Page 21 of 206
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
on matters which he believes would lie outside our jurisdiction, were it not for this particular Standing Order which we are about to cancel.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, too, that I sympathize with Mr. CHEONG-LEEN when he accused you of showing partiality towards the Reform Club by not allowing him to make the statement he thought he should do on behalf of the Civic Association; it is his own platform for the forthcoming election. Having given Mr. BERNACCHI the chance to make an election speech I think in all fairness the Civic Association should likewise be provided with a platform in this Council.
Sir, this matter has long been considered by Urban Councillors, and I can well say that the Appointed Members who made representations to UMELCO on the White Paper, strongly opposed any control by Legislative Council over the Standing Orders of the Urban Council. We said that in drafting the legislation to define the position of the new Urban Council, such controls as might be deemed necessary by the Government, should be embodied in law and that the Urban Council should be left to its own devices to frame the Standing Orders by which its meetings should be conducted. That position was accepted by UMELCO and also, much to our satisfaction, by the Government. Mr. Chairman, I do not labour under the misapprehension, which my colleagues on the other side of the table appear to do, with the exception of Mr. CHEONG-LEEN and his colleagues in the Civic Association, about the handicap which the Urban Council is likely to suffer if this particular Standing Order 10(1) were to be deleted. Much of the excellent work which Council did, and which Mr. BERNACCHI so eloquently described earlier this afternoon, was done before this Standing Order was changed to the existing one. In point of fact, Mr. BERNACCHI very kindly referred to a good number of motions which I introduced, not only on playgrounds, but even on the City Hall, and all these motions were passed before introduction of this particular Standing Order, and I would like to ...
MR. BERNACCHI:-On a point of order, ---were passed before any restriction on a motion whatsoever. This particular Standing Order is a restriction on ultra vires motions, but not to be confused with the amendment.
MR. SALES:-Mr. Chairman, subsequent to the approval of this Standing Order, we had to seek permission from the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. Previous to that it was the discretion of the Chairman which allowed motions to be put on the agenda, and evidently the Chairman exercised discretion in the public interest where he deemed fit to do so. Now, there is no reason why, within the framework of our Standing Orders, as they are in existence today with the exception of 10(1), any Unofficial Member of the Urban Council should not introduce a motion in the public interest which would not be repugnant to Section 54, as mentioned by Mr. Henry Hu. There is no reason why the happy state of affairs which existed before this provision of Standing Order 10(1) was passed by this Council, should not continue to be the order of the day in the future. It is up to an Urban Councillor where he feels aggrieved by a ruling by the Chairman to have recourse to the particular Standing Order which would permit him to introduce a motion on that score; even if that motion were to stand over until the subsequent meeting, he could still bring his case for consideration by the Council in a public meeting. So, there is always recourse to that protection if an Urban Councillor felt sufficiently aggrieved. I, Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, support this motion, because I feel that in repealing the particular Standing Order we are strengthening the position of this Council as of 1st April, 1973.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
23
I CHAIRMAN:-Before calling on Mr. CHAN to wind up this case, would just like to say that I do not consider that sincerity and dedication are the sole prerogative of the Unofficials. I am sure that my Official colleagues and myself are equally sincere and dedicated, and we feel that the continued use of the present Standing Order to introduce motions on matters outside the jurisdiction of this Council, can only continue to mislead the public into believing that the Council has powers where it has none. Standing Orders are not the law. Let us get on with the tasks entrusted to us, for there are plenty of them and they are challenging ones and, in many cases, their solution is not yet in sight.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN:-Mr. Chairman, before I exercise my right of reply, which will be very brief, I must say of Members that each and everyone of them who spoke before me are more senior to me.
First of all I want to point out in answer to the remark of Mr. BERNACCHI, that is about his surprise that this motion was moved by an Elected Member. I moved this motion in the line of duty as the Chairman of the Standing Orders and Procedures Committee, as I always promised before the election and after the election, to do my duty to the best of my ability and as I see fit, and this is a duty I am doing because it was agreed by the Committee of the Whole Council. I have therefore, no choice but to do my duty, but I must say that despite his remarks, I do this duty happily. Actually, there were a few points I intended to make, but these have been very well put by Mr. SALES in this respect. There is one point I wish to make on what Mr. T. S. Lo has said. We can always, if it is justified, move a motion to suspend the Standing Orders, and we can do whatever is necessary and expedient provided that there is genuine consensus.
There are things which are urgent, important, although ultra vires but we have a duty to do even if it is ultra vires, we can at least do something about it. Therefore, I would still support the motion, and I now ask my colleagues to support it as well.
Page 23 of 206