Up to the same old tricks
This year marks the 20th anniversary of an inglorious episode in Hong Kong history - the 1987 review of developments in representative government. This saw the British colonial government suppress and distort public opinion to avoid holding direct elections to the Legislative Council in 1988 - something it had proposed earlier to win support for the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
The Legco proceedings of November 1987 show that many speakers said the data presented by the government was the result of the work of the 'independent' research firm AGB McNair, which had been commissioned by an 'independent' Survey Office, whose work was overseen by 'independent' monitors.
Subsequently, Chris Patten, in his book East and West, acknowledged that the government had carried out 'statistical contortions'. This was done to give the impression that 'Hongkongers did not want direct elections in 1988, despite the fact that this is what a majority of them appeared to favour in the government's own survey and in every independent survey carried out at the same time'.
This is an episode worth recalling so that people will have a healthy scepticism of government statements and actions. This is because, even today, the administration refers constantly to the outcome of public consultations to justify its decisions, including the demolition of the Star Ferry pier and its now abandoned plans for West Kowloon.
In fact, West Kowloon provides an excellent example of how the government continues to assert that its decisions are entirely consistent with public opinion because reputable academic organisations were hired as 'independent' consultants. Yet, the very tight control the government had on their work is not disclosed.
On West Kowloon, the government hired the Public Policy Research Institute of Hong Kong Polytechnic University to survey public opinion and present the findings. This was announced in a government press release on February 7, 2005, under the headline: 'Independent consultant appointed to analyse public views on West Kowloon project.'
Eight months later, the government reported the findings of the public consultation, explaining that the institute had been 'commissioned to conduct an independent and comprehensive analysis of views'. This line was continued by the government last year.
So, it is something of an eye-opener to read the terms and conditions of the relationship between the government and Polytechnic University. The administration disclosed the contents of the 'consultancy brief' after criticism by Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong Kong, and another academic.
According to the brief, before the phone polls were held, 'the sample design and the estimation methods shall be subject to vetting and approval by the government'. In addition: 'The questionnaire shall be designed by the consultant in consultation with the government and subject to the government's approval.'
Thus, the so-called 'independent' surveys were under government control. Similarly, the consultant's 'analysis of findings' had to be arrived at 'in consultation with the government'.
So much for the 'independent and comprehensive analysis' of public views.
The draft interim report had to take 'into account the views of the government, if any', and the draft final report had to do the same thing.
Thus, the government was in control every step of the way. Therefore, it is inappropriate to characterise this and similar surveys as 'independent', though commissioned by the government.
Of course, responsibility for this state of affairs is not just the government's. Academic organisations should not allow their names to be used in this fashion, pretending that they were given a free hand when they were not.
But the lion's share of the responsibility lies squarely with the government. Since it has proved repeatedly that its word cannot be trusted, the public - and academics - must work together to keep it honest.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator.
