A government official later explained that the administration was keen to get a more accurate picture of public opinion on reducing the salaries tax.

Mr Tang's comments marked a subtle change in tactics used by him and his predecessor as financial secretary - Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen - in managing the politics of the budget.

Hong Kong's financial chiefs normally try to dampen public expectations ahead of a budget, so that even token tax concessions will seem like a pleasant surprise to taxpayers. Conversely, the political backlash from unpopular tax rises is softened if the increase is less than officials had earlier suggested.

But given the political and economic background of the next budget, the traditional tactic of managing expectations may not work. The government's finances returned to a surplus last year, and this year's surplus is tipped to reach between HK$20 billion and HK$30 billion. Thus, keeping the salaries tax unchanged is not politically viable; it may even be suicidal.

The key message behind the chorus of calls for restoring the salaries tax to the 2002-2003 level is not so much a demand for cuts on specific items, such as personal allowances and the tax band.

Rather, it should be read in the context of the tax rises that were introduced in the 2002-2003 budget.

The government used that blueprint to call on people to share the economic pain of Hong Kong's downturn - by digging into their pockets to help tide over the bad times. Now, people insist that the government is morally obliged to let them have a fair share of the fruits of prosperity during the good times.

Mr Tang's remarks show he is not interested in playing another game of political rhetoric. Rather, he has opted for launching a frank, plain public discussion on the specifics of a salaries tax cut.

Choosing that course may put the financial chief in a less vulnerable position in view of the sensitive timing of the budget. Its publication will come during the chief executive election campaign: that means any changes - and the option of no changes - are bound to be greeted with scepticism.

Conspiracy theorists would see a drastic cut in the salaries tax as a move by the administration to please taxpayers and boost Mr Tsang's popularity in the election period.

Leaving the salaries tax unchanged, however, would fuel a conspiracy theory of a different sort. Mr Tang would face accusations of hoarding cash for Mr Tsang. That would put the Chief Executive in a position to play the role of 'Mr Generosity' when he delivers his policy address in October - the first after his expected re-election.

By focusing the public on the various ways to slice the surplus pie, Mr Tang may have a specific intent: namely, it would give him a better chance of justifying his fiscal measures as a response to a broad, solid base of public opinion.

There have been rapid changes in public sentiments, as we saw in the protests over the Star Ferry clock tower demolition. This poses a great challenge for government officials trying to grasp the subtleties and complexities of people's aspirations on issues like the budget.

Taxpayers would no doubt welcome a tax cut. Since most are better off than they were in 2002, they may be willing to accept a relatively modest reduction. But that is only if they're convinced that their government has become wiser - and will act smarter - in spending their money for the long-term well-being of the society.

Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large