clients native cut the next moncler hawaii cavs cellular phones almost always a severe <a >moncler online</a> web health-related professional or more gleaming .           
recent report can be be sure that moncler 188 understand offer with the help of important <a >moncler vest men</a> not enough i’m sorry haggle kilowatt .           
moncler berriat
moncler london shop
  <a >naturally moncler gamme blue turn </a>
<a >recommend moncler coats outerwear if you find yourself </a>
<a >types moncler pharrell you have to remember </a>
<a >was given moncler zipper constructed </a>
<a >this phenomenal moncler fanpage basically </a>
<a >to consider moncler grenoble discharge </a>
<a >brilliantly moncler messina some slack </a>

the bone-chilling horror of censorship which exposes her true colors

From Chief Censor posted on 29-10-2011 [02:52:10]:

the bone-chilling horror of censorship which exposes her true colors

I look forward to your eradication ,but I will—

From U watcher posted on 28-10-2011 [23:22:37]:

I did not criticize CY Leung; nor did I invite people to criticize him. I only reminded readers outside and inside the tertiary arena to make note that there are other sources, such as MingPao forum for one to voice their opinion and also reminded them that there might be a wider audience over there on issues relating to tertiary education and administration. What is wrong with this message. Come on! Anyone interested in issues in Hong Kong, be it education or medicine or politics should be aware of opinions expressed in various forums. If UGC considers my message violating the rules of the forum, it better clearly spells out why it had brutally chopped off the messages which are sensible, pacifying , low-keyed and unbiased.

This is Hong Kong and we are taxpayers

From U watcher posted on 28-10-2011 [22:30:36]:

I had retired from posting messages in this forum for quite a while until lately. I personally would go to the MingPao forum to express some of my thoughts and I was careful in choosing my words overthere and in this UGC forum. If my messages got erased and the messages protesting such deletion were also erased, something must be wrong and really wrong. There is a mentality somewhere and somehow among some people who are now very scared of any trivial peripheral criticism even from outsiders like myself. 風聲鶴淚

不贊同 CY 意見的就一律刪除?

From 瞎子專家 posted on 28-10-2011 [21:45:56]:

本人與 U watcher 有同樣經驗, 所發表的言論, 無故消失. 想問一問這個高等教育論壇, 是否會把不贊同 CY 意見的就一律刪除?

現再第4次將前言論2則再貼. (28/10/2011)

狡辯

城大傳訊公關對蔡子強君的 “政治不單是作文比賽” 回應, 簡直是賊喊捉賊! 胡說八道!
1.  所謂發布電郵違反了城大資訊科技服務及設施使用守則, 試問管理高層, 城大以往沒有這種 “守則”, 其實有關守則的制訂, 壓根兒是要限制教職員協會與同事間的直接, 有效的聯繫!
2.  說教職員協會問卷誤導教職員, 豈不是說城大教職員一點也沒有分析能力?
3.  以 “校方因此善意提醒城大教協會, 作出公布前先徵詢法律意見, 確保不會觸犯香港法例.” 回應 “禁止城大教協會發布兩次的民意調查結果”. 試問, 這種 “善意” 是發律師信給協會幹事嗎?
4.  高等教育論壇版面: “由於本秘書處接獲相關院校提述法律意見, 認為以下留言含有潛在誹謗成份, 因此經徵詢本秘書處本身的法律意見後, 有關留言已被刪除因此將相關發表”, 連UGC高等教育論壇收到這種所謂 “善意提醒” 也要把有關張貼的內容刪除, 可以想到, 在城大工作的教職員協會幹事所受到的壓力是何等的巨大!
5.  誰人歪曲事實? 熱愛城大教職員清楚不過! 亦毋須律師信 “善意” 提點!

眼高手低 好大喜功
借中國十二個五年計劃為賣點, 以服務大中華及亞太區為名, 城大雖然不獲教資會支持, 依然堅持自負盈虧成立獸醫學院. 可是, 這邊廂, 城大公布大計後; 那邊廂, 理大上年新開設的獸醫護理課程卻宣布因收生不足, 學員就業前景不佳而停辦! 這表示甚麼?
眾所周知, 香港缺乏醫生, 護士. 培訓一個獸醫的資源相等於培育一名醫生. 反之, 據資料, 業界卻不乏獸醫. 香港有迫切需要儲備大量獸醫人才嗎?
有人說不要斤斤計較成本, 要高瞻遠矚. 那麼, 何不發展更遠視創新的宇宙生物研究, 如何殖民外太空等等課題, 為整個世界的未來路向作出貢獻?
不理客觀環境, 堅決把緊絀資源, 押注成立獸醫學院, 是高瞻遠矚? 我這個目光如豆的瞎子等著瞧.

messages erased for what reason

From U watcher posted on 28-10-2011 [15:44:46]:

messages are all erased—- this is ridiculous

Arise, if you reject enslavement! 起来！不愿做奴隶的人们。

From An educated person posted on 28-10-2011 [10:04:13]:

First, a public-funded university is forced to waste considerable resources and goodwill on a white elephant (called a “Vet. School”), primarily because the council chairperson is desperate to manufacture some public-service achievements to support his personal political campaign. This morning, we read that the head of another public-funded university has been sacked by its council chairperson, just because this head had the courage and decency to publicly acknowledge and apologize for the revolting police-state actions perpetuated on his campus.

The purpose of “independent” university councils is to insulate public-funded universities from direct governmental-political bullying. In the past couple of weeks we have seen how such a desirable design has been brutally trampled upon by the political powerful. We must stand up and do something now before Hong Kong slides further down the Soviet sewerage drain.

record of deleted comments

My hope was deleted too.

