- 4
M
(a)
(b)
(c)
whether the submission was from an individual or a group; whether it was an ordinary letter or a pre-printed form;
if in support of the OPS, whether such support was qualified or unqualified, and if the former to what extent; and
(d)
if the submissions opposed the OPS, whether it did so in principle or in respect of individual recommendations in the paper.
If a submission came from a group, then we also took into consideration the number of persons or organisations which that group might represent. Clearly it would not have been meaningful to indicate in the summary assessment of the submissions the number of persons we estimated to be represented by each group submission. The fact that we did indicate the number of signatures in respect of signature campaigns, though, does not mean, as some have claimed, that we simply regarded all other group submissions as representing one view each. That is just not
true.
I am disappointed, Mr President, that some Members have expressed dissatisfaction with the way we carried out the OPS consultation exercise. They claim that by relying on submissions in response to a consultation paper, we deprived many potential supporters of the OPS of a chance to express their views. I do not agree. Copies of the consultation paper, and a simple question and answer leaflet about the OPS, were distributed widely to many many locations throughout Hong Kong. Details of the OPS were discussed and explained at great length in the print and electronic media, as well as at public meetings, seminars and talk-shows, both formal and informal. My colleagues in Education and Manpower Branch attended some 200 meetings and functions to talk about the scheme! Those who did not want to read the consultation document would have had little difficulty in learning about the scheme through some other means. Similarly, those who did not want to send in a written submission could have expressed their views as many did through such means as attending District Board meetings or other public meetings, writing to newspapers, or calling up phone-in programmes. While we have focused on the number of written submissions we received, let me make it clear that we considered all views that came in, from whatever source.
!
-
-
Finally, I am surprised that some Members have at this stage yet even suggested that we should have put the OPS to this Council in any case, regardless of any support. This would have made no sense if the OPS requires legislation and we do not have the support of this Council even in principle. Then what is the purpose of preparing all the work necessary? Without other's support of this Council, or a mandate from the community, it would have been neither logical nor sensible for us to proceed in this manner.