1998 — Page 581

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 581 of 606

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

501

proposing his procedural motion. (He did not raise his procedural motion at once.) Following that, he spoke in support of his procedural motion. I think that it is all right for the Chairman to allow Mr. Albert LAI to clarify what he said, but I think he should correct himself and admit he had spoken on the original motion once. His speech was in two parts. The first part was on the original motion and the second was the moving of the procedural motion followed by a speech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Albert LAI spoke on the procedural motion before. Now, he is going to speak on the original motion.

MR. ALBERT LAI Wing-lin (in Cantonese): None of our Members will consider that we should not deal with the situation mentioned in the original motion and I believe neither fellow Members nor members of the public oppose our handling it. The main thing now is that if we focus only on commercial activities mentioned in the motion, can we say we are fair to other operators? How should we look at the whole thing? Since this is something everyone of us wants to do, I do not oppose it. However, under the principle of equity, I don't think we should pinpoint a certain trade or a certain kind of activity. What are we doing about other acts of street obstruction or the use of loudspeakers? My point in proposing further studies focuses on whether we need to enact laws or amend the ordinance. Now, I am left with either a vote in favour or one against. I cannot oppose the motion because it concerns something that has to be done. So I can only abstain from voting. Thank you.

MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman. I must clarify something about the original motion. I feel that if the motion is carried today, we should contact persons in charge of large telecommunications companies or those companies responsible for publicity work in the streets. I think the important point is that we are not pinpointing the staff performing the jobs. We should tell their employers, in particular large telecommunications companies, that it is against the law to ask employees to promote their products in the streets and that their staff may violate the Summary Offences Ordinance. This is the follow-up work we need to do. The most important thing is for us to tell the employers, mostly large telecommunications companies, what kind of corporate image they are building up. They should respond to the questions asked by the public. It seems to me that these companies have not come forth with positive responses. Only one telecom network company extended apologies for inconvenience caused to the public over a telephone interview. To me, it is not enough.

I think we should know clearly ourselves that if the motion is carried, we must tell them what they have asked their staff to do is against the law. I support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Page 581 of 606

Edit History

2026-05-16 08:19:36 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 581 of 606 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 501 proposing his procedural motion. (He did not raise his procedural motion at once.) Following that, he spoke in support of his procedural motion. I think that it is all right for the Chairman to allow Mr. Albert LAI to clarify what he said, but I think he should correct himself and admit he had spoken on the original motion once. His speech was in two parts. The first part was on the original motion and the second was the moving of the procedural motion followed by a speech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Albert LAI spoke on the procedural motion before. Now, he is going to speak on the original motion. MR. ALBERT LAI Wing-lin (in Cantonese): None of our Members will consider that we should not deal with the situation mentioned in the original motion and I believe neither fellow Members nor members of the public oppose our handling it. The main thing now is that if we focus only on commercial activities mentioned in the motion, can we say we are fair to other operators? How should we look at the whole thing? Since this is something everyone of us wants to do, I do not oppose it. However, under the principle of equity, I don't think we should pinpoint a certain trade or a certain kind of activity. What are we doing about other acts of street obstruction or the use of loudspeakers? My point in proposing further studies focuses on whether we need to enact laws or amend the ordinance. Now, I am left with either a vote in favour or one against. I cannot oppose the motion because it concerns something that has to be done. So I can only abstain from voting. Thank you. MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman. I must clarify something about the original motion. I feel that if the motion is carried today, we should contact persons in charge of large telecommunications companies or those companies responsible for publicity work in the streets. I think the important point is that we are not pinpointing the staff performing the jobs. We should tell their employers, in particular large telecommunications companies, that it is against the law to ask employees to promote their products in the streets and that their staff may violate the Summary Offences Ordinance. This is the follow-up work we need to do. The most important thing is for us to tell the employers, mostly large telecommunications companies, what kind of corporate image they are building up. They should respond to the questions asked by the public. It seems to me that these companies have not come forth with positive responses. Only one telecom network company extended apologies for inconvenience caused to the public over a telephone interview. To me, it is not enough. I think we should know clearly ourselves that if the motion is carried, we must tell them what they have asked their staff to do is against the law. I support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 581 of 606