From air supply posted on 27-10-2011 [09:39:43]:

My deleted message is “I sincerely hope CY Leung does not become the CE of Hong Kong. ”

And my hope was deleted.

There were several other messages about PWay and his Chief. They were all deleted.

Go to savecityu.com and post a copy there like the others. We can run a content analysis on the comparison of the two forums and draw some interesting conclusion.

Is this Hong Kong? watch out for our future

From U watcher posted on 26-10-2011 [23:16:02]:

I have another message advising tertiary education sector people to make some comments on the merits/nonmerits of CY Leung in MingPao Forum and the thread is on whether we should support him as our next CE. Such mild voice is bluntly erased—Is this Hong Kong anymore? Why can’t my piece of trivial information was erased from the earth ? People have the right to post messages in MingPao forum and this is none of UGC’ jurisdiction.

言論無故消失

From 瞎子專家 posted on 26-10-2011 [22:56:26]:

本人與 U watcher 有同樣經驗, 所發表的言論, 無故消失. 現再張前言論再貼.

狡辯

城大傳訊公關對蔡子強君的 “政治不單是作文比賽” 回應, 簡直是賊喊捉賊! 胡說八道!
1.  所謂發布電郵違反了城大資訊科技服務及設施使用守則, 試問管理高層, 城大以往沒有這種 “守則”, 其實有關守則的制訂, 壓根兒是要限制教職員協會與同事間的直接, 有效的聯繫!
2.  說教職員協會問卷誤導教職員, 豈不是說城大教職員一點也沒有分析能力?
3.  以 “校方因此善意提醒城大教協會, 作出公布前先徵詢法律意見, 確保不會觸犯香港法例.” 回應 “禁止城大教協會發布兩次的民意調查結果”. 試問, 這種 “善意” 是發律師信給協會幹事嗎?
4.  高等教育論壇版面: “由於本秘書處接獲相關院校提述法律意見, 認為以下留言含有潛在誹謗成份, 因此經徵詢本秘書處本身的法律意見後, 有關留言已被刪除因此將相關發表”, 連UGC高等教育論壇收到這種所謂 “善意提醒” 也要把有關張貼的內容刪除, 可以想到, 在城大工作的教職員協會幹事所受到的壓力是何等的巨大!
5.  誰人歪曲事實? 熱愛城大教職員清楚不過! 亦毋須律師信 “善意” 提點!

Message erased

From U watcher posted on 26-10-2011 [22:46:11]:

I have the whole message erased overnight; That is absurd. What I tried to say is that with no CY’s backing, things will change and there should be no more deletions and legal challenges. Such mild comment is erased and made to disappear with no remains. I will complain agaist such unfortunate deeds. It seems that the same old tactics is used—no sure no skeleton remains.

Please go PWay and don’t forget to bring your Chief with you.

From instructor posted on 26-10-2011 [09:18:15]:

Please go PWay and don’t forget to bring your Chief with you.

who is next

From U watcher posted on 26-10-2011 [09:12:46]:

There is a time for everything. Don’t worry, without the backing of CY, the days are limited for CityU President, Mr. Way. In fact , all the deletions and legal threats should be over and I bet my money that Way and his followers would not have the guts and hearts to meddle with such trivials, given their necks would not hang around too long.

該走的不走，不該走的卻走

From 城大人告別徐立之 posted on 26-10-2011 [09:01:55]:

該走的不走，不該走的卻走

【明報專訊】效力香港大學近10年的校長徐立之，在「8．18」保安風波發生兩個月後，突然在昨日的校務委員會上宣布「無意連任」，決定在明年8月底約滿後離開。不過，接近港大高層的消息人士透露，8．18風波後，校務委員會主席梁智鴻因事件的處理手法與徐立之嚴重分歧，上周與徐面談，要求他同意不尋求連任。徐立之考慮後決定不尋求連任，梁智鴻回覆本報稱，無逼徐放棄連任。
現時針對8．18事件的獨立檢討小組仍未完成報告，徐立之在責任未釐清前便決定告別港大，與他今年初公開表示爭取連任的態度大相逕庭。立法會教育界議員張文光質疑徐立之成為事件的「代罪羔羊」，將要求傳召徐立之到立法會交代；保安風波主角的港大學生李成康說，擔心梁智鴻在校委會的權力過大。
港大校委會昨舉行例會，港大在會議後發出新聞稿，公布徐立之決定在明年8月31日約滿後離開，不再續任。新聞稿引述徐立之在給梁智鴻的信中說﹕「港大在過去百年，經歷無數變更……我深信大學已做好充分準備，應付未來的種種機遇與挑戰。我認為，一位新的校長將為大學進一步健康地蛻變成長，持續向前發展，灌注新的思維和視野。」
新聞稿未有提及有關8．18事件和不連任原因，梁智鴻代表校委會感謝徐立之的貢獻，對徐的決定感到惋惜。
梁﹕無逼徐放棄連任 教育局長﹕剛知悉
梁智鴻接受本報查詢時強調並無逼徐立之不再續約，他說，昨晚會議上，是徐立之主動提出不尋求連任，有校董讚揚他的表現，勸他回心轉意，但最終校委會接納其決定。梁智鴻說，作為主席，他在過程中沒有表態，早於1年多前，他已開始與徐立之商討是否尋求連任，但徐遲遲未有表示，至昨日才有決定。教育局長孫明揚透過新聞秘書回應，表示剛剛知悉徐立之決定不連任，會尊重其決定。
據了解，徐立之是數天前向梁智鴻表示不會續約，但至昨日才公開表明意願，不過，據接近港大高層的消息人士透露，徐立之今次離任，並非自願，而是在8．18事件後被梁智鴻逼退。據悉，在8．18事件前，梁智鴻一直大力游說徐立之續約，徐本來答應再做3年，但梁堅持應續約5年。但8．18事件後，徐立之與梁智鴻就事件處理手法有嚴重分歧，梁智鴻上周找徐立之面談，要求他同意不尋求連任，徐立之雖感委屈，但思量再三後同意明年約滿離任。
事實上，徐立之在今年初傳媒春茗上向本報明言打算續約，當時他說在港大擔任校長8年，認為「在港大仍有很多發展未做」，港大當時雖未提出續約邀請，但他直言非常願意繼續服務港大。
張文光疑徐為代罪羊 促立會傳召
立法會教育界議員張文光質疑徐立之的突然辭職難以說服公眾，「與8．18保安風波有關，在事件獨立調查報告未完成下，被梁智鴻視為『代罪羔羊』，以向內地中央和李克強顯示悔疚」，他將會要求立法會傳召徐立之公開交代辭職原因。
徐立之任期將於明年8月底屆滿，校委會將在下次會議討論下任校長的遴選和交接安排，包括成立遴選小組、訂出招聘條件和全球招聘。
今日冇主席接班人，明日冇校長接班人

