G.F. 82
File No.
MT/2/05 C
5
Page
public confidence. We may think it right to
acknowledge its essentially passive role laid
down for it and necessary for "impartiality"
-
—
but then to make some judgment on how it reacted,
within its terms of reference, to the relatively
low, and in part uncertain, response from the
Hong Kong community, and also to the challenge
from the Legislative Council (and on the basis
of a decision by the Government) to the challenge
about confidentiality.
Are there any other
specific aspects to be considered under the
heading above ?
(c) Has the Assessment Office performed its duties
"impartially"?
Having made the point earlier that it would
have failed to do the job "properly" if it had
not been impartial, we may be able to deal very
briefly with this question. I think that it
may be useful to underline that the passive
role of the Assessment Office which some
-
critics may have regarded as too passive (in
the light of the level of response)-was a
necessary basis for assuring impartiality.
For my part, I have seen nothing to suggest
/that