OH, what a glorious day it was. The most significant occasion, since the last time Legco voted on electoral arrangements back in June 1994. It was time, as Ronald Arculli pointed out, to do what the provisional legislature had been set up to do. It was time to act with honour. The Government, if it had not already understood the provos were not a rubber stamp, should realise it now. This was the time to strike terror into the hearts of the gerrymanderers and vote-planters, to blow apart the Government's most unjustified constructions - even if some of them were mandated by the Preparatory Committee. And with what eloquence legislators demolished the most elegantly designed functional constituencies! One by one they spoke in defence of their own interests. Each proved with arguments of crystalline sharpness and clarity the moral bankruptcy of the constituency system they claimed to support. Eric Li and Hui Yin-fat stood up for democracy among professional social workers only. 'One man, one vote,' they cried. Unless, of course, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong insisted on amending the social welfare functional constituency to include kaifong associations and other non-profit providers of social services. Since that was intended to win new influence for the DAB, Mr Li, for one, would recommend a return to corporate voting instead. Choy So-yuk, for the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, tried to amend the scope of the textiles and garment constituency to include importers and exporters, and all voting members of the Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Apparel. James Tien, Sophie Leung and the Liberal Party were outraged. Why, said Mr Tien, this would mean mere wage-earners might get a look in. This was an industry, you know, not a profession. Besides, even former legislator Leung Yiu-chung, whose support for the workers arouses Mr Tien to righteous anger, might get a vote simply by paying the membership fee. In the end, both amendments won, to the fury of Mr Tien and Mr Li. But their anger was nothing compared to the rage of Secretary for Home Affairs Michael Suen, stuck with the impossible job of identifying the extra constituents. You would not envy him the task. But you could not help feeling he probably deserved it.