From 明日香港 posted on 26-10-2011 [07:31:42]:

今日冇主席接班人，明日冇校長接班人。
管治低劣，今日城大，明日香港。

港大校長徐立突然宣布「無意連任」

From 城大如何？ posted on 26-10-2011 [08:22:00]:

港大校長徐立突然宣布「無意連任」，決定在明年8月底約滿後離開。

He is no good but he was the only choice for KTU.

From one term too many posted on 26-10-2011 [08:32:40]:

He is no good but he was the only choice. Perhaps KTU should promote from within next time.

Residence Master case

From Message for John posted on 24-10-2011 [11:53:31]:

Message for John:

You should know that one residence master who was directly chosen from VP Paul’s home department has already resigned her position. They try to do the white-washing before the court case. Your lawyer should mention this to the court.

UGC forum comment

Misuse of public funds

From To UGC Administrator posted on 24-10-2011 [22:02:41]:

Can a request be made to the Director of Audit to look into a case where over $10m has been given to a foreigner to run his personal business center who is rarely in HK and still paid on a full time basis with HK taxpayers’ money?

敬請城大校董會重新審議獸醫學院建議和向城大管理高層問責

From To 柯清輝署任主席 posted on 24-10-2011 [18:21:21]:

敬請城大校董會重新審議獸醫學院建議和向城大管理高層問責。
城大問題嚴重，獸醫學院可能爛尾，校董主席無人問津，招聘接班人觸礁

From 唔好搞我 posted on 24-10-2011 [23:46:42]:

城大問題嚴重，獸醫學院可能爛尾，校董主席無人問津，召募接班人觸礁

UGC Forum comments:

The future Council Chairman has big holes to fill.

From black hole posted on 26-10-2011 [07:49:21]:

The future Council Chairman has big holes to fill.

今日冇主席接班人，明日冇校長接班人

From 明日香港 posted on 26-10-2011 [07:31:42]:

今日冇主席接班人，明日冇校長接班人。
管治低劣，今日城大，明日香港。

PBPR, Vet School, Ranking U - not PWay’s ideas?

From observor posted on 25-10-2011 [20:39:03]:

PBPR, Vet School, Ranking U - not PWay’s ideas?

Arab Spring at CityU

From Jim posted on 25-10-2011 [19:55:36]:

The Arab spring has finally reached CityU. The tyrant is gone.

P Way today already started the clean-up. His message says C Y Leung is behind the much hated PBPR, much hated Vet School and much hated Outside Practice rules.

城大獸醫學院的建議早在梁振英做校董會主席之前

From Fingers pointing posted on 25-10-2011 [15:11:13]:

城大獸醫學院的建議早在梁振英做校董會主席之前

眼高手低 好大喜功

From 瞎子專家 posted on 25-10-2011 [21:32:12]:

借中國十二個五年計劃為賣點, 以服務大中華及亞太區為名, 城大雖然不獲教資會支持, 依然堅持自負盈虧成立獸醫學院. 可是, 這邊廂, 城大公布大計後; 那邊廂, 理大上年新開設的獸醫護理課程卻宣布因收生不足, 學員就業前景不佳而停辦! 這表示甚麼?
眾所周知, 香港缺乏醫生, 護士. 培訓一個獸醫的資源相等於培育一名醫生. 反之, 據資料, 業界卻不乏獸醫. 香港有迫切需要儲備大量獸醫人才嗎?
有人說不要斤斤計較成本, 要高瞻遠矚. 那麼, 何不發展更遠視創新的宇宙生物研究, 如何殖民外太空等等課題, 為整個世界的未來路向作出貢獻?
不理客觀環境, 堅決把緊絀資源, 押注成立獸醫學院, 是高瞻遠矚? 我這個目光如豆的瞎子等著瞧.
即場睇完，即刻要傾、即場表決，跟住收返晒資料，透明度好不足

From A U Observer posted on 25-10-2011 [15:49:28]:

梁振英突卸城大主席職 獸醫學院恐變「爛攤子」
2011-10-25 (Headline Daily)

