1982年，英首相戴卓爾夫人就香港前途問題訪京前夕，香港觀察社委託SRH做當時最大型民調，抽樣訪問一千名港人的對社會及前途看法。觀察社認為中英雙方只聽取商家聲音，聲稱要為香港市民發聲。問卷共七十一題，訪問歷時約四十分鐘，以下摘錄調查緣起及部份題目。
香港觀察社是1975年成立的論政團體，成員包括胡紅玉、秦家聰、陸恭蕙、于品海、鄭宇碩、吳崇文等十多名專業人士，主要透過輿論時評向政府施壓，曾受港府秘密監察。
《觀察香港：香港觀察社言論集》(1982)，頁70–71：
過去兩年，香港觀察社對香港前途之不明朗極為關注。當決定香港前途的談判開始時，香港人仍未形成一個集體的意見，更使我們特別担心。
由於從未有一個集體的意見來表達香港人的要求，遂促使我們決定委托調查機構去進行一次民意調查。這次調查目的包括：
(一)確定公眾關注香港前途的程度；
(二)估計解決香港前途問題的各個方集的可接受性；
(三)查詢市民針對各個建議方集之相應計劃(假設他們已經有計劃的話)；
(四)鑒定公眾就市民的權利及其影響香港前途的決定的能力所具之概念；
(五)確定公眾對香港前途所持態度的成因；
(六)量度公眾對香港一般的喜惡，特別是對政府的喜惡…我們將向中國政府、英國政府及香港政府遞交一份立場書，以及這次民意調查結果的詳細總結。
我們誠懇希望這會引起香港各界團體的更多討論及意見交流。香港人需要集體地提出我們的意見與要求，香港觀察社認為這是保證香港人利益的唯一途徑。我們將來的命運今天正被中英雙方圓滑含糊的聲明所蒙蔽，種種臆測造成混亂的氣氛。中英雙方表示關切香港人的利益，但直至目前為止，他們是留意到工商界的憂慮。香港人尚未表達自己的意見，他們又怎能瞭解香港人的需要？
我們每一個人都與香港利害相關、憂戚與共。如果我們不把心裡的話說出來，我們正常生活的權利說有被忽略的危險。香港人對如何安排自己的一生、自己子女的一生有參與決定的權利，這是不容置疑的。為幫助大家討論香港的前途，我們將這次民意調查的結果分成三部的，包括：香港社會的剖析、市民對香港政府及本港將來的評估。
「香港前途」那一節比較詳盡，事實上也有這個需要。舉例而言，在五個建議的方案中，「維持現狀」與「中國擁有主權，但由英國代為管理」分列是有理由的。中國也許以為，這是同一囘事。但以香港人而言，前者意味着一切繼續維持下去，而後者則暗示中英雙方需要就將來如何管理香港達成協議。現狀是大家都清楚的，每一個人亦接受香港是中國領土的一部份。但無人知道道英國正式承認中國主權會在實際上造成什麼改變。
我們亦想瞭解對就「一九九七」問題而建議的方案的各種態度，故此這項調查詳細詢問被訪者有關解決香港前途問題的意見，對各個方案的看法，且及他們認為「最理想」、「最唔理想」和「最可能」的解決方案。
Pressure Points: A Social Critique by the Hong Kong Observers(1983, 2nd edtion), 196–197:
In the past two years, the Observers have expressed great concern over the uncertainty of Hongkong’s future. The non-existence of a collective Hongkong voice when negotiations over our future start is particularly worrying.
It was this lack of a collective voice to express what Hongkongers want which prompted us to commission a poll. This survey set out
a) to ascertain the degree of public concern over the future of Hongkong;
b) to assess the acceptability of various solutions to the problem of Hongkong’s future;
c) to detail people’s plans (if they had any) in response to the suggested solutions;
d) to identify public perception of the people’s rights and their ability to influence any decision on Hongkong’s future;
e) to establish the reasons behind public attitudes to the future of Hongkong, and
f) to measure public likes and dislikes of Hongkong in general and of the government in particular…We will be submitting a copy of our position paper, and a detailed summary of the poll’s findings, to the Chinese, British and Hongkong governments.
We sincerely hope that further discussions with and by Hongkong groups will emanate from all this. We Hongkongers need to speak in a collective voice and say what we want. The Observers see this as the only way Hongkongers’ interests can be safeguarded. The path towards our future is obscured by elliptical statements from China and Britain today. The atmosphere is confused by public speculation. China and Britain profess to have Hongkong’s interest at heart. So far, they have only heard the worried voices of the business community. How can they know what Hongkongers want when the people have not expressed their views?
Each and everyone of us has a stake in Hongkong. If we don’t speak our minds, there is a danger that our everyday interests may be overlooked. It must be right that Hongkongers should have a say about how their lives — and their children’s lives — should be structured.
To help public discussion of the issue of Hongkong’s future, we have structured our poll findings into three parts — a profile of the community, its assessment of the British administration, and the future of Hongkong. The section on “the future of Hongkong” is detailed — out of necessity. There is, for example, a good reason why — of the five solutions suggested — two were “status quo” and “remaining under British administration but under Chinese sovereignty.” China may perceive these to be one and the same thing. For Hongkongers however, the former means things continue as is, while the latter implies an agreement which has yet to be worked out between London and Peking on the future administration. It is clear what the status quo is, and everyone accepts that Hongkong is part of China. But no one knows how formal British recognition of Chinese sovereignty will translate itself in practical terms.
We also wanted to cover all possible attitudes concerning suggested solutions to the 1997 issue, hence the overlapping ofwhat was thought possible, acceptable, most likely, and what was most as well as least preferred.
— 歡迎分享，更多材料見內容導覽 —
搜尋本站資料，可用Google自訂引擎
考古陣地一覽
facebook.com/recall.hk
instagram.com/recall.hk
medium.com/recall-hk
mewe.com/join/recall-hk
odysee.com/@recall-hk
twitter.com/recallhk
mastodon.social/@recallhk
t.me/s/recallhk
#世代懺悔錄 #香港前途考古 #前途談判序幕 #1982年 #香港觀察社 #胡紅玉 #秦家聰 #陸恭蕙 #于品海 #鄭宇碩 #吳崇文 #民意調查 #SRH #戴卓爾夫人
