1974 — Page 85

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 85 of 187

138

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

affected. He can so do it, but even if the opinion of the Standing Committee is "no, we don't approve that motion," still he cannot say alright, it shan't appear on the order paper. That's the meaning of the last part "without prejudice to the right of the Chairman to refer any matter to the Standing Committee for advice". Now Mr. SIN hits the matter of the motion. Of course, because he is a lawyer and he said that the motion may be within the jurisdiction, but repugnant to the statutory requirement of the Council. Of course, that could be so, presumably, but to my knowledge, no motion has yet been refused on that ground. If he is right in this, then presumably many members would refer to that in their speeches and the net result would be the motion was defeated. But I think he is referring indirectly again to this, should I call it "row" and call a spade a spade, row over food-caterers. Now the motion which was completely within the jurisdiction and did not appear on the order paper because of the actions of the Standing Committee was a motion that food-caterers be not considered as food factories but subject to a separate set of simple bylaws. Well, that was a motion in principle which, if accepted, would, of course, have been referred to the Select Committee which, incidentally, is Mr. SIN's Committee, to draft the bylaws so that it was not in any way against the statutory requirements of the Council, but was against the opinion of the majority of the Urban Councillors. That's a classical example, but it is only an example. On a motion which should have been debated in public, the Urban Council should not have been afraid, I use the word "afraid" advisably, to take into consideration public opinion, rejecting it or accepting it as they like, but all meetings in public and decide in public, once for all, or perhaps not once for all, but I think no motion can be moved a second time, I think, within six months. Once at least for six months. Whether or not the time has come for this course to be adopted, namely to separate food-caterers from food factories and make a separate simple set of bylaws for them. So I would refer to Mr. SIN's submission as, in fact, never arising or very unlikely to arise. The main thing is that it is against possibly the opinion of the Urban Services Department that's different of course. Because sometimes we take their opinion and sometimes in other matters, indeed in hawker matters sometimes, we reject their opinion not because it is basically wrong, but because we consider that it is an opinion of experts, experts who are not perhaps conversant with the situation on the ground in which this type of thing is going on already and, therefore, it is better to legalize it properly than to permit them to go on unlawfully and therefore the subject matter of any corrupt officers getting money from it. That's an example, only an example. But in my opinion, Mrs. ELLIOTT has

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

139

basically said the final word when she said that every motion should be debated in public whether or not a Member is opposed to it or accepts it.

MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English): -May I ask for clarification which may affect me to vote in this motion? You may recall that I had an interlinear motion which I put and was seconded by Mr. CHOW, but the Standing Committee advised perhaps that motions should not be discussed and in respect of the spirit of this whole Council's decision I withdrew it rather than the Standing Committee has the right to rule that that should not be put on the agenda. If that is the case, that is considered as withdrawal rather than ruling, I am not going to support this motion. But if it is your ruling that the Standing Committee of the Whole Council has the right to move an interlinear question out of order and not to be put on the paper, then I would have to support this motion because this is the point I want to be clarified.

CHAIRMAN (in English):—Mr. CHAN, I can best answer your question by asking one of you yourself. Your recollection is that you were asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw that motion and you agreed to withdraw it. That is the answer that I give you. Your own recollection.

MR. BERNACCHI (in English): --Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification. Whether or not that particular motion, and I was wrong when I directed it to Mr. CHOW, Mr. CHOW seconded it and Mr. CHAN moved it, that he was asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw it and Mr. CHAN did agree to withdraw it. Nevertheless, Standing Committee ruled my motion, and I refer to it "That food caterers be not treated as food factories, but a separate set of simple bylaws be drafted applicable to food caterers" should not be debated in open meeting so that I consider that the answer to Mr. CHAN is that at present as advised by the Legal Department, Standing Committee has the power and has exercised it at least once, if not more, to move that this motion be not debated.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-I take it no other Member wishes to rise on personal clarification, if so, may I then put this motion to you for you to vote on. I would ask the Secretary to count the votes.

The question was put.

