Anti-filibuster rule legitimate

After Legislative Council (LegCo) President Tsang Yuk-sing terminated the opposition's filibuster of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Amendment) Bill 2011, according to the LegCo Rules of Procedure in May last year, LegCo member Leung Kwok-hung from League of Social Democrats filed for judicial review of Tsang's decision twice but was rejected by the court both times. Leung later turned to the Court of Appeal (CoA) for a partial waiver of the court fee he had been ordered to pay in the previous ruling, but the CoA came back on Thursday with the decision that Leung must pay the full sum of the fees.

The CoA ruling is most significant in firmly establishing that Tsang's termination of the filibuster by opposition lawmakers was legitimate; he has the right and power to ensure the normal operation of LegCo according to the Rules of Procedure, and Leung was making a great deal of nothing by filing for judicial review of Tsang's decision. With the legality of his decision to terminate unreasonable filibuster confirmed by the CoA, Tsang is obligated to act appropriately against the latest filibuster by Leung and his fellow opposition troublemakers to block or delay the implementation of the 2013-14 Budget Report. It is Tsang's responsibility to prevent the opposition from paralyzing the SAR government's normal operations while Leung and other filibustering LegCo members should learn a lesson from their last defeat and redeem themselves in a positive manner.

The initial court ruling on Leung's judicial review request already made it clear that LegCo President Tsang has the power to apply the Rules of Procedure (to terminate filibuster when necessary) and it is inappropriate for the court to intervene in legislative affairs. In spite of the ruling, Leung went ahead with a second attempt to have the court strip the LegCo president of the power to terminate filibusters so that he can continue using filibuster to his own advantage whenever and however he likes. That is nothing but political manipulation by way of the court. The High Court ruling that Leung must pay the court fees in full serves as a warning against any attempt to use court litigation abusively for unjustifiable political purposes.

This is an excerpted translation of a Wen Wei Po editorial published on April 19.

Lee Ming-sang

Moderate radical behavior

A growing number of radical factions have now 'earned' their places in the Legislative Council (LegCo) with the rise of radicalism after last year's LegCo election. Their code of conduct is to take everything to the extreme, regardless of the cost. They will do anything, including hijacking the overall benefits of Hong Kong citizens to attain their ulterior political purpose. The culture that values opinions expressed in a peaceful and rational way has been marginalized and is losing its foundations. Three recent issues which have drawn public attention are no more than the products of radicalism, and should be rightly condemned.

The first one is a filibuster proposed by two radical factions, People Power and the League of Social Democrats, aimed at forcing the government to initiate a universal pension policy, which is highly controversial due to the fact that currently neither economists nor experts from social welfare sectors have a concrete and practicable plan for this policy. To give citizens an empty promise without deliberation can cause great harm to the society, which a responsible politician should never do. That explained why some opposition parties withdrew the revised bills and showed their stance against the filibuster. Hence, it can obviously be seen that the filibuster by radicals will surely win no support from the public.

The second one concerns the culture of disruption, which was originally created by People Power and the League of Social Democrats. Their brutal and radical behavior in the forums and LegCo meetings is nothing new to anyone. Hong Kong people used to take pride in their right to freely and peacefully express points of view, a cornerstone of democracy. Disruption works in the opposite way by destroying people's right to speak. Verbal and physical violence are often used by these radicals to serve their ill-motivated goals.

The third issue, occupation, which is considered the most aggressive form of political struggle, should be resorted to only after all other moderate measures have been used and proved invalid. In this case, both "Occupy Central" and the dock workers' strike go too far, regardless of whether or not the possibility of reaching consensus or negotiation is possible from the outset. To avoid further damage caused by radicalism and to turn its radical factions into moderate ones, members of society need to persuade the leading radicals to place their emphasis on the overall good of the society. Only in this way can radicalism be gradually eliminated from Hong Kong.

The author is a current affairs commentator. This is an excerpted translation of his column published in Hong Kong Commercial Daily on April 19.

(HK Edition 04/20/2013 page1)