Page 624 of 654
Tage 024 of 654
Page 624 of 654
614
# HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
A motion carried does not necessarily solve the hygiene problem of Hong Kong, does it? The motion is not feasible at all. Can you tell me where a certain lobster comes from? The fisherman himself does not know either. He has dragged it to Hong Kong all the way from Ninepin Group. Should he tell us it was netted in Heng Fa Chuen or in Ninepin Group? And then how can one tell whether a red grouper is netted in Dongsha, or Xisha, or the Hong Kong waters? How is the source certificate going to be obtained? And can you take them at their words? Should we close the waters? And then in some cases, it might be the seawater or the fish itself that is not all right. Or is it because of the bait? To move such a motion is simply an indication of complete ignorance of the fishing industry. The motion is a nuisance and cannot solve the problem at all.
MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, would you ask Mr. CHUNG to speak only on the procedural motion?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr. CHUNG, please speak only on the procedural motion.
MR. CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN (in Cantonese): Just now some people did not confine their speeches to the procedural motion either. Excuse me. Why didn't you then insist that the rules of proceedings be kept by asking them to confine their comments to the procedural motion? There is favouritism for the Democratic Party. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FRANCIS TANG CHI-HO (in Cantonese): Firstly, I have some queries concerning the procedural motion.
It seems that the wording of 'examine' and 'set up' does not sound pleasant to some of us. But then there were a lot of motions in the past containing the wording of "examine" and "set up", but since they were moved by other political parties, such as the DAB and the Liberal Party, they were all carried. My query is, were all these motions feasible?
Secondly, someone mentioned just now that as the recommendation on testing of seawater was eventually not feasible, it would be equally futile to continue to discuss the current motion. May I ask why then our proposal that a question-and-answer session be provided at the monthly meetings when the Department failed to execute the Council's decisions should be vetoed? I consider that if every issue was to be referred to the Select Committee concerned merely because it did not sound pleasant or was moved by a political party other than one's own, we might as well have this clearly stipulated in the Standing Orders.
There is another question I want to ask. Mr. CHAN Kwok-leung said just now that a similar motion was endorsed by the Regional Council and the body that moved the motion in that Council comprised exactly members of the body
Page 624 of 654
Page 624 of 654
Tage 024 of 654
Page 624 of 654
614
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
A motion carried does not necessarily solve the hygiene problem of Hong Kong, does it? The motion is not feasible at all. Can you tell me where a certain lobster comes from? The fisherman himself does not know either. He has dragged it to Hong Kong all the way from Nincepin Group. Should he tell us it was netted in Heng Fa Chuen or in Ninepin Group? And then how can one tell whether a red grouper is netted in Dongsha, or Xisha, or the Hong Kong waters? How is the source certificate going to be obtained? And can you take them at their words? Should we close the waters? And then in some cases, it might be the seawater or the fish itself that is not all right. Or is it because of the bait? To move such a motion is simply an indication of complete ignorance of the fishing industry. The motion is a nuisance and cannot solve the problem at all.
MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, would you ask Mr. CHUNG to speak only on the procedural motion?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. CHUNG, please speak only on the procedural
motion.
MR. CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN (in Cantonese):-Just now some people did not confine their speeches to the procedural motion either. Excuse me. Why didn't you then insist that the rules of proceedings be kept by asking them to confine their comments to the procedural motion? There is favouritism for the Democratic Party. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FRANCIS TANG CHI-HO (in Cantonese):-Firstly, I have some queries concerning the procedural motion.
It seems that the wording of 'examine' and 'set up' does not sound pleasant to some of us. But then there were a lot of motions in the past containing the wording of "examine' and 'set up', but since they were moved by other political parties, such as the DAB and the Liberal Party, they were all carried. My query is, were all these motions feasible?
Secondly, someone mentioned just now that as the recommendation on testing of seawater was eventually not feasible, it would be equally futile to continue to discuss the current motion. May I ask why then our proposal that a question-and-answer session be provided at the monthly meetings when the Department failed to execute the Council's decisions should be vetoed? I consider that if every issue was to be referred to the Select Committee concerned merely because it did not sound pleasant or was moved by a political party other than one's own, we might as well have this clearly stipulated in the Standing Orders.
There is another question I want to ask. Mr. CHAN Kwok-leung said just now that a similar motion was endorsed by the Regional Council and the body that moved the motion in that Council comprised exactly members of the body
Page 624 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.