1998 — Page 575

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 575 of 600

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

495

question on the procedural motion to the vote. As a matter of fact, even if the motion is carried, it has to be handled at the relevant Select Committee. I now call those who have registered to speak....

Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, after a Member has proposed a procedural motion, the debate should focus on the procedural motion moved by Mr. Albert LAI Wing-lin. In other words, our concern should be whether the matter should be referred to the relevant Select Committee for follow-up.

Chairman (in Cantonese):—If a member has moved a procedural motion, we should put the procedural motion to the vote and shall not speak on the original motion. In fact, the proposer of the procedural motion considers there is no need for discussion now and his intention is to refer the matter to the Select Committee.

Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):—Procedure wise, the Chairman may follow our usual practice. From the point of order, this line of practice will be easier to follow up and it will ensure fairer treatment of the matters of the meeting. If the Chairman adopts your suggestion (to ensure the original motion has been fully debated) before putting the procedural motion to the vote, then let me remind you that the computer indicated only three Members had registered to speak before the procedural motion was moved. If the debate starts, there may be more than three, maybe 8 or 10 Members to speak. Will the Chairman allow the debate to go on? With this precedent, the Chairman will be expected to allow Members to discuss the original motion first before debating on the procedural motion and voting. If we choose to follow past practices, my experience is that I proposed certain motions but they were cast aside because a procedural motion was moved. (That was the Chairman exercising Standing Orders to call votes on the procedural motion. If a Member wishes to speak on the procedural motion, he will be free to give his opinions. If no one wishes to speak, the procedural motion should be put to the vote first.) There were instances of votes cast on subjects not yet fully debated before. In such cases, if the procedural motion was voted against, we continued to discuss the original motion. If the procedural motion was carried, the matter would be referred to the relevant Select Committee for discussion. I have experience of this kind of arrangement.

Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, that is correct. At this stage, we are trying to decide if there should be any discussion of the procedural motion without involving the contents of the original motion. About the Standing Orders referred to by Mr. LAI Hok-lim just now, even if we are speaking of a procedural motion, I may take a different view from that of Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut in that I wonder if there is need for it to be fully debated. I think today's procedural motion is superfluous because the issue

Page 575 of 606

Page 575

Page 576

Edit History

2026-05-16 08:17:44 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 575 of 600 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 495 question on the procedural motion to the vote. As a matter of fact, even if the motion is carried, it has to be handled at the relevant Select Committee. I now call those who have registered to speak.... Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, after a Member has proposed a procedural motion, the debate should focus on the procedural motion moved by Mr. Albert LAI Wing-lin. In other words, our concern should be whether the matter should be referred to the relevant Select Committee for follow-up. Chairman (in Cantonese):—If a member has moved a procedural motion, we should put the procedural motion to the vote and shall not speak on the original motion. In fact, the proposer of the procedural motion considers there is no need for discussion now and his intention is to refer the matter to the Select Committee. Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):—Procedure wise, the Chairman may follow our usual practice. From the point of order, this line of practice will be easier to follow up and it will ensure fairer treatment of the matters of the meeting. If the Chairman adopts your suggestion (to ensure the original motion has been fully debated) before putting the procedural motion to the vote, then let me remind you that the computer indicated only three Members had registered to speak before the procedural motion was moved. If the debate starts, there may be more than three, maybe 8 or 10 Members to speak. Will the Chairman allow the debate to go on? With this precedent, the Chairman will be expected to allow Members to discuss the original motion first before debating on the procedural motion and voting. If we choose to follow past practices, my experience is that I proposed certain motions but they were cast aside because a procedural motion was moved. (That was the Chairman exercising Standing Orders to call votes on the procedural motion. If a Member wishes to speak on the procedural motion, he will be free to give his opinions. If no one wishes to speak, the procedural motion should be put to the vote first.) There were instances of votes cast on subjects not yet fully debated before. In such cases, if the procedural motion was voted against, we continued to discuss the original motion. If the procedural motion was carried, the matter would be referred to the relevant Select Committee for discussion. I have experience of this kind of arrangement. Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, that is correct. At this stage, we are trying to decide if there should be any discussion of the procedural motion without involving the contents of the original motion. About the Standing Orders referred to by Mr. LAI Hok-lim just now, even if we are speaking of a procedural motion, I may take a different view from that of Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut in that I wonder if there is need for it to be fully debated. I think today's procedural motion is superfluous because the issue Page 575 of 606 Page 575 of 606 Page 575 Page 576

