因評論本澳政治而被聖若瑟大學辭退的，政治學高級講師蘇鼎德今日向該校師生發出公開信，就粗暴被辭退一事大爆內幕。信中內容指校長薛沛德早前向師生發出的公開信是「要麼不說得太多，要麼還有話沒有說出來」。
蘇鼎德形容在六月四日被校方終止合約一事是「行刑式、一刀了斷的」。他不確定被校方辭退的決定，是直接出自高教辦，還是校長薜沛德過度演繹。他認為，今次的決定是「危險的」，且明顯違背了「一國兩制」的原則，並違反了基本法當中幾個要點。
他又指，大學校長，行政委員會以及高教辦等，對於大學的學術干預在過去一年越發深入。對所有研究計劃都要仔細審查，甚至是連澳門基金會同意資助的研究計劃都予以否決。
他認為自己被校長被辭退一事有三個可能的原因︰
第一，在年初批評批評即將卸任的行政長官崔世安缺乏魅力。
第二，請香港大學的學者馮客來校介紹他的新書《解放的悲劇——1945-1957年的共黨革命史》。
第三，向高教辦申請資助其出席下星期在葡國召開的歐洲漢學研究會議，會上原來要發表一篇討論上世紀七十年代以來澳門政治的論文，該申請被高教辦以非學術理由拒絕。
原文翻譯︰
親愛的同事、同學：
首先容我在這裡對過去七年在聖若瑟大學緊張而具啟發性的工作表示謝意。道路或許並不平坦，且時常有挑戰——明顯這客氣話，但總的來說，那沒有摧毀我們的，必然會讓我們更堅強、更有要求、更有熱忱地去進行教研工作並影響我們生活的社會。
因此一共同經驗，我也應該就我上月四日被粗暴終止合約的原因作一解釋──這包括一個月前通知和五星期的代通知金，而這事不過是我報上了兩個任教課程的評分兩天後，而在學術界中，六月是最難找到新工作的。
你們都聽說了校長一方的解釋，但我們當然知道事實比他所說的要複雜一點。這事基本上有三個可能原因：
第一，是在年初批評即將卸任的行政長官缺乏魅力（在任何政治學的初級教科書中，魅力當然是一個從政者必需的要素）；
第二，是邀請香港大學的學者馮客來校介紹他的新書《解放的悲劇——1945-1957年的共黨革命史》（他是香港大學歷史系講座教授，原來已經是第三次來校了。而和某些說法相反，這本書絕對沒有被中國政府查禁──他來澳前一天才在上海研究中共史料）。
最後，是我申請高教辦資助我出席下星期在葡國召開的歐洲漢學研究會議，會上原來我要發表一篇討論上世紀七十年代以來澳門政治的論文，而這篇論文也計劃交給多倫多大學出版社，作為一本計劃在年底為慶祝澳門回歸十五周年的著作當中一個章節出版的（我的申請因為非學術理由事先被拒絕了）。
在四月初的時候，我已經開始察覺到問題，但六月四日發生的事情卻是行刑式、一刀了斷的。以我所知，除了大學校長和行政委員會以外，就只有由教區主教任主席的天主教高等教育基金（即大學持牌人）和高教辦有涉入其中。前者對大學的干預在過去一年越發深入，對所有研究計劃仔細審查，甚至是連澳基金同意資助的研究計劃都予以否決。
以大學的結構，作為私立實體，以及早前辭退前校長魯本文的做法，基金以「本地處境」──這是薜校長的原話，這實在不可能沒有在我被終止合約一事上推波助瀾。至於高教辦，我不知道辭退我的指示是否直接出自她，或者只是薜校長的過度演繹，又正如他所言「這些處境很大程度上是基於印象。」到最後，關鍵在於，作為一所高等院校，我們在學術自由方面應該堅守某些價值，而只有我們才能這樣做。如果我們不去堅持，誰能賦予這在基本法中受保障的自由一點意義？如果我們不以自己身處的社會作為研究對象，那為什麼要有政治學、公共行政、或者政府研究這些科系呢？下一次我們又會有些什麼是不准研究的呢？城市規劃，因為太受爭議？社會事務？又是因為要冒質疑政府某些決定的風險？我們可以教什麼呢，六四事件如何？當我們要教當代中國的時候我們要選什麼書呢？
大學校長和天主教高等教育基金的決定不但是危險的，而且明顯違背了「一國兩制」的原則，並違反了基本法當中幾個要點。說「財政考慮」是「微小因素」根本違背事實。以前尊嚴的價值是比較看重的。難道是因為我被辭退了，零七年承諾的撥款才會到、赤字才可以減少嗎？她們把大學的身份置於何地？如果我們放棄歐洲的傳統，我們與澳門其他公私院校有何相對優勢可言？這真是歐洲在澳門四百年的遺產嗎？
現在很清楚：薛校長要麼不說得太多，要麼還有話沒有說出來。在不久的將來無論發生什麼事，我只想衷心感謝過去一個月那些支持我的、為數不多的同事，還有為了捍衛聖大價值奮力鼓呼的同學們。我要告訴你們：我很榮幸當過你們的同事和老師。
蘇鼎德
——————————————————————————————————————–
原文︰
Dear colleagues and students,
With this email I would like first and foremost to express my gratitude for the last seven years of intense and stimulating work at USJ. The road might have been bumpy and pretty challenging at times—and here, this is clearly an euphemism—, but overall, I believe that what would not destroy us would necessarily make us stronger, more demanding and ever more craving for excellence—in our teaching, researching and impacting the community we live in.
