12 Facts About Mandy Tam

Mandy Tam Heung-man is a Hong Kong politician, tax advisor and newspaper columnist who is currently a member of the Wong Tai Sin District Council, representing Lung Sing.

Mandy Tam is a former member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, having represented the Accountancy functional constituency.

Mandy Tam lost re-election in 2008 to Paul Chan Mo-po.

In 2006, Mandy Tam was a founding member of the Civic Party, but left the party in June 2009.

Mandy Tam lost re-election in Lung Sing in 2007 to former district councilor Choi Luk-sing.

Mandy Tam has been embroiled in two separate controversies, one with the HKICPA, a professional body whose members are electors of the accountancy functional constituency of the LegCo; the second one was a result of what was perceived to be a politically motivated charge of voting corruption.

In both cases, Mandy Tam's conduct was ultimately vindicated by the Court.

Mandy Tam ran in the "patriots-only" 2021 Legislative Council election in the newly created Kowloon Central geographic constituency.

In mid-September 2006, during a period of heated debate on the Hong Kong Government's plan to introduce a GST, Mandy Tam released the interim results of a survey on public attitudes towards the introduction of the GST, independently conducted by the East Asia Work Based Learning Centre of Middlesex University.

The decision was made over concerns that, in the view of HKICPA, Mandy Tam had adopted an increasingly political stance on many issues.

Mandy Tam wrote a number of correspondences to HKICPA to discuss the issue, pointing out that as a political representative of the accountancy functional constituency in the Legislative Council, her communications to the members of the accounting profession via the newsletter service were both necessary and necessarily political, as befits the brief of the newsletter itself since its very inception.

Mandy Tam then sought judicial review of the HKICPA's decision to stop the newsletter distribution, and claimed the Institute's decision was unlawful on 5 separate grounds.