What role the Legislative Council (LegCo) should play in our executive-led system continues to spark controversy. Lawmakers themselves are discussing the issue, which is a healthy sign.
The central authorities have also spoken indirectly about the role of LegCo.
On January 26, the head of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, Xia Baolong with a tip that executive-led government in Hong Kong means that each branch – executive, legislative and judicial – performs “its own role and cooperates and coordinates with each other”.
According to Article 64 of the Basic Law, LegCo’s role includes holding the government to account. This means asking questions, seeking justification for government actions, investigating government actions and inactions, and, when necessary, sanctioning government officials for policy failures.
According to the Powers and Privileges Ordinance (Cap 382), passed in 1985, with the selection and inquiry commission system, as well as the policy panel system, LegCo has the capacity to fulfill “its role”.
It is precisely the way to understand LegCo’s “own role” that has sparked controversy.
First, can LegCo use the tools it has to hold the government to account? Central authorities have condemned the way the opposition in LegCo used these tools after 2010. They call it abuse, citing filibustering and other tactics that delayed legislation.
The data are clear: the Legislative Council of the fourth and fifth terms a lot less bills went through than before or after. LegCo for the sixth term was in the same direction until the government disqualified several opposition MPsAND most of the rest resigned.
Both central and city authorities even accuse the opposition of misusing the LegCo competencies to investigate, subpoena and question – precisely those powers that legislators still have and must hold the government to account.
In this view, the abuse dates back to 2010 when the opposition and representatives of the central government negotiated an agreement on political reform in Hong Kong. Since then, according to Beijing, it has been in decline.
From 1985 to 2010, LegCo convened six select or investigative committees, which focused on matters of public interest: the operations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and STAFF loyalty, the chaotic opening of Chek Lap Kok airport, short-runs in public housing, SARS, unsold Lehman-Brothers minibonds, and conflicts of interest in the post-retirement employment of civil servants.
The result: the government changed course and made improvements in public policies.
For example, the authorities introduced the Principal Official Accountability System (POAS) in 2002, which is still with us today. The work of LegCo and the results of an expert committee inquiry into the SARS outbreak in 2003-04 better prepared us for the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. These positive results are undeniable.
Even in the post-2010 period, pressure from LegCo to investigate sometimes had positive results. In 2015, for example, responding to public concern expressed in the legislature, Govt established a commission of inquiry for lead in drinking water in some public housing. Again, the government changed course.
Second, the authorities tell us that executive-led government means that the LegCo and the executive must “cooperate” and “coordinate”. Does this mean that lawmakers may not criticize government policy? Reporting indicates that many LegCo members perceive this to be true.
Remember Chief Executive John Lee’s scathing rebuke of LegCo member Paul Tse’s criticism of government policy in the seventh term of the first “patriots only” LegCo? The head of the executive considered such criticism “dangerous”, similar to the much-criticized “soft resistance” of the opposition, and must “disappear”.
The few government critics in LegCo’s seventh term all left the body in 2025.
Recently, consider the Hospital Authority’s (HA) rebuke after LegCo members Gary Chan, Rebecca Chan and David Lam EXPRESS concern that residents may not have collected their HA-provided medications due to increased fees. (A note: Rebecca Chan served as policy assistant at the Bureau of Food and Health from 2012 to 2017.)
Lawmakers drew attention to the figure revealed by the Health Bureau: that 26,000 prescriptions for public hospitals were not collected after the new fee regime was introduced in January. However, instead of listening and investigating, HA said the remarks were “untrue.”
The government apparently prefers to send lawmakers “warm reminders” on many matters of public interest, effectively telling them to shut up. Precisely because no lawmaker spoke when LegCo debated the bus seat belt issue in September 2025, the policy resulted in a fiasco.
The public needs a legislature that is engaged, open and critically accountable to government action – this is the minimum required to do its “role”.
Of course, LegCo must cooperate and coordinate with the government, but to do so it must not compromise “the role of the legislature itself”.
Hong Kong needs a middle ground for LegCo – somewhere between the dysfunction seen in the 2014 Umbrella Movement to the 2019 protests and a rubber stamp.
We experienced a middle ground, for example, from 1985 to at least 2010.
At that time, as mentioned above, LegCo investigations played an important role in improving public policies. Hong Kong people appreciate this kind of role of LegCo. It benefits the government and the community, building trust and legitimacy.
The authorities should trust their gatekeepers to select patriotic LegCo members. Many LegCo members seem to realize that they need to play a more active role.
The government must understand that it cannot do everything alone. Effective governance is co-produced.
The authorities must recognize the legitimacy of a middle ground, a more authentic role for LegCo. We will all benefit.
| HKFP is an unbiased platform and does not necessarily share the views of columnists or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views and regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the Basic Law, the Security Law, the Bill of Rights and the Chinese Constitution. Opinions are intended to constructively point out errors or defects in government, law or policy, or are intended to suggest ideas or changes through legal means without the intention of hatred, resentment or hostility against other authorities or communities. |
