Page 630 of 654
0 of 654
Page 630 of 654
620
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Chairman (in Cantonese):-I have asked Mr. WONG Kwok-hing for one considered that re-voting was desirable. There are also Members who support the idea.
Mr. Szeto Wah (in Cantonese):-It should be decided by everybody. You should not ask just one Member. There is the risk that such an arrangement would become a rule in future. Does it mean that whenever such a situation arises, re-voting will be resorted to? As the first step, everybody should be asked as to whether they agree to re-cast their votes.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Should we now first of all vote on whether there should be any re-voting? As I heard only voices for but not voices against, I thought everyone supported the arrangement.
MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I hope you will clarify the voting procedure, because under Standing Order 23(6), as soon as the Secretary has counted the votes, the Chairman shall state the numbers of votes for and against the motion respectively and shall then declare the result or give his casting vote as the cases may be. The voting result thus declared shall prevail.'
It does not mention that the Chairman may nullify the result of voting and arrange for a re-voting. Naturally we don't want this to be applied to just one specific case. As far as we are concerned, we certainly hope that you will abstain from voting or vote for the motion, but the point is that we must abide by the Standing Orders. We must not act whimsically as we please. If a second voting is resorted to because there is such a problem today, what about the next time when the same problem props up? It is probable that you do not think the same next time. You might have a strong view after careful consideration and decide to give your casting vote. You did ask once that as a Member, why you shouldn't have one more vote.
We want to know for sure what you will do, or else we would be at a loss as to what you want to decide.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—I am going to tell you what I will do in future. I have already pointed out that the present case is a special one in that it is not an amended motion. It is a procedural motion which has absolutely nothing to do with the original motion. Since there is a tie vote, I must do something. We cannot possibly settle for a tie vote. We must work out our next step. Something must be done to break the tie vote on the procedural motion and I could have given my casting vote.
However, the casting vote should only be given on an original motion, but there is no original motion in this case because the original motion moved is not the original motion of the procedural motion. I therefore have no basis on
20 of 654
Page 630Page 631
Page 631 of 654
Page 630 of 654
0 of 654
Page 630 of 654
620
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
Chairman (in Cantonese):-I have asked. Mr. WONG Kwok-hing for one considered that re-voting was desirable. There are also Members who support the idea.
Mr. Szeto Wah (in Cantonese):-It should be decided by everybody. You should not ask just one Member. There is the risk that such an arrangement would become a rule in future. Does it mean that whenever such a situation arises, re-voting will be resorted to? As the first step, everybody should be asked as to whether they agree to re-cast their votes.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Should we now first of all vote on whether there should be any re-voting? As I heard only voices for but not voices against, I thought everyone supported the arrangement.
MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I hope you will clarify the voling procedure, because under Standing Order 23(6), as soon as the Secretary has counted the votes, the Chairman shall state the numbers of votes for and against the motin respectively and shall then declare the result or give his casting vote as the cases may be. The voting result thus declared shall prevail.'
It does not mention that the Chairman may nullify the result of voting and arrange for a re-voting. Naturally we don't want this to be applied to just one specific case. As far as we are concerned, we certainly hope that you will abstain from voting or vote for the motion, but the point is that we must abide by the Standing Orders. We must not act whimsically as we please. If a second voting is resorted to because there is such a problem today, what about the next time when the same problem props up? It is probable that you do not think the same next time. You might have a strong view after careful consideration and decide to give your casting vote. You did ask once that as a Member, why you shouldn't have one more vole.
We want to know for sure what you will do, or else we would be at a loss as to what you want to decide.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—I am going to tell you what I will do in future. I have already pointed out that the present case is a special one in that it is not an amended motion. It is a procedural motion which has absolutely nothing to do with the original motion. Since there is a tie vote, I must do something. We cannot possibly settle for a tie vote. We must work out our next step. Something must be done to break the tie vote on the procedural motion and I could have given my casting vote.
However, the casting vote should only be given on an original motion, but there is no original motion in this case because the original motion moved is not the original motion of the procedural motion. I therefore have no basis on
20 of 654
Page 630Page 631
Page 631 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.