1966 — Page 86

148

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

the Urban Council as it was 10 years or more ago, but not of this present Urban Council, this body that is so alive and yet generally has a team spirit not to be equalled in any other Council in Hong Kong.

My Motion as you will know, Sir, is not in the least concerned with the minor row that you had with a member last meeting although perhaps that minor row was an ominous forewarning of your attempt which I submit is now clear to stifle the liberty to discuss matters in this Council by your stringent and, in my submission, incorrect inter- pretation of Standing Orders.

On the 21st June, I wrote to the Secretary in the following form.

"Dear Sir,

Would you please put me on the Agenda for the Council Meeting on Tuesday the 5th July, 1966 the following question to be asked by me:

1.

2.

Whilst the Public Works Department or Public Utilities are digging up a road, does the Urban Council through the Cleansing Division of the Urban Services Department take steps to put up appropriate fences? In particular were appropriate fences put up in the recent wall collapse near the La Salle College opposite to a bus stop?

In that particular case, was there any under-mining caused by trees in the area?"

You replied to me on the 23rd June that "you must rule my question concerning the fencing of roads out of order". You drew my attention to the fact that "neither the Cleansing Division nor any other Division of the Urban Services Department is in any way responsible for fencing of roadworks", then the letter gives as your opinion that “it would not be appropriate to accept this question which is outside the jurisdiction of the Council, merely because it enquires if the Department is involved". Pausing here, I would, Mr. Chairman, refer to the Section 55 of the Urban Council Ordinance which in my submission makes it quite clear that at any rate in the urban area the Urban Services Department is to carry out the directions of the Urban Council. The answer therefore to the 1st question might have been a plain "no" and if you are right in saying that fencing of roads are outside this Council's jurisdiction, then the answer to any supplementaries might have been just that.

Going through the Standing Orders relating to Questions i.e. Stand- ing Order 8, the 1st question came within Standing Order 8(1) because more than 7 days notice has been given. Standing Orders 8(2) and (3) are therefore not relevant. Without conceding if Standing Order 8(4) is relevant, the question must still be put on the agenda and then, you, Mr. Chairman, if you think appropriate, decline to answer this question

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

149

As

for good cause. In my opinion however that Standing Order is inserted for the protecting of matters sub-judice and the like. Again Standing Order 8(5) is not relevant. Standing Order 8(6) merely gives you, Mr. Chairman, the option to reply orally or in writing, laid upon the table. Standing Orders 8(7), (10), (12) and (13) are also not relevant. ragards Standing Orders 8(9) and (11), dealing with hypothetical cases or propositions, again: not relevant; because the question was not hypothe- tical, it was a question-does the Council take steps to put up appro- priate fences or not? Therefore the only Standing Order that you, Mr. Chairman rely upon must be Standing Order 8(8) "A question shall be confined to matters within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council". Where, I ask you, is this question beyond the jurisdiction of the Urban Council? It was a direct question "Does the body which you control put up fences or not? Again, Mr. Chairman, you may or may not rely upon Standing Order 8(8) when we come to supplementaries, but not on this particular question.

But this is not all, you have not included in the order paper my 2nd question and yet you have not even in your letter disallowed it.

"In that particular case, was there any undermining caused by trees in the area?"

The Urban Services Department has a Garden Division which is respon- sible for trees in urban areas and at the last meeting we had a long discussion about the liaison between the Garden Division and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Nevertheless, in view of your letter to me, I again wrote to the Secretary on the 24th June suggesting a question in lieu of my former questions

"Is the Urban Council through the Urban Services Department responsible for putting up fencing when the Public Works Department or a Public Utility are digging up the road?" Again, you disallowed it, saying that it is open to the same objection. The question is a simple one, the answer is literally "yes" or "no." Then in the same letter to the Secretary I said

"If the Chairman thinks that this is out of order then would you regard it instead as a Motion.

MOTION

That this Council through the Urban Services Department puts up fencing around roads while they are being dug up by the Public Works Department or a Public Utility?"

In reply to this Motion you directed the Secretary to write that as it is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Council it would be neces-

Page 86 of 279