Page 626 of 654
Page 626 of 654
Page 626 of 654
616
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—What he meant was that fish-catching was fish-catching and that no effective control could be exercised over the source of catch. However, you mentioned smuggling just now and they are two entirely different issues.
MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese):—Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for making a fair ruling. They are two entirely different issues. We were only talking about law enforcement. Mr. CHUNG considered that if consequent upon a motion, certain ordinances had to be enforced but were not likely to be fully enforced, then we should stop discussing the motion from the outset. I was only rationalizing it. I have in fact done Mr. CHUNG a favour, but maybe Members don't realize it.
The present question is, does such a situation mean that we should stop pursuing the matter? A view has been put forth and I am opposed to it. I have put forth a very clear view and that is, we have many ordinances in place to balance the needs of society and for the well-being of the majority, we should not wait until we are 100% sure in introducing a monitoring system. That is what I mean. I therefore consider that Mr. CHUNG's view that discussion on the matter should halt or be pursued by the Select Committee concerned merely because there are difficulties in implementation is not desirable. This is the rationale he has provided in supporting the motion on deferred discussion (the procedural motion). I am now talking about this issue concerning discussion. There is another strange thing. If the motion was not feasible, why should it be referred back to the Select Committee at all? Could it be that the Select Committee could turn something that is not feasible into something that is feasible? If this is not the case, then what is the logic, or is there no logic at all? If he does not agree with the motion, he should come forward and vote against it properly rather than propose a procedural motion on referring the case back to the Select Committee.
As to the need to take into account the interests of others, Members may find that the motion is aimed only at 'examining', unless someone intends to exclude consultation from the process of examination and make the decision entirely on his own. In fact consultation will be made during the process of examination and the impact on other sectors and industries will be taken into consideration, unless someone considers that these would not be done, in which case, why should the issue be referred back to the Select Committee at all? We could endorse the motion today and then work out the details in the Select Committee. All those who will be affected will be consulted. This is the Council's proper way of doing things and rules of proceedings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kam Nai-wAI (in Cantonese):—I will not repeat what Members have said. Members of the DAB are the ones who strongly object to the motion but so far they have not explained clearly why they did not move any amendments
Co£654
Page 626 of 654
Page 626 of 654
Page 626 of 654
616
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-What he meant was that fish-catching was fish- catching and that no effective control could be exercised over the source of catch. However, you mentioned smuggling just now and they are two entirely different issues.
MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese):—Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for making a fair ruling. They are two entirely different issues. We were only talking about law enforcement. Mr. CHUNG considered that if consequent upon a motion, certain ordinances had to be enforced but were not likely to be fully enforced, then we should stop discussing the motion from the outset. I was only rationalizing it. I have in fact done Mr. CHUNG a favour, but maybe Members don't realize it.
The present question is, does such a situation mean that we should stop pursuing the matter? A view has been put forth and I am opposed to it. I have put forth a very clear view and that is, we have many ordinances in place to balance the needs of society and for the well-being of the majority, we should not wait until we are 100% sure in introducing a monitoring system. That is what I mean. I therefore consider that Mr. CHUNG's view that discussion on the matter should halt or be pursued by the Select Committee concerned merely because there are difficulties in implementation is not desirable. This is the rationale he has provided in supporting the motion on deferred discussion (the procedural motion). I am now talking about this issue concerning discussion. There is another strange thing. If the motion was not feasible, why should it be referred back to the Select Committee at all? Could it be that the Select Committee could turn something that is not feasible into something that is feasible? If this is not the case, then what is the logic, or is there no logic at all? If he does not agree with the motion, he should come forward and vote against it properly rather than propose a procedural motion on referring the case back to the Select Committee.
As to the need to take into account the interests of others, Members may find that the motion is aimed only at 'examining', unless someone intends to exclude consultation from the process of examination and make the decision entirely on his own. In fact consultation will be made during the process
of examination and the impact on other sectors and industries will be taken into consideration, unless someone considers that these would not be done, in which case, why should the issue be referred back to the Select Committee at all? We could endorse the motion today and then work out the details in the Select Committee. All those who will be affected will be consulted. This is the Council's proper way of doing things and rules of proceedings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kam Nai-wAI (in Cantonese):—I will not repeat what Members have said. Members of the DAB are the ones who strongly object to the motion but so far they have not explained clearly why they did not move any amendments
Co£654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.