Opinion surveys land universities in political trouble

Opinion surveys, a common source of research information in universities around the world, have become a political minefield for Hong Kong’s universities, with recent surveys landing academics in trouble with Beijing.

In December a survey by Hong Kong University’s (HKU) highly regarded public opinion programme, which found that local people identified themselves more strongly as Hong Kongers than as citizens of China, led to a barrage of denunciations.

The official China Daily newspaper called the survey “preposterous”. Hao Tiechan, a member of the Beijing government’s liaison office in Hong Kong, described the survey as “unscientific” and “illogical”.

Beijing-backed Chinese language newspapers in Hong Kong added to the attacks on Robert Chung, the HKU programme’s director, describing him as a “political fraudster” out to incite Hong Kong people “to deny they are Chinese”.

The issue of Hong Kong identity is sensitive.

When Hong Kong’s Education Bureau released a public consultation document last May for compulsory ‘moral and national education’ in schools to boost Hong Kong people’s feelings towards China, it was denounced by teachers as political indoctrination.

At the time Hao, who is director of publicity, culture and sports in China’s liaison office, was widely criticised as referring to the national education curriculum as “necessary brainwashing” and referring to it as an “international norm”.

Meanwhile the HKU survey has also sparked a spate of comment in Hong Kong on the reasons for negative feelings towards China, despite China’s economic strength and position in the world. That debate was considered unwelcome by Chinese authorities.

Just weeks later Hong Kong’s Baptist University was accused of misleading the public when a poll of the popularity ratings of two candidates for Hong Kong Chief Executive, the city’s top political and administrative post, was released before the survey was complete.

In early January the dean of Baptist University’s school of communications, Zhao Zinshu, said the release of the survey on the popularity of candidates Henry Tang and Leung Chung-ying was intended to attract media attention just before Taiwan’s elections on 14 January.

The gap between the two candidates was shown as 6.5% of 830 respondents – a much narrower gap than the 8.9% of 1,000 respondents that emerged when the full survey was released days later.

Zhao insisted that the early release of the survey was not due to political pressure – China has often denied that it favours one Hong Kong candidate over another. Zhao said the difference between the two polls did not change the findings that the race between the two candidates had become tighter.

A far bigger rumpus erupted when the full survey was released and it was found to include three questions on whether respondents considered themselves Hong Kongers. Zhao was accused of inserting questions on Hong Kong people’s identity against researchers’ objections, and this was followed by denunciations in the media.

Both Zhao and HKU’s Chung are defending their academic freedom to conduct public opinion surveys. Unlike academics on the Chinese mainland they enjoy greater academic autonomy and freedom to publish in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is also familiar with the concept of the political opinion survey, used rarely in mainland China’s more restricted political process.

HKU has been conducting regular surveys on Hong Kong people’s identity since the 1980s, and was able to show that the proportion of Hong Kong people who felt they were Chinese citizens had hit a 12-year low, a finding that clearly irked the authorities.

The former British Colony of Hong Kong was returned to Chinese rule in 1997, almost 15 years ago.

HKU surveys have shown that identification with China increased after 1997 but peaked in 2008, the year Beijing hosted the Olympic games. According to Chung’s latest survey only a third emphasised their Chinese identity over being a Hong Konger, while two-thirds put their Hong Kong identity first.

Chung said he welcomed comments about the survey but Hao’s were politically motivated. “His [Hao’s] comments were from a political point of view and deviated from academic research,” he said on local radio, adding that “academic discussions would remain academic”.

Chung said in a statement: “Cultural revolution-style curses and defamations, no matter at whom they are directed, are not conducive to the building of Chinese national identity among Hong Kong people.”

Kenneth Chan of Hong Kong’s Civic Party, whose main membership derives from academic and student circles, said: “The last thing we scholars want is to have a Big Brother looking over our work and universities’ activities.”

The party defended Chung, describing his projects as “valuable contributions to Hong Kong”, and urged outgoing Chief Executive Donald Tsang, who is also chancellor of Hong Kong’s publicly funded universities, to openly defend academic freedom.

Chung is no stranger to controversy over academic surveys. In 2000 he accused the Hong Kong government of interference, claiming that he had been under pressure from then Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa to discontinue public opinion polls on the popularity of the Tung government, which was losing public support.

An investigation in 2000 into the polling saga led directly to the resignation of the then vice-chancellor and pro vice-chancellor of HKU for allegedly interfering in the survey, while Chung was exonerated and has continued to run the authoritative public opinion programme.