There are provisions in the Rules which show it is not intended that the business of the Legislative Council should be thwarted by irrelevant and repetitious speeches or vexatious debates: Rules 36(5), 38 and 41(1), 45(1), 57(4). Given human ingenuity, written rules cannot deal with all the eventualities. History elsewhere demonstrates that measures like closure orders in the Parliament of the United Kingdom were adopted to meet such crisis before the making of any standing orders to such effect
. Of course, there are differences in the political landscape and circumstances in different jurisdictions. Historical developments elsewhere may not be applicable in Hong Kong.
As far as Hong Kong is concerned, in the context of our Basic Law, I do not see any room for suggesting that there is a constitutional right to filibuster. In the exercise of his authority to preside over meeting under Article 72, the President has a constitutional duty to ensure that proper conduct of business in the Legislative Council is not derailed. How such duty is to be performed, how the power of the President is to be exercised and the relationship between the President and the members as a whole (balancing the interests of different political Parties in the Legislative Council) are matters of politics.
The existence of powers to deal with irrelevant, repetitious or vexatious debates demonstrates that the right of a legislator to speak in meetings is not unchecked and therefore it is not possible to contend for an absolute constitutional right to speak. It also demonstrates that rulings by the President (or a chairman) often have the effect of regulating the right to speak in meetings. It needs hardly be said that proceedings in the legislature would come to halt if every decision having the effect of curbing or regulating a legislator’s right to speak is liable to be challenged in court on the ground that it curtails the immediate constitutional right of a legislator under Articles 73 or 75(2). Mr Lee’s constitutional argument cannot be right.
In light of my above conclusion on the proper interpretation of Articles 73(1) and 75, I do not think the rules cited by Mr Lee can give rise to a constitutional right to filibuster.
58. As regards the proper interpretation of Rules 34(6), 38 and 92, it follows from the principle of parliamentary privilege that these are matters for the Legislative Council and the President in the exercise of his authority under Article 72.
(Leung Kwok Hung and The President of the Legislative Council Of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region HCAL 64/2012)
澳洲議會嚴格執行議員發言時間，故此無法拉布。就算在美國，參議院的議事規則(senate rule)可以投票方式來剪布，而眾議院則以限制辯論時間來防止拉布。香港有些人對個入權利用顯微鏡來放大，只見樹木不見森林。造反有理，置公眾利益不顧。看到反梁振英便隨即附和的人，應該退一步想一想，究竟是insight，抑或是loss of sight。