CONFIDENTIAL
2010 1
-
(D)
(E)
(F)
RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE REPRESENTED THE COLLECTIVE VIEWS OF GROUPS AND ORGANISATIONS COMPRISING VERY LARGE NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS. THOSE IN REPRESENTATIVE BODIES WHO DEBATED THE AGREEMENT WERE EXPRESSING THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF GRASSROOTS OPINION. THERE HAS BEEN A VIGOROUS PUBLIC
DEBATE ON THE AGREEMENT IN HONG KONG EVER SINCE IT WAS
PUBLISHED.
VIEWS EXPRESSED WERE UNREPRESENTATIVE?
THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE CLEARLY STATES ITS VIEW THAT THE
RESPONSE CAME FROM A WIDE CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY. IT REJECTS THE IDEA THAT THERE COULD BE A 'SILENT MAJORITY' IN HONG KONG WHOSE VIEWS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED OR
REFLECTED. ALL THE EXPRESSIONS OF VIEW MONITORED BY THE
ASSESSMENT OFFICE, WHETHER FROM INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS, FROM REPORTS IN THE MEDIA OR THE OUTCOME OF INDEPENDENT OPINION
SURVEYS, CORROBORATE AND REINFORCE EACH OTHER.
SHOULD NOT MORE HAVE BEEN DONE EARLIER AT THE POLITICAL
LEVEL TO EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTING AND ASSESSING
THE VIEWS OF HONG KONG? (MONITORS' REPORT PARAGRAPH 12)
THIS WAS ADDRESSED IN A NUMBER OF POLITICAL STATEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
HONG KONG ON 1 AUGUST, THE WHITE PAPER CONTAINING THE DRAFT
AGREEMENT AND THE STATEMENT BY SIR G HOWE IN PARLIAMENT ON
25 OCTOBER. THE GOOD RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE
SUGGESTS THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSULTATION EXERCISE
WAS WIDELY UNDERSTOOD.
COULD NOT PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY HAVE BEEN
AVOIDED? (MONITORS' REPORT PARAGRAPH 18)
IN OUR VIEW TO HAVE ENSURED THAT SUBMISSIONS TO THE
ASSESSMENT OFFICE WERE REMOVED TO LONDON AND KEPT UNDER ALL
THE SAFEGUARDS THAT APPLY TO PUBLIC RECORDS WOULD IN
PRACTICE HAVE GIVEN A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF PROTECTION TO
THEIR AUTHORS. HOWEVER AS SOON AS IT WAS RECOGNISED THAT
FEARS IN HONG KONG HAD NOT BEEN ALLAYED WE RESPONDED TO THIS CONCERN WITH THE DECISION THAT SUBMISSIONS SHOULD BE DESTROYED. WE NOTE THE CONCLUSION OF THE MONITORS THAT 'WE
2
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.