Baseline (Original)

Page 575 of 600 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 495 question on the procedural motion to the vote. As a matter of fact, even if the motion is carried, it has to be handled at the relevant Select Committee. I now call those who have registered to speak .... Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, after a Member has proposed a procedural motion, the debate should focus on the procedural motion moved by Mr. Albert LAI Wing-lin. In other words, our concern should be whether the matter should be referred to the relevant Select Committee for follow-up. Chairman (in Cantonese):—If a member has moved a procedural motion, we should put the procedural motion to the vote and shall not speak on he original motion. In fact, the proposer of the procedural motion considers there is no need for discussion now and his intention is to refer the matter to the Select Committee. Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):-Procedure wise, the Chairman may follow our usual practice. From the point of order, this line of practice will be easier to follow up and it will ensure fairer treatment of the matters of the meeting. If the Chairman adopts your suggestion ( to ensure the original motion has been fully debated) before putting the procedural motion to the vote, then let me remind you that the computer indicated only three Members had registered to speak before the procedural motion was moved. If the debate starts, there may be more than three, may be 8 or 10 Members to speak. Will the Chairman allow the debate to go on? With this precedent, the Chairman will be expected to allow Members to discuss the original motion first before debating on the procedural motion and voting. If we choose to follow past practices. my experience is that I proposed certain motions but they were cast aside because a procedural motion was moved. (That was the Chairman exercising Standing Orders to call votes on the procedural motion. If a Member wishes to speak on the procedural motion, he will be free to give his opinions. If no one wishes to speak, the procedural motion should be put to the vote first.) There were instances of votes cast on subjects not yet fully debated before. In such cases, if the procedural motion was voted against, we continued to discuss the original motion. If the procedural motion was carried, the matter would be referred 10 the relevant Select Committee for discussion. I have experience of this kind of arrangement. Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese);—Mr. Chairman, that is correct. at this stage we are trying to decide if there should be any discussion of the procedural motion without involving the contents of the original motion. About the Standing Orders referred to by Mr. LAI Hok-lim just now, even if we are speaking of a procedural motion, I may take a different view from that of Mr. Joseph Chan Yuck-sut in that I wonder if there is need for it to be fully debated. I think today's procedural motion is superfluous because the issue Page 575 of ana Page 575 of 606 Page 575 of 606 Page 575Page 576

2026-05-16 08:17:44 · Baseline

View content

Page 575 of 600

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

495

Chairman (in Cantonese):—If a member has moved a procedural motion, we should put the procedural motion to the vote and shall not speak on he original motion. In fact, the proposer of the procedural motion considers there is no need for discussion now and his intention is to refer the matter to the Select Committee.

Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut (in Cantonese):-Procedure wise, the Chairman may follow our usual practice. From the point of order, this line of practice will be easier to follow up and it will ensure fairer treatment of the matters of the meeting. If the Chairman adopts your suggestion ( to ensure the original motion has been fully debated) before putting the procedural motion to the vote, then let me remind you that the computer indicated only three Members had registered to speak before the procedural motion was moved. If the debate starts, there may be more than three, may be 8 or 10 Members to speak. Will the Chairman allow the debate to go on? With this precedent, the Chairman will be expected to allow Members to discuss the original motion first before debating on the procedural motion and voting. If we choose to follow past practices. my experience is that I proposed certain motions but they were cast aside because a procedural motion was moved. (That was the Chairman exercising Standing Orders to call votes on the procedural motion. If a Member wishes to speak on the procedural motion, he will be free to give his opinions. If no one wishes to speak, the procedural motion should be put to the vote first.) There were instances of votes cast on subjects not yet fully debated before. In such cases, if the procedural motion was voted against, we continued to discuss the original motion. If the procedural motion was carried, the matter would be referred 10 the relevant Select Committee for discussion. I have experience of this kind of arrangement.

Mr. Joseph Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese);—Mr. Chairman, that is correct. at this stage we are trying to decide if there should be any discussion of the procedural motion without involving the contents of the original motion. About the Standing Orders referred to by Mr. LAI Hok-lim just now, even if we are speaking of a procedural motion, I may take a different view from that of Mr. Joseph Chan Yuck-sut in that I wonder if there is need for it to be fully debated. I think today's procedural motion is superfluous because the issue

Page 575 of ana

Page 575 of 606

Page 575Page 576

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.