Piece by piece, the jigsaw in the Dr Robert Chung Ting-yiu affair fits together, but the picture remains far from complete. It will be up to the commission of inquiry to seek the full facts, though what has emerged so far does suggest there may well have been an attempt at political influence from the top. Vice-Chancellor Professor Cheng Yiu-chung's statement removes any doubt about whether Tung Chee-hwa's administration inquired into the pollster's methods. No less a person than Mr Tung's 'senior special assistant', Andrew Lo Cheung-on, requested a meeting at which he raised questions about the scientific basis of Dr Chung's work. The subject was later discussed with senior university staff, but Professor Cheng denies any attempt to stop Dr Chung's polling through intervention by Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Wong Siu-lun. He does, however, admit failing to recognise the political significance of the episode. That seems a strange lapse for an academic steeped in the political life of the SAR through his role as a senior adviser to Beijing. His account is somewhat different from Professor Wong's version. Did the two 'friendly talks' that Professor Wong held with the pollster result from 'misunderstanding' the Vice-Chancellor's remarks during the staff meeting? Or was he given a clear impression that it fell to him to put Dr Chung straight about disfavour in high circles? While the available evidence remains contradictory, it does lead back to the Chief Executive's Office. Did Mr Lo, a long-time employee of Mr Tung's shipping company who was brought along to the office of the Chief Executive, take it upon himself to initiate this meeting - plus a similar one at the Chinese University - without the prior knowledge of his boss? If so, was that an appropriate thing to do?