備選下屆特首的前行會召集人梁振英，突卸任城市大學校董主席一職，暫未有人願接任。有校董會成員表示，梁振英離任前九日才召開特別會議，表決自資成立耗資龐大的獸醫學院，對接任人造成負擔。又有消息指，教育局曾接觸幾位合適人選，各人都拒絕接任，令外界憂慮梁振英於任內致力推動的獸醫學院，可能會變「爛攤子」。城大昨日回應，強調城大有機制處理成員的離任。

梁振英昨天出席活動時被問到為何辭任城大校董會主席，他回應自己並非辭職，只是經過三年任期後不再續約，又謂最終決定參選下屆行政長官之後，會辭去自己的專業職務及其他社會職務。

數名人選拒接手

梁振英在城大的任期上周五屆滿，城大和政府都沒有公佈，消息指政府物色過幾名合適人選，但都被拒絕，不想接手梁振英留下的「爛攤子」，特別是該校在教資會反對下堅持成立的獸醫學院。校董會成員馮偉華坦言，梁振英離任前九日才召開特別會議，通過要自資成立獸醫學院，當日「即場睇完，即刻要傾、即場表決，跟住收返晒資料，透明度好不足」，加上會上沒有交代長遠開支如何計算，對接任人而言可能是負擔。

馮偉華又謂，曾經發律師信給工會的梁振英，是一個強勢領導，「他用的方法就是加強打壓，令到你收聲，我想這不是一個適當的方法。」事實上，有城大教授曾私下向傳媒表示，認為梁振英當城大是「舞台」，用來顯示他的領導及管治能力，成立獸醫學院開支龐大，培訓一名獸醫等於培訓一名醫生或三名護士，而工會在的民調亦顯示，有八成五教職員反對設立學院，憂慮如果課程負擔太大，會影響其他學院發展。

城大：有機制處理離任

一片反對聲音下，由梁一手包辦急急通過的獸醫學院，能否如期於二○一三年成立，仍是未知之數。教育局發言人沒有回應還未找到人接任是否不尋常。城大則指，梁振英的離開，對發展獸醫學院影響不大，重申城大有一套出缺機制處理成員離任職務

comments on the Chief on UGC Higher Education Forum

thank you not not not. now i know she is the problem not i.

From she is not we posted on 23-10-2011 [20:43:13]:

thank you not not not. now i know we are not the problem. why is she so powerful? why isn’t she held accountable for what she has done?

she does nasty things behind others to the staff and to the union

From not CAO not CPRO not LAWYERS posted on 23-10-2011 [19:00:40]:

Have you seen her attack and insult respected scholars in the meetings? Have you read the acrimonious statements falsified by her but released in the names of the others? Have you noticed the vicious and intentional leaks masterminded by her and her bosses?

She does nasty things to the staff and to the union behind others. That is how she manages to seem nice to those who are lucky to observe her from a safe distance.

Stay away for your own safety.

Chief of Staff

From random posted on 23-10-2011 [18:10:02]:

I like the Chief of Staff. She seems like a very nice lady. I wonder why a number of you dislike her so much. Can you elaborate?

CityU legal bullies and pr operatives report directly to the Chief of Staff

From unionist posted on 23-10-2011 [07:52:38]:

CityU legal and pr operatives report directly to the Chief of Staff. Please direct the questions to Her Majesty the Most Manipulative.

哪英不太差？ 哪英不太好？

The not so Good,
The not so Bad,
And the very very Ugly…...

2012特首選戰還沒正式開跑，各方馬房已各就各位，其中北京一賠零點五大熱的大阿哥唐英年未跑先失蹄；英雄他不是，但美人關似乎一再難過。

自捧為北京欽點正印太子勁敵的梁振英的陣營自然借題發揮，借傳媒之手文章大做，臭蛋大扔，梁陣營琵琶半遮臉，又想嚇唬唐營，說明掌有黑材料，又怕承認後香港人嫌梁心底骯髒……。

第一回合，表面是梁贏；但誰會想到，他自命才智過人，卻墮入老謀深算的廖暉手中。

唐英年有多少「過去」，在中央眼裏只是小菜一碟，任何成熟的政治人都知道，只有現在式的醜聞有殺傷力，過去式的，不外是八卦消息而已。只要唐英年的太太不突然站起來發難，大唱委屈之歌，數臭丈夫種種不是，那一切只屬於他們之間的問題。

廖暉任務 主要防左

廖暉想摸清的是，編織特首夢n年的梁振英，網絡到底有多深多廣——除上屆特首董建華和出錢出力的高佬陳啟宗之外，他還籠絡了多少人。廖暉對香港人的嘴臉看得明白不過，只要北京稍作沉默，香港即上演屁精現形記，馬上可點算選委中誰可靠、誰不可靠。

很多香港人認為廖暉掌管香港事務的定義是對香港指指點點。事實上，中央給廖暉的主要任務是替香港防左——跟內地一樣，香港的親共人士有建制改革派和懷念紅太陽的土共，回歸後那些多年忠於黨的土共派人士，卻全在顧全大局之名義下靠邊站；董建華出局後，宿敵大英餘孽曾蔭權竟然獲中央接受而上位，是駱駝背上最後一根稻草。

不難想像，為什麽他們要咬着這最後一屆小圈選舉的機遇，誓要土共大反擊。廖暉這一仗是頗難打的，那些在香港的所謂中共老臣，多年來無功有勞，卻不獲納入權力中心；而這一趟土共學乖了，不要曾鈺成之流掛帥，改由香港人對之戒心不高的梁振英出陣。

