Lu Ping, director of the State Council's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, ended the game of second-guessing last Saturday before the 10th round of the Sino-British talks on the future electoral arrangements for Hong Kong.

Disregarding the diplomatic rule of secrecy, Mr Lu volunteered to the press that Britain was seeking to turn the 180,000-strong civil service into a new Legco functional constituency.

The British plan, he warned, would compromise the long-standing neutrality of the civil servants. After Mr Lu's disclosure, the PWC called an extra meeting to discuss the matter.

In order to prove there had been a British conspiracy to politicise the civil service, a Hong Kong Government guideline on political participation was circulated to the committee members. The memo makes it clear that employees have to resign from the bureaucracy before they can be elected to public office. It also allows civil servants, except administrative officers, information officers and those at directorate grades, to be political party members.

Some PWC members later admitted that they had mistaken the paper as new evidence that the British had been playing tricks to rewrite the political ground rules. They learnt that the guideline had been issued in 1990 only after an enthusiastic reporter hadfaxed them the relevant newspaper clipping.

That embarrassing episode did not dampen their belligerence. PWC member, Miss Maria Tam Wai-chu, even offered a footnote of legality to Mr Lu's remarks. She specified that the Hong Kong Government was guilty of violating Article 103 of the Basic Law.

Even though the term ''executive-led Government'' has been in the local political vocabulary, it has never been officially defined. The phrase has no place in the existing colonial constitutional documents for the territory. Neither is the principle enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration or the post-1997 Basic Law.

While both sides accept the idea, each adheres to their preferred interpretation of what constitutes an executive-led government for Hong Kong.

Article 103 only stipulates: ''The appointment and promotion of public servants shall be on the basis of their qualifications, experience and abilities. Hong Kong's previous system of recruitment, employment, assessment, discipline, training and management of the public service, including special bodies for their appointment, pay and conditions of service, shall be maintained, except for any provisions for privileged treatment of foreign nationals.'' This provision appears to be more concerned about maintaining the appointments system of the civil service, than barring government employees from taking part in politics.

Speaking with the authority of a former Basic Law drafter, Miss Tam however insisted that the article ought to be interpreted the way she said it should. The Chinese side had not protested over this clause when the Government guideline was publicised ahead of the three tiers of elections in 1991.

Hong Kong officials are baffled why a three-year-old circular had suddenly become a bone of contention, jeopardising the Sino-British negotiations.

But the Chinese tactics have apparently paid off. Beijing was obviously eager to suffocate the British proposal before the two foreign ministers' meeting in New York this month.

Mr Lu's move can well be described as Beijing's best attempt at news management since the two sides began secret talks on political reform for Hong Kong five months ago.

The revelation that the Government wanted to create a Legco functional seat for the civil servants has triggered a chorus of disapproval in the territory. Apart from the pro-Beijing lobby, other parties including the United Democrats, Meeting Point and the Liberal Party, were all opposed.

The most demoralising blow came from the main civil service unions, which also rejected the proposition. Local officials have tried their best to explain that some civil servants have already been voting in functional constituencies for the professionals. The thought of civil servants grouping themselves into a functional body remains unpalatable to the public.

The Governor, Mr Chris Patten, has stressed time and again that his bottom line is that the future electoral arrangements must be ''fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong''. Now that various voices have spoken in unison against the civil service functional seat, it would be a disgrace for Britain to push ahead with the proposal.

Mr Patten's original vision was to entitle the entire 2.7 million working population in Hong Kong a functional vote in 1995. But there is virtually no chance Beijing will accept it.

In its effort to reach compromise, it is conceivable that the Government would try to make the size of the functional electorate as big as practicable, with the civil service as the biggest single group of employees a natural choice.

The chief British negotiator, Sir Robin McLaren, insisted yesterday that none of their proposals would adversely affect the political neutrality of the civil service. But when Sir Robin arrives to brief the Governor today, both men should recognise their plan for a civil service functional constituency has been scuppered by Mr Lu.