It is quite right to criticise the article written by Cao Erbao, head of research at the central government's liaison office, that appeared in the Communist Party School's paper early last year. The article proposed that central government and other mainland cadres involved in Hong Kong affairs should form a second governing force in the city.
But this article also carried an important message not seen by most commentators. It was the first public document that expounded on Beijing's changed policy towards Hong Kong, and the liaison office's expanding role. The change started in 2003.
Between July 1997, when China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong, and June 2003, Beijing observed faithfully the letter and spirit of the Basic Law, which gives a high level of autonomy to the Hong Kong government. The liaison office kept a low profile and did not play an active role in local politics.
On July 1, 2003, no sooner did Premier Wen Jiabao leave Hong Kong after attending the sixth anniversary of the establishment of the special administrative region, than half a million people took to the streets in protest against the proposed Article 23 legislation and the unsatisfactory performance of Tung Chee-hwa's administration. This massive demonstration shocked Beijing and apparently marked the beginning of increasing involvement of mainland agencies in local affairs.
Mr Cao's article provides clear evidence of this change in policy when it mentions the decision of the fourth plenary session of the 16th CCP National Congress, in September 2004, that maintaining the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and Macau should henceforth become an important task to raise the party's governing ability. Between 2004 and 2007, we saw the departure of Mr Tung and the ascent of Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. For its part, the liaison office played an active role in various elections of members to the Election Committee that ultimately chose the chief executive.
Fast forward to 2008. Eight months after Mr Cao wrote his article, Hong Kong held a Legislative Council election. There were the usual stories about the liaison office's involvement in influencing the choice of candidates or favouring some over others. But by far the most striking related to the complaint by the Liberal Party's two heavyweight candidates - James Tien Pei-chun and Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee - that the liaison office had withdrawn its support, thus causing their defeat. After the election, liaison office director Gao Siren made a high-profile gesture to meet a delegation of the Liberal Party and issued an endearing official press release afterwards.