Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa made a public act of contrition at his press conference last Thursday, confessing that he had made mistakes and promising to do better in future. However, he refused four times to apologise, merely saying that he accepted ultimate responsibility on all matters. The first key test of whether the government has really opened the door to change will lie in the way it handles the Article 23 legislation. To his credit, the chief executive said the administration will begin another round of public consultation on the controversial legislation, which drew half a million people onto the streets on July 1. It is important that the public consultation this time be done in a different manner than the last time, when it was more a case of the government trying to convince the public of its views than listening to the public's views. The Hong Kong government this time should release a white bill to consult the public. Previously, despite widespread demands for a white bill, the government had refused to issue one. At his press conference on Thursday, Mr Tung refused to answer a question as to whether there would be a white bill. But, in explaining his plans, he said: 'Let me emphasise that the purpose of this round of consultation is to win the maximum understanding and support of the community as a whole for the legislation.' In Beijing on Saturday, President Hu Jintao, too, expressed the belief that after wide-ranging consultations, 'the relevant legislation will certainly be understood, supported and endorsed by the Hong Kong compatriots'. This suggests that, in the minds of both Mr Hu and Mr Tung, the problem lies not with the bill but with the public. It also suggests that Mr Tung may not have much room for manoeuvre where the contents of the bill are concerned. There is a danger that this second round of public consultation may backfire on the government if the public again perceives it as not genuine consultation. A public consultation, by definition, is to find out what the public's views are, not to persuade the public of the correctness of the government's views. If the government were to engage in genuine consultation, it must have an open mind and be willing to listen to the public and, if necessary, make changes to the draft bill. Anything less than that would not constitute genuine consultation. In the last round of consultation, the Security Bureau not only attempted to manipulate public opinion but also distorted it in its compendium on responses to its consultation document. By and large, opponents of Article 23 legislation organised petitions, while its supporters sent in form letters. The bureau counted each form letter as one submission, but it counted the results of a signature campaign, which might include hundreds of signatures of people opposed to the legislation, also as a single submission. Such tricks exposed the government's real intention, which was to push the bill through the legislature regardless of public opposition. The government must put away its bag of tricks and humbly listen to the public. Hong Kong cannot afford this second attempt to implement Article 23 to go wrong. If the government is asking for public views, it should study the views expressed, rather than mechanically adding up numbers of form letters. If the government is interested only in numbers, then it should handle the consultation like a referendum and simply find out how many people are for or against a particular proposal. Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator frankching1@aol.com