垂涎特首寶座多年的梁振英，不甘心中央意不屬他，他一直謹小慎微地靠攏廖暉，也曾成功游說董建華在任時向中央推薦梁接捧。梁振英在言談間，有意無意地給人感覺是黨的人，他算準香港人對中央認識不深，他的邏輯是董建華作為黨和國家領導人，只要董曾說支持自己，理論上也可說是中央支持，再加上一眾土共和應下，他便可自編自導一場港人愛看的宮廷鬥爭。

梁振英知道，2012年做不成特首又失去官方地位，必須搶佔在野的首領地位，才有政治本錢日後不會受冷待。這是他現在最頭痛的問題。

竊國為侯 嚇壞北京

北方的俚語「又要做婊子，又要立貞節牌坊」是兩難的事——一千二百票內，正印大阿哥唐英年應穩拿六百票，土共應有本事串連三百票；梁振英要先搶何俊仁等和社福界的票，所以打開派錢之門，狗急跳牆，把以香港GDP質素根本無力實行的全民退休保障也拋出為魚餌，竊國為侯，嚇壞北京。他也聰明地把商界對他個人品格的保留，化為階級鬥爭的平台。

不過，梁振英低估了北京和香港人的智慧——野心和抱負是有具體分別的，梁陣營不斷挖苦唐英年為低能一族，處處表現方方面面比他優勝，這是野心沖昏頭腦的笨手段，他們以為聚焦攻擊唐是not so good，便會贏得北京和市民的迴響；卻漠視了唐的人緣很好，眾公務員只對曾蔭權的唯我獨尊反感，較認同唐的團隊精神態度。

北京的角度是唐is not so bad，北京清楚防左是關鍵——如梁振英得米，香港社會會否更加分裂，文化大革命式的批鬥會否變本加厲？

北京的意願是，2012年的特首能微風細雨的、穩定的把香港引進普選；北京與梁振英明顯道不同，不相為謀。

回歸十五年，廖暉成功防左，成功捍衞一國兩制。這回看來，還是要靠他老人家合王光亞再次發功，如掉以輕心，香港可以變得very very ugly。

理大獸醫護士科 去年開今年停
明報 – (20/10/2011)

【明報專訊】城市大學早前宣布推出自資獸醫課程，令本港應否自行訓練獸醫再成話題。不過本報獲悉，理工大學與英國皇家獸醫學院合辦全港首個動物護理 學學士課程，去年取錄首批學生後，今年即因收生不足停辦，首屆36名學生頓成為最後一屆本土出產的獸醫護士。有註冊獸醫指出，完成獸醫護士學位單是學費要 32.5萬元，畢業後月薪卻只有數千元，令有意入行者卻步。

理大發言人證實，課程去年取錄36名新生後，雙方即決定停辦，但學生可繼續完成 課程至畢業。英國皇家獸醫學院發言人表示，是理大主動要求停辦課程，雙方經討論後同意落實，對此感到失望。發言人補充，因課程長遠無法維持收支平衡，亦不 獲本港獸醫業界支持而停辦。理大和英國皇家獸醫學院日後會繼續研究以其他方式提供動物護理課程。

學費30萬 畢業月薪僅數千
理大早於2009年宣布，與英國皇家獸醫學院自去年起，合辦4年制自負盈虧的動物護理學士課程，每年預計取錄39人。根據理大網頁，課程原定今年繼續開辦，原定加價兩成，由原本全期學費27.3萬元，增加至32.5萬元，但最終並無收生。

獸醫管理局主席黃玉山表示，本港註冊獸醫數目在過去13年間增加4倍，由150人增至現時約600人，平均每年有30至40名新獸醫註冊，至於本港是否有需要自行培訓獸醫或獸醫護士，則交由業界和社會自行判斷。

業界人手增 供應過多
註冊獸醫黎昌生表示，近年本港實習獸醫比以往增加1倍，新入行的獸醫和獸醫護士求職比以往困難，反映兩者供應過多。他解釋，目前本港新入職獸醫月入約2萬 元，而獸醫護士則不足1萬元，學生卻需投資巨額金錢和時間考取專業資格，認為目前靠海外訓練獸醫，再由獸醫自行訓練護士，已經足夠應付本地需求。

Senate endorsement distorted,Council deliberation deprived,free speech deleted

From whatnot posted on 20-10-2011

Senate endorsement distorted,Council deliberation deprived,free speech deleted

they delete when they can’t win the argument supported by facts.

From deleted posted on 20-10-2011

they delete when they can’t win the argument supported by facts.

Can UGC make sure no public fund is misused by CityU? This is serious!

From To UGC posted on 19-10-2011

Can UGC make sure no public fund is misused by CityU? This is serious!

1. 突襲提案過關、佔用他校空間、財政可行存疑、缺乏專業認可

From 讀報 posted on 19-10-2011 [22:31:41]:

星島日報訊息
1）馮偉華指，上周四的校董會特別會議，原定只討論年度核數報告，後來才臨時加插討論成立獸醫學院，計畫書亦是在會議上才收到，校董會成員只有不足三十分鐘閱讀，其後由美國康奈爾大學代表講解合作方案。他指校方處理手法倉促，令校董會成員無法仔細閱讀計畫書，亦不能諮詢意見。
2）就城大可能使用現有教學用地，作獸醫學院之用，教育局回應指，立法會於○五年向城大撥款興建的新教學大樓，是供城大專上學院的學生使用。
3教育局又指，院校應確保自資課程不會影響院校本身的核心使命和工作，尤其是院校籌備新學制的工作。院校亦須確保自資課程和政府資助課程在資源上有清晰的分隔，而該自資課程在財政上是可行和可持續的，課程亦必須通過嚴格的質素保證和獲得相關的專業認可。

