Our reporting was accurate

In yesterday's inquiry into the polling issue, the South China Morning Post was accused of distorting the views of pollster Robert Chung Ting-yiu, the central figure of an inquiry into whether the Government tried to halt his public opinion polls because it didn't like their findings.

This newspaper would like to make clear that it reported Dr Chung's views accurately. It made no meaningful changes to his words, as shown by the extracts published on this page.

In the column he wrote for us, in two follow-up interviews, and in some subsequent public statements, Dr Chung emphasised that he believed pressure to halt his polling came from Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa 'via a special channel'.

At no time during the 33 days since his original column was published, until yesterday when undergoing intensive cross-examination, did he suggest otherwise. In fact, written communications from Dr Chung, received before the initial column was published on July 7, state explicitly that he believed Mr Tung was the source of the pressure he felt.

He may have been wrong; the 'special channel' may only have been speaking for himself, while leaving the impression that he was also speaking for the Chief Executive. That is one of the many questions the panel of inquiry hopes to answer.

In yesterday's hearing, Alan Hoo, a lawyer representing a senior aide to Mr Tung, raised wholly extraneous questions about the Post's coverage. He focused on such things as minor editing changes made for reasons of clarity, whether a pronoun was deleted and who wrote the headline which appeared over the initial column. He tried to suggest that the Post's reporting on this subject was reckless and irresponsible.

Much was also made of the fact that a column by Dr Chung, as published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, differed from the one in the Post. However, as the author told us in advance, he sent that newspaper a slightly different version.

In any case, all of these matters are irrelevant for at least two reasons. First, none of them alter the message that Dr Chung clearly intended to send in his column and in many subsequent comments; he honestly believed Mr Tung was exerting pressure on the University of Hong Kong to halt his polling because Mr Tung didn't approve of its findings.

Second, the purpose of the inquiry is to uncover the truth about certain words and deeds which date from 1999. Nothing that anyone has said about the subject during the past month can possibly change the facts about what really happened last year. With luck and hard work, the panel may find that truth.

However, searching for truth did not appear to be Mr Hoo's main concern in yesterday's hearing. Instead, he tried to divert public attention, and that of the panel, to the unrelated issue of press coverage. It is an old courtroom tactic. We are confident the panel will not let itself be sidetracked and will stay with the central issues of public concern.

Graphic: RAGG10GET

Graphic: MAST10GET