Page 74 of 187
116
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Standing Committee all the powers and functions of the Urban Council with the exception of those powers specified in Section 36(4) of the Urban Council Ordinance, provided that this delegation does not do away with the necessity for adopting formally by vote in open meeting any matter previously requiring to be passed in such a way.'
He said (in English):- Mr. Chairman, whilst I rise to move the first motion standing in my name on to-day's order paper, in fact both motions are so intimately connected with each other that I propose giving only one long speech and then when it comes to the second motion, merely formally moving it. I would therefore, if necessary, crave your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, if I run over time.
The proceedings of the Urban Council have been gradually but radically changed since the moving of the motion of the 14th August, 1973, authorizing the Standing Committee to have most of the powers and functions of the Urban Council. In particular, matters which formerly required to be adopted by vote at an Urban Council meeting were instead decided at Standing Committee meetings in camera. (The first of my two motions is to remedy this.) Even motions notice of which had been validly given to move at a public meeting are now instead considered by the Standing Committee to decide whether or not they should be put on the order paper. To remedy this is the object of my second motion.
Now when the original motion was passed on the 14th August, 1973, the Chairman who moved the motion said that his motion and another 4 motions passed on the same day were intended to ratify actions taken and to regularize certain delegation of power. In other words, he did not put the motion as in any way altering the current practice of the Urban Council, but merely to ratify and regularize the existing procedure. This is underlined by the fact that the next motion passed on that day was on the Chairman's own speech concerned with the previous one, a ratification and adoption of any resolution of the Standing Committee from the time when the Urban Council became an independent accounting body to the date of the meeting.
When I, and I dare to think most of the people, voted for this motion, we thought that the proceedings of the Urban Council would remain the same as formerly and I was aware that legal advice had been taken which questioned the power of the Standing Committee to discuss
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
117
and decide matters that required decision in the day-to-day running of such of Hong Kong's affairs as came under the Council's jurisdiction.
That this interpretation of the motion was in the Chairman's own mind is amply evidenced by the fact that whereas nearly all reports are now made to the Standing Committee in camera even though I notice that at today's meeting, we have two reports. Nevertheless, in the September 1973 open meeting, Mr. Peter P. F. CHAN, Chairman of the Cemeteries, Crematoria and Funeral Parlours, Mr. SIN as Chairman of the Food Hygiene, and Mr. Lo as Chairman of the City Hall Select Committee gave reports on various workings of their respective Select Committees. In the November meeting, Mr. Henry Hu made a report on the change in the Hawkers Select Committee membership and then went on to make a report on what had been done by the Hawkers Select Committee to implement a motion by Mrs. ELLIOTT passed at the previous June Meeting. Similarly Dr. Denny HUANG, as Chairman of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee made a report of what had been done to implement a successful motion of the previous August.
And so it went on so that even in May, Dr. Denny HUANG, made a statement as Chairman of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee. But now, as I said before, nearly all such reports and statements are required to be made in Standing Committee, and apparently only when the Chairman thinks that it should be disclosed to the public, does he allow it to be put on the order paper of the open meeting. Even then it is usually incorporated in his general statement that he now makes at the beginning of the meeting. That is bad enough, but when this delegation comes so far as purportedly doing away with the necessity for adopting formally by vote in open meeting matters which had always previously been so passed, it becomes outrageous, and the Urban Council becomes a modern day version of the "in camera" proceedings of the courts of Star Chamber.
Now I will advance my own theory as to how this interpretation came about. Earlier this year I was rung up by the then Secretary of the Urban Council to ask if I would propose that the Chairman of the Urban Council could sign contracts in the name of the Urban Council for several million dollars, he mentioned in particular, the planetarium. I got the impression from the conversation with the Secretary that he was preparing the order paper for the next public meeting where this would be proposed. I said I would be pleased to do so. I thought that if the Urban Council did not have sufficient confidence in the Chairman to entrust him with the signing of contracts they should not have elected him. Mrs. ELLIOTT thought differently when she came to
Page 75 of 187