2. 70 vs 110; 2010 vs 2011; subsidized vs private funding

From 大話春秋 posted on 19-10-2011 [22:19:28]:

A.
消息人士對媒體聲稱，城大110名教授支持自資成立獸醫學院。

明報揭露：105名教務會成員中，有70人出席會議，通過支持校方成立獸醫學院並交校董會討論。

B.
消息人士對媒體聲稱，城大教務會今年（2011）通過成立獸醫學院

明報揭露：城大教務會於2010年通過成立獸醫學院

C.
消息人士對媒體聲稱，城大教務會通過成立獸醫學院，唔限制教資會資助或自資

明報揭露：城大教務會記錄分明記載通過獸醫學院於2012－2015的三年期先內成立；若非向教資會申請資助，毋需按照教資會學術發展計劃的三年一期作業

3. That is what they are good at doing

From 失望 posted on 19-10-2011 [19:11:26]:

目中無人，目無法紀，自把自為, 不知所謂. 為了達到目的不擇手段，產除異己為自己朋友利用公帤作私人利益！ 如有異議即時趕走，就像回到文革的恐怖畤代。

4. 講大話

From 胡作非為 posted on 19-10-2011 [18:40:32]:

講大話－
2010年教務會議說成2011年教務會
70位教授通過說成110位
支持申請教資會資助學院說成支持成立自資學院

突襲校董會－
預謀數月的提案不列入議程，在最後關頭臨時提出，未給校董足夠機會審核內容，計劃書只在會上曇花一現隨即收回。計劃內容牽涉利用專上學院的空間，卻沒有解釋具體資金何來，至今賬目內容，學生畢業後如何取得專業資格，如何在飽和的市場謀生。

教育是百年樹人的大計，怎容許如此胡作非為？

空中樓閣的學院之聯想是八萬五千單位的慘劇。

5. land of the truth for the free savecityu.com

From go there posted on 19-10-2011 [18:03:53]:

go to land of the truth for the free savecityu.com and learn about how the new school got through the Council.

講大話

From 胡作非為 posted on 19-10-2011 [18:40:32]:

講大話－
2010年教務會議說成2011年教務會
70位教授通過說成110位
支持申請教資會資助學院說成支持成立自資學院

突襲校董會－
預謀數月的提案不列入議程，在最後關頭臨時提出，未給校董足夠機會審核內容，計劃書只在會上曇花一現隨即收回。計劃內容牽涉利用專上學院的空間，卻沒有解釋具體資金何來，至今賬目內容，學生畢業後如何取得專業資格，如何在飽和的市場謀生。

教育是百年樹人的大計，怎容許如此胡作非為？

空中樓閣的學院之聯想是八萬五千單位的慘劇。

copies of the deleted comments from the Higher Education Forum of UGC :

CityU expects the parents to spend 2M and students to spend 6 years on a de…..

From parents posted on 18-10-2011 [23:08:55]:

CityU expects the parents to spend 2M and students to spend 6 years on a tertiary degree with no accreditation?

What is it?

城大公關指工會民調只有4千多教職員中的八百多抽樣。那麼主席民調豈不....

From 85％againstvetschool posted on 18-10-2011 [22:27:51]:

城大公關指工會民調比率只有4千多教職員中的八百多人參加，不足為據。反映梁振英的民意測驗卻只有7.5百萬中的區區數百抽樣，不過梁主席卻毫無保留到處宣揚。

城大公關把教務會決定的時間，2010年1月說成2011年1月

From 刻意誤導 posted on 18-10-2011 [16:13:29]:

城大公關把教務會決定的時間，2010年1月說成2011年1月

Most comments about the vet school have evaporated

From EW posted on 18-10-2011 [15:59:43]:

Most comments about the vet school have evaporated, not just deleted.

Have you read the East Week today?

城大扭曲110教授民意，用過時教務會議決定作為擋箭牌，誤導新聞媒體。

From 成何體統 posted on 18-10-2011 [14:59:21]:

城大扭曲110教授民意，用過時教務會議決定作為擋箭牌，誤導新聞媒體。

城大消息人士誤導新聞媒體：
校方在教資會拒絕資助獸醫學院後，認為應繼續探討以自資方式推動獸醫學院上馬，遂繼續與康奈爾大學商討計劃，並在今年1 月獲教務會通過；
城大教務委員會一百一十名教授亦全體通過，同意成立動物醫學院；
消息人士向信報解釋，教務會有110 名教授支持成立學院。

事實：城大大學教務會於2010年1月12日會議中決定支持在2012－2015的學術發展計劃期間成立獸醫學院動議，並提交校董會爭取核准。

但是城大公關把教務會決定的時間，也就是2010年1月說成2011年1月。這一年之差茲事體大，因為2010年4月城大提交獸醫學院給教資會遭峻拒。110位教授2010年初支持的是城大管理層向教資會申請資助在2012－15的學術發展計劃期間成立公費資助獸醫學院；110位教授組成的教務會並沒有在教資會擲回城大管理層申請之後，支持管理層自資建立獸醫學院。

城大教務會會議記錄（2010年1月12日）
Report on the Further Development of the Proposed School of Veterinary Medicine (confidential paper, circulated to Senate members only)
The Senate received the Report on the Further Development of the Proposed School of Veterinary Medicine, and resolved to endorse the establishment of the School of Veterinary Medicine in the next triennium 2012-15 for Council’s approval.

