MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am greatly affected by filibustering and so I have no reason not to speak. Everyone knows that when Members filibuster, my blood pressure gets higher and higher. Although someone on the Internet wished that I had a stroke soon or cursed me in some other ways, many others have reminded me to take good care of my health, and to these people I would like to give my heartfelt gratitude. The good news is that after changing all my hypertension medicines, which I have taken for over 10 years, my condition has improved greatly. The problem is that when I measure my blood pressure at home, the readings are normal but as soon as I return to the Legislative Council, the readings will shoot up. I have to try my best to put up with that since it is a very great responsibility to chair the Finance Committee meetings. Certainly, many people can chair the meetings, but I am duty-bound to do the best that I can within my tenure
I must emphasize one point. When opposition Members harshly criticize that amending the Rules of Procedure (“RoP”) will weaken the Legislative Council’s power to monitor the Government, the hidden assumption is that they can monitor the Government through filibustering. The fact is, I particularly want to tell new Members, including Mr Jeremy TAM, though Members have filibustered for six or seven years, can they monitor the Government? The answer is in the negative. Filibuster will only give rise to internal attrition, hinder the allocation of funding and impede the implementation of policies. In other words, the public are cleverer than Members and they know that this situation cannot go on. They are extremely sick and tired of the present situation. The public sentiment has been revealed in the recent public opinion poll report published by The Chinese University of Hong Kong. It shows that 50% of the respondents supported the amendment of RoP while 30% opposed. There is a big gap between the two. Opposition Members always claim that they enjoy extensive public support. If so, they should have even greater responsibility to respect and grasp public opinion. They should not, after getting people’s vote in the election, act wantonly during their four-year tenure. This is absolutely wrong. I think it is high time they awoke from their dream.
I wish to discuss certain technical issues, especially the amendment of reducing the quorum of a committee of the whole Council to 20 members. There is a comment that this amendment aims at making it convenient for pro-establishment Members to slack off. I find such a comment objectionable and I cannot accept it. How can anyone say something like that? This reflects that some Members subconsciously think that attending meetings is not their responsibility. But why do they receive the remuneration if do not attend meetings? Worse still, many members of the public have been brainwashed and they really think that opposition Members need not attend meetings as that is the duty of pro-establishment Members. And if a meeting is aborted due to a lack of quorum, the pro-establishment camp should bear the responsibility. That is great injustice. I hope the public will not be brainwashed by opposition Members as they also have such a responsibility. Hence they must be reprimanded.
Besides, opposition Members keep threatening that proposals passed by fewer than 35 Members do not have legal effect and Hong Kong will lose its international status as a result. However, they have not noticed that the pro-establishment camp has done a very thorough job by introducing a new provision requiring a report to be submitted to the Legislative Council as the certification of a proposal passed by 20 members, which acts as the final gate-keeping. Moreover, we also have the Third Reading, meaning that the proposal must go through the procedure of being passed by 35 Members twice. How can such a proposal not have legal effect? Since few Members brought up this point, I find it necessary to point it out.
There are many such examples. Very often opposition Members present very biased viewpoints in their speeches. I wonder if they do so intentionally or unintentionally. Yet, as I always tell them, if they truly act in the interest of Hong Kong, they should speak the truth and refrain from twisting the facts and lying. I think that the critical choice in front of them is whether they should continue to lie or tell the truth and be reasonable. Filibuster has been proved an ineffective tool. If they insist on hiding from the truth, they will have no way out.
We are now trying to help them break the filibustering addiction, so that they can get back on the right track and do the right things again. In the business sector of Hong Kong, do you know how much work an employee has to undertake and how tiring he is for earning a monthly income of $100,000? Even if one works day and night, he may not earn $100,000 a month. However, many Members have joined the Legislative Council even before finishing their education. How much can they contribute to society? If they merely rely on the tool of filibustering to do their job, they will cause great calamity to Hong Kong.
Filibuster indeed does great harm to this Council. The benefits it brings to this Council and Hong Kong are negligible but the harm it inflicts is extremely great. Therefore, we must strike a balance. Should we let the opposition camp continue to filibuster or should we perform our duty as Members? If we see the problems but take no action to address them, we are not doing the people of Hong Kong justice. I certainly understand that the opposition camp has many supporters, but let me tell him in all sincerity that they have been misled in many matters. I urge them to wake up as soon as possible because if we let this situation go on, “one country, two systems” will soon cease to exist in Hong Kong and we will move toward “one country, one system”. After all, we are the ones who force others to take such actions. We only have ourselves to blame as we constantly fight among ourselves.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I am often bitterly censured, not by members of the public, but by Members. They should criticize the Government instead of me. Have they mistaken me for the officials? The target of their rebuke should be the officials sitting over there but they often find fault with the Chairman instead. I just want to chair the meetings and do things properly. Am I not allowed to do so? They always emphasize freedom of expression but the Chairman is not a puppet after all. If the Chairman just let Members speak whatever they like, why then is it necessary to have a Chairman? The Chairman’s role is to maintain the order of the meeting and chair the meeting efficiently and fairly. This statement is made by the court, not by me. Therefore, I earnestly ask Members to understand and stop finding fault with the Chairman constantly. The Chairman is duty-bound to allow Members to enjoy the freedom of speech on the one hand, and maintain the order and efficiency of meetings on the other.
Members certainly have much to talk about, but if each Member can speak for 15 minutes, as in the present case, and the mover of a motion and also the Members proposing amendments have an additional speaking time of 15 minutes, then each Member can speak for 45 minutes in total. Besides, there should be a division of work among Members. Are they fools? It definitely does not work if all of them keep discussing the same argument. The speaking time is really limited; should we allow each Member to speak for five hours? If so, the meetings will never end. Hence, I hope the public will see the sophistry of the opposition camp. It makes me very angry at times for being unable to speak out their sophistry and that drives up my blood pressure. It is just that simple. I, CHAN Kin-por, do need to change. My problem is that I always take things too seriously and cannot turn a blind eye. Some say that it is most important to stay calm and even though one may look indignant, he is not indignant at heart. Yet, I fail to do so.
Deputy President, I will only speak briefly today. I hope the public will understand that the current amendment of RoP is not perfect. Notwithstanding the shortcomings and imperfection, I believe the benefits resulted will be far greater that the so-called harm done to interfere Members’ speeches. Moreover, I do not see that there is any interference with their speech at all. They can still speak their mind freely and they are still under the protection of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. They can even continue to filibuster at Council meetings with a quorum of 35 Members. The only difference is that the quorum of a committee of the whole Council is reduced. It is consistent with the practice of the national assemblies of many overseas countries because the quorums of their committee of the whole Council and their whole assembly may not always be the same. Hence, I hope members of the public will understand that the pro-establishment camp is working hard to serve Hong Kong and I hope they will give pro-establishment Members more support.
Thank you.