As the deadline draws closer for aspirants to the Special Administrative Region (SAR) election draws closer, there seems to be a growing consensus in political and business circles that Chief Secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang is out of the race. Word has it that Beijing doesn't trust her because she's too closely associated with Governor Chris Patten and the colonial government. It simply isn't an option for the head of the civil service to offer herself as a candidate. She should be astute enough to concede her fate and be content to play second fiddle to whoever is chosen to be the post-1997 chief. But is this really the case? What is the basis for people making such an assertion if they truly believe the chief executive race is a genuine election and that Beijing, as it claims time and again, is not exercising any influence on the outcome? What about Chinese leaders' pledge that the elected chief should be someone acceptable to the community? If Hong Kong people trust that Beijing leaders are going to honour their words, that the 400-strong selection committee is formed by a wide representation of Hong Kong's views and that every member can have a free vote for who he or she trusts to be the best candidate, why should the business and political elites simply write off Mrs Chan's chances? Interestingly, an opinion poll published on Monday suggested that local people are defying their wisdom. The latest poll findings indicate that if Mrs Chan is included as a candidate, about 44 per cent of the respondents would still back the chief secretary. Her popularity was well ahead of other chief executive hopefuls, with hot runner Tung Chee-hwa securing 18.4 per cent and Chief Justice Sir Ti Liang Yang and tycoon Peter Woo Kwong-ching managing only 14.7 per cent and 5.9 per cent respectively. Mrs Chan's critics suggested we should not overplay the results of public opinion polls. Clearly, there is merit in such an argument, but it is not strong enough to then say that Mrs Chan shouldn't even give it a try. On the contrary, it is precisely for both public and personal interests that she should have the courage and political will to tender her resignation as chief secretary and offer herself as a candidate. Some may argue that it is in Mrs Chan's best interests to stay in her present job, as China, for the sake of stability and continuity of the civil service, will definitely allow her to straddle 1997 and keep the same position. She's got nothing to lose. But if she resigns and fails to win the poll, she is left with nothing. Those advocating such a theory seem to have overlooked what faith and trust mean to Beijing. If China can't trust Mrs Chan as chief executive, it will equally be sceptical about how trustworthy the British-groomed administrator will be as the number one aide to the SAR chief. Yes, Mrs Chan may still keep the title of administrative secretary (which is the post-1997 equivalent of chief secretary), but how long will she be able to hold on to the job? And how much power will she still be able to enjoy? Will she be marginalised so that real power and influence will go directly to the deputy administrative secretary, a new post suggested in the Basic Law and one that many in the pro-China camp are lobbying to create? How will it be in Mrs Chan's best interests if all she gets is an empty title without no real power? If it is not true that Mrs Chan has lost Beijing's trust, then why can't she put her own popularity to the test and see whether the electorate give her a vote of confidence? No one is suggesting that Mrs Chan, despite her high ratings in opinion polls, must win.