THE hunting season obviously started earlier this week. My phone didn't stop ringing, my pager didn't stop vibrating. What was all the commotion about? The media was badgering Legco members about the Wang report on Legco pay, allowances, etc. It was interesting that the South China Morning Post carried an article on the front page headlined 'Exco to examine allowance abuse' on Tuesday . If I hadn't read the article, I might have thought Exco was involved in another round of self-examination. Legco members were only told late Tuesday afternoon that there would be a closed door briefing by Professor Wang Gungwu at 10.30 am on Wednesday, September 7. I wondered why a closed door meeting? The press had the report. I do not want to dwell on Legco members' salaries. What I will dwell on is oversimplification of the issue by calling Legco members full-time or part-time. It is illogical and wrong to suggest that any Legco member who has a job or career or directorship is part-time while those who don't are full-time. Lee Wing-tat put forward this argument in the Sunday Post on September 4. Is Lee Wing-tat suggesting that his UD Legco colleagues who have a career or what's left of it are spending so little time as legislators that they are simply part-time? I was a member of the Legco working group reviewing allowances of Legco members. I put forward an idea about salary for consideration: let each Legco member have a basic salary. On top of this, they should only be paid on attendance of meetings. This is how many companies pay their non-executive directors, either on a per meeting or per diem basis. This would mean that those who attend more meetings would be paid more than those who attend less. I believe this would be fair. This would have avoided artificial arguments about who is part-time or who is full-time. I was shot down because of difficulties in monitoring whether a Legco member would stay for the whole or only part of a meeting. I suppose there was a real danger of a Legco member 'attending' meetings just to claim pay. Some months ago I heard a rumour that the Wang Commission might consider treating geographically-elected Legco members differently than those who were not. This is ironic considering how many times we have heard the present Governor and indeed Lord Wilson say that it matters not which door a Legco member enters Legco - they are all the same. Indeed, to the credit of my fellow working group members, throughout our discussions each of us insisted that Legco members should be treated the same. Perhaps the Wang Commission was lobbied otherwise and this might have led the commission to a different view. The issue here is not whether Legco members from geographical constituencies need to have contact with their constituents. The commission should encourage all Legco members and indeed Exco members to have regular contact with the community. SURELY this is the best way of encouraging our people to have faith in Legco and Exco members and for Legco and Exco members to appreciate the needs and demands of the community. The Wang Commission has unwittingly opened a Pandora's box: it is saying that directly elected Legco members need to contact their constituents through a district office. This thinking is not only outdated but a disservice to the community. I have a ward office in Aberdeen, and while my constituents' interests come first, the real estate and construction industries appreciate the desirability of this as do those who I come into contact with. The Wang Commission has overlooked the nine new functional constituencies whose constituents will be territory wide and not confined to one geographical district. Logically these future Legco members should have 20 district offices as they will have constituents in every geographical constituency. What say you now Professor Wang? To call a Legco member's job today a part-time job is an unmitigated distortion of reality and grossly unfair to Legco members. Does Exco intend to refer its salaries for independent review?