Page 79 of 150
142
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN: Sir, the amended motion is as follows:-
"That the following be adopted as the Policy of this Council for Clearance and Resettlement:-
No demolitions of illegal structures should be undertaken by the Squatter Patrols where the occupiers can establish that the premises have been erected and used as domestic premises for more than 12 months.
The above Policy shall apply also to non-domestic premises converted to domestic use.
DR. BELL:- What is Mr. SALES' present motion then? To divide this motion or to continue each separate part.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. SALES' proposal, as I understand it, is to amend this motion by re-phrasing it so that it reads:-
First, No demolitions of illegal structures should be undertaken by the Squatter Patrols where the occupiers can establish that the premises have been erected and used as domestic premises for more than 12 months.
Second, The above Policy shall apply also to non-domestic premises converted to domestic use.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask clarification of what you have just said. Does it not mean that the only amendment is to divide the motion into two parts, but in essence the meaning of the motion is exactly the same?
MR. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, may I clarify this? I stated specifically that, had Standing Orders allowed me to do so, I would have moved a division of the motion, but since Standing Orders do not provide for that device, I had to put this forward in the form of an amendment. The amendment is in the omission of the word “and” to suit our Standing Orders, so that in essence we are now amending this motion and having two parts to it instead of one-one concerning "No demolitions of illegal structures should be undertaken by the Squatter Patrols where the occupiers can establish that the premises have been erected and used as domestic premises for more than 12 months"; the other one "The above Policy shall apply also to non-domestic premises converted to domestic use." I have given my reasons for that, both technically as well as on the substance of the motion.
DR. BELL:- Does Mr. SALES propose that the voting be separate on the two parts of the motion, or is he going to vote for or against it as one motion?
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify that? First, the amendment has to be put to this Council and then the motions, as amended, would have to be put to this Council separately. In other words, the Council will be asked to vote three times, first on the amendment, and then, if the amendment is passed, on the two parts as amended separately.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
143
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would agree that we would have to vote on the first motion as an amendment, but in regard to the voting on the motion in substance, under what Standing Orders is it necessary to vote in two parts?
MR. SALES:-- Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as I explained to this Council, is now moved under Standing Order 10(17)(a) instead of a division of the motion.
DR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, I am still not clear. I agree with Mr. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN. If we vote for or against the amendment, that takes care of the amendment. Still the voting is for or against the motion as a whole, surely.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- May I have a ruling from the chair, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN:--- I must confess, Sir, that I am not clear in my mind as to whether, under Standing Orders, you can amend a motion into two parts and then vote separately on the two parts.
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, that is standard procedure. As a matter of fact, I am surprised that Standing Orders do not include a division of the question. In fact, this is elementary and I am surprised that my dear friend, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN, who should have had adequate training in Committee procedure, should question me so closely on this matter.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- Mr. Chairman, sometimes I must plead ignorance. That is why I have to ask for clarification and a ruling from the chair.
CHAIRMAN:- The chair, Sir, is anxious to oblige Members in this matter as far as possible, and would be perfectly willing to suggest that we might vote on the two parts of the motion if Members do not object, but I do not see any clear ruling under Standing Orders.
DR. BELL: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am still not clear. Surely if a motion is amended the voting is taken once on the amended form of the motion? That is all. Why should there be two votings at all- let alone three?
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- If Mr. SALES wishes, we can have four motions, or an additional amendment. After we have voted on his proposed amendment, he can also move another motion that we vote on a motion in two parts.
Page 79 of 150
142
143
50
Page 79 of 150
142
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN: Sir, the amended motion is as follows:-
"That the following be adopted as the Policy of this Council
for Clearance and Resettlement:-
No demolitions of illegal structures should be undertaken by the Squatter Patrols where the occupiers can establish that the premises have been erected and used as domestic premises for more than 12 months.
The above Policy shall apply also to non-domestic prem-
ises converted to domestic use.
DR. BELL:-What is Mr. SALES' present motion then? To divide this motion or to continue each separate part.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. SALES' proposal, as I understand it, is to amend this motion by re-phrasing it so that it reads:-
First, No demolitions of illegal structures should be undertaken by the Squatter Patrols where the occupiers can establish that the premises have been erected and used as domestic premises for more than 12 months.
Second, The above Policy shall apply also to non-domestic
premises converted to domestic use.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask clarification of what you have just said. Does it not mean that the only amendment is to divide the motion into two parts, but in essence the meaning of the motion is exactly the same?
MR. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, may I clarify this? I stated specifically that, had Standing Orders allowed me to do so, I would have moved a division of the motion, but since Standing Orders do not provide for that device, I had to put this forward in the form of an amendment. The amendment is in the omission of the word “and” to suit our Standing Orders, so that in essence we are now amending this motion and having two parts to it instead of one-one concerning "No demolitions of illegal structures should be undertaken by the Squatter Patrols where the occupiers can establish that the premises have been erected and used as domestic premises for more than 12 months"; the other one "The above Policy shall apply also to non-domestic premises converted to domestic use." I have given my reasons for that, both technically as well as on the substance of the motion.
DR. BELL:-Does Mr. SALES propose that the voting be separate on the two parts of the motion, or is he going to vote for or against it as
one motion?
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify that? First, the amend ment has to be put to this Council and then the motions, as amended,
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
143
In other words, the
would have to be put to this Council separately. Council will be asked to vote three times, first on the amendment, and then, if the amendment is passed, on the two parts as amended
separately.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would agree that we would have to vote on the first motion as an amendment, but in regard to the voting on the motion in substance, under what Standing Orders is it necessary to vote in two parts?
MR. SALES:--Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as I explained to this Council, is now moved under Standing Order 10(17)(a) instead of a
division of the motion.
DR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, I am still not clear.
I agree with Mr. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN. If we vote for or against the amendment, that takes care of the amendment. Still the voting is for or against the motion as a whole, surely.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-May I have a ruling from the chair, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN:---I must confess, Sir, that I am not clear in my mind as to whether, under Standing Orders, you can amend a motion into two parts and then vote separately on the two parts.
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, that is standard procedure. As a matter of fact, I am surprised that Standing Orders do not include a division of the question. In fact, this is elementary and I am surprised that my dear friend, Mr. CHEONG-LEEN, who should have had adequate training in Committee procedure, should question me so closely on this
matter.
•
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, sometimes I must plead ignorance. That is why I have to ask for clarification and a ruling from the chair.
CHAIRMAN:-The chair, Sir, is anxious to oblige Members in this matter as far as possible, and would be perfectly willing to suggest that we might vote on the two parts of the motion if Members do not object, but I do not see any clear ruling under Standing Orders.
DR. BELL: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am still not clear. Surely if a motion is amended the voting is taken once on the amended form of the motion? That is all. Why should there be two votings at all- let alone three?
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-If Mr. SALES wishes, we can have four motions, or an additional amendment. After we have voted on his proposed amendment, he can also move another motion that we vote on a motion in two parts.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.