Dr Robert Chung said he felt he was on the verge of being censored when he sent an e-mail entitled 'arguing for the dead', to his present boss. The e-mail, to journalism and media studies centre director Professor Ying Chan, sought advice on how to improve a submission describing his polling activities. Dr Chung hoped the paper would be sent to vice-chancellor Professor Cheng Yiu-chung, although he did not tell Professor Chan this. Dr Chung, director of the centre's Public Opinion Programme, told the inquiry that the e-mail title reflected the state of mind he was in. While being re-examined by Patrick Fung Pak-tung, senior counsel for the panel, Dr Chung said he was 'quite disturbed' by a meeting with pro-vice-chancellor Professor Wong Siu-lun on November 1. The meeting was the second of two, initiated by Professor Wong, on Dr Chung's polls. Dr Chung said the suggestion at the beginning of the conversation that day - that the vice-chancellor wanted him to explain whether he would stop polling on the Chief Executive's popularity and the Government's credibility - was 'particular political censorship'. Dr Chung explained that the phrase'the dead' referred to 'myself and the [Public Opinion] Programme'. He said what was on his mind was the future of his work. 'I thought that since I was asked to account for it, then perhaps I would face tremendous pressure later on when I continued to do this job. So in that sense, I thought I was . . . dead.' Earlier, he told the panel: 'I was, in a way, feeling quite hopeless at that moment, that perhaps whatever I had written I might not be able to stop or resist pressure from the vice-chancellor, but I was trying in any case, by putting all these paragraphs together, that I could perhaps convince the vice-chancellor that we could do this and that.' He said he was happier after he wrote the final draft of the submission, in which he incorporated advice from Professor Chan and his then boss, Dr Ng Kai-wang. Yet, he was still frustrated and felt he might resign or let the vice-chancellor or faculty of social sciences decide whether his polls were good enough to be published. Dr Chung was referring to his proposal for all his surveys relating to the Chief Executive's performance to be sent to the vice-chancellor or his delegate for vetting before they were released. He denied that he was inviting political censorship, saying he believed it was a way to avoid censorship. 'I thought I was on the verge of being censored, so I was trying very hard to push the argument through. That was the sentiment I had,' he said. What he had in mind was . . . that he would be there to protest if it was done in a political way. But he had later dropped the idea of such a 'vetting mechanism' and excluded it from the final version of the document submitted, via Professor Wong, to the vice-chancellor after Professor Chan advised against it in an e-mail to him. Professor Chan's e-mail read: 'I won't volunteer this. No Hong Kong U research should be vetted for political reasons. This would be scandalous.'