Page:Hong Kong Basic Law consultation report vol. 1.djvu/38

 4.5 After this decision was publicly announced, three members of the CCBL wrote to the Executive Committee individually, demanding that the issue should be discussed again at the general meeting.

4.6 On 22 April, the 25th meeting of the Executive Committee discussed the demand of the three CCBL members, and resolved that the issue would be referred to the seventh general meeting for discussion.

4.7 Later, in view of the events that took place on mainland China in May and June, the Executive Committee announced that the seventh general meeting which was initially scheduled for 3 June was to be postponed. The above- mentioned issue was thus denied a chance to be discussed at the general meeting. On 2 September, the 28th meeting of the Executive Committee was held. It was decided that the seventh general meeting was to be held on 23 September and that the item "To discuss whether the CCBL should conduct a public opinion poll on the Basic Law (Draft)" was to remain on the agenda.

4.8 On 23 September, at the seventh general meeting of the CCBL, members expressed their views on whether the CCBL should conduct a public opinion poll on the Basic Law (Draft). Since the Executive Committee did not receive any motion to vote on the issue within 7 days after the agenda for the general meeting was given, or before the meeting, the meeting could not pass a resolution on the issue.

4.9 On 7 October, the Executive Committee held the 30th meeting at which the issue of whether the CCBL should conduct a public opinion poll on the Basic Law (Draft) was again discussed. The voting results were: 3 votes in favour, 12 against (among which two were submitted in writing), and 2 abstentions. The meeting resolved that the CCBL would not conduct a public opinion poll on the Basic Law (Draft). However, other individuals or organizations were welcome to submit their poll results to the CCBL.

4.10 After the Executive Committee had made the above decision, four CCBL members resigned, one after another, from the CCBL as a gesture of dissatisfaction. They maintained that the CCBL's decision showed its indifference to public opinion and its failure to fully perform its consultative duties.

5. Controversial issues and views arising from the discussion of the Consultative Committee for the Basic Law

5.1 On the point of having a public opinion poll conducted