Ho Lok-sang points out filibustering has severely harmed the city through jamming up the legislature and government

I am pleased that finally the rules and procedures for our Legislative Council have been changed for the better. The opposition camp of course is disappointed, saying that the changes were made during a time when the LegCo membership is skewed toward the pro-establishment camp as four of their colleagues have been disqualified as legislators. They say that the LegCo should not be a rubber stamp for the government's proposals, and that the new "rule book" will disable an important function of LegCo, namely to monitor the government and check against possible moves that might hurt Hong Kong's people's interests. Of course, LegCo does have this important function, but an article by former legislator Alan Leong Kah-kit, chairman of the Civic Party, belies the claim that the filibustering had all been in order to serve Hong Kong's best interests.

Writing in a column in Ming Pao, Leong cited two rare incidents of "success" for filibustering. One was the "success" of stopping what he called Internet Article 23; the other was the "success" of stopping the passing of the Medical Registration Bill, which sought to increase the number of members on the Medical Council from 28 to 32 and to cut the waiting time for hearings on medical complaints from 58 to 30 months.

Let us see how these "successes" served Hong Kong's interests. The true title of the so-called Internet Article 23 bill was the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014.

Danny Friedmann, a researcher and lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong, wrote in the South China Morning Post questioning the "demonization" of a much-needed amendment in the copyright law to bring Hong Kong in line with most developed countries. Winnie Tam Wan-chi, the chair of the Hong Kong Bar Association at the time, similarly supported the bill, arguing that the fears of netizens were based on imagination rather than facts and were totally unwarranted. This was also the position of the Bar Association. Danny Friedmann says neither the original ordinance nor the proposed bill carries provisions that would stifle freedom of expression or creativity, as critics fear. As a result of the "success" of the filibustering of the opposition camp, Hong Kong was trapped in continuing with an outdated ordinance, rather than having an updated one that would better protect intellectual property and encourage creative effort.

Actually, the opposition camp was not just demonizing the Copyright (Amendment) Bill; it was demonizing Article 23. Instead of working out a bill that would serve Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland's best interest and fulfilling our constitutional responsibility as defined under the Basic Law, the opposition camp is just doing everything it can to prevent legislation.

Over the weekend, I received a call from a survey interviewer asking if I supported the changes to the rules. I said yes. He also asked me if I would call myself pro-establishment, neutral, or "pan-democrat". I answered without a doubt "neutral", meaning I would not espouse nor oppose a government initiative simply because it comes from the government. I would scrutinize it. If I truly think it is good I would support it. If I truly think it is bad I would oppose it. I do not want LegCo to be a rubber stamp, nor do I want LegCo to oppose the government simply for the sake of opposing the government. Leong is right in saying legislators need to monitor the government and that serving the people's interest must be the priority.

Unfortunately, I have seen legislators wasting everybody's time just to insult the government or to prevent it from functioning. I understand that sometimes it is because the government's position is not congruent with their position. But this is not an adequate reason for filibustering. No one should assume one is always right. Filibustering may serve some useful purpose if what the government proposes is clearly harmful for Hong Kong. But this is quite rare. For example, while Leong thought preventing the passing of the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2016 was good, that was only his view and that of some of his colleagues. The patients groups did not think this was good. If many others hold a different view, why should any legislator try to dictate his view to the Hong Kong public and call this good for everybody?

To conclude, I sincerely hope LegCo will perform its intended functions dutifully. Now that the rule book has been changed, it does not mean LegCo is going to be a rubber stamp for any initiative that comes from the government. Actually I have always held the view that there should not be a "pro-establishment camp" nor an "opposition camp". Every legislator, every government official, every citizen, should think about the long-term interests of Hong Kong first. They should engage in policy debates with an open heart. I know it is difficult for elected legislators to forget politics. They need to appeal to their constituents in order to gain votes. But, regardless, trying to dictate one's view on society and stalling policies through filibustering must end.

(HK Edition 12/19/2017 page7)