HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
77
I think that would only be reasonable. So, I suggest that we defer discussion on this matter and we should ask the Public Health Select Committee to discuss this matter before we take a decision.
MR. TIM S. MANUEL CHAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I support continuing the discussion of the original motion. In the last couple of UC meetings, some Members actually abused Standing Order 18 on dilatory motion. Members of the Urban Council are only required to attend the UC and SCWC meetings. They may not be members of any particular Select Committee. We should not deprive Members of their rights to choose to attend any Select Committees. If we defer any issues of general concern to the PH Select Committee meeting next month, then some Members can only have the chance to discuss the issue at the SCWC meetings. I think by using the provision in the Standing Order, it will deprive other members' chance of expressing their views. I hope when they attempt to employ the same provision again, they should prudently take care of freedom of speech and a democratic procedure.
Mr. Tang Chi-Ho (in Cantonese):—I support that we should continue to discuss Mr. To Boon-man's motion. If some Members feel that the wordings of the motion are problematic, they should not defer its discussion but rather amend the motion. Besides, I consider that many things need to be discussed. I fail to see any mention of the licensing aspect. It only urges suppliers to comply with specific hygienic standards. I think this can be discussed at this Council meeting.
MR. KAM NAI-WAI (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, if every time our motion is asked to be referred to the relevant Select Committee for detailed discussion and having a consensus view before referring it to the Council meeting, then what is the point of having a motion debate? Of course we may have different interpretations on the wordings of the motion, but we can always amend its wordings. If we were to defer the discussion today, we would be sending a bad message to the public. They may have the impression that we are simply procrastinating the problem. If Members consider that adoption of the motion would mean that we have no seafood to consume, why do they not propose an amendment instead of deferring discussion of the problem. I hope to discuss Mr. To Boon-man's motion.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Since there is a proposer and a seconder and many of you have already spoken, maybe we can ask the original proposer, Mr. To to speak on the dilatory motion before we put it to vote.
MR. TO BOON-man (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, my original motion does not touch on licensing arrangements, I simply urge the relevant authorities to amend the Ordinance to empower the Urban Council to carry out enforcement actions more effectively because at present there is no relevant legislation to
Page 100 of 485
Page 100 of 485
Page 100 of 485
Page 100
Page 101
Page 101 of 485
Page 100 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
77
I think that would only be reasonable. So, I suggest that we deser discussion on this matter and we should ask the Public Health Select Committee to discuss this matter before we take a decision.
MR. TIM S. MANUEL CHAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I support continuing the discussion of the original motion. In the last couple of UC meetings, some Members actually abused Standing Order 18 on dilatory motion. Members of the Urban Council are only required to attend the UC and SCWC meetings. They may not be members of any particular Select Committee. We should not deprive Members of their rights to choose to attend any Select Committees. If we defer any issues of general concern to the PH Select Committee meeting next month, then some Members can only have the chance to discuss the issue at the SCWC meetings. I think by using the provision in the Standing Order, it will deprive other members' chance of expressing their views. I hope when they attempt to employ the same provision again, they should prudently take care of freedom of speech and a democratic procedure.
Mr. Tang ChI-HO (in Cantonese):-I support that we should continue lo discuss Mr. To Boon-man's motion. If some Members feel that the wordings of the motion are problematic, they should not defer its discussion but rather amend the motion. Besides, I cosider that many things need to be discussed. I fail to see any mention of the licensing aspect. It only urges suppliers to comply with specific hygienic standards. I think this can be discussed at this Council meeting.
MR. KAM NAI-WAI (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, if every time our motion is asked to be referred to the relevant Select Committee for detailed discussion and having a consensus view before referring it to the Council meeting, then what is the point of having a motion debate? Of course we may have different interpretations on the wordings of the motion, but we can always amend its wordings. If we were to defer the discussion today, we would be sending a bad message to the public. They may have the impression that we are simply procrastinating the problem. If Members consider that adoption of the motion would mean that we have no seafood to consume, why do they not propose an amendment instead of deferring discussion of the problem. I hope to discuss Mr. To Boon-man's motion.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Since there is a proposer and a seconder and many of you have already spoken, maybe we can ask the original proposer, Mr. To to speak on the dilatory motion before we put it to vote.
MR. TO BOON-man (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, my original motion does not touch on licensing arrangements, I simply urge the relevant authorities to amend the Ordinance to empower the Urban Council to carry out enforcement actions more effectively because at present there is no relevant legislation to
Page 100 of 485
Page 100 of 485
Page 100 of 485
Page 100Page 101
Page 101 of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.