Hong Kong’s former justice chief defends controversial rule change to tackle filibustering, arguing in court that legislature must evolve as changes come along
- Wong Yan-lung was responding to two judicial review applications on changes to quorums
- Amendment lowered quorum for crucial committee meetings from 35 to 20
The legislature had to evolve with changes of the day, Hong Kong’s former justice minister told a court on Thursday, arguing a rule amendment to rein in filibustering tactics was constitutional.
While the applicants had called the amendment unconstitutional, Wong argued that Legco could flexibly change the quorum for committee meetings to address changing circumstances and perfect its legislative process.
“If you insist everybody has to be there, you can see how it would impact on the progress of the legislative process,” Wong said. “[A quorum requirement] would increase the rigidity and defeat the purpose of having a committee.”
But one applicant’s counsel, Hectar Pun Hei SC, countered: “It is the duty of every Legislative Council member to attend the meeting.”
High Court to rule on amendment to Legco rule book that limits filibustering
Within days, the change drew legal challenges from disqualified lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and former civil servant Kwok Cheuk-kin, widely known as the “king of judicial review”.
The article states that Legco’s rules of procedure shall be made by the council.
At issue was whether the quorum requirement would apply at the committee stage, also known as a committee of the whole council, to vet government bills clause by clause, following discussions on general merits and principles.
Wong observed the Basic Law had never mentioned this committee, which he said was part of a system to help Legco discharge business in the most effective and efficient way.
“The committee of the whole council is a creature of the rules of procedure, it is indisputable,” Wong told Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming. “If it is, my lord, the rules of procedure can be changed – not just the quorum … to meet the challenges of the day, to enable Legco to function as effectively as possible.”
Otherwise, he said “the consequence would be quite dire, stalling the evolution of the legislature, which was in fact a power given by the Basic Law”.
But Pun maintained the requirement should apply to both the council and the committee because they were the same body, of equivalent constitutional status, albeit with a different label.
“A well-known analogy is Transformers, in which a robot transforms into a vehicle and transforms back into a robot,” Pun said, referring to the popular movie franchise.
“As a matter of actual practice, the council simply transforms into a committee of the whole council … to discuss details of amendments to a bill.”
Chow reserved judgment.
