Some other staff were reluctant to stay as it would cost them their pensions if they moved [from the executive branch] to the legislature. But I believed it would be very difficult to attract staff at lower level and give them confidence if no top tier staff remained. So I resigned from the government [as chief executive officer] and in 1994 was appointed assistant secretary-general of Legco. The secretariat originally consisted of 200 to 300 staff, but now it’s 600-strong.

How do you see the declining respect for Legco over the years? It is perhaps a natural development. In the Omelco era people had a lot of respect for the council as the members were all from the top tier of society. They were professionals with high social status while those returned in direct elections had also made a recognisable contribution to society. They tended to behave in a respectable manner.

But there was a drastic change after 2003 [when 500,000 people took to the street against the controversial national security bill]. Politicians believed they should be closer to the community and so they started to use colloquial or even vulgar language to deliver their ideas. Members were encouraged to use this language more often when they found their remarks drew public attention.

Even barristers resorted to such vocabulary. Lawmakers were motivated to switch from their gentlemen’s mode of communication to hostile attacks – or even verbal violence – against one another. There were positive consequences for undesirable behaviour, but that is the case in the political world.

What are the reasons behind the icy relationship between the executive branch of government and the legislature? I do not believe the relationship has hit freezing point because while it could get worse it could also be improved. Mutual trust is needed to amend the relationship, but that is not something achievable overnight.

The executive branch and the legislature are actually bound to be confrontational as the constitutional role of the latter is to call the government to account. It would be best if the two parties could find a common solution amid the conflicting relationship, but that’s not easy. So rather than focusing on the executive-legislative relationship, it is more important for lawmakers from different parties to resolve their conflicts as that could prevent the legislature from performing its functions – either to call the government to account or to proceed with government business.

Do you have any concrete examples on how such conflicts among lawmakers would stop the legislature from performing its duties and how could that be resolved? For instance, some lawmakers – usually the pan-democrats – suggest setting up a select committee to examine certain issues, yet these proposals are always overruled by the opposite camp. The [pro-establishment camp] in fact does not mind looking into the matter – what they are opposed to is only the establishment of a select committee which they think is time consuming.

Yet they never make counter proposals, such as to examine the issue in panel meetings instead. This gives the public the impression that the legislature no longer pursues certain matters or monitors the government.

Meanwhile, the filibustering has forced the legislature to kill meetings of bills committees and panels in order to give way to council meetings. Such meetings, however, have their own value as these are the occasions where lawmakers can conduct a close scrutiny of government proposals.

The legislature also failed to finish all its business on the agenda [in the last term]. Some pro-establishment lawmakers are also dissatisfied with the government’s performance, but they have been very passive. If they really want to help the government fulfil its job, they should have come to terms with those lawmakers who staged filibusters to see if there was anything they could do together to put pressure on the administration.

Some people worry that marathon filibusters will start again in the new term with the arrival of localists. What’s your take? I am open-minded. I would not jump to conclusions as I am confident that [the new members] will make a conscious decision on what to do [in the chamber]. Their behaviour outside might not necessarily be the same as in Legco. Sometimes people only resort to drastic means when they do not have the right to speak or a channel to communicate. They would actually be giving up their rights if they do not make use of the opportunities they are enjoying now.

A number of lawmakers have called for an amendment to the rules of procedure to curb the stalling tactics. Do you think that is the right direction to restore order?

Many areas are not clearly covered by the rules of procedure. This has resulted in an undesirable situation where Legco has to rely heavily on its president, who is given discretionary powers to make decisions. Any sorts of individualism in an institution is problematic as [the ruling] would very much depend on the personality and style of the president.

The best way out is to have lawmakers reaching a consensus to amend the rules of procedure, which would give the decision-making power to the council in deciding whether to take away the right of some members to speak or behave. The deprival of one’s rights is a serious issue and therefore that very decision should be made by the council through a motion. That’s the principle adopted around the world.

There are concerns about Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen being the next Legislative Council president as he has been elected uncontested as a lawmaker in the Industrial (first) functional constituency since 2004. Is it dangerous for a lawmaker without a mandate to be president? Will the decisions he makes be challenged? I do not want to comment on individuals. [Suitability] has nothing to do with mandate, though mandate is important for public image. It is crucial for the president to be able to exercise his power reasonably, to enable the business to be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner and to respect all members’ right to speak.

However, whether a person enjoys such abilities depends very much on his willingness to communicate with different parties, which is also affected by his personal exposure and experience. It is more about one’s personal factors instead of which constituency he is elected from.

What have you been doing since your retirement in 2012? I have participated in the United Nations Development Programme to advise the Vietnamese legislature on setting up a system of select committees, which allows lawmakers to inquire into matters of public concern. I have also advised the Myanmese regional and state parliaments on their strategic planning, which is basically working on plans to improve its transparency, to boost its interaction with citizens, to improve the quality of deliberation and to strengthen their secretariat support.

Do you still watch Legco debates? No, not too often. I pick it up mostly from newspapers as there are too many quorum bells [a stalling tactic used by lawmakers]. One thing I feel sorry about is the lack of audience in the new Legco complex.

In the old Legco building [in Central], lawmakers would stay in the chamber to listen to each other’s speeches as they had nowhere to go. The speakers would pay extra effort with the presence of an audience. Those who stayed would find the speeches entertaining. But now many members no longer show up. They turn on their TV [to watch] in their offices upstairs, but how can they be attentive when they are on the phone or in discussion with assistants?

Debate is not just about giving speeches. It is the lawmaker’s duty to attend the meeting. I always say filibusters would not take place if everyone was present because [members] would then have no chance to call the quorum bell.