China Daily: City pays onerous price for politicians' unruly behavior

Lawmakers' antics in LegCo set appalling example for children and choke the machinery of government, Christine Loh warns

We can't blame young people in Hong Kong for thinking politics is about name-calling, finger-pointing, throwing insults and objects about, stomping around, and even violence when legislative meetings are in session. After all, it is the frequent behavior they see in the Legislative Council.

On May 7, four legislators were ejected from a meeting about the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for shouting down the chairperson. Last month, a councilor snatched the mobile phone from a female civil servant at the legislature. She was keeping watch on the whereabouts of legislators in the council building. Her task was to ensure when a bill came to a vote that legislators supporting the bill could be called back to the chamber. Having taken her phone, the councilor then dashed into the men's toilet, and apparently went through her phone messages. He has since been arrested for assault, dishonest access to a computer, criminal damage and obstructing a public officer in performing a duty.

The legislature is one of the landmarks that schools regularly organize classes to visit. Busloads of children go there every day. Even if they don't have the direct experience of witnessing such deplorable antics unbefitting of a people's representative, there are plenty of media reports and visual clips they can watch.

Young people might well think such behavior is "normal". They might want to emulate the quick, sharp tongue of some legislators coupled with imaginative stagecraft. They might consider rudeness a virtue and disrespect a mark of character. If so, this would greatly affect Hong Kong's social norms. Children learn by imitation. Just imagine how this would affect their character development.

But, why such behavior? It is certainly not because legislators don't know better. They know very well that legislative business is an essential part of society's public affairs. LegCo has several important functions - notably, they can question the executive and call them to account through questions and special inquiries; and they have exclusive jurisdiction over passing legislation and approving the government's budget.

The disruptors say the reason for their behavior is frustration. They are unhappy with the whole political system. Opposition legislators have applied their talent in the use of the filibuster. They have become masters at dragging out debates to delay the vote. As the minority in the legislature, they say they have no choice but to use what tools they have to vent their frustration.

In other words, bad behavior is tactical. It attracts media attention and through that secures their constituents' support and sends their message to the people. Thus, even if they lose the legislative vote, they can point out what they are unhappy about. They say this is their job as minority legislators and that their voters understand why they have no choice but to act in such a manner.

Consider this attitude from two perspectives:

The first is the low cost of bad behavior in Hong Kong politics. Legislators no doubt assess risk versus reward before engaging in disruptive behavior. If the expected cost exceeds expected benefits, they would not take the risk. In other words, they have taken a calculated risk but with their personal interest as the decisive factor.

This is presumably why the government went to court on the oath-taking of several legislators-designate in 2016, as they used the solemn occasion to promote their own political views in highly theatrical manners instead of pledging to uphold the Basic Law and bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. With the court disqualifying those legislators, the cost of misbehavior in oath-taking is now very high and it is unlikely anyone would risk messing with the oath in future.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress also provided its interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law relating to oath-taking. It was unlikely that the disqualified legislators ever thought about the possible consequences of their actions. They had seen other legislators perform theatrics before with no immediate consequence so why not use the occasion to catch a bit of attention and make a name for themselves. The result was a very heavy price for themselves and for Hong Kong as a whole.

The second is the social meaning of bad legislative behavior in politically polarized Hong Kong. While people don't really like poor behavior and they don't trust politicians and political parties, they can still use their vote to thumb their noses at the establishment. Moreover, it seems younger voters are more sympathetic to disruptive behavior - perhaps because of their own sense of frustration over authority in general and their perceived lack of opportunities and advancement in particular.

The result of this combination of low political cost and polarization is increased gridlock and dysfunction in LegCo that deeply affects government work and society. Those on the executive side of the government have also grown immensely frustrated with some legislators' penchant for drama. Filibusters have slowed down normal business. Legislation can't get to the floor of the chamber, and many budget items have to be delayed. Beijing has also had to step in, such as with the oath-taking interpretation.

Legislators are political leaders. Their actions set the tone of public discourse and their behavior influences social norms. The worst part is the examples they are setting for the younger generation. Leaders have a duty to think very hard about the consequences of their actions. Can they impress us with intellectual rigor, rhetorical elegance and respectful debate for common good? We need them to find solutions to hard problems, where there are no straightforward answers, including building relations with the Chinese mainland.