Because of this shared experience, I also believe I owe all of you an explanation as to what presided over the brutal termination of my contract on June 4—one month notice and about 5 weeks severance fee, in June, most probably the worst time to look for a job in the academia, but just two days after I had provided the final grades for the two classes I had just finished teaching. You have heard the explanation from the Rector, but then, of course, we all know perfectly well that the truth is slightly more complicated that what was stated. There are basically three alleged reasons that led to my sacking: a passing comment made earlier this year about the outgoing Chief Executive lacking charisma (in any basic textbook on politics, charisma is of course a crucial element when one has to explore any form of leadership); the invitation made to Frank Dikotter to present his latest book on The Tragedy of Liberation in our university (Prof. Dikotter is Chair Professor in humanities at HKU, was coming for the third time to USJ, and contrary to what some suggested, is absolutely not forbidden in China, as he was the day before coming to USJ in Shanghai consulting Party archives); and finally my demand to GAES regarding the financing of my attendance to the Conference of the European Association of Chinese Studies in Portugal, during which I will present a paper on party politics in Macao since the 1970s, a paper that has already been accepted as a book chapter for the 15th anniversary of the establishment of the Macao SAR published by University of Toronto Press later this year (my application was simply denied preemptively, and not on any academic basis). The first time I was made aware of a problem was in early April and then, on June 4 came the simple demise, execution style.
To my knowledge, only two entities beyond the Rector and the Executive Council were involved: the Catholic Foundation of Higher Education presided by the Bishop and the GAES. Regarding the former, its involvement in the affairs of the university has been ever more hands on in the past year, scrutinizing all research projects and even suppressing research drives that had originally been okayed for financing by the Macau Foundation. Given the structure of the university, its status as a private entity and the recent “parting” of the previous rector, Ruben Cabral, it is simply impossible for the Catholic Foundation not to have encouraged the termination of my contract given the “local circumstances”, to use the Fr. Peter Stilwell’s own words. As far as the latter is concerned, I do not know whether the message came directly from GAES or was simply over-interpreted by the Rector himself, as “these circumstances have so much to do with perception”, again quoting Fr. Peter Stilwell.
Ultimately, what is at stake, is the fact that as a tertiary education institution we should be upholding certain values that only us can uphold when it comes to academic freedom: if not us being steadfast, who can give meaning to such a freedom, enshrined in the Basic Law? Why should we have a department of government studies, public administration or political science if we do not envision our own community as an object of study? What is the next thing that we should not research then? Urban planning as it is too contentious? Social issues as they bear the risk, once again, to question some of the options chosen by the government? And what about curricula: should we teach the Tiananmen repression? What bibliography should we choose when teaching contemporary China?
The path chosen by the Rector and the Catholic Foundation for Higher Education is not only dangerous, it is clearly contrary to the principle of “one country, two systems” and contradicts several key points of the Basic Law. Stating that “financial considerations” have been a “minor disturbance” is simply contrary to the truth. There was a time when dignity was considered of higher value. Money promised in 2007 will come, deficits might be reduced, but all this because of me being terminated? What about the identity of the university: if we let go with our European legacy, what is then our comparative advantage over the other local universities, both private and public? Is this really the heritage of 400 years of presence in Macao? It is now obvious that Fr. Peter Stilwell has either said too much or too little…
Whatever happens in the near future, I would just like to express my heartfelt thanks to the few colleagues who have been supportive in the past month and of course to the many students who have demonstrated an amazing determination to defend the distinctive values of USJ beyond my own ordeal. To you, I say: I am proud and honored to have been your colleague and your teacher.
Kind regards,
Eric
