arthur Li, Dr. Leung and its former vice chairman Alfred Chan Wing-kin. She issued an "internal email" to staff, stating the institute's wish for an early indication of a possible merger with the education faculty of the CUHK.[18]
• 25 January 2007 – The governing council of the institute decided in a vote of 10 to 3, with three abstentions, not to renew Vice Chancellor Morris' contract. Leung denied Morris' assertion about the threats to the security of his tenure, instead accusing Morris of misinterpreting him. Leung insisted that there was no connection between the two.[19][20] This led to speculation that the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) was trying to force an amalgamation of the institute with the CUHK.[21]
• 26 January 2007 – Deputy Vice Chancellor Professor Bernard Luk Hung-kay (陸鴻基) alleged on RTHK Radio 1's Openline Openview phone-in program that during the summer of 2003, after results of the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers were released, the media reported (falsely) that most of 330 teachers who had failed in the test were from The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Professor Luk accused Law for not having set the record straight[18] and alleged that this publicity resulted in a sharp fall in the number of applications for the next year, though the numbers had since recovered through hard work of the staff.
  Prof Luk also corroborated Vice Chancellor Morris' version of events by revealing a secret breakfast meeting that took place between Dr. Leung and the Vice Chancellor in June 2006.[22]
• 5 February 2007 – Luk alleged both in his open letter[23] and on RTHK Radio 1's Openline Openview program that Li had made veiled threats both against him and Morris in the past. For their refusal to make a news release denouncing those teachers who exceeded the placement quota for their profession and who were about to lose their current jobs, Arthur Li was quoted by Luk to have said on 26/27 June 2004, "I'll remember this. You will pay." (The quote was said in English).[24] Luk suggests in his letter that the time is up for his "pound of flesh."
  Luk also alleged that during January 2004, Li had phoned Morris to once again urge Morris to take the lead in amalgamating with CUHK. He threatened to reduce future student intake quotas of HKIEd otherwise.[25]
  Luk pointed out that there had been numerous newspaper articles written by IEd staff members in the past few years criticizing the EMB education reform and policies. Luk maintained this resulted in a number of phone calls from a certain high-ranking official in the EMB, demanding the immediate dismissals of those four staff members, which they refused to entertain.[26][27]
• 6 February 2007 – Staff members Leung Yan-wing (梁恩榮) and Ip Kin-yuen (葉建源) asked Legco to investigate further or set up an open hearing into the allegations. Legco member Cheung Man Kwong told RTHK Radio 1's Openline Openview phone-in program that he along with eight other Democratic camp members had already written to Legco's Education Committee chairman Tsang Yok-sing, urging him to convene an emergency meeting to investigate these allegations of government interference in the running of IEd.[28][29] Students overwhelmingly passed vote of no-confidence in Governing Board Chairman Thomas Leung Kwok-fai: of 680 the voters, only 36 students backed Leung. There were 65 abstentions and eight voided ballot papers.[28]
• 7 February 2007 – It was announced that Legco's Education Committee would convene on 12 February 2007 to discuss any further action and that it would invite both IEd representatives and Arthur Li himself if necessary.[30]
• 9 March 2007 – Pro-government legislators blocked an attempt to set up a Legco inquiry to investigate allegations over meddling with the academic freedom and autonomy of educational institutions. The vote failed by 30:21 with one abstention.[31]
• Chief Executive Donald Tsang set up a commission headed by Justice Woo Kwok-hing.
• 16 March 2007 – Justice Woo Kwok-hing resigned to avoid potential accusations of lack of impartiality.[32]
• 22 March 2007 – Commission hearings commenced.
• 20 June 2007 – The commission dismissed allegations that Li had interfered with the institutional autonomy, but pinned the blame on Fanny Law. Law resigned immediately from her post of Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.[33]
• 13 March 2009 – the Secretary for Education took out a judicial review application to challenge the commission's findings in 2007. In recognising that academic freedom is a self-contained right under Articles 34 and 137 of the Basic Law, the Court of First Instance held that the Permanent Secretary's (Mrs Fanny Law) approach did not violate the institute's right to academic freedom as she had not made any direct or indirect threats of sanction. The judicial review was allowed in March 2009.[34]