Baseline (Original)

Page Page 581 of 606 PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 501 proposing his procedural motion. (He did not raise his procedural motion at once.) Following that, he spoke in support of his procedural motion. I think that it is all right for the Chairman to allow Mr. Albert LAI to clarify what he said, but I think he should correct himself and admit he had spoken on the original motion once. His speech was in two parts. The first part was on the original motion and the second was the moving of the procedural motion followed by a speech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): --Mr. Albert LA: spoke on the procedural motion before. Now, he is going speak on the original motion. MR. ALBERT Lai Wing-lin (in Cantonese):---None of our Members will consider that we should not deal with the situation mentioned in the original motion and I believe neither fellow Members nor members of the public oppose to our handling it. The main thing now is that if we focus only on commercial activities mentioned in the motion, can we say we are fair to other operators? How should we look at the whole thing? Since this is something everyone of us wants to do, I do not oppose it. However, under the principle of equity, I don't think we should pinpoint a certain trade or a certain kind of activity. What are we doing about other acts of street obstruction or the use of loudspeakers? My point in proposing further studies focuses on whether we need to enact laws or amend the ordinance. Now, I am left with either a vole in favour or one against. I cannot oppose the motion because it concerns something that has to be done. So I can only abstain from voting. Thank you. MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman. I must clarify something about the original motion. I feel that if the motion is carried today, we should contact persons in charge of large telecommunications companies or those companies responsible for publicity work in the streets. I think the important point is that we are not pinpointing the staff performing the jobs. We should tell their employers, in particular large telecommunications companies, that it is against the law to ask employees to promote their products in the streets and that their staff may violate the Summary Offences Ordinance. This is the follow up work we need to do. The most important thing is for us to tell the employers, mostly large telecommunications companies, what kind of corporate image they are building up. They should respond to the questions. asked by the public. It seems to me that these companies have not come forth with positive responses. Only one telecom network company extended apologies for inconvenience caused to the public over a telephone interview. To me, it is not enough. I think we should know clearly ourselves that if the motion is carried, we must tell them what they have asked their staff to do is against the law. I support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pac Page 581 of 606

2026-05-16 08:19:36 · Baseline

View content

Page

Page 581 of 606

PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

501

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): --Mr. Albert LA: spoke on the procedural motion before. Now, he is going speak on the original motion.

MR. ALBERT Lai Wing-lin (in Cantonese):---None of our Members will consider that we should not deal with the situation mentioned in the original motion and I believe neither fellow Members nor members of the public oppose to our handling it. The main thing now is that if we focus only on commercial activities mentioned in the motion, can we say we are fair to other operators? How should we look at the whole thing? Since this is something everyone of us wants to do, I do not oppose it. However, under the principle of equity, I don't think we should pinpoint a certain trade or a certain kind of activity. What are we doing about other acts of street obstruction or the use of loudspeakers? My point in proposing further studies focuses on whether we need to enact laws or amend the ordinance. Now, I am left with either a vole in favour or one against. I cannot oppose the motion because it concerns something that has to be done. So I can only abstain from voting. Thank you.

MR. LAI HOK-LIM (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman. I must clarify something about the original motion. I feel that if the motion is carried today, we should contact persons in charge of large telecommunications companies or those companies responsible for publicity work in the streets. I think the important point is that we are not pinpointing the staff performing the jobs. We should tell their employers, in particular large telecommunications companies, that it is against the law to ask employees to promote their products in the streets and that their staff may violate the Summary Offences Ordinance. This is the follow up work we need to do. The most important thing is for us to tell the employers, mostly large telecommunications companies, what kind of corporate image they are building up. They should respond to the questions. asked by the public. It seems to me that these companies have not come forth with positive responses. Only one telecom network company extended apologies for inconvenience caused to the public over a telephone interview. To me, it is not enough.

I think we should know clearly ourselves that if the motion is carried, we must tell them what they have asked their staff to do is against the law. I support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1998 — Page 581

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note