Page 578 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Chairman (in Cantonese):--We now put the motion to the vote since there were many precedent cases of immediate voting on procedural motions. That is my first point. The second point is that under Standing Orders 18(1), the Chairman has discretion to put the procedural motions to the vote. I now exercise this discretionary power to put the procedural motion to the vote. If it is not carried, we will continue to debate the original motion. Is that all right?
The question is now put. Those in favour of the procedural motion by Mr. Albert Lai support referring the matter to the relevant Select Committee. If the procedural motion is not carried, we will continue to discuss the original motion. Votes in favour indicate referring the matter for discussion by the relevant Select Committee. Votes against indicate going back to discuss the original motion.
The question on the procedural motion was put.
The procedural motion was voted down with 12 votes in favour and 13 against. (Record of votes on Mr. Albert LAI Wing-lin's procedural motion is at Annex II.)
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Has Mr. CHAN Noi-yue cast his vote? Abstention. All right. The procedural motion was voted down with 12 votes in favour and 13 against.
We now return to our agenda and continue to discuss the original motion. Those who have registered to speak are Mr. LEE Kwok-keung, Mr. Tam Kwok-kiu, Mr. Francis TANG Chi-ho and Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong. Will you please speak on the original motion? Mr. LEE Kwok-keung, please.
MR. LEE KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese):-This motion is originally quite simple. The main idea is to see if the Department has legal backing to prosecute telecommunications companies for street obstruction. It is in fact a very simple matter. Let us see what the Principal Legal Officer has to say. In a letter dated 26-1-1991, it was disclosed that the Department had legal basis to prosecute the above-mentioned cases for obstruction. I don't understand why the Department is still unable to do so today. In fact, the additional work involved is not too much and there should be no need to have additional manpower. I have seen members of the HCTS standing face to face with staff of telecommunications companies at the exits of MTR stations. Other hawkers are not allowed to engage in hawking activities there, only telecommunications companies can. The HCTS turn a blind eye to items placed there, including scanners and some hanging objects. It is not that they do not have manpower to take enforcement action. Their team members stand around but do not actually take enforcement action. Starting from 1 March, the situation has gone from bad to worse. Some gave away bananas, others offered free lunches. They caused obstruction at places with high flow of people. If we have legal...
Page 578 of 606