Aware that the funding debate cannot last indefinitely, leading pan-democrats said last night it would be better for voting to take place while emotions were still running high among protesters outside the Legco building. At the third meeting of the Finance Committee, some government supporters agreed with pushing for the vote, saying it would be better to hold it when the meeting resumed this morning with fewer protesters outside. Ahead of the meeting, both the Democratic Party and the Civic Party told the Legco Secretariat they would take roughly 100 minutes each with their questions, while other independent democrats would take about an hour with their queries. One pan-democrat lawmaker conceded that while the protesters outside expected them to derail funding for the project, the meeting could not be delayed forever and votes must be cast eventually. 'Is it better for us to vote at 9pm [Friday] when the anger of the crowd is at its peak outside, or would you rather vote at 9am [Saturday] after the meeting resumes when everybody has gone home?' he said. 'The reason for us to filibuster is to allow the build-up of public sentiment. The vote should be cast when people power is at its strongest outside.' Before the meeting was adjourned at 9.30 last night, 78 questions had been asked, with the majority fielded by pan-democrats. Committee chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing, vice-chairwoman of the Democratic Party, struggled throughout the meeting to appear impartial amid pressure from government allies to speed up the meeting, while not being seen as restricting pan-democrats' sometimes repetitive questions. After 63 questions had been asked 5? hours into the meeting, Lau said: 'I know some of the issues are complicated, but you can ask them concisely, unless you have some very special questions to ask the government, otherwise the rocks won't bleed no matter how hard you drill.' She later reduced the time allowed for asking each question from four minutes to three. Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, leader of the Civic Party, denied her party was filibustering, saying all the questions party lawmakers asked were rational and reasonable. She blamed the failure of officials to fully answer the questions as why questions on similar topics had to be asked repeatedly. 'But it is true that we never believe the meeting should last indefinitely,' Eu said. The Democratic Party is facing increasingly tough pressure from its supporters - who placed a newspaper advertisement calling for it not to follow the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats in filibustering. The Democrats denied trying to drag the meeting out. 'We only planned 12 questions and we only asked follow-up questions when the answers were not satisfying,' Democrat Cheung Man-kwong said. But another Democratic Party lawmaker conceded 'we can't please all voters', adding that the core group of protesters - the so-called post-1980s group of young people - were not likely to be supporters of any political party. The League was the only group that openly admitted it wanted to delay the meeting. 'The longer we can drag the better - that's what the people protesting outside wanted,' said League lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip.