Irked by a vote of dissent
Executive Councillor Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee was in hot water this week: there were calls for her resignation after she breached cabinet rules by voting against a government bill in the legislature two weeks ago.
Some callers to a Commercial Radio phone-in programme said the veteran politician's failure to abide by the Exco rule of collective responsibility was unacceptable and indefensible.
At issue was a government bill on medical waste treatment, which the Legislative Council approved by 27 votes to 12 on March 29. Eyebrows were raised, however, when Mrs Chow emerged as one of the opponents to the bill, which had already been approved by Exco.
As soon as the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported on March 30 that there had been an apparent breach of the Exco rule, she acted swiftly to repair the damage. In a letter to Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen on the same day, she apologised for her failure to apply for an exemption from the voting rule.
She explained that she had to take account of the opinion of her constituents in New Territories West. Residents in Tsing Yi have fiercely opposed building in their neighbourhood a plant to dispose of medical waste.
Last week, she received a strongly worded reply from Mr Tsang, who made it clear that the Exco rule did not allow for exemptions.
On Monday, Chinese-language newspapers quoted Mrs Chow as saying she was sorry for the mistake. A Sing Tao Daily editorial carried the headline: 'Collective responsibility system needs to become 'tiger with teeth'.'
A well-placed government source said Mr Tsang was determined not to allow Mrs Chow to 'get away with it'.
As the medical-waste bill has already been passed into law, the political fallout from Mrs Chow's vote seems like a storm in a teacup. Despite calls for her to quit, she has shown no intention of doing so. That the Chief Executive's Office has kept silent shows that Mr Tsang is not likely to fire her.
All signs are that the controversy is over, with no lasting damage to the relationship between the government and the Liberal Party, of which Mrs Chow is a vice-chairman.
Holding no votes in the Legislative Council, the administration certainly does not want to turn its Liberal Party friends into foes. This explains why government officials have handled the controversy in a low-key manner.
It is equally obvious that Mr Tsang is keen to send a clear and strong message to unofficial members in Exco - particularly to the four Exco members who are also lawmakers - about his zero-tolerance attitude towards a breach of the collective-responsibility rule.
This is in line with his avowed goal of strong governance under an executive-led system. Mr Tsang and his top aides were apparently caught by surprise by Mrs Chow's vote. It would not be surprising if it reminded them of the dramatic U-turn by James Tien Pei-chun, the Liberal Party chairman, during the Article 23 saga in 2003.
The government was forced to withdraw the national security bill after Mr Tien, then an Exco member, said Liberal Party legislators would oppose it if it was tabled as planned. Shortly afterwards, he stood down from Exco.
Then-chief executive Tung Chee-hwa gave the Exco seat vacated by Mr Tien to Mrs Chow, which was seen as a move to maintain friendly ties with the Liberals.
As Mr Tsang moves to build a more solid, steady relationship with like-minded political parties, he seems to be worried he will be seen as soft and weak if he condones Mrs Chow's blatant act.
Put bluntly, he is anxious to remind government-friendly parties that they cannot have the best of both worlds.
The price they must pay for gaining fame, and access to privileged information and discussions in the policy-making Exco, is their obligation to uphold the system - and not to leave it to ridicule and doubt.
Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large
