HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
315
have flown off from a tangent. I hope Mr. Chan will not do the same, will you?
I don't want to stick rigidly to the Standing Orders but being too far away from the topic would mean that I am not doing my job as a chairman. All right?
Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sun (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, what you have said just now is exactly the motive behind my request to speak. Since you have finished voicing your views, it is now my turn to voice mine.
There are two Municipal Councils in Hong Kong, and both the Regional Council and Urban Council (the two Councils) are independent statutory bodies with elected members. Because of their independence, it is natural that their policies are different. It is an authority vested by the law and is therefore perfectly normal. I consider it normal that their policies are different. Rather, I would consider it a bit unusual if they were identical. Each Council is empowered to formulate policies and since it has the authority, it may of course do so. Hence there are some issues which both parties cannot coordinate, and they may formulate different policies in response to the environmental needs of their respective areas. An independent statutory council is in a position to make such decisions.
As to the need for the same law, the power to legislate is in the hands of the Legislative Council and the Urban Council can only make amendments to some by-laws. We do not have the power to make the principal ordinances. Even for amendments to the principal ordinances, they must be passed by the Legislative Council and Executive Council. Hence, as far as legislation is concerned, the final say is with the Legislative Council. Take the recent incident concerning sushi for instance. Amendments were made to the relevant by-laws and if any difference was found in the laws of the two Councils, the Legislative Council should exercise its power. Regrettably, our Legislative Council did not make any coordination by formulating the same law. Eventually, both by-laws are valid.
As to the feasibility of setting up a mechanism to promote communication between the two Councils, this can be done. This is wishful thinking. It is said that when alone, the monk must carry his own buckets of water (that is, looking after himself) but when there are two monks, they would have to share the work of carrying the buckets of water with one pole. Chairman, if the other one refuses to share the work with you, nothing can eventually be done. So, it is wishful thinking.
About the mechanism mentioned in the debate, it is necessary to obtain the prior approval of the other party. If they refused to shoulder the pole, or if they moved the bucket to the front while shouldering the pole, thus easing their burden, it would result in unfairness.
Page 318 of 654
Page 318 of 654
Page 318 of 654
Page 318 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
315
have flown off from a tangent. I hope Mr. Chan will not do the same, will you?
I don't want to stick rigidly to the Standing Orders but being too far away from the topic would mean that I am not doing my job as a chairman. All right?
Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sur (in Cantonese);—Mr. Chairman, what you have said just now is exactly the motive behind my request to speak. Since you have finished voicing your views, it is now my turn to voice mine.
There are two Municipal Councils in Hong Kong, and both the Regional Council and Urban Council (the two Councils) are independent statutory bodies with elected members. Because of their independence, it is natural that their policies are different. It is an authority vested by the law and is therefore perfectly normal. I consider it normal that their policies are different. Rather, I would consider it a bit unusual if they were identical. Each Council is empowered to formulate policies and since it has the authority, it may of course do so. Hence there are some issues which both parties cannol coordinate, and they may formulate different policies in response to the environmental needs of their respective areas. An independent statutory council is in a position to make such decisions.
As to the need for the same law, the power to legislate is in the hands of the Legislative Council and the Urban Council can only make amendments to some by-laws. We do not have the power to make the principal ordinances. Even for amendments to the principal ordinances, they must be passed by the Legislative Council and Executive Council. Hence, as far as legislation is concerned, the final say is with the Legislative Council. Take the recent incident concerning sushi for instance. Amendments were made to the relevant by-laws and if any difference was found in the laws of the two Councils, the Legislative Council should exercise its power. Regrettably, our Legislative Council did not make any coordination by formulating the same law. Eventually, both by-laws are valid.
As to the feasibility of setting up a mechanism to promote communication between the two Councils, this can be done. This is wishful thinking. It is said that when alone, the monk must carry his own buckets of water (that is, looking after himself) but when there are two monks, they would have to share the work of carrying the buckets of water with one pole. Chairman, if the other one refuses to share the work with you, nothing can eventually be done. So, it is wishful thinking.
About the mechanism mentioned in the debate, it is necessary to obtain the prior approval of the other party. If they refused to shoulder the pole, or if they moved the bucket to the front while shouldering the pole, thus easing their burden, it would result in unfairness.
Dore
318 of 654
Page 318 of 654
Page 318 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.