tim's experiment

Linguistic point first: the so-called filibuster is not a filibuster. A filibuster consists of one speaker droning on until the opposition gives up or he keels over. This is not possible in Legco because there are limits on the length of members’ speeches.

So what is going on is not a filibuster, it is an attempt to amend legislation on a grand scale. The large number of amendments have already been pruned. The President of Legco has the right to rule out amendments which are frivolous and he has exercised it. What is left, we must suppose, comprises amendments which a sane person, possibly of extreme views, might propose in the hope of improving the enactment under discussion. Clearly the public is now being prepared for some kind of ban on excessive amendments, or a mechanism for cutting off debate on a measure altogether.

I am not convinced by the sudden discovery of all sorts of worthy activities which might be jeopardised if the budget is delayed  Different speakers come up with different sets of endangered items, which does not inspire confidence. But in any case, the government has pots of money. Any bureaucrat worth his salt should be able to find a way to keep the wheels turning for a few more weeks.

Nor was I much moved by the distressing passage in Mr John Tsang’s latest blog, in which he lamented the suffering of legislators forced to attend long meetings and subjected to the further torture of periodically hearing the bell indicating that the number of legislators actually in the chamber fell short of a quorum. In other words even the ones who bothered to turn up were absent from the meeting, having perhaps found a nook where they could peruse soft porn websites in peace.

The basic problem is not an excess of amendments; it is a shortage of working hours. One early complaint about the flood of amendments was that it would take 30 hours of debate for Legco to get through them. A whole 30 hours! This may come as news to some of the more well-brought-up members, but most people in Hong Kong get through 30 hours work in a bit less than four days. Members may object that they have other calls on their time. Tough. Being a legislator pays something in excess of 15 times the average household income in Hong Kong. Not to mention the free parking in Central, the social prestige, the networking, the “work trips” and other perks. Taxpayers have a right to expect that their representatives should be willing to work a normal working week, if on rare occasions that is needed. There are far too many people in Legco whose only ambition is to have the Honourable on their business cards without doing any work for it. They do not wish to speak, they do not wish to propose amendments, they do not wish to ask questions, and they do not want to listen to the people who do.

Of course it is true that the flood of amendments is not a serious attempt to improve the budget. The government has a built-in majority of sycophants; amendments from other sources are not welcome. What puzzles me is why the government expects people outside this flaccid group to participate meekly in the charade of representative government. The legislators labelled “radical” are not consulted or considered. They know they are only in Legco because of an unintended wrinkle in a bent electoral system. Any suggestion they may make will be spurned precisely because it comes from them. Their speeches are not listened to and their desires are not satisfied. In a sane system the Financial Secretary would dangle some costless carrot – like, say, removing the more flagrant abuses from the MPF system – as an inducement to support the budget. But in Hong Kong nobody in authority has a word to say to those outside the charmed circle. Is it any wonder that they act up?