Hong Kong needs a time-out from self-serving legislators

In the Western mindset, filibustering is procedurally correct and therefore lawful. This is based on several thousand years of blind belief that law is ultimately traced to God, and therefore rules should be obeyed and abided by.

China, however, is a godless country, and multiple deities provide ethical role models. Laws are judged by whether they are consistent with common sense and are workable. Legality has no overriding authority, and in fact most Chinese think that rules should be adaptable to changing conditions and not be rigidly fixed.

As such, filibustering as a practice is by itself neither good nor bad, but a procedural loophole that can serve a purpose. If that purpose is good, then it is OK; but if it is bad, then no way.

In other nations' parliaments, a filibuster is employed to stall the passing of bills to stimulate further debate and buy time for a possible reversal. In our case, the battle lines have been drawn. There are no further debates inside or outside the Legislative Council, and no new points raised. The result of the vote has already been written on the wall.

A minority of three just wanted to make use of this procedural technicality to delay the inevitable and ultimately sabotage the whole system.

The Chinese mind will ask: is this good for Hong Kong? Should we allow this to go on? Even the Democratic Party has to admit that, according to their rolling opinion polls, the majority of Hong Kong citizens are against the filibuster. What is lawful does not make it right.

There will be a backlash. Many people will clamour for some new rules to end this kind of pointless waste of public money and our honourable lawmakers' precious time. I must say I am among those in favour of this refinement of our developing system.