Robert Chung affair

Chung accused the Chief Executive, Tung Chee-hwa, of pressuring him to stop publishing the government's approval rating, in messages conveyed by the vice-chancellor and pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong (HKU).

The affair attracted public interest because it raised questions of academic freedom and because of the cooperation of university officials with the Chief Executive.

[2]:5 On 7 July 2000, Chung wrote in South China Morning Post and Hong Kong Economic Journal that Tung Chee-hwa, the Chief Executive, has been pressuring him "via a special channel" to stop polling him and his government.

One simply cannot express such feelings with words.On the same day, the Post reported the incident with "Tung tried to warn me off, says pollster" as the front-page story,[5] soon raising a storm of controversies.

[11] After the government's categorical denial, Robert Chung, in the press conference later that afternoon on 7 July, was still muted on the third party involved and the "special channel" he was referring to.

[15] Ying Chan, Director of Journalism and Media Studies Centre, said she has never heard of Chung under pressure nor the details of the event, and will ask him to give a clear account of the allegations.

[20][21] Local media carried the story with significant coverage with editorials commenting the serious accusations, urging Chung to make himself clear and tell the public who is the third party involved.

Editorials of local newspapers on 8 July are titled as follows: Sing Tao Daily said this is not the first time since handover someone claimed ambiguously that agents such as "messengers" of the Chief Executive or Xinhua had been conveying messages.

Hong Kong Daily News and Sing Pao believed it is politically and practically impossible for the authorities to demand the university to stop polling.

Ming Pao said the Pollgate is a matter of public interest, and will damage both the image of the government and the credibility of Chung if the mystery remains unresolved.

After the publishing of the article, under the huge pressure of the government and the media, it is not convenient for me to contact the messenger: one of my most respected figures, my teacher [Wong Siu-lun].

Regarding how the University will handle this issue, how my credibility will be evaluated by society, these are none of my concern.According to Chung, who broke down twice during the emotional conference,[30] he submitted files on pollster's funding and recent activities on 5 January 1999 under Cheng's request a day before.

On 29 January, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Wong Siu-lun, who was the doctoral advisor of Chung, invited him to his office, saying Cheng was told the Chief Executive does not like the polling by him.

[30] The HKU released a statement on the same day, 14 July, announcing an independent Commission of Enquiry will be conducted to look into Chung's accusations due to the serious nature.

[37] As concerns and speculations grew, Andrew Lo, Chief Executive's Senior Special Assistant and one of the closest aid of Tung, released a statement on 20 July, confirming he had met with "people from various sectors of the community" and had "all along discussed these issues with my contacts with an open mind".

[42] Three days later, Arthur Li, Vice-Chancellor of the CUHK, disclosed a meeting with Lo in January 1999 which touched on Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies (HKIAPS), the pollster of the university.

[2]:4 On 1 August, Tung announced he had turned down the invitation from the Panel to attend the hearing as he must protect the dignity of his office,[50] and had "no relevant information to offer", but "will be most willing to assist".

[58] Several months later, in the second meeting on 1 November, Chung was told by Wong that Cheng "was most unhappy that he had continued to conduct his polls and it would be best to stop, otherwise his funding might dry up.

The Pro-vice-chancellor agreed that he recommended Chung to allocate more resources to sophisticated policy researches as there had been too many low-value Chief Executive polling in the past two years.

He also resolutely denied warning Chung that the pollster could be "yum gone" (Yue Chinese: 陰乾, i.e. dried up) by the Vice-chancellor, describing it as a vulgar term and believed it is not practical in the university.

[56][57] Wong also questioned the motive of Chung to disclose despite under pressure for a long time and claimed it is related to his recently conferred doctorate.

[citation needed] After Chung telephoned him before the meeting enquiring if he is particularly interested in anything, Lo claimed he "suddenly thought of" the SSRC and thus mentioned that to Cheng.

The chat covered the development of the university and the pollster, and the name of Chung was mentioned in the course of conversation, who Lo felt had very strong views about politics.

[citation needed] The leader's aide later amended his written testimony and stated he did not name anyone whilst quiring the conflicting role, and he had no intention to criticise anyone but only asked a question just like in lesson.

"[2]:7 In March 1999, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Cheng Kai-ming set up an Ad Hoc Group and recommended establishing an Institute for Policies and Strategic Studies to improve the academic research.

[2]:13 The report concluded Cheng Yiu-chung first requested Robert Chung to submit details of the HKUPOP on 4 January 1999, and met Andrew Lo two days later.

Lo, in the meeting amidst the drop of government's popularity, expressed hope to stop unfavourable polling results against the authorities from publishing and asked the university to follow up.

In the opinion part, the Panel, who had "no hesitation" in believing Chung as an honest witness who told the truth, wrote:[2]:13 We are sure that as a result of the conversation between Mr.

[52] But the latter two, under immense pressure from the public, students and alumnus, and all seven deans of the university, tendered their resignations on 6 September,[69] the day when the Council met to discuss the Panel's report.

BBC said "the whole affair has tarnished the image of Hong Kong's government and may lead to significant support for opposition candidates in Sunday's election".