Page 256 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
231
amendment first because it is moved earlier than Mr. WONG's dilatory motion. Afterwards, if Mr. WONG's dilatory motion is carried, it will supersede the resolution of the previous motions and become the latest decision. I think this is the case.
Mr. Ambrose Cheung (in Cantonese):—I do not have the Standing Orders in hand, but I want to ask a question. If we have one motion of amendment after another motion of amendment and the latter is a dilatory motion as well as a motion of amendment, then procedure wise, should we vote on the latter before handling the former? I would like to ask for the views of the Legal Advisor.
THE HON. Szeto Wah (in Cantonese):—S.O. 21(16) is not about the order of meeting procedures. For example, item (e) reads 'the public be excluded', if a Member moves a motion to have the public be excluded, does it mean that you have to go through all the said items before you can ask the public to retreat? S.O. 21(16) is not a decision on the priorities of procedures. This is not only the case in the Legislative Council but also in meetings of other Councils and bodies, procedural motions should be handled first.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—I agree to the views of Mr. SZETO Wah and I have not said that items (a) to (n) are in the order of priority. But Miss Ada WONG's motion of amendment was moved before the procedural motion, and after considering the views of the Secretary and Legal Advisor of the Council, I suggested the order in which the motions are to be handled basing on their chronological order, but not the order of (a) to (n). The Standing Orders have not stipulated clearly what should be handled first under different circumstances and so it is up to the meeting to decide how to handle all the motions. Shall we handle the dilatory motion first or Miss Ada WONG's motion first? Can we take a vote? Those who are in favour of handling the dilatory motion first please raise their hands. I can see that the majority is in favour of handling Mr. WONG's dilatory motion first. Will anyone second his motion?
Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese):—I second Mr. Wong's dilatory motion. Just now I heard Mr. Daniel WONG Kwok-tung said, 'I have worked with him for some years and this is the best speech he has ever made as a Councillor.' For this very important matter, we should ask the respective Select Committee to consider before formulating a clear and open policy. Only by doing so can we show our accountability to the public.
THE HON. SZETO Wah (in Cantonese):—As there are no clear stipulations in the Standing Orders. I think that the Working Group on Review of the Standing Orders of the Urban Council should discuss this issue because such arrangement is not logical. Once a motion is carried, how can it be superseded or adjourned? This is neither logical nor does it conform to committee procedures in general.
Pa
Page 256 of 485
Page 256 or 400
Page 256 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
231
amendment first because it is moved earlier than Mr. WONG's dilatory motion. Afterwards, if Mr. WONG's dilatory motion is carried, it will supersede the resolution of the previous motions and become the latest decision. I think this is the case.
Mr. Ambrose Cheung (in Cantonese):-I do not have the Standing Orders in hand, but I want to ask a question. If we have one motion of amendment after another motion of amendment and the latter is a dilatory motion as well as a motion of amendment, then procedure wise, should we vote on the latter before handling the former? I would like to ask for the views of the Legal Advisor.
THE HON. Szeto Wah (in Cantonese);—S.O. 21(16) is not about the order of meeting procedures. For example, item (») reads 'the public be excluded', if a Member moves a motion to have the public be excluded, does it mean that you have to go through all the said items before you can ask the public to retreat? S.O. 21(16) is not a decision on the priorities of procedures. This is not only the case in the Legislative Council but also in meetings of other Councils and bodies, procedural motions should be handled first.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—I agree to the views of Mr. SZETO Wah and I have not said that items (a) to (n) are in the order of priority. But Miss Ada WONG's motion of amendment was moved before the procedural motion, and after considering the views of the Secretary and Legal Advisor of the Council, I suggested the order in which the motions are to be handled basing on their chronological order, but not the order of (a) to (n). The Standing Orders have not stipulated clearly what should be handled first under different circumstances and so it is up to the meeting to decide how to handle all the motions. Shall we handle the dilatory motion first or Miss Ada WONG's motion first? Can we take a vote? Those who are in favour of handling the dilatory motion first please raise their hands. I can see that the majority is in favour of handling Mr. WONG's dilatory motion first. Will anyone second his motion?
Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese);—I second Mr. Wong's dilatory motion. Just now I heard Mr. Daniel WONG Kwok-tung said, 'I have worked with him for some years and this is the best speech he has ever made as a Councillor. For this very important matter, we should ask the respective Select Committee to consider before formulating a clear and open policy. Only by doing so can we show our accountability to the public.
THE HON. SZETO Wah (in Cantonese):—As there are no clear stipulations in the Standing Orders. I think that the Working Group on Review of the Standing Orders of the Urban Council should discuss this issue because such arrangement is not logical. Once a motion is carried, how can it be superseded or adjourned? This is neither logical nor does it conform to committee procedures in general.
Pa
Page 256 of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.