Opposition lawmakers scored a "win" against the public interest and the government by delaying approval of the government funding bill past the mid-May deadline with their unpopular filibuster. They knew the delay would force the government to suspend some services and this would infuriate many people. But they went ahead anyway.

Some people may wonder why these politicians are so reckless and unreasonable. The answer is quite simple: Whatever consequences, the filibusters will not harm their personal interests in the future. They could not care less about the negative impact their actions have on the public.

Some commentators have urged people to condemn opposition lawmakers using filibusters by not voting for them in the next Legislative Council (LegCo) election.

But this is not the first time that critics of filibustering politicians have urged them to be made accountable. Why do those radical lawmakers keep doing such unpopular acts? Are they not afraid of not being re-elected? Actually, there is no evidence they intend committing political suicide. They probably think they can get away with it.

Filibustering is nothing new in Western parliamentary democracies. In the United Kingdom, it has been developed into an art form. In the United States, many people are surprised when filibustering does not occur. But it is a tactic which the minority imposes on the majority. It is rarely popular with most of the public. People sponsoring such filibusters tend to be widely criticized.

However, popular indignation at the time of filibustering is usually forgotten or ignored during legislative elections. After all, such indignation cannot stop politicians enjoying moments of political entitlement. So, filibusters will happen no matter who gets elected.

Besides, the existing electoral systems enable politicians to win elections by securing "vote lockers" in their constituencies. The term "vote locker" refers to voters who support certain candidates blindly. They help candidates become legislators - a position that can be a "license to betray (the public trust)" - until the next election. Usually filibustering politicians will "spin" their way out of any resulting PR crisis. They also pretend to be oblivious to public disapproval of their irresponsible behavior.

The sad reality is Hong Kong is suffering from having too many filibusters due to its current electoral system - or system of proportional representation. LegCo members who are currently sponsoring filibuster bills are all repeat "offenders". This suggests they have developed effective ways to secure their own "vote lockers". This allows them to defy popular wishes, without having to worry too much about their public image.

All political analysts agree "vote lockers" are instrumental in winning elections under the current system. This is what candidates care most about. Of course, campaign platforms remain significant, but only for their effectiveness in rounding up loyal supporters. So opposition politicians blame the government as well as their competitors for problems which upset their "targeted" constituents, without proposing any practical solutions.

While campaigning, some of them may also touch on economic policies which directly affect people's lives. But they almost never follow up on these issues after being elected. They are too busy undermining the government. In their minds, democracy is relevant only when it works in their favor. They use the existing democratic system to ensure it does.

The same theory applies today to the issue of "true democracy". This is a catchy phrase the opposition camp uses to get some kind of a moral vantage point over the pro-establishment side. They are acting as if they want direct elections more than anything else. But this could not be further from the truth. They stick to their uncompromising stands because it is the best way to delay progress toward universal suffrage. This is so they can continue profiting from the current system of proportional representation.

They are also betting that the central government will never abandon patriotism and a commitment to full cooperation between Hong Kong and the mainland. That is why they refuse to be patriots and insist on "no political screening" in the nomination process.

The radical opposition parties know they can put Hong Kong's constitutional development on hold by hanging on to unconstitutional demands such as "civil nomination", "political party nomination" and the "three-track format". Their ultimate goal is to turn Hong Kong into an independent political entity serving the interests of Western powers. They will have little chance of winning any election by universal suffrage, so they will do anything they can to prevent it happening - at all costs. These costs include social unrest, an economic slowdown and maybe even bloodshed. They will do whatever it takes to ruin Hong Kong's status as a special administrative region and a financial center. Not surprisingly, the radical opposition groups are enthusiastic about the illegal "Occupy Central" campaign and "referendum".

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 05/26/2014 page9)