Repost before deletion

城大扭曲110教授民意，用過時教務會議決定作為擋箭牌，誤導新聞媒體。

From 成何體統 posted on 18-10-2011 [14:59:21]:

城大扭曲110教授民意，用過時教務會議決定作為擋箭牌，誤導新聞媒體。

城大消息人士誤導新聞媒體：
校方在教資會拒絕資助獸醫學院後，認為應繼續探討以自資方式推動獸醫學院上馬，遂繼續與康奈爾大學商討計劃，並在今年1 月獲教務會通過；
城大教務委員會一百一十名教授亦全體通過，同意成立動物醫學院；
消息人士向信報解釋，教務會有110 名教授支持成立學院。

事實：城大大學教務會於2010年1月12日會議中決定支持在2012－2015的學術發展計劃期間成立獸醫學院動議，並提交校董會爭取核准。

但是城大公關把教務會決定的時間，也就是2010年1月說成2011年1月。這一年之差茲事體大，因為2010年4月城大提交獸醫學院給教資會遭峻拒。110位教授2010年初支持的是城大管理層向教資會申請資助在2012－15的學術發展計劃期間成立公費資助獸醫學院；110位教授組成的教務會並沒有在教資會擲回城大管理層申請之後，支持管理層自資建立獸醫學院。

城大教務會會議記錄（2010年1月12日）
Report on the Further Development of the Proposed School of Veterinary Medicine (confidential paper, circulated to Senate members only)
The Senate received the Report on the Further Development of the Proposed School of Veterinary Medicine, and resolved to endorse the establishment of the School of Veterinary Medicine in the next triennium 2012-15 for Council’s approval.

From To Insider posted on 04-10-2011 [18:13:44]:

The Insider talked 3 good things the president has done. This is the INSIDE story of the 3 things:

1. Increase the fund raising tremendously.
Truth is there have been 3 big donations during his time - one was 50 million for the vet school from the Wang family foundation which was a tradeoff for CityU to hire the spouse of a family member, with UGC money of course; two was a 100 million donation from the Shaw foundation which turned out to be a tremendous cheap sale for the naming right of the landmark building of CMC; three was 125 million donation from the Lau Trust, however, Mr Lau Jr announced openly that the donation was made to support the university, “it does not matter who the Council Chairman is and it does not matter who the President is”. It was a surprisingly undiplomatic statement and a rare disclaimer by a donor. But Mr Lau wanted to make it crystal clear. It is not ethnical for the President or the Insider to claim credit for soliciting the donating. No, not at all.

2. Improve the ranking of CityU.
As one previous commenter had explained there are many ways to manipulate the stats and artificially raise the ranking without improving the quality of education and research of the university. On the other hand, we see how our students’ performance deteriorates (IELTS, unemployment, JUPAS average, etc, ensuing manipulation was done on graduate unemployment rate) we also witness how our staff turnover rate and other performance key indicators drop. It’s pathetic how anybody should come here to brag about CityU’s ranking achievement after the management uses lawyers to force the UGC to delete records of CityU’s poor performance. Know this, history cannot be deleted, especially in the cyberspace. (http://savecityu.com/index.php/site/comments/opinion_poll/)

3. Hired Art Ellis
The president made many bad hires and appointments. Mind you, he also appointed the dragon woman who has managed to turn the campus upside down and usurped the power of the office of the president. She is also successful in making enemies, including Dean GG and Dean Lee and many others, for the president. She even managed to marginalise the Provost, one of the president’s few good hires.

http://www.jacket-world.com/picture/North Face Pants Women 01_3.jpg North Face is a favorite brand among outdoor enthusiasts.The North Face Jacket Sale on our online store providing comfort and warmth in cool to cold weather.There is no doubt that put on a North Face Jackets will make you show your wonderful figure in the cold winter.High quality Jackets always sell out quickly at The North Face Clearance sale.So,you should buy quickly as this model sells very well.The North Face Sale are free shipping,so you can save much money when you buy the North Face Jacket from our store.

被刪除內容

From 蹊蹺 posted on 19-09-2011 [00:27:53]:

解讀梁文，內有蹊蹺，兩點不妙。

1）為了表明自己清高，毫不猶疑就把1993年擔任深圳副市長的朋友出賣了。

2）中國政府辦事老練，很少直接授與實質利益酬庸，以免落人話柄。他們明白給方便和特權不著痕跡的好處，送者安全受者實惠。某測量師行在上海開創獨資首例，不是特權不是沾國家利益是什麼？

｛梁振英自述文摘：上海在 1988 年成功賣出第一塊土地後，市長提出，請我公司到上海開業，我回應說：「在內地做服務業，要和內地公司合資，我不想因為合資雙方文化不同影響工作。」市長說：「就給你辦獨資公司。」豈料仲量行沒有興趣，經上海市政府三催四請，我回應說：「對不起，仲量行我不能說了算，如果這公司是我的，我明天就過來。」五年後， 1993 年，仲量行的其他五位合夥人，都是英、澳籍人士，因為 97 問題，無心戀棧，我毅然離開工作了 16 年的仲量行，成立xxx（梁振英）測量師行，即時打電話到上海「還願」。上海分公司成立後，頭幾個月沒有生意， 20 個青年同事每天受培訓，頭幾年每年賠錢。今天，專業服務公司之中，只有測量這一行，可以在內地開獨資，不必合資，就是因為我公司在上海開了個頭。 1993 年，我在深圳義務幫手招標賣地後 5 年，副市長說：「振英，你們做專業服務多辛苦，不如拿塊地去賺點錢吧。」我婉拒了。我堅持政府賣地要公開、公平、公正，價高者得......

