3.12
SOME ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DECLARED THEIR
UNWILLINGNESS OR INABILITY TO SEND THEIR VIEWS DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE, EITHER BECAUSE THEY DISAGREED WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE, OR THEY WERE UNABLE TO
ARRIVE AT A CONSENSUS VIEW. AMONGST THESE WERE THE BAR ASSOCIATION, THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE HONG KONG OBSERVERS. THE OFFICE HAS, NEVERTHELESS, TAKEN THEIR VIEWS AS REPORTED
IN THE MEDIA INTO ACCOUNT (7).
3.13
(6)
(7)
COPIES OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED AND
RESUOLUTIONS PASSED ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REFERENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HONG KONG.
(A) THE BAR ASSOCIATION WAS REPORTED TO
HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PASS A RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING RATIFICATION OF THE DRAFT
AGREEMENT.
(B) THE LAW SOCIETY DECLARED THAT IT WOULD
NOT GIVE ITS VIEWS ON THE DRAFT AGREEMENT TO THE OFFICE AS IT DID NOT
FEEL A COLLECTIVE VIEW WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE.
(C) THE HONG KONG OBSERVERS (A PRESSURE
GROUP) WHILST ACCEPTING THE DRAFT AGREEMENT, SAID THE OFFICE WAS A FARCE''.
AS EXPLAINED IN PARAGRAPH 2.19, THE OFFICE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF INFORMAL COLLECTIONS OF VIEWS FROM GROUPS OF PEOPLE SHARING A COMMON BACKGROUND BUT NOT FORMING AN ORGANIZATION IN THE SENSE OF BEING ABLE TO EXPRESS A REPRESENPATIVE CORPORATE VIEW. THERE WERE 249 OF THESE GROUP SUBMISSIONS COMING MAINLY FROM GROUPS OF CIVIL SERVANTS, GROUPS OF STUDENTS, PEOPLE ATTENDING WELFARE AGENCIES, STAFF OF COMMERCIAL FIRMS, AND VARIOUS OTHER GROUPS. ALTOGETHER SOME 6,000 PEOPLE EXPRESSED THEIR VIEWS IN THIS WAY AND GENERALLY INDICATED CLEAR SUPPORT FOR THE DRAFT AGREEMENT. OF THOSE WHO DID NOT FIND THE DRAFT AGREEMENT ACCEPTABLE, FIVE GROUPS OF SOME 300 PEOPLE IN ALL USED STENCILLED FORMS IN IDENTICAL TERMS EXPRESSING THEIR REJECTION OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT, MAINLY ON THE GROUNDS OF TOTAL DISTRUST OF THE COMMUNIST REGIME IN CHINA.
VIEWS EXPRESSED BY INDIVIDUALS
SECRET-20-
13.14.