The
appearance in the Hong Kong legislature of filibustering — the practice of
allowing one or more members to delay or prevent a vote on a proposal by
limitless speechifying — signals the danger that the former British colony may
embrace extreme forms of democracy without the rules and regulations that
Western parliaments have developed.
Until
discussion was cut off last Thursday by Jasper Tsang, the president of the
Legislative Council, a handful of pro-democracy legislators had staged marathon
sessions for two weeks to prevent passage of a government proposal that
lawmakers who resign midterm cannot stand in a by-election within six months.
This is a
proposal on which reasonable people may differ, but is it really appropriate to
dub the proposition “draconian,” as some radicals have done? Should elected
legislators be free to resign and run for the same seats repeatedly, at great
cost to the taxpayer? The bill is an attempt by the government to plug what it
sees as a loophole.
There is
a danger that pan-democrats in Hong Kong, which is scheduled to hold its first
elections for chief executive by universal suffrage in 2017, will reject
anything they see as contaminating the purity of democracy.
Thus,
they are calling for the abolition of all elections by a limited franchise,
such as the current system of “functional constituencies” under which, for
example, lawyers elect a lawyer, teachers elect a teacher and bankers elect a
banker to serve as legislators.
Some
democrats are also opposed to a bicameral system as somehow less democratic.
Certainly, the Canadian system, under which members of the upper house are
appointed rather than elected, would never pass muster in Hong Kong.
While
filibusters have historically been held in certain countries, various
parliaments have taken action to limit the right of a tiny minority to
frustrate the will of the majority of legislators. Australia, for example, has
adopted rules on how long legislators may speak, thus making it impossible to
filibuster.
In the
United States, filibustering not allowed in the House though it is allowed in
the Senate. However, even in the Senate, filibustering can be halted by a vote
by three-fifths of all senators, or 60 out of 100.
Hong
Kong, however, has no rules regarding how a filibuster can be ended. Such rules
are clearly needed.
But Hong
Kong's radical democrats have charged headlong into the filibustering exercise
without first working out the rules of the game.
n the absence
of such rules, Council President Tsang, in cutting off debate, invoked Article
92 of the council's rules of procedure, which empowers the president “in any
matter not provided in these rules of procedure” to be “guided by the practice
and procedures of other legislatures.”
Outraged pan-democrats responded by calling the decision
“the darkest day in the history of the Legislative Council.”
The president's decision was challenged by Legislator
Leung Kwok-hung, better known as “Long Hair,” who applied for judicial review
in the High Court. His lawyer argued that a legislator has a “constitutional
right to speak” and that it is “very important to safeguard” this right. But
the court rejected the application.
This episode underlines the need for checks and balances
in any democratic system.
It is fine to defend principles such as the freedom of
legislators to speak. But while each legislator has the right to speak, it is
illogical to argue that the exercise of an individual's right is more important
than the ability of the legislature to carry out its intended function of
making laws.
In an ideal world, it may be true that all rights should
be absolutely upheld. In the real world, such a stance would mean the crippling
of all institutions designed to serve the needs of the people.
It is already evident that the most developed democracy
in the world — the United States — is paralyzed by gridlock precisely because
different parties believe in giving priority to their own rights without regard
to the welfare of the larger community.
As Hong Kong moves towards full democracy in the coming
years, it is vital that those who espouse its cause recognize that democracy is
not the end but the means to delivering good governance.
This is the ultimate test of any system of government. If
those who advocate democracy do not keep this ultimate objective in mind and go
even further than what mature western democracies deem to be wise, they will be
doing a grave disservice not only to Hong Kong but to democracy itself.
Thank you for your articles that you have shared with us. Hopefully you can give the article a good benefit to us.
回覆刪除Commercial Bike Rack