The motion was lost with three votes for, eleven against and two abstentions.

Page 85

Page 86

Page 86 of 187

Edit History

2026-05-14 23:15:21 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 85 of 187 138 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL affected. He can so do it, but even if the opinion of the Standing Committee is "no, we don't approve that motion," still he cannot say alright, it shan't appear on the order paper. That's the meaning of the last part "without prejudice to the right of the Chairman to refer any matter to the Standing Committee for advice". Now Mr. SIN hits the matter of the motion. Of course, because he is a lawyer and he said that the motion may be within the jurisdiction, but repugnant to the statutory requirement of the Council. Of course, that could be so, presumably, but to my knowledge, no motion has yet been refused on that ground. If he is right in this, then presumably many members would refer to that in their speeches and the net result would be the motion was defeated. But I think he is referring indirectly again to this, should I call it "row" and call a spade a spade, row over food-caterers. Now the motion which was completely within the jurisdiction and did not appear on the order paper because of the actions of the Standing Committee was a motion that food-caterers be not considered as food factories but subject to a separate set of simple bylaws. Well, that was a motion in principle which, if accepted, would, of course, have been referred to the Select Committee which, incidentally, is Mr. SIN's Committee, to draft the bylaws so that it was not in any way against the statutory requirements of the Council, but was against the opinion of the majority of the Urban Councillors. That's a classical example, but it is only an example. On a motion which should have been debated in public, the Urban Council should not have been afraid, I use the word "afraid" advisably, to take into consideration public opinion, rejecting it or accepting it as they like, but all meetings in public and decide in public, once for all, or perhaps not once for all, but I think no motion can be moved a second time, I think, within six months. Once at least for six months. Whether or not the time has come for this course to be adopted, namely to separate food-caterers from food factories and make a separate simple set of bylaws for them. So I would refer to Mr. SIN's submission as, in fact, never arising or very unlikely to arise. The main thing is that it is against possibly the opinion of the Urban Services Department that's different of course. Because sometimes we take their opinion and sometimes in other matters, indeed in hawker matters sometimes, we reject their opinion not because it is basically wrong, but because we consider that it is an opinion of experts, experts who are not perhaps conversant with the situation on the ground in which this type of thing is going on already and, therefore, it is better to legalize it properly than to permit them to go on unlawfully and therefore the subject matter of any corrupt officers getting money from it. That's an example, only an example. But in my opinion, Mrs. ELLIOTT has HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 139 basically said the final word when she said that every motion should be debated in public whether or not a Member is opposed to it or accepts it. MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English): -May I ask for clarification which may affect me to vote in this motion? You may recall that I had an interlinear motion which I put and was seconded by Mr. CHOW, but the Standing Committee advised perhaps that motions should not be discussed and in respect of the spirit of this whole Council's decision I withdrew it rather than the Standing Committee has the right to rule that that should not be put on the agenda. If that is the case, that is considered as withdrawal rather than ruling, I am not going to support this motion. But if it is your ruling that the Standing Committee of the Whole Council has the right to move an interlinear question out of order and not to be put on the paper, then I would have to support this motion because this is the point I want to be clarified. CHAIRMAN (in English):—Mr. CHAN, I can best answer your question by asking one of you yourself. Your recollection is that you were asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw that motion and you agreed to withdraw it. That is the answer that I give you. Your own recollection. MR. BERNACCHI (in English): --Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification. Whether or not that particular motion, and I was wrong when I directed it to Mr. CHOW, Mr. CHOW seconded it and Mr. CHAN moved it, that he was asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw it and Mr. CHAN did agree to withdraw it. Nevertheless, Standing Committee ruled my motion, and I refer to it "That food caterers be not treated as food factories, but a separate set of simple bylaws be drafted applicable to food caterers" should not be debated in open meeting so that I consider that the answer to Mr. CHAN is that at present as advised by the Legal Department, Standing Committee has the power and has exercised it at least once, if not more, to move that this motion be not debated. CHAIRMAN (in English):-I take it no other Member wishes to rise on personal clarification, if so, may I then put this motion to you for you to vote on. I would ask the Secretary to count the votes. The question was put. The motion was lost with three votes for, eleven against and two abstentions. Page 85 Page 86 Page 86 of 187

