It is hard to believe the legislative debate on a non-binding motion would last for weeks. Immediately after the government announced the co-location arrangement for the West Kowloon terminus of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) in July, the opposition parties launched a campaign to oppose the plan. In an attempt to demonstrate its respect for the Legislative Council and facilitate discussion on the issue in the chamber, the government tabled a non-binding motion recently.

Unfortunately, the opposition legislators seized the opportunity not to conduct a rational debate on the issue but to disrupt the meetings with various delaying tactics.

The LegCo deliberation on the co-location arrangement has been put off as discussion has been deliberately diverted to trivial and irrelevant issues. The most "significant" portion of the discussion was that the opposition camp raised a "counterproposal" - that the joint checkpoint be installed at the Shenzhen or Guangzhou station instead of in Hong Kong. However, the suggestion is not practical as it neglects a crucial question: Who needs the co-location arrangement most?

At the macro level, the Hong Kong section of the XRL, and the co-location arrangement, are crucial to strengthening the connection of Hong Kong's transport network with that of the Chinese mainland and consolidating the city's position as a regional financial and business center. Moreover, with more efficient immigration clearance procedures, Hong Kong will enjoy a more favorable edge in development of the Greater Bay Area.

At the micro level, without a co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon terminus, northbound passengers would be required to complete clearance procedures after reaching their various destinations; this will significantly reduce the efficiency and convenience of the high-speed rail link. Hong Kong people may seek greater opportunities on the mainland; the co-location arrangement will allow them to live in Hong Kong and work on the mainland by facilitating the one-hour commuting radius. Therefore, the time factor is much more significant to Hong Kong residents working on the mainland.

Moreover, without mainland laws being enforced in the designated area within the West Kowloon terminus, the high-speed trains could facilitate an influx of criminals and other unwelcome visitors from the mainland. The factors mentioned above suggest that Hong Kong needs the co-location arrangement much more than the mainland. There is no reason to require the mainland side to set up a joint checkpoint, not least because the West Kowloon terminus has reserved the space for it.

Other than the counterproposal, the opposition provided no valid argument of any kind. They merely kept repeating some empty slogans such as "Hong Kong's rule of law at risk". Such accusations do not make sense at all as the co-location arrangement conforms to the Basic Law, as has been proven by experts both within and outside the government. In fact, the most ardent defender of the Basic Law is the central government, and that's why the special administrative region government's proposal has to secure National People's Congress Standing Committee approval.

The opposition camp accused the government of forcing through the joint checkpoint proposal without first listening to public views. Ironically, the intention of the government's non-binding motion is to facilitate thorough discussion in LegCo before submitting a formal proposal to the central government. However, it was the opposition legislators who have wasted the valuable discussion time by playing filibustering tactics.

It had been expected that the motion would be passed last Thursday as the opposition legislators nearly exhausted their filibustering tactics. To the surprise of many, the opposition camp came out with new delaying tactics. Opposition lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick resorted to an unprecedented tactic, invoking an obscure clause in the house rule book to force an additional debate on removing members of the press and public from the chamber, just as LegCo was aiming to wrap up the session. As a result, the motion remains in limbo.

The episode told us opposition legislators are not sincere in discussing the issue of co-location, and play the role of opinion leaders. From the very beginning, they were determined to go all out to derail the government's plan. That's why LegCo President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen said 36 hours had been spent on debating the co-location issue but most of the time had been wasted on quorum bells and other procedures.

"You cannot wake up someone who is only pretending to be asleep." The opposition camp has closed the door for discussion. To complete the arrangement before the scheduled operation of the XRL in the third quarter of next year, the government will have no choice but to start the three-step implementation process as soon as possible.

(HK Edition 11/09/2017 page7)