Back

Note: This article represents the view of the authors and not the University of Hong Kong.

The consultation exercise on implementing Article 23 of the Basic Law has attracted 100,909 submissions involving 369,612 signatures. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa wrapped it up like this: "We know that the majority of the public agree that we have a responsibility to safeguard our national security. They also realize the need to legislate under Article 23 of the Basic Law." However, after studying the compendium of the submissions in detail, we can hardly arrive at the same conclusion.

The government's method to collate the submissions is to classify them into four categories according to their format, namely, submissions from organizations, from individuals, and submissions in the form of standard letters or pre-printed opinion forms, and signature forms. They are also classified according to their content into three types: those supporting legislating on Article 23 or proposals in the consultation document into Category A; those opposing legislating or the proposals into Category B; and those who did not give explicit views supporting or opposing legislating or the proposals into Category C.

Assuming for a while that the government's classification is flawless, according to our own calculations, if we use 100,909 submissions as the base, 67.5% of them belong to Category A, 28.2% to B, and 4.3% to C. However, if we use 369,612 signatures as the base, 36.9% belong to A, 60.2% to B, and 2.8% to C. Cross-checking our figures with those elaborated by the CE and the Secretary for Security, we could not help raising the following doubts:

Doubt No.1: Why does the government never use these overall figures? Are they worried that the huge number of opposing signatures would over-shadow other submissions? The compendium of submissions highlighted some irregularities of submissions through signature forms, especially citing one computer list containing 8,102 names which "may have been" drawn from a certain data-base to which the organization concerned can access. Does that imply that all 369,612 signatures are not authentic? Why not take away those the government doesn't trust?

Doubt No.2: Why should there be a distinction between "pre-printed opinion forms" and "signature forms"? We figured out that normally one signature appears on each of the former, while approximately 25 signatures appear on each of the latter, which, in a way, are more environmentally friendly. We cannot see any real difference other than that. What is true is that if we combined the two types of pre-printed forms, Category B opinion will dominate. Separating the two has created the picture that nobody wins.

Doubt No.3: In the media session conducted by the Secretary for Security, she began her analysis right from the local submissions received, and mentioned nothing about the 3,812 non-local submissions involving 29,099 signatures. Brushing aside the 60 submissions from organizations outside Hong Kong, is the government assuming that all non-local signatures (comprising 7.9% of all signatures) do not come from Hong Kong permanent residents, and hence should be neglected? The compendium of submissions singled out one signature list from outside Hong Kong containing 7,034 names which "may have been" collected by an organization from the Internet. Is the government trying to discredit the 29,099 non-local signatures? Why not take away those the skeptical ones, instead of neglecting the whole lot?

Doubt No. 4: Submissions are classified as Category A if they "support legislating on Article 23 or proposals in the consultation document", and Category B if they "oppose legislating or the proposals". What if someone supports legislation but opposes the proposals? Or supports legislation in principle, but opposes kicking-off the process right now? Would that submission be classified as Category A or B?

Doubt No. 5: According to the government, a big majority of Hong Kong people did not have a view on the issue of a blue bill or white bill. This is perfectly understandable because it was not a question posted in the consultative document. The most important point is that if someone completely opposes legislation, or opposes legislation at this stage, and hence classifiable under Category B, is there a necessity for this person to express a view on the blue bill or white bill issue?

We have cast these doubts, because submissions as a way of public expression is becoming more popular in Hong Kong. They could be easily manipulated, misused or misquoted. There is little doubt that the government's ability to handle such submissions fairly will be in the limelight now and again. We would like to make some suggestions on the proper analysis of such submissions, if only for future reference.

To start with, we must first resolve a basic conceptual problem: Are we looking for quality or quantity submissions? How are we going to strike a balance? In social research, quality and quantity studies require different methods, instruments and software. Take the consultation exercise regarding Article 23 of the Basic Law as an example, since these parameters were not pre-set before the consultation exercise, it would be more appropriate to perform both qualitative and quantitative analyses in parallel, using the most popular methods employed by academics.

Regarding quantitative analysis, the following information should be extracted, coded, and publicized, for every one of the submissions received:

1. Nature of the submission: whether by individual, organization or mixed;
2. If it is a joint submission, the number of individuals or organizations signing the submission;
3. If it is a submission by an organization, the name and nature of the organization;
4. Format of the submission: whether it is an official letter, a standard form, a brief note, a slogan, a comic, a personal letter, and so on;
5. The date and channel of receiving the submission;
6. The language and the approximate number of words used;
7. Its stands on the major issues: whether supporting, opposing, neutral, or even not mentioned;
8. The strengths of its stands, preferably on a 5-point scale;
9. A categorization of the weight and comprehensiveness of its arguments;
10. Concrete suggestions, if any, coded for easy retrieval and quotation.

As far as statistical analysis is concerned, it is suggested that submissions from individuals and organizations be treated separately. Frequency tables can be used to show the number of submissions supporting or opposing specific propositions, together with the reasons behind, and concrete suggestions made. Other coded information could be used for two-way or multiple-way cross-tabulations. Provided that every piece of important information is coded, analysis should be rather straight forward.

In regard to qualitative analysis of the submissions, the authors would suggest screening out the more substantive and comprehensive ones, mainly from professionals and professional bodies, for further analysis. Data management packages for qualitative research could then be used to analyze the content of these submissions, estimated to be less than 1% of all submissions, and the arguments made in these submissions would also be listed in detail.

Because the government already has its stand on a number of issues, analysis of submissions should better be conducted by truly independent consultants. Failing that, in order to demonstrate that justice has been done, the government must explain its method in detail, as well as discloses all raw data for verification. In fact, any person who is interested in performing an independent check can simply draw a 5-10% random sample from the submissions, and then proceed to verify the government's analysis. The more people involved, the better.

It should, however, be noted that whatever scientific method used to collate the submissions gathered, it will never answer the question of "what ought, or ought not, to be". If only quantity counts, why not host a referendum? Or conduct a series of open, independent and comprehensive opinion surveys? If only quality counts, then why keep tangling over the number of people declaring their stands?

The government's original intention in conducting public consultations might well be driven by its desire to absorb different quality views. However, as it turns out, people from all walks of life, probably including the government itself, are confusing quality with quantity. They just take what they want. In fact, wouldn't it be better if we are no longer bothered by tons of diversified submissions, and let the votes decide? The world would be easier, and the people happier.