Baseline (Original)

Page 85 of 187 138 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL affected. He can so do it, but even if the opinion of the Standing Committee is "no, we don't approve that motion," still he cannot say alright, it shan't appear on the order paper. That's the meaning of the last part "without prejudice to the right of the Chairman to refer any matter to the Standing Committee for advice". Now Mr. SIN hits the matter of the motion. Of course, because he is a lawyer and he said that the motion may be within the jurisdiction, but repugnant to the statutory requirement of the Council. Of course, that could be so, presumably, but to my knowledge, no motion has yet been refused on that ground. If he is right in this, then presumably many members would refer to that in their speeches and the net result would be the motion was defeated. But I think he is referring indirectly again to this, should I call it "row" and call a spade a spade, row over food- caterers. Now the motion which was completely within the jurisdiction and did not appear on the order paper because of the actions of the Standing Committee was a motion that food-caterers be not considered as food factories but the subject to a separate set of simple bylaws. Well, that was a motion in principle which, if accepted, would, of course, have been referred to the Select Committee which, incidentally, is Mr. SIN'S Committee, to draft the bylaws so that it was not in any way against the statutory requirements of the Council, but was against the opinion of the majority of the Urban Councillors. That's a classical example, but it is only an example. On a motion which should have been debated in public, the Urban Council should not have been afraid, I use the word "afraid" advisably, to take into con- sideration public opinion, rejecting it or accepting it as they like, but all meetings in public and decide in public, once for all, or perhaps not once for all, but I think no motion can be moved a second time, I think, within six months. Once at least for six months. Whether or not the time has come for this course to be adopted, namely to separate food-caterers from food factories and make a separate simple set of bylaws for them. So I would refer to Mr. SIN's submission as, in fact, never arising or very unlikely to arise. The main thing is that it is against possibly the opinion of the Urban Services Department that's different of course. Because sometimes we take their opinion and sometimes in other matters, indeed in hawker matters sometimes, we reject their opinion not because it is basically wrong, but because we consider that it is an opinion of experts, experts who are not perhaps conversant with the situation on the ground in which this type of thing is going on already and, therefore, it is better to legalize it properly than to permit them to go on unlawfully and therefore the subject matter of any corrupt officers getting money from it. That's an example, only an example. But in my opinion, Mrs. ELLIOTT has HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 139 basically said the final word when she said that every motion should be debated in public whether or not a Member is opposed to it or accepts it. MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English): -May I ask for clarification which may affect me to vote in this motion? You may recall that I had an interlinear motion which I put and was seconded by Mr. CHOW, but the Standing Committee advised perhaps that motions should not be discussed and in respect of the spirit of this whole Council's decision I withdrew it rather than the Standing Committee has the right to rule that that should not be put on the agenda. If that is the case, that is considered as withdrawal rather than ruling, I am not going to support this motion. But if it is your ruling that the Standing Committee of the Whole Council has the right to move an interlinear question out of order and not to be put on the paper, then I would have to support this motion because this is the point I want to be clarified. CHAIRMAN (in English):—Mr. CHAN, I can best answer your ques- tion by asking one of you yourself. Your recollection is that you were asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw that motion and you agreed to withdraw it. That is the answer that I give you. Your own recollection. MR. BERNACCHI (in English): --Mr. Chairman, I would like a clari- fication. Whether or not that particular motion, and I was wrong when I directed it to Mr. CHOW, Mr. CHOW seconded it and Mr. CHAN moved it, that he was asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw it and Mr. CHAN did agree to withdraw it. Nevertheless, Standing Com- mittee ruled my motion, and I refer to it "That food caterers be not treated as food factories, but a separate set of simple bylaws be drafted applicable to food caterers" should not be debated in open meeting so that I consider that the answer to Mr. CHAN is that at present as advised by the Legal Department, Standing Committee has the power and has exercised it at least once, if not more, to move that this motion be not debated. CHAIRMAN (in English):-I take it no other Member wishes to rise on personal clarification, if so, may I then put this motion to you for you to vote on. I would ask the Secretary to count the votes. The question was put. The motion was lost with three votes for, eleven against and two abstentions. Page 85Page 86

