Two pro-Beijing lawmakers this morning urged their allies who led yesterday’s bungled walkout from the Hong Kong legislature during the vote on the government’s historic political reform package to apologise. Pro-establishment lawmaker Wong Kwok-kin described the decision to leave the chamber moments before voting began as a “low level” glitch but admitted it had an impact on the camp’s image. Wong, among 31 pro-government lawmakers who left the chamber, said his colleagues failed to tell all of them to join the walk out. “It was like a failed offside trap in soccer. With some remaining on the back of the defence line, the trap broke down,” Wong told RTHK. “Those who wanted us to leave had not communicated with us beforehand ... I didn’t know what was going on,” the Federation of Trade Unions lawmaker said. “It was a ‘low level’ glitch.” Only eight lawmakers voted for the proposal yesterday after the majority of the pro-establishment camp left the chamber in the mistaken belief the ballot would be adjourned while they waited for rural kingpin Lau Wong-fat, who was stuck in traffic on his way to cast his vote. The proposal was voted down after 27 pan-democrats and one pro-establishment lawmaker voted against it. The resulting fiasco ended two years of debate and months of bickering on how Hong Kong could elect its chief executive by “one man, one vote” in 2017. READ MORE: Tears flow as Pro-Beijing lawmaker Regina Ip admits sadness at failing to cast Hong Kong reform vote Liberal Party chairman Felix Chung Kwok-pan, among the eight who remained in the chamber and voted for the plan, said he was confused by Jeffrey Lam Kin-fung’s request for a 15-minute adjournment during yesterday’s meeting. Chung was upset by his allies’ suggestion during a press conference yesterday that the walkout was a “misfortune’. It appeared to Chung that he and the seven others were to blame for remaining in the chamber, he said. “That saying is completely wrong ... Those who remained inside were to carry out their duty to cast a vote on a very important proposal. When [Legco] President [Jasper Tsang Yok-sing] had already told us a vote was going to be taken, they still went out,” he said “I think those who suggested and initiated the walkout should apologise to the public,” Chung said. Chung later told Commercial Radio that his pro-establishment colleagues had “twisted black and white” by saying that it was unfortunate for their eight allies, including the Liberals, to have stayed in the chamber and voted. But about an hour later, Ann Chiang Lai-wan, from the Beijing-loyalist Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, attacked her eight pro-establishment colleagues again for staying in the chamber. Writing on her Facebook page, Chiang said: “Why did the eight not follow us ... [because] we lacked communication? They didn’t know what was going on? These were not the reasons. [The reason is] one word: self-centeredness.” But the DAB lawmaker also appeared to be lashing out at Business and Professionals Alliance vice-chairman Lam and her party colleague Ip Kwok-him, who initiated the walkout. She said: “Why walk out to wait for one more person to vote, when it could not change the result? [I think] it is foolish. If I were asked, should anyone be accountable and take responsibility? My answer is yes.” Meanwhile, the Liberal Party’s honorary chairman James Tien Pei-chun told RTHK this morning that his party’s leader, Vincent Fang Kang, received a call from a central government liaison office official during lunch yesterday, shortly after the reform proposal was voted down. The official agreed with the Liberal Party lawmakers’ decision to stay inside the Legco chamber to vote, Tien said. “[The official] said we did a good job,” he added. The official then asked Fang what happened inside the chamber in the lead-up to the vote. He later told DBC radio that his party’s lawmakers had no idea why some pro-establishment legislators walked out. But even if his party knew it was because some lawmakers wanted to wait for Lau, they would still have stayed inside the chamber because the rural kingpin’s single vote would not have made a difference in terms of the outcome, he said.