Filibusters became a broken record that riled silent majority
During the recent Legislative Council election campaign, some political parties proudly (but mistakenly) presented themselves as the parties which more than any others employed the tactic of filibustering. They wanted people to vote for them so they could continue with these filibusters indefinitely.
As someone from the silent majority camp, I am now determined to be silent no more, choosing to speak up and make my voice heard, loud and clear.
I abhorred the filibuster because it was used (or abused) far too often, to the point where the majority of the citizens have become sick of political bickering, be it between parties or otherwise. There are times, of course, when filibusters are justified as a gesture of strong protest against any proposal that is corrupt, oppressive or abusive in relation to a certain category of people in our society. But if practised far too often, these filibusters become a broken record, and in Legco politicians played it again and again.
These tactics diverted attention from the important issues of the day. Citizens from the silent majority were worried that some youngsters in Hong Kong might see these politicians and their disruptive tactics as role models.
The harmony of society and Hong Kong ’s financial prosperity were at risk. The quality of debate had degenerated, because these lawmakers were calling the shots in one of our city’s highest institutions of law and order.
Fortunately, Hongkongers have good memories. Some legislators involved in these disruptive activities failed to get re-elected. For many “filibuster” has become a dirty word and I hate its excessive use.
I also hate the lacklustre parties that employed it, with their political posturing and monotonous tactics.
I don’t want to see any more throwing of mugs, or indeed any other objects, in the chamber during the new Legco term.
Augustus K. Yeung, Hung Hom