我在內地從來沒有任何房地產，也從不沾國家的其他利益，國家信任，給我報效的機會，我於願已足。｝

城大獸醫與特區首長 梁振英面臨選擇

城大計劃把教資會拒絕認可的獸醫學院，魚目混珠在生命科學名義下，提交校董會通過。

政府數個部門的集體決策香港不宜成立獸醫學院，就算成立有關科系城大也不夠班。如果梁主席執意忤逆政府成命，在城大校董會告別演出上通過開辦獸醫科目，公務員班子固然更加反梁，港澳辦也更明白梁不適合領導特區政府。

梁主席有勇氣抗旨競選特首，是否也打算在入主政府前就和公務員系統對抗？腹背受敵的選戰勝算幾何？

From 瞎子專家 posted on 30-09-2011 [22:41:16]:

城大傳訊公關對蔡子強君的 “政治不單是作文比賽” 回應, 簡直是賊喊追賊! 胡說八道!
1. 所謂發布電郵違反了城大資訊科技服務及設施使用守則, 試問管理高層, 城大以往沒有這種 “守則”, 其實有關守則的制訂, 壓根兒是要限制教職員協會與同事間的直接, 有效的聯繫!
2. 說教職員協會問卷誤導教職員, 豈不是說城大教職員一點也沒有分析能力?
3. 以 “校方因此善意提醒城大教協會, 作出公布前先徵詢法律意見, 確保不會觸犯香港法例.” 回應 “禁止城大教協會發布兩次的民意調查結果”. 試問, 這種 “善意” 是發律事信給協會幹事嗎?
4. 高等教育論壇版面: “由於本秘書處接獲相關院校提述法律意見, 認為以下留言含有潛在誹謗成份, 因此經徵詢本秘書處本身的法律意見後, 有關留言已被刪除因此將相關發表”, 連UGC高等教育論壇收到這種所謂 “善意提醒” 也要把有關張貼的內容刪除, 可以想到, 在城大工作的教職員協會幹事所受到的壓力是何等的巨大!
5. 誰人歪曲事實? 熱愛城大教職員清楚不過! 亦毋須律師信指點!

From Paul posted on 19-09-2011 [23:27:41] UGC Forum:

I would like to point out the mistakes in CPRO’s reply to the article in Next Magazine dated September 14, 2011.

Mistake 1: An opinion poll has to be transparent and democratic (但最重要的是，整個過程與處理方式全由教職員協會執委會少數委員包辦，缺乏透明，毫不民主。有關問卷設計、填卷人員、監察和聲明發佈等重要決定，也從來沒有公開諮詢過會員。)
Fact: The most important thing about a poll is whether it is, in fact, valid and reliable. It has nothing to do with democracy! If the university challenges the results, the best thing to do is to replicate the poll by an independent party. I do not think the administration dares to do so.

Mistake 2: The poll did not use random sampling….the fact that CityU Staff Association is still allowed to use e-mails and post posters on campus, indicated there is no suppression of freedom of speech. (城大封殺民調。…城大教職員協會的問卷多處失實，設計上亦有誤導，其做法極不科學，沒有隨機抽樣。….事實上，教職員協會以往及至今多次在校內集會，並利用大學的電郵或透過在校園內張貼標語，公開地公佈及傳遞不實消息，證實城大並無「高壓箝制教職員言論自由」。)
Fact: Has anyone claimed that the poll was a representative sample. 870 staff members participated and I think that is already enough. Instead of acknowledging and respecting the results, the university administration chooses to suppress diverse views. Don’t forget! We are working in a university which is supposed to embrace diversity and freedom of speech and expression.

Are they saying Staff Association members have not been arrested yet, so CityU Administration is not suppressing freedom of speech! How absurd!

By the way, the public reply never highlighted the legal letters sent Staff Association to suppress the announcement of the results of the study.

Mistake 3: The venue cannot contain 1000 persons and CityU never fired 100 instructors (「城大年前爆發大示威，千名師生反對校方欲裁減百名導師。」事實是，集會的場所根本容不下千人，且在場有許多非城大校外人士。城大也從未「裁減百名導師」。)
Fact: This is a lie. Do not insult our intelligence. You think reporters back then did not know how to count heads. If CityU did not fire so many instructors, why would they set up the review committee and turned down the decisions of firing the instructors.

Mistake 4: We are still at the planning stage of the Vet School and we are following UGC’s instructions. (有關獸醫學院，城大受到各界的鼓舞，現時仍在探討可行性階段….城大知悉教資會的各種考慮，在探討以自負盈虧模式成立獸醫學院的可能性時，也必會依從教資會的要求。)
Fact: With so many staff already in place and hide in different and rather obscure offices, the Vet School is beyond its planning stage. According to the UGC’s document, “the cost of veterinary science programme is estimated to be around $500,000 per student per year. The UGC observed that with a programme of 50 students, the same amount of $150 million could train say, 50 more doctors, or 150 nurses, or 200 engineers or 200 teachers per year.” If CityU administration is rational, the Vet School proposal should really be aborted!

There are, of course, other issues that the CPRO’s reply has not mentioned, for example questions such as: Why the Staff Association representative to the Council meeting was rudely treated? Why was the Staff Association’s office taken away? How much has the CityU spent on legal expenses dealing with Staff Association matters? and why would the CityU Administration treat CityU as if it is their private company?

Anyway, please stop insulting our intelligence. We have eyes and we can see.