1995 — Page 121

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 121 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Mr. Stanley NG (in Cantonese):----1 second the motion.

Chairman (in Cantonese):-Does any Member wish to speak on the amended motion by Mr. Tim S. Manuel Chan?

MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I do appreciate Mr. Lai's response as well as the new amended motion because it has avoided the mention of the Housing Department. Instead it is substituted by responsible persons or organizations concerned for committing such an offense. It also answers the accusations by some Members alleging me for not having done my homework. But as I said, under Cap 1, section 66, it is very clear that there is a saving clause for the Crown that no Ordinance shall in any manner whatsoever affect the right of or be binding on the Crown unless it is therein exceptionally provided or unless it appears only necessary implication that the Crown is bound thereby. As far as legal points are concerned, there might be different interpretations, so I do accept Mr. Lai's amendment.

The second allegation against me is that I was not in support of prosecution. It is not that I do not support prosecution, I have made it very clear that I support prosecution against responsible persons. This is why I support the latest amendment.

Persons responsible for such acts include the Housing Authority, the contractors or even individual officers in the department. By so doing, we will avoid the question of whether or not we can take out prosecution against the Housing Department. So the most important consideration is whether or not we can take out prosecution against the Housing Department. Under this amendment we can take out prosecution. As regards whether or not we should take out prosecution. I am in favour of it because if we consider that the Housing Department/Housing Authority or persons concerned have not done a good job, then the Council's power is vested in the legislation. We cannot expect all Members of this Council to provide professional legal advice on the legislation. So I think we should still seek legal advice from legal adviser of the Council for a clear definition before we can implement the motion. What is the definition and scope of responsible persons? Since Members are suggesting that we should lay charge against persons responsible, we should be clear about the objectives. By cooperation I do not mean to defend another department. It has the meaning that we can take out prosecution should there be such a case. I would like to re-emphasise that I do not rule out the possibility of prosecuting responsible persons.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Lai, do you wish to exercise your right to reply?

Page 121 of 485

Edit History

2026-05-15 23:19:08 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 121 of 485 Page 121 of 485 98 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Mr. Stanley NG (in Cantonese):----1 second the motion. Chairman (in Cantonese):-Does any Member wish to speak on the amended motion by Mr. Tim S. Manuel Chan? MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I do appreciate Mr. Lai's response as well as the new amended motion because it has avoided the mention of the Housing Department. Instead it is substituted by responsible persons or organizations concerned for committing such an offense. It also answers the accusations by some Members alleging me for not having done my homework. But as I said, under Cap 1, section 66, it is very clear that there is a saving clause for the Crown that no Ordinance shall in any manner whatsoever affect the right of or be binding on the Crown unless it is therein exceptionally provided or unless it appears only necessary implication that the Crown is bound thereby. As far as legal points are concerned, there might be different interpretations, so I do accept Mr. Lai's amendment. The second allegation against me is that I was not in support of prosecution. It is not that I do not support prosecution, I have made it very clear that I support prosecution against responsible persons. This is why I support the latest amendment. Persons responsible for such acts include the Housing Authority, the contractors or even individual officers in the department. By so doing, we will avoid the question of whether or not we can take out prosecution against the Housing Department. So the most important consideration is whether or not we can take out prosecution against the Housing Department. Under this amendment we can take out prosecution. As regards whether or not we should take out prosecution. I am in favour of it because if we consider that the Housing Department/Housing Authority or persons concerned have not done a good job, then the Council's power is vested in the legislation. We cannot expect all Members of this Council to provide professional legal advice on the legislation. So I think we should still seek legal advice from legal adviser of the Council for a clear definition before we can implement the motion. What is the definition and scope of responsible persons? Since Members are suggesting that we should lay charge against persons responsible, we should be clear about the objectives. By cooperation I do not mean to defend another department. It has the meaning that we can take out prosecution should there be such a case. I would like to re-emphasise that I do not rule out the possibility of prosecuting responsible persons. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Lai, do you wish to exercise your right to reply? Page 121 of 485 Page 121 of 485

Baseline (Original)

Page 121 of 485 Page 121 of 485 98 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Mr. Stanley NG (in Cantonese):----1 second the motion. Chairman (in Cantonese):-Does any Member wish to speak on the amended motion by Mr. Tim S. Manuel Chan? MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I do appreciate Mr. Lat's response as well as the new amended motion because it has avoided the mention of the Housing Department. Instead it is substituted by responsible persons or organizations concerned for committing such an offense. It also answers the accusations by some Members alleging me for not having done my homework. But as I said, under Cap 1, section 66, it is very clear that there is a saving clause for the Crown that no Ordinance shall in any manner whatsoever affect the right of or be binding on the Crown unless it is therein exceptionally provided or unless it appears only necessary implication that the Crown is bound thereby. As far as legal points are concerned, there might be different interpretations, so I do accept Mr. LAI's amendment. The second allegation against me is that I was not in support of prosecution. It is not that I do not support prosecution, I have made it very clear that I support prosecution against responsible persons. This is why I support the latest amendment. Persons responsible for such acts include the Housing Authority, the contractors or even individual officers in the department. By so doing, we will avoid the question of whether or not we can take out prosecution against the Housing Department. So the most important consideration is whether or not we can take out prosecution against the Housing Department. Under this amendment we can take out prosecution. As regards whether or not we should take out prosecution. I am in favour of it because if we consider that the Housing Department/Housing Authority or persons concerned have not done a good job, then the Council's power is vested in the legislation. We cannot expect all Members of this Council to provide professional legal advice on the legislation. So I think we should still seek legal advice from legal adviser of the Council for a clear definition before we can implement the motion. What is the definition and scope of responsible persons? Since Members are suggesting that we should lay charge against persons responsible, we should be clear about the objectives. By cooperation I do not mean to defend another department. It has the meaning that we can take out prosecution should there be such a case. I would like to re-emphasise that I do not rule out the possibility of prosecuting responsible persons. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Lat, do you wish to exercise your right to reply? Page 121 of 485 Page 121 of 485

2026-05-15 23:19:08 · Baseline

View content

Page 121 of 485

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Mr. Stanley NG (in Cantonese):----1 second the motion.

Chairman (in Cantonese):-Does any Member wish to speak on the amended motion by Mr. Tim S. Manuel Chan?

MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I do appreciate Mr. Lat's response as well as the new amended motion because it has avoided the mention of the Housing Department. Instead it is substituted by responsible persons or organizations concerned for committing such an offense. It also answers the accusations by some Members alleging me for not having done my homework. But as I said, under Cap 1, section 66, it is very clear that there is a saving clause for the Crown that no Ordinance shall in any manner whatsoever affect the right of or be binding on the Crown unless it is therein exceptionally provided or unless it appears only necessary implication that the Crown is bound thereby. As far as legal points are concerned, there might be different interpretations, so I do accept Mr. LAI's amendment.

1995 — Page 121

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note