2
8.
I spoke to Michael Davies and Joseph Cheng after the proceedings. They both said that their reason for appearing was that, having failed to make much headway with the Hong Kong or British governments, there is a need to take their case to a wider audience. At the same time they both appeared a little ashamed of the biased nature of the event.
9.
As I said earlier the blame for this must lie with the organisers, whose earlier assurances about the balanced nature of the presentations. were clearly false, and must have been known to be so at the time.
In as
10.
It is difficult to assess the damage done. much as they were preaching to the converted, it was probably not much. There must, however, have been some people present who knew no better than to accept all that was said at face value.
11.
It is for consideration whether we should write to Grant Goodman personally or to the Association. As the one who attended I would be happy to do.
12.
There were some reporters present, so there may be some press comment. We will deal with it if and when it appears.
13.
I attach summaries of the main points made. They were compiled from notes I made during the session and may contain some inaccuracies.
All linked with the book
recently
eviewed
which was
clearly pro. Taiwan.
Postscript
I have now had a call about last Friday's session from Dr. Ming Chan of Hong Kong.
2.
She is
He confirmed my suspicions about Joanne Chang. the disciple of a Prof. Hung Ta-chiu (I may have the spelling wrong) of the University of Maryland. He is apparently one of the leading pro-Taiwanese academics in the U.S., and the second panel was arranged as a platform for views which serve the interests of those in Taiwan who do not want the future arrangements to work. Joanne Chang is apparently a friend of George Hicks.
3.
This, and some of the other people here who have been involving themselves in Martin Lee's visit, raises the question of the extent to which the pro-Taiwan lobby are seeking to use the
/visit