2026-05-14 23:15:21 · Baseline

View content

Page 85 of 187

138

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

affected. He can so do it, but even if the opinion of the Standing Committee is "no, we don't approve that motion," still he cannot say alright, it shan't appear on the order paper. That's the meaning of the last part "without prejudice to the right of the Chairman to refer any matter to the Standing Committee for advice". Now Mr. SIN hits the matter of the motion. Of course, because he is a lawyer and he said that the motion may be within the jurisdiction, but repugnant to the statutory requirement of the Council. Of course, that could be so, presumably, but to my knowledge, no motion has yet been refused on that ground. If he is right in this, then presumably many members would refer to that in their speeches and the net result would be the motion was defeated. But I think he is referring indirectly again to this, should I call it "row" and call a spade a spade, row over food- caterers. Now the motion which was completely within the jurisdiction and did not appear on the order paper because of the actions of the Standing Committee was a motion that food-caterers be not considered as food factories but the subject to a separate set of simple bylaws. Well, that was a motion in principle which, if accepted, would, of course, have been referred to the Select Committee which, incidentally, is Mr. SIN'S Committee, to draft the bylaws so that it was not in any way against the statutory requirements of the Council, but was against the opinion of the majority of the Urban Councillors. That's a classical example, but it is only an example. On a motion which should have been debated in public, the Urban Council should not have been afraid, I use the word "afraid" advisably, to take into con- sideration public opinion, rejecting it or accepting it as they like, but all meetings in public and decide in public, once for all, or perhaps not once for all, but I think no motion can be moved a second time, I think, within six months. Once at least for six months. Whether or not the time has come for this course to be adopted, namely to separate food-caterers from food factories and make a separate simple set of bylaws for them. So I would refer to Mr. SIN's submission as, in fact, never arising or very unlikely to arise. The main thing is that it is against possibly the opinion of the Urban Services Department that's different of course. Because sometimes we take their opinion and sometimes in other matters, indeed in hawker matters sometimes, we reject their opinion not because it is basically wrong, but because we consider that it is an opinion of experts, experts who are not perhaps conversant with the situation on the ground in which this type of thing is going on already and, therefore, it is better to legalize it properly than to permit them to go on unlawfully and therefore the subject matter of any corrupt officers getting money from it. That's an example, only an example. But in my opinion, Mrs. ELLIOTT has

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

139

basically said the final word when she said that every motion should be debated in public whether or not a Member is opposed to it or accepts it.

CHAIRMAN (in English):—Mr. CHAN, I can best answer your ques- tion by asking one of you yourself. Your recollection is that you were asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw that motion and you agreed to withdraw it. That is the answer that I give you. Your own

recollection.

MR. BERNACCHI (in English): --Mr. Chairman, I would like a clari- fication. Whether or not that particular motion, and I was wrong when I directed it to Mr. CHOW, Mr. CHOW seconded it and Mr. CHAN moved it, that he was asked by the Standing Committee to withdraw it and Mr. CHAN did agree to withdraw it. Nevertheless, Standing Com- mittee ruled my motion, and I refer to it "That food caterers be not treated as food factories, but a separate set of simple bylaws be drafted applicable to food caterers" should not be debated in open meeting so that I consider that the answer to Mr. CHAN is that at present as advised by the Legal Department, Standing Committee has the power and has exercised it at least once, if not more, to move that this motion be not debated.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-I take it no other Member wishes to rise on personal clarification, if so, may I then put this motion to you for you to vote on. I would ask the Secretary to count the votes.

The question was put.

The motion was lost with three votes for, eleven against and two abstentions.